SPR's and Work Arounds What a JOKE!!!! 1

[Rocko]

I am finding that SW policy on bugs stinks. They tell you even if a command doesnt work right but the results is partially there live with it, because there is a work around. Or what is better you have to do 20 steps to get the software to do something versus a functions 2 steps if it worked right, but that is okay for you Mr. User because you can still do it. They do not care if it slows you down or the results are confusing or not exactly as they should be. Case in point I found a bug on outputting drawings in dxf mode with hatching, it would cause a unhandled error. The fix they told me is to save as a ACAD R13 version not a newer version. Hello maybe my client doesnt accept R13 versions. Oh and since it will work with R13 it is not that important.

 

[TheTick]

Maybe it's time to switch to a CAD system that doesn't require any workarounds.

FYI below is a far-from-comprehensive list of CAD systems that also require workarounds, so don't consider any of the following:
SolidEdge
AutoCAD & Inventor
UG
Pro/E
CATIA
IDEAS
IronCAD
BobCAD
Delcam


I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.

 

[Rocko]

dear Tick,
Maybe you should expect better service. If its broken its broken, you would not have a car manufacturer tell you, oh dont worry sometimes your car will start and sometimes it won't when you turn the key. If not then you need to hotwire so it will. That is a work around.

 

[rocheey]

well, Id rather my lemon car get fixed with a service pack, instead of a recall ....

 

[sirmick]

Well,

I have to agree with Rocko. However, until software people are actually held accountable in a legal sense for advertised/claimed functions not working properly, then the problem will not end.

SWorks, PRO/E, ACAD etc. even though not perfect, are still worth what people pay for them, because using these products saves people time and money. Therefore, there is still an economic advantage to buying an imperfect piece of software as opposed to doing without.

In other words since software is very useful and it seems everyone puts out buggy software, buggy software will be purchased and a boycott is pointless. Lawsuits and legal punishments should be the tools used.

 

[JNR]

TheTick is right. Every CAD system has its issues and work arounds. Every CAD company has its priority list for bug fixes. Unfortunately it only becomes a BIG issue when the bug or enhancement they put low on their list happens to be the one that I use a lot and is critical to me.

As it turns out (and I have been through MANY CAD systems) the grass always looks greener until you jump the fence and find the little brown piles were merely hidden from your previous viewpoint. When you are standing in the middle of them you still have to dance round them - but they are now in different but equally inconvenient places! (And farmer Fred is no quicker than farmer Bob with his pooper scooper.)

I don't like it, maybe it ain't right, but I have learned that it is not something I can change. I have grudgingly accepted it and my blood pressure, stress level and marriage are so much better these days. (I should have said my second marriage is so much better than my first....) ;-)

3/4 of all the Spam produced goes to Hawaii - shame that's not true of SPAM also.......

 

[G1DESIGN]

I think its a pain in the ass does a software release that needs an spr mean it doesnt work of course it does.
Its virtually an admission of fault, theres a problem and they fix it ,of course we all make mistakes but when software is costing the price of a very small car if there was a fault with that car youd take it back, sprs are a get around on the software vendors part and have become a way of life in the software community it stinks

 

[Standing]

Rocko and sirmick,
I am sorry you guys feel that way. When I run into a big problem, I call my VAR. They do everything they can to help me and always have.
I have tried to write small Visual Basic software programs and it is no easy task. Especially when you are trying to have others use it. They will always push the wrong button; enter data that you never expected. With the SolidWorks program as big as it is, it is bound to have some issues. I am just glad that my VAR is there to help me.


Bradley

 

[TheTick]

Despite my initial smart-aleck response, I would like to help. You may contact me directly at the email address listed in my profile, if you wish.

I deal with import/export problems almost daily. One thing I have learned is that the source file (SW, Pro/E, UG, any other) is not always ideal for export. It's never as simple as what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) in any system. Sometimes it takes time and collaboration on both ends to find the right combination of export settings.

Ideally, in an import-export situation, parties on both ends work together to ensure that all information is passed accurately.

With drawings, I find PDF format works well to provide a good snapshot of what the drawing should look like when comparing intended DXF/DWG output. PDF995, available at

http://www.pdf995.com,

provides the abillity to make PDF's for under $10. There's always eDrawings, too.

If your client accepts DXF but not ACAD13, can I assume that the final destination is not ACAD? You didn't say. Talk with your client and find what he is using. Maybe there is an alternate format that may work. The ultimate goal is to provide accurate information, is it not?

For the sake of providing accurate export, I often make temporary files modified to make them more suitable for translation. In your case, try making a copy the drawing and remove the hatching before exporting. Provide an eDrawing or PDF to show where hatching should go. Also, maybe your client can install SW viewer.

I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.

 

[NathanN]

Rocko

95% of the changes made in SolidWorks 2004 were user requested. I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like SolidWorks is actually listening to what people say and trying to incorporate the changes people want.

You should also remember that CAD software is ridiculously complex and has to operate on top of Windows, which is also ridiculously complex, which has to work with the computer hardware, which is also ridiculously complex. Fixing a bug is not 5 minute job (whereas bitching on a forum in an unhelpful manner is). You have informed SolidWorks of the bug and they have very probably given it a priority rating. Sorry, but the only reasonable thing you can do is wait and actually give them a chance to fix the problem.

 

[BBJT]

Nathan,

Where did you hear that 95% of changes made in 2004 were user requested? Hopefully not in the same press release that stated that 2004 is now available for release in 12 different languages. Heck the Pre-Release is not even available yet.

To the original post,

Bugs are a fact of life with software. I am in a department that develops software for our internal users. Being that our end users have the same focus it is a little easier to write the program the way they need it to work. SolidWorks has to design the software for all different walks of life. In doing so they are going to run into glitches and problems that are only found when the real world uses it.

I do however think SolidWorks needs to get more beta users (Real World Users) involved in the future releases. This may help minimize a great deal of bugs.


BBJT CSWP

 

[sirmick]

I disagree. Bugs don't HAVE to be a fact of life for software.

However, in a market driven economy where software manufactures are not held accountable for bugs that prevent the software from working as advertised, then there is not any incentive for bug-free software. Especially since the cost of switching software is far more than the mere purchase price.

There is, obviously, many incentives to reduce the number of bugs. But there appears to be diminishing returns on bug hunting in general.

Solidworks is still a vastly useful program, bugs and all.

 

[Rocko]

Well, since i started this thread i guess i should weigh in. I think what SW needs to do is always make sure that a SPR that fixes one thing does not break another. I think this is just good resource and time management.

 

[TheTick]

You still haven't told us what the final destination app is.

Have you considered 3rd party translation?

 

[BBJT]

In a perfect world yes. In the real world I do not know if it is possible. I am not defending SW by any means. I am just looking at it from the devolpers end. If these were just SolidWorks developers with their fingers in the pie, developing for one group of individuals, I would probably tend to agree with you. If you go under your Help pull down, then select About SolidWorks you will see all the different companies involved in the development of SW. Some are responsible for mating, some for assembly motion\collision detection, etc.

Again if they were devolping one engineering firm they would probably have the most bug free stable program out there. But the reality is they are devolping software that is used world wide.

Software is software. It is developed by human beings. Human beings make mistakes.

I hear and often feel your pain. Nothing sets me off more than receiving a fix and having it break something else. If it is something obvious that broke, ok, then I say hang them high. But I still think it impossible to test for everything possible that you, I , and the guy/gal down the road might do.

Just my 2 cents worth.


BBJT CSWP

 

[TheTick]

I just translated some test drawings with crosshatching into DXF, ACAD R13, and ACAD R14. I imported each of these into ACAD R14. No problems.

Maybe it's your setup?

From the sounds of it, you aren't really interested in an actual solution to your situation.

 

[Rocko]

No, my VAR and 2 other people have been able to duplicate the crash. I was outputting to dxf R2000-2002 in options this would cause problem. I just removed hatching and sent the file ok.

 

[NathanN]

How does anyone know that this is SolidWork's fault? ATi and Nvidia both have a monstrous amount of bugs in their drivers. Should we blame them for having crappy drivers when the majority of bugs in their drivers are due to applications being poorly coded or having compatibility issues. So its not really their fault at all. SolidWork's could just as easily be suffering from a similar problem.

I think we would all like bug free software, but SolidWorks has to balance stability and innovation. Some of us might be happy if SolidWorks 2005 only squashes bugs, but I'll bet that a lot of people will be pissed that the money they gave SolidWorks has not gone towards adding new features. Or we could get Inventor 7, which is still buggy AND has no new features.

 

[G1DESIGN]

Does anyone still get that annoying "solidworks has terminated unexpectedly due to an unhandled error" message that happens every now and again or some days three times a day.SOMETIMES IT SAVES A BACK UP OF 2 HRS WORK SOMETIMES IT DOESNT.
just wondering how a software package can BE SAID TO BE TWICE AS PRODUCTIVE or BRING A PRODUCT TO MARKET FASTER

what this equates to in my life at the minute is

"twice as productive "cos i did it twice, of course if ive done it again i have been twice as productive

or

BRINGS PRODUCTS TO MARKET FASTER well if ive done it twice
and could have used a software app that didnt quit after i done it the first time maybe but after the second time round i dont think this is statement is quite truetrue.

admittedly it is faster second time round as i knew what i was doing this time so maybe

a more honest "1/4 faster than traditional cad systems" and "improved design due to thinking out the problem twice and picking all your previous mistakes second time round" would be a better marketing slogan im sure if the marketing people got hold of that they could turn it into some marketing campaign in 5 words or less

more stability is what we need

oh its a hardware problem ?
say the VAR s even though its the same equipment they and we both use and have the same problems.

THEY KNOW THE PROBLEMS THEY KNOW THE TRUTH

If they told us what the real problems would we be happier or would we all migrate from solidworks

 

[Scoobystu]

G1DESIGN

I am still getting the unhandled error message with SW2003 and it is very annoying. It used to be if I opened a random part done with SW2001 (that I had previosuly been able to open with SW2003) it would hang, then crash giving the error. After that the part would never open again and I would have to do it again from scratch (fine for small parts, not for big parts). Lately though it has started doing it with newer models done with SW2003. I have reinstalled it several times but can't seem to shake it off.