19 Replies Latest reply on Oct 19, 2018 3:47 PM by Richard Doyle

    The Myth of the Workflow Excuse

    Dan Golthing

      When anyone complains about SolidWorks stability, the forum wolfs come out and attack that individual...

       

      "It's probably your workflow, you're probably doing something wrong..."

       

      Admittedly there are better and worse ways of doing things.

       

      Yet, this excuse displays ignorance.

       

      First, the program crashes too much, workflow or not.  This has always been a problem, and sadly, appears it will probably always be a problem.  We all know that SolidWorks can crash on the simplest problem, under the simplest of situations.  This has nothing to do with workflow and simply should not be.  You could have one part open with only a few features and crash.  You can have ten thousand parts open and not crash.  It's very random.

       

      If the program gets into a bad situation...IT SHOULD NOT CRASH, IT SHOULD ALLOW YOU TO BACK UP A STEP and take a different path.  I'm just fantasizing here, but I would assume that software this sophisticated should be able to recognize when it is unable to complete an instruction and should be able to retrace it's steps to the last stable condition. 

       

      Second, the "workflow Nazis" typically aren't people that interact with large groups of SolidWorks users on a professional level.  MY WORKFLOW ISN'T ALWAYS MY WORKFLOW.  As most of you know, many of us inherit other people's mess.  And I still insist, even if I'm dealing with somebody else's mess, the program shouldn't crash.  Sure, maybe rebuild times go up and so on, but why should the program crash?

       

      I'm concerned that some of the fanboys here are victims of Stockholm Syndrome.  You feel that it's not OK to criticize SolidWorks, yet it's OK for you to criticize your fellow users?  That doesn't seem ironic to you?

       

      Pointing out SolidWorks flaws is not an act of hate.  It's an act of compassion.  Some of us actually want SolidWorks to take back the innovative lead in the industry and not just sit back on their laurels spending our money.  I'm assuming SolidWorks wants to stay in business and not turn into the next AutoCAD.  Continuous improvement is necessary for their survival, and negative feedback is essential for improvement.

       

      Some of us pay for our own software and insist we get the most out of our money.  Each rollout is filled with bugs so that we can't even us it for six months.  Impressive new features are few and far between.  Here are the "Top Enhancements" for 2019 found in the what's new document:

       

       

      Assemblies • Bounding Box in Assemblies on page 37 • Create Custom and Configuration-specific Properties in Treehouse on page 61 • Defeature PropertyManager - Silhouette on page 40 • Exploded Views on page 43 • External References on page 43 • Use Custom Property for Document Name in Treehouse on page 64 • Saving an Assembly as a Part on page 57

       

      Detailing and Drawings • Changing Cell Border Thickness on page 86 • Drawing Open Progress Indicator on page 80

       

      eDrawings • Configurations in SOLIDWORKS Parts on page 91 • eDrawings Professional Features on page 92 • Configurations in SOLIDWORKS Assemblies on page 91 SOLIDWORKS

       

      3D Interconnect • Exporting to the Revit Family Format on page 104 • Reading Tessellation Data from Foreign CAD Files on page 104

       

      SOLIDWORKS MBD • Support for Sheet Metal in MBD on page 126

       

      Model Display • Creating 3D Textures on page 131

       

      Parts and Features • Creating Partial Chamfers and Fillets on page 136 • Inserting a Part with a Specific Configuration on page 139 • Specifying Tolerances for Hole Wizard Holes on page 143 • Using Interference Detection for Multibody Parts on page 145

       

      Routing • Creating Fixed Length Coverings on page 171

       

      Sheet Metal • Linking Materials and Sheet Metal Parameters on page 180

       

      Sketching • Geodesic Entities on page 198 • Trim Entities Enhancements on page 206

       

      PDM • Conditional Notifications on page 151 • Default Values Generation for New Sheets in Drawings on page 156 • Editing History Comments on page 156 • File Shortcut Menu on page 157 • Support for DXF/DWG File Format in Convert Task on page 161 • User Comments on page 163

       

      SOLIDWORKS Plastics • Geometry-based Boundary Conditions on page 166

       

      SOLIDWORKS Simulation • Customized Numerical Format on page 184 • Distributed Coupling for Remote Load and Mass on page 186 • Enhanced Remote Load/Mass PropertyManager on page 185 • Export to Mesh Body on page 193 • Pin Connector on page 188 • Topology Constraints on page 192

       

      SOLIDWORKS Visualize • Automatic Data Recovery on page 209 • Denoiser on page 210 • Importing MDL Materials on page 214

       

      I don't want to seem ungrateful.  I do appreciate any advancements and improvements, but does anybody see anything in the list above and says WOW!  THAT'S  AWESOME!!?  Sure, there's some nice stuff in there, but I don't see any game-changers.

       

      I think that many of us who pay for this experience are waiting for some paradigm shift to happen.  We'd like to see some wow-factor for our hard-earned money.

       

      and we'd also like to have the opportunity to ask other users if they are having stability issues as well without being attacked with this ignorant excuse of "workflow", as I was in my other post.

       

      Let the flames begin...

        • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
          Frederick Law

          Well said.

          If anyone bought a car that works like SW, they'll burn the dealership down.

          'Oh you don't know how to drive.'

          'You're holding the steering wheel wrong.'

          'You're using non-certified tires.'

           

          Solidworks was leader in 3D CAD.  Some how it just stay at the same point without moving forward.

          Other CAD software had tried other things.  Some has success and some failed.  User got some useful new tools and technic.

          Stability and performance had been improving.

           

          From my point of view.  SW had been adding features as an after thought.  That's why thing are inconsistent.

          I think it is a lack of communication between departments.

           

          The software is complex but doesn't means its chaos.

            • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
              Glenn Schroeder

              Frederick Law wrote:

               

              Well said.

              If anyone bought a car that works like SW, they'll burn the dealership down.

              'Oh you don't know how to drive.'

              'You're holding the steering wheel wrong.'

              'You're using non-certified tires.'

               

              Solidworks was leader in 3D CAD. Some how it just stay at the same point without moving forward.

              Other CAD software had tried other things. Some has success and some failed. User got some useful new tools and technic.

              Stability and performance had been improving.

               

              From my point of view. SW had been adding features as an after thought. That's why thing are inconsistent.

              I think it is a lack of communication between departments.

               

              The software is complex but doesn't means its chaos.

               

              Frederick Law,

               

              I agree with some of what you said.  And I want you to know that I appreciate that you help people here with problems instead of just coming here to complain and bash the software, but I have to ask you a question.  If the car dealership tells you that if you use a certain kind of tire you won't get good performance, but you ignore that advice and use that tire anyway, is it still the dealership's fault if you're not happy with the results?

                • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                  Frederick Law

                  I found OEM tires are always non-satisfactory

                  Some OEM brakes are ok.  Some are deadly.

                  Well sounds like I don't know how to drive

                   

                  I understand the important of certified-hardware.  It keep user experience consistent.

                  Now just don't automatically blame every problems on 'non-certified' hardware.  Look into the problem and find the cause.

                  Most user don't have a choice with their hardware.  Telling them they need a new computer when they have a problem is like shutting the door in their face.

                    • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                      Tony Tieuli

                      Frederick Law wrote:

                       

                      I found OEM tires are always non-satisfactory

                      Some OEM brakes are ok. Some are deadly.

                      Well sounds like I don't know how to drive

                       

                      I understand the important of certified-hardware. It keep user experience consistent.

                      Now just don't automatically blame every problems on 'non-certified' hardware. Look into the problem and find the cause.

                      Most user don't have a choice with their hardware. Telling them they need a new computer when they have a problem is like shutting the door in their face.

                      I agree that too many folks here automatically go to that "It must be your graphics card." answer.

                      But I also think that too many people come here to complain that Solidworks doesn't work exactly the same as "Insert other 3D modelling software name here".

                      Sometimes workflows DO have to be adjusted to account for differences in software packages. Some folks DO refuse to entertain the ridiculous notion that they might in any way be responsible for their own problems with the software. Every problem they have is because of the "idiot programmers" who designed the software.

                      I guess I should be more understanding because the world does, after all,  revolve around them!

                  • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                    Josh Brady

                    Frederick Law wrote:

                     

                    Well said.

                    If anyone bought a car that works like SW, they'll burn the dealership down.

                    'Oh you don't know how to drive.'

                    'You're holding the steering wheel wrong.'

                    'You're using non-certified tires.'

                     

                    Solidworks was leader in 3D CAD. Some how it just stay at the same point without moving forward.

                    Other CAD software had tried other things. Some has success and some failed. User got some useful new tools and technic.

                    Stability and performance had been improving.

                     

                    From my point of view. SW had been adding features as an after thought. That's why thing are inconsistent.

                    I think it is a lack of communication between departments.

                     

                    The software is complex but doesn't means its chaos.

                    I can't tell you how many posts I've seen like this:

                     

                    "It's too dang hot in my car!  But whenever I drive with the door open, sometimes I go around a curve and it slams on my fingers!"

                    "Did you try rolling down the window?"

                    "I can't find the stupid crank.  What idiot designed this car?  In my other car the crank is right by my hand!"

                    "This car has power windows.  Did you see the button?  Alternately, the car is also equipped with air conditioning.  Did you read the manual?"

                      • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                        Dan Golthing

                        On the automotive analogy, I think most people assume under normal usage, the car should not just shut off.  Parts shouldn't fly off, etc.

                         

                        We've all come to expect that.

                         

                        That's why the whole One and Two thing.  I didn't make it up, but get chewed out when I bring it up and ask how's it going.

                         

                        No matter how I drive my car, even if fairly abusive, the engine doesn't shut off.  I can only imagine what it would take to get the engine to stall without turning the key off!

                         

                        So this is a line in the sand, from a consumer standpoint.  Look at the outrage when those cars were speeding up and killing people.  that was not acceptable and the public said as much.  But if it were the window not rolling down, we'd have never heard about it.

                    • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                      Tony Tieuli

                      Dan Golthing wrote:

                       

                      When anyone complains about SolidWorks stability, the forum wolfs come out and attack that individual...

                       

                      "It's probably your workflow, you're probably doing something wrong..."

                       

                      Admittedly there are better and worse ways of doing things.

                       

                      Yet, this excuse displays ignorance.

                       

                      First, the program crashes too much, workflow or not. This has always been a problem, and sadly, appears it will probably always be a problem. We all know that SolidWorks can crash on the simplest problem, under the simplest of situations. This has nothing to do with workflow and simply should not be. You could have one part open with only a few features and crash. You can have ten thousand parts open and not crash. It's very random.

                       

                      If the program gets into a bad situation...IT SHOULD NOT CRASH, IT SHOULD ALLOW YOU TO BACK UP A STEP and take a different path. I'm just fantasizing here, but I would assume that software this sophisticated should be able to recognize when it is unable to complete an instruction and should be able to retrace it's steps to the last stable condition.

                       

                      Second, the "workflow Nazis" typically aren't people that interact with large groups of SolidWorks users on a professional level. MY WORKFLOW ISN'T ALWAYS MY WORKFLOW. As most of you know, many of us inherit other people's mess. And I still insist, even if I'm dealing with somebody else's mess, the program shouldn't crash. Sure, maybe rebuild times go up and so on, but why should the program crash?

                       

                      I'm concerned that some of the fanboys here are victims of Stockholm Syndrome. You feel that it's not OK to criticize SolidWorks, yet it's OK for you to criticize your fellow users? That doesn't seem ironic to you?

                       

                      Pointing out SolidWorks flaws is not an act of hate. It's an act of compassion. Some of us actually want SolidWorks to take back the innovative lead in the industry and not just sit back on their laurels spending our money. I'm assuming SolidWorks wants to stay in business and not turn into the next AutoCAD. Continuous improvement is necessary for their survival, and negative feedback is essential for improvement.

                       

                      Some of us pay for our own software and insist we get the most out of our money. Each rollout is filled with bugs so that we can't even us it for six months. Impressive new features are few and far between. Here are the "Top Enhancements" for 2019 found in the what's new document:

                       

                       

                      Assemblies • Bounding Box in Assemblies on page 37 • Create Custom and Configuration-specific Properties in Treehouse on page 61 • Defeature PropertyManager - Silhouette on page 40 • Exploded Views on page 43 • External References on page 43 • Use Custom Property for Document Name in Treehouse on page 64 • Saving an Assembly as a Part on page 57

                       

                      Detailing and Drawings • Changing Cell Border Thickness on page 86 • Drawing Open Progress Indicator on page 80

                       

                      eDrawings • Configurations in SOLIDWORKS Parts on page 91 • eDrawings Professional Features on page 92 • Configurations in SOLIDWORKS Assemblies on page 91 SOLIDWORKS

                       

                      3D Interconnect • Exporting to the Revit Family Format on page 104 • Reading Tessellation Data from Foreign CAD Files on page 104

                       

                      SOLIDWORKS MBD • Support for Sheet Metal in MBD on page 126

                       

                      Model Display • Creating 3D Textures on page 131

                       

                      Parts and Features • Creating Partial Chamfers and Fillets on page 136 • Inserting a Part with a Specific Configuration on page 139 • Specifying Tolerances for Hole Wizard Holes on page 143 • Using Interference Detection for Multibody Parts on page 145

                       

                      Routing • Creating Fixed Length Coverings on page 171

                       

                      Sheet Metal • Linking Materials and Sheet Metal Parameters on page 180

                       

                      Sketching • Geodesic Entities on page 198 • Trim Entities Enhancements on page 206

                       

                      PDM • Conditional Notifications on page 151 • Default Values Generation for New Sheets in Drawings on page 156 • Editing History Comments on page 156 • File Shortcut Menu on page 157 • Support for DXF/DWG File Format in Convert Task on page 161 • User Comments on page 163

                       

                      SOLIDWORKS Plastics • Geometry-based Boundary Conditions on page 166

                       

                      SOLIDWORKS Simulation • Customized Numerical Format on page 184 • Distributed Coupling for Remote Load and Mass on page 186 • Enhanced Remote Load/Mass PropertyManager on page 185 • Export to Mesh Body on page 193 • Pin Connector on page 188 • Topology Constraints on page 192

                       

                      SOLIDWORKS Visualize • Automatic Data Recovery on page 209 • Denoiser on page 210 • Importing MDL Materials on page 214

                       

                      I don't want to seem ungrateful. I do appreciate any advancements and improvements, but does anybody see anything in the list above and says WOW! THAT'S AWESOME!!? Sure, there's some nice stuff in there, but I don't see any game-changers.

                       

                      I think that many of us who pay for this experience are waiting for some paradigm shift to happen. We'd like to see some wow-factor for our hard-earned money.

                       

                      and we'd also like to have the opportunity to ask other users if they are having stability issues as well without being attacked with this ignorant excuse of "workflow", as I was in my other post.

                       

                      Let the flames begin...

                      I think you make several good points and you've obviously put a lot of thought into this but have you ever considered that maybe forum members are reacting to your confrontational tone as highlighted and underlined above rather than your complaints about stability.

                      I think we all would like to see a more stable product. I don't think anybody likes to be called a "Workflow Nazi".

                        • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                          Dan Golthing

                          Tony, Tony, Tony, don't you know I'm a russian bot designed to pit SolidWorks users against each other?

                           

                          There's a few problems.

                           

                          First, some people are basically here for social hour.  this is where they go for social interaction. 

                           

                          I'm here to get results.  If that means I don't have any friends, it's OK.  I have a vibrant social life with real-life people.  In fact, if I never had problems with SolidWorks, I would have little need for the forums (as would be the case for so many others.)

                           

                          I'm not sure what a lot of people here on the forums do, but anyone who is an engineer or designer should be very critical if they are good at their job.  I was warned this when I was in high school doing an engineering internship decades ago...Good Engineers are VERY Critical...of Everything.

                           

                          I'm concerned with the people around here that are just good with everything.  I'd hate to see their work.

                            • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                              Glenn Schroeder

                              Dan Golthing wrote:

                               

                              Tony, Tony, Tony, don't you know I'm a russian bot designed to pit SolidWorks users against each other?

                               

                              There's a few problems.

                               

                              First, some people are basically here for social hour. this is where they go for social interaction.

                               

                              I'm here to get results. If that means I don't have any friends, it's OK. I have a vibrant social life with real-life people. In fact, if I never had problems with SolidWorks, I would have little need for the forums (as would be the case for so many others.)

                               

                              I'm not sure what a lot of people here on the forums do, but anyone who is an engineer or designer should be very critical if they are good at their job. I was warned this when I was in high school doing an engineering internship decades ago...Good Engineers are VERY Critical...of Everything.

                               

                              I'm concerned with the people around here that are just good with everything. I'd hate to see their work.

                               

                              Some of us come here because we enjoy helping other users learn how to use the software. and helping them solve their problems.

                          • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                            Christian Chu

                            Unless you spell it out, I don't think i know any "wolf" around here

                            we are here to help each other, not attach any one. I understand your frustration; however,  If you don't like the software, complain it directly to your VAR, SW - not us

                              • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                                Dan Golthing

                                I'll complain if I want to.  It's not your place to say I shouldn't, and you don't have to read it. 

                                 

                                and please don't mis-characterize me.  that's called a Straw Man Fallacy, and engineers have no right arguing with fallacies.

                                 

                                You say I don't like the software.  that's ridiculous.  Just because I complain about it doesn't mean I don't like it.  It means I have an analytical mind and can identify problems. 

                                 

                                How are you this blind?

                                 

                                Also, I've never attached anyone.

                              • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                                Rob Edwards

                                Dan I agree.. and I have certain sympathy for people who rant..  I know myself sometimes I just want to pull my hair out!

                                Here's an example from the other day.  We created a master model and included some templates to be exported as dxf's.  These included sketch text of some custom properties to identify them.

                                So just in that part I changed the document font to a stick font suitable for engraving and checked use document font.

                                This seems a reasonable workflow to me...  and yes it worked fine when editing the part...but oh no!  This part had external references to sketch geometry and somehow the document font was linked to a completely different document and changed depending which was one open.

                                Not much fun when you have 14 different templates to manually change and you need to get that e-mail off.  Now I reported this to my VAR which takes more of our precious time.  In the future I will avoid this workflow, but how was I to know until I found out.

                                 

                                I'm about four years in and in my quest to find our "workflow" I feel like I'm in a labyrinth,, and there are so many pitfalls and dead-ends.

                                  • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                                    Eric Allen

                                    I don't mean to hijack this thread. Rob, please send me the SPR for the text problem when you get one so I can vote it up. This causes us problems daily and I'm having trouble repeating it.

                                     

                                    To add to this thread: If there was ever a release where it said "All we did was fix SPR's and we've fixed more than we've ever fixed before" I would be thrilled and happier than I've been for any release. This comes from the guy that authorizes payment for maintenance to our VAR.

                                  • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                                    Rubén Rodolfo Balderrama

                                    I agree to some point of view...but if there a path or worflow, You must to follow it to obtain certain values or results...

                                    If somebody here tell me what I'm wrong, I'll try to stay a little on stand by mode think about and try to make as this man told me that's as valid way.

                                    I want to learn from the others too, and here all people share valid solutions.

                                    Solidworks has new things, As what I was waitng for it. and another ones....is like you said.

                                    Maybe someone must compile bad things and a group of designer test it....if this thing has lot of bug SW will must work on it I think.

                                    • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                                      Scott Stuart

                                      Every time I hear the workflow argument I am tempted to start a new thread and call people out for it. I'm glad someone did. Bottom line, if there are nine ways to skin a cat in Solidworks, all nine ways should work.

                                      • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                                        Matt Peneguy

                                        Dan,

                                        I generally come down on the other side of your argument.  But, I'm currently dealing with a situation I had no idea I could be in. I Pack and Go'd my work. Installed 2019 and opened it.  Guess what, it up converted some of the files in the original directory and 2019 CANNOT work with my files... That's right all the One and Two stuff and I get things like this:

                                        I think I have found the culprit.  I Pack and Go'ed from the main asm.  However I generated a Detached Drawing that has a "fake" asm I created to show some things in a different way than displayed in the main asm.  So, my thinking is that because it wasn't in the main asm, the detached drawing didn't fix those relations to the new directory.  If I'm right, this is a huge flaw and I'm not sure how this wasn't thought of.  If so, they should pull Detached Drawings until it is ready...

                                        So PLEASE, PLEASE, a little more QA/QC SW!!!

                                        Hopefully my VAR can get my files back dated...And I will be posting the SPR for Detached Drawings to these forums.

                                        • Re: The Myth of the Workflow Excuse
                                          Richard Doyle

                                          Hello Everyone,

                                          I'm shutting this one down before it goes too far (there's already a few veiled insults).  I don't see any benefit for anyone in this thread.

                                           

                                          Richard