| Author |
Message |
shaun
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:05 am Post subject:
Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
Does anyone know how to save a file in ProWildfire 2.0 so that some one
running Wildfire 1.0 can open it?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ben Loosli
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:24 am Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
Not possible while maintaining the parametrics.
STEP or IGES the solid out.
Pro/E neutral file format.
--
Ben
"shaun" <shaunt@pmp-elcajon.com> wrote in message
news:1103754295.717872.254810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Does anyone know how to save a file in ProWildfire 2.0 so that some one
running Wildfire 1.0 can open it?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Loosli
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
Software piracy has nothing to do with file interoperability.
Software piracy hurts the user because the vendors are writing code into
their products to make it easier to detect an illegal license.
As for backward compatibility, name 1 CAD vendor who has full compatibility
between version N and N-1.
--
Ben Loosli
"hamei" <hamei@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:c1.2c.2v2zTs$0Ws@huey.wanlong...
| Quote: | Ben Loosli wrote:
Not possible while maintaining the parametrics.
STEP or IGES the solid out.
Pro/E neutral file format.
Even between WF-1 and WF-2 ? Aw poop.
Ya know, it's not that hard to get 'free' PTC software.
If companies make using their own products *too* obnoxious
then they only have themselves to blame when the 'piracy'
rate skyrockets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Howard
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 01, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
| Quote: | now that I think about it, how many CAD vendors
do NOT allow you to save in an older format ?
|
How many history / feature based systems do you know of that do?
Translating back when all that's involved is data structures is pretty
trivial, but how do you translate back functions. The best you'd get is
something like the better feature recognition / translation (20K US?)
programs that place an unparametric surface when a function can't be
plugged into the build tree. Suppose they could do the same, but doubt
they could expect much return on the development investment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hamei
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:25 am Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
Ben Loosli wrote:
| Quote: | Not possible while maintaining the parametrics.
STEP or IGES the solid out.
Pro/E neutral file format.
|
Even between WF-1 and WF-2 ? Aw poop.
Ya know, it's not that hard to get 'free' PTC software.
If companies make using their own products *too* obnoxious
then they only have themselves to blame when the 'piracy'
rate skyrockets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hamei
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 01, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
Ben Loosli wrote:
| Quote: | As for backward compatibility, name 1 CAD vendor who has full compatibility
between version N and N-1.
|
Right off the top of my head, there's Cadkey. And even AutoCrap
allows you to save in a prior format so that you aren't stuck
changing *everyone* to the latest level at the same time. In fact,
now that I think about it, how many CAD vendors do NOT allow you
to save in an older format ? Besides the pricks at PTC, that is ?
(You added the word "full" to the question, by the way. And the
OP didn't want file compatibility between Pro/E version 5 and
Wildfire, he was asking to use Wildfire 2 models in Wildfire 1.
What huge earth-shaking improvements and new features did PTC
add to WF-2 to make such a difference that one *couldn't* open
the average WF-2 model in WF-1 ? None. Not shit, there's your
answer. It's a trick done on purpose to force customers to buy
something they don't need. It's the crappy high-handed bullshit
style of behaviour that makes PTC so well beloved of everyone.
No wonder all the mags shit on Pro/E all the time.)
| Quote: | Software piracy hurts the user because the vendors are writing
code into their products to make it easier to detect an illegal
license.
|
Unless said code is very crappy, explain to me how this hurts a
user who has paid for his license ? In this case I'd have to go
along with the "if you don't have anything to hide ...." folks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Howard
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
| Quote: | Let's put this in the context the original question.
Exactly how is Wildfire 2 so remarkably different
from Wildfire 1 that *most* ...........
|
Haven't given it much thought, but pattern features come to mind at the
prompt. Their reference setup is different than WF (which is the extent of
my history with Pro/E).
| Quote: | Except blackmailing customers for more money,
which I guess you could look at as a practical reason.
|
That's one way of looking at it and may be accurate. I tend to think it's
simply a matter of cost; return on the investment needed to insure backward
compatibility and they are in line with the majority, if not all, of their
competitors in this respect. The absence of backward compatibility is the
current "standard" or "state" of the industry, at least to the extent of my
knowledge. They may even be a small step in front of the pack with ATB
functions (? don't know; something I've read about, not sure I understand
and don't know if it might be of some potential worth to me). Something
that definitely puts them ahead of some (lower end, anyway) is continued
support for older versions; e.g. they are still releasing new builds of
2001 (?) and WF.
Obviously, this isn't something that sticks in my craw. I have wondered in
passing along similar lines, though, and never asked; I'm an independent,
my initial purchase of Pro/E was WF, I have a maint contract: If I should
have the need for compatibility will PTC (or any other developer for that
matter) furnish me with a copy of a superceded version?
.... and a prosperous new year to all. 8~) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Loosli
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
I also left off out a word - Parametric. Since you didn't like the question,
let's try this question.
Name 1 major parametric-based CAD system vendor who has model compatibility
between version NO and NO-1?
Now my question limits your answers to Catia, Pro/E, Unigraphics,
SolidWorks, SolideEdge and Inventor.
The answer is none.
Despite your subsequent post about what differences there are in WF1 and
WF2, look at the underlying data structures involved. I will admit that I
have more experience with UG, 17 years, than I do with Pro/E, 3 years.
UG V17 had very little to offer the user in terms of the need to upgrade
from V16. However, from UGS' standpoint they need V17 to get a new database
structure implemented to support user changes that were coming in V18. We
jumped from V16 to V18, with no problems and UG was able to open all older
files. My point is that there are technological reasons that the user
doesn't see that make changes that prevent the newer file from being opened
in the older version.
--
Ben Loosli
to hide ...." folks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hamei
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:20 am Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
Jeff Howard wrote:
| Quote: | now that I think about it, how many CAD vendors
do NOT allow you to save in an older format ?
How many history / feature based systems do you know of that do?
Translating back when all that's involved is data structures is pretty
trivial, but how do you translate back functions. The best you'd get is
something like the better feature recognition / translation (20K US?)
programs that place an unparametric surface when a function can't be
plugged into the build tree. Suppose they could do the same, but doubt
they could expect much return on the development investment.
|
Let's put this in the context the original question. Exactly how is
Wildfire 2 so remarkably different from Wildfire 1 that *most* WF-2
models couldn't be read in WF-1 ? Obviously one can't make programs
forward-compatible but these kinds of tricks are pure bullshit. There
is absolutely no reason that one shouldn't be able to at least run a
trail file in similar versions of Pro/E. I'll have to go try it out
before I make a blanket statement but I *seriously* doubt that you
can't run the same key presses in WF1 as WF2 and get the same model
for most parts. So even if direct use of the model is not practical
for some strange reason, they have *no* logical excuse to not allow
you to even try to run a trail file. Except blackmailing customers
for more money, which I guess you could look at as a practical reason.
That does make the customer hate the vendor, however, which is not
usually a good situation.
While we're on the subject of PTC screwups, anyone have an idea why
the browser plugin to *view* pro/e models is strictly 64-bit on Irix ?
What kind of dumbass trick is that ? I can see it for modelling, but
for viewing ? Who's going to be looking at 2 gigabyte models over the
'net ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hamei
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Prowildfire 2.0 |
|
|
Ben Loosli wrote:
| Quote: | Name 1 major parametric-based CAD system vendor who has model compatibility
between version NO and NO-1?
Now my question limits your answers to Catia, Pro/E, Unigraphics,
SolidWorks, SolideEdge and Inventor.
The answer is none.
|
You forgot I-DEAS and maybe Varimetrix. I'll have to ask a friend :-)
| Quote: | Despite your subsequent post about what differences there are in WF1 and
WF2, look at the underlying data structures involved. I will admit that I
have more experience with UG, 17 years, than I do with Pro/E, 3 years.
|
Good move. I have NX-2 here and it is a DOG ! Talk about SLOW !
Plus it does a really bad job with fillets and blends. How do they
convince so many people that UG is so great ? It was better when it
was UniAPT, I think :-) [I did have that on a PDP-8. Was okay.]
| Quote: | UG V17 had very little to offer the user in terms of the need to upgrade
from V16. However, from UGS' standpoint they need V17 to get a new database
structure implemented to support user changes that were coming in V18. We
jumped from V16 to V18, with no problems and UG was able to open all older
files. My point is that there are technological reasons that the user
doesn't see that make changes that prevent the newer file from being opened
in the older version.
|
Okay, it's not worth the time to argue over on a New Year's day,
but if that is true why do they go to so much trouble to make sure
you can't run trail files from version to version ? A trail file is
simply a record of user input. If it fails to work, not their fault.
I can understand that. If the input methods are the same, then one
should have a wonderful method of getting from version to version
in many cases, shouldn't one ? Even if the underlying code is
different, the inputs used to get there are often the same ( not
between WF and 2001 obviously, but between WF-1 and WF-2 ...) In a
shop with thirty seats of CAD software is it unreasonable to expect
that one could upgrade incrementally ? Using the older versions for
simpler models maybe and the new version for designs that need it ?
Your point that "all" the old-line software houses do this doesn't
mean they *need* to do this. It just means they're all in the habit
of extracting every last nickel they can, by hook or by crook. That's
a big part of the reason a lot of people hold their nose when you
say "Pro/E", isn't it ? Anyone who's *used* Pro/E knows that a lot
of the bad press is just b.s. - but why do they GET such bad press ?
Maybe because they're old-line hardcore assholes ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in