« Parametric Technology Corp on the advantages of non-parametric modeling | Main | CAD Muckraking »

Can Pro/E be made easy to learn and remember?

Mike Payne, Executive Chairman for SpaceClaim, and one of the more colorful people in the CAD industry, was just interviewed by the Boston Globe, for his thoughts on the potential sale of PTC. You can see a video of the interview here. You can read the article here. (Both are worth looking at.)

While I think Mike’s perspective on PTC is probably as thoughtful as anyone’s (he was one of its founders), I’m more interested in his comments about products:

“When products first emerge, they’re usually priced very high. They’re for the specialists… and they usually don’t work very well. As they start to work better, then more people can use them. And if you want lots of people to use them, you have to make it far more reliable, you have to make it easy to use – but that’s not enough: You have to make it easy to learn, and easy to remember, because people are not so hung-up on being the specialist on things.”

Consider the challenge PTC faces in making Pro/E more reliable, easier to use, easier to learn, and easier to remember.

PTC spent $100 million to develop the most recent version of Pro/E (Wildfire 4.0). All told, PTC spent over $1.3 billion on R&D in the last 10 years, not counting the R&D spending at the companies it acquired. I’d have to assume that Pro/E Wildfire 4.0 is more capable, and likely more reliable, than its predecessors. Yet, I’d be really surprised if it was more than marginally easier to use, learn, or remember (at least, for non-trivial projects) -- not only because such changes are very difficult to make, from a technical perspective, but also because they’re not something that most Pro/E users are really pushing for.

Based on conversations I've had with dedicated Pro/E users, what they seem to want most of all is more reliability, more performance, and more capability. They don’t want major overhauls of a program that they already have a big investment in learning how to use.

Yet, this really raises the issue of how PTC can possibly satisfy their core users, and still have a product that’s attractive to a lot of other people.

PTC’s answer appears to be to have two separate products: Pro/E is a parametric feature-based (history) modeler, while CoCreate, which it acquired last year, is an explicit (history-free) modeler. (I often use the term “feature inference modeler” to refer to explicit modelers, such as CoCreate, that use feature recognition and inference in combination with explicit modeling. I won’t push the term here, as it’s easier to just say “explicit” or “history-free.”)

Jim Heppleman, PTC EVP, said in Manufacturing Business Technology magazine that the application of parametric verus explicit modeling is an issue of form versus function: parts that are functional are amenable to parametric modeling. Parts that represent form are amenable to explicit modeling. More importantly, he came out and admitted that explicit modeling is fundamentally easier, at about one-third the work.

In short, what Heppleman seems saying is that the biggest impediment to usability in Pro/E, at least for some parts, is inherent in how the program works. In designs where model history is not necessary (which may be the case more often than PTC would like to admit), throwing it away could triple a user’s productivity.

While I think Heppleman is probably oversimplifying, this still raises an obvious question: If there is a significant class of parts that could be completed with substantially less work using explicit rather than parametric modeling (and that class, incidentally, includes all imported “dumb” parts), why has PTC never integrated this capability into Pro/E?

I can only conjecture about the answer to this question, but I have a suspicion that it has something to do with PTC being named Parametric Technology Corporation.

While CoCreate does explicit modeling, it’s not really a solution for Pro/E users. CoCreate is a mature product, with a development history dating back to 1984. There is no synergy between CoCreate and Pro/E that would suggest that learning one would make learning the other particularly easier. Though it’s likely that the CoCreate and Pro/E teams are working to build connections between the programs, I’d personally be surprised to see a merged product that both worked, and satisfied existing users of either product. (At least, without at least three major relases to get to that point.)

PTC's competitors seem to be offering a better history-free solution for Pro/E users than it does.

Consider a customer that is dedicated to Pro/E. SpaceClaim offers a standalone CAD product for explicit modeling that works quite synergistically with Pro/E. The only advantage that CoCreate might have in these accounts is that it’s owned by PTC. (And that may, or may not, be an advantage.)

If customer is already wavering on Pro/E, but hasn’t switched for lack of a compellingly better alternative, Siemens may have something that could get their attention: Synchronous Technology. Solid Edge, Siemens’ mainstream product, has been targeted squarely at Pro/E since its introduction in 1996, and now, with Synchronous Technology, it offers both history-based and history-free modeling in one product.

For PTC, I don’t see an easy way out of the competitive jungle, at least, so far as CAD goes. PTC used to regularly kick its competitor’s collective asses. Then Microsoft Windows NT came along, and opened the door for low-cost competitors, such as SolidWorks, Solid Edge, and Inventor. Now PTC itself has legitimized history-free modeling, openly admitting that it’s a lot easier to use than history-based modeling.

The author of the Boston Globe article asked PTC about the idea that someday all of us will be working with 3D design software the way we use web browsers or Microsoft Excel. Brian Shepherd, a PTC VP, responded "we're focused on the needs of professionals."

I wonder: Don't professionals use web browsers and Microsoft Excel? And don't professionals benefit from software that's easier to use, easier to learn, and easier to remember?
Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 01:18AM by Registered CommenterEvan Yares in | Comments15 Comments | References1 Reference

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (15)

I just started to use Pro-E just because my company is dealing with suppliers who still use ProEngineer for modeling. This is the most un-intuitive software I have ever use. I can pick up Solidworks in a couple days but this Pro-E thing I still couldn't figure it out (already 2 weeks). Even though Pro-E copy some of SolidWorks user interface but still so not user friendly.

In 1-2 years, SolidWorks will kick Pro-E in the rear for sure. It is good idea that they sell their business now.
September 24, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterPro-E beginner
Evan,
If we look at what has happened in the CAE arena in the past few years, we will see that the vendors took their non-intuitive, specialist only systems and created a whole new set of wizard based workflows and an intuitive UI catered to the non-specialist. Hence the introduction of "point and click" FEA. It doesn't solve all problems nor does it have all the capabilities of the "classic" system, but it works for the non-specialist. And if you happen to be an FEA specialist, the in depth interface and free-form workflows still exist.

This is what I believe CAD vendors need to do. Create two UI's with an option as to which to use. The "Standard" and the "Expert" UI. Standard works like Google Sketchup, and the Expert works like (your favorite modeler here).

Ken

-- I think it's a good idea, but it's hard to do. SketchUp is a lot more than mere UI. - Evan
September 24, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterKen
I've been using Pro E for about 5 yrs and have never really used any other modelling program. But it feels like I've learned Latin while everyone else speaks English. In industrial design the only people who still use this program are the ones that have been with it from the 90's. There are SO many ambiguous features in this program.
Use Solidworks.
September 24, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRicardo
Pro E is like a 70 year old engineer how probably knows how to do almost everything, but he's such an arse-hole that you have to ask for help from him in the EXACT right way, and if you just pronounce a word slightly wrong he'll smash your design to bits and call you a nincompoop.
September 24, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMiguel
Having started with SolidWorks 98 (and with its subsequent versions for 5 years) and then moved on to Pro/E 2001, WF1.0 all the way to, recently, 4.0, here's all I could find tonnes to say about Pro/E's ease-of-use issue but personally, I believe it all boils down to the issue of focus, or more accurately PTC's lack of it when it came to CAD in recent years. Let's face it, PTC, with all its acquisitions and sidelines like PLM (read - distractions) and possibly overpaid out-of-touch execs (some of whom i've met) really took their eye off the CAD ball and gave guys like Solid-X the chance to run riot over a market they once rulled. Functionality-wise, it's still got an array of (really hard to used and understand, even by the PTC Tech Support folks) capabilities which none of the Solix can come close to. The trouble is you'll need to really go thru hell to master them.

The issue with the revamped Wildfire interface is very much a surface level issue - almost akin to the "lipstick on pig" saying. Dig past the basic layer and you're still in the thick of inconsistent interface (made even more inconsistent by the WF interface in some places).

Pro/E's a still a good software, to my humble opinion. The catch is it used to be, and could have been, a great one.
September 24, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRenegade
Evan, I don't necessarily agree with the comment about explicit modelling being better for form based design. The critical thing in and production 3D software is interface design. Critical because complex functions that are buried in complex interfaces never get used - so the software "can't do it". SolidWorks is probably easier to get into than Pro/E but for modelling complex surfaces and production level detailing for moulding it is still hard to use - ALL software is for this.

Demos are great at showing gee whizz stuff but for day to day things nobody has really provided a product that can handle complex geometry creation AND editing, that is genuinely simple to use.

Explicit modelling techniques are actually still best demonstrated on simple geometrical parts - eg - functional stuff. Parametric modelling might take longer to set up but once done so you can tweak to your hearts content, so the total time taken for the development might be less.

If you want examples of good to great 3D interfaces look to the niche tools like Ashlar-Vellum. Such tools let designers set up precision 3D curve networks and resultant solids and surfaces with ease, and utilise parametrics if needed. The critical word there is precision.
September 26, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterKevin Quigley
Mike Payne thinks PTC has no future. I think Mike Payne's company SpaceClaim won't be around much longer in its current form if they don't learn how to market and get a CEO who has a clue how to market SpaceClaim. How long has it been since SpaceClaim had a CEO?

Mike Payne has been nothing short of a dismal failure when it comes to the marketing aspects of SpaceClaim.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

-- SpaceClaim just got a new CEO. Chris Rundles. (But you knew that.) So far as Mike Payne being a dismal failure: Only time will tell, but I don't think so. Since the company doesn't publish financial or sales numbers, there's a lot of unfounded speculation out there. I've spent time talking to Mike, and I agree with more of what he has to say than I disagree with. - Evan
September 28, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJon Banquer
The author of the Boston Globe article was comparing Pro/E to Google SketchUp (freeware for consumers) and wondering why Pro/E is not free. I think Brian Shepherd's comment was directed at that preposterous comparison.

I there may be an advantage of CoCreate over SpaceClaim in that CoCreate has been in existence for something like 20 years and there are hundreds of thousands of happy customers, whereas SpaceClaim is a floundering startup on the brink of collapse with maybe a few dozen paying customers.

-- A floundering startup on the brink of collapse with maybe a few dozen paying customers? Not the information I have. Of course, I've only been talking to SpaceClaim insiders, customers, and their venture capital people. So I could be wrong. Time will tell. - Evan
September 29, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBob H
How Siemens And SpaceClaim Can Win SolidWorks And Pro/E Accounts:

http://tinyurl.com/3r486p

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
September 29, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJon Banquer
"-- SpaceClaim just got a new CEO. Chris Rundles. (But you knew that.)"

Seems to me the venture capital company that heavily funded SpaceClaim wants to protect what remains of their investment.

"So far as Mike Payne being a dismal failure: Only time will tell, but I don't think so."

I said he's been a dismal failure when it comes to marketing SpaceClaim and indeed he has been.

"Since the company doesn't publish financial or sales numbers, there's a lot of unfounded speculation out there."

SpaceClaim doesn't have to publish any financial or sales numbers for someone who knows the market to figure out that SpaceClaim have close to zero market penetration and has very few users.

"A floundering startup on the brink of collapse with maybe a few dozen paying customers? Not the information I have."

Then the information you have is wrong, Evan.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA












I've spent time talking to Mike, and I agree with more of what he has to say than I disagree with. - Evan
October 5, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJon Banquer
Unigraphics has always given you the option to create models explict (non-parametrics) or to create them parametrically. and most Uigraphics(automotive sector) users would tell you they prefer non-parametric modeling. very few use parametric when give the choice.
December 5, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterdabble
On Explicit vs. Parametric: I work in automotive product design. The parts/assemblies are complex enough to require precise dimensions, but the nature of automotive development require multiple iterations. (I've used CATIA V4, V5 and SolidWorks) I have tried to use CoCreate, and cannot for the life of my understand why explicit modeling is considered to be 'easier' than parametric. (setting critical dimensions is very clunky, no ability to modify a basic sketch...) Yes, perhaps it takes a little longer to properly setup a parametric model, but this approach pays dividends when it comes time to make the myriad of little design changes that naturally come up. In CoCreate, if you've got a fundamental change...time to start over.

Are there any SolidWorks users who also use CoCreate who can shed some light on the question of parametric vs. explicit?
October 29, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMark
Our ideas and the technical tools work together to create masterpieces.
February 17, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterfind icons
Pro-E sucks - always has and always will!
February 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCharles Koriganni
I use to work at a telco company who hired a engineering manager sold on the benifits of Pro-E. He had everyone trained bought 20 licenses and new workstations and it was a dismal failure. Productivity went to near zero while everyone struggled to get a grip on the workings of the application.We went through no less than 4 PTC sales guys all spouting the greatness of each new release and how much more productive we'd be if we just upgraded to the next version. One even managed to sell us Windchill after we had already gone through a miserable time with 2 other data managers. By the time the company closed its doors most models could not be edited by anyone other than the originator since the users were all doing work-arounds just to get the jobs out. I was in charge of all the seats as well as the continued training for Pro-E and Intralink and even I had a difficult time keeping up. The engineering manager was fired after 2 years and the CEO was heard to say that hiring him was the worst mistake of his entire carrer. My advive is that you take all the time you need to evaluate your CAD requirements before you decide on anything. Most companied jump into pro-e way too fast before looking at what else is avaiable and the biggest/mot expensive oversight is the applications user friendliness. Contract Pro-E designers with any level of experience cost 33% more than comparable Solidworks or Inventor contractors and the level of productivity is the same. It dosen't make sense to get into the PTC game when there are so many options that are a lot less expensive.
Since I started at my new company I have been able to train 6 people on Inventor 2008 having learned it on my own and none of them required more than 3 hours of my time. All are proficient and doing more on Inventor in less time than anyting they did in Pro-E. Bottom line: PTC has dug the very hole they will be buried in and they have no one to blame but themselves. I wouldn't touch it with a ten meter pole.
March 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterGreg

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.