Am I the only one?

[fhunt]

Am I the only user who feels that the 2018 and 2019 updates add very little of value to me? I installed the 2018 update, but have not used it to create even one model. I am still working in 2017. It is easier to work with the familiar interface. I just don't have time to become familiar with a whole new workflow strategy. 2017 does everything I need to do.

 

I would much rather see more improvements in modeling details and documentation accuracy than all this emphasis on large models and interfacing with other programs. I just don't have to do those things (or I do them very seldom). I model all the time and I create drawings all the time. I would much rather see IronCAD focus resources on improving these often performed activities. It seems to me that each update focuses less and less on the activities I do most often. I'm curious to know if others feel the same way.

 

Thanks for your attention.

 

Fred

[rsaucier]

Fred,

 

Can you give us more details on what you model and your workflow? Do you create 2D drawings of your models? What are some of the features that you use most often that you feel are not being improved upon? I use IronCAD every day and the 2018 release had some amazing features that have saved me a lot of time. If you tell us more about what you do maybe we can share some of the features that are helpful.

 

RJ

[fhunt]

Fred,

 

Can you give us more details on what you model and your workflow?  Do you create 2D drawings of your models?  What are some of the features that you use most often that you feel are not being improved upon? I use IronCAD every day and the 2018 release had some amazing features that have saved me a lot of time.  If you tell us more about what you do maybe we can share some of the features that are helpful.

 

RJ

48451[/snapback]

 

I have no complaints about modeling in IronCAD. It is my modeler of choice. I have access to SolidWorks, but prefer to design in IronCAD. It is a much better "fit" to the way I think during the design process.

 

For the most part, I have always been a component designer. Most of my products have not been "bigger than a breadbox". I have done molded plastic part design, machined part design, sheet metal design, cast metal design, etc. pretty much the entire gammet of mechanical part design. Recently, I have been doing a lot of testing fixture and "one off" test set-up designs.

 

Yes, I do create 2D information. I would classify them as sketches more than drawings. I am a degreed (registered) design engineer. Most of my 2D information is to convey dimensions and/or design features to others. Sometimes these are used by CAD operators (to make formal drawings). Most of the times, my "drawings" are used to provide input to fabricators. I sometimes resort to making formal drawings, myself, but most of the time I do not.

 

I would like to always work in the original IronCAD Drawing program (ICD). I work in it as much as possible. I love that it lets me get colored cross sections of assemblies. They are very useful for communicating (with the types of 2D documents I tend to create). My difficulty with ICD, is that I can see geometry on my screen, but it doesn't always put connection points on the geometry. Many times, I'll want to dimension to a "point" that just isn't there. If the program knows enough to project the geometry onto the 2D screen, why can't it overlay key points on that geometry. I know it can be done, because SolidWorks does it!

 

SolidWorks is my "fallback" for making more formal drawings. When I must make a formal drawing, I model in IronCAD, import a STEP 214 copy into Solidworks, and make a SolidWorks drawing from the STEP 214 model. I have never run across a case where I couldn't pick a dimension point on a SolidWorks 2D drawing!

 

I hate CAXA draft. It doesn't allow me to do color cross sections. It has a lot more "overhead" involved (than ICD). My original ICD formatting set-up work did not take much time. I have started to do formatting set-up in CAXA draft several times, but quickly determined that it would take too much time (for me to get to the point where I could do useful work).

 

I used AutoCAD for years (starting in version 10, or maybe 9). It was okay for creating geometry, but it was a real "pain in the..." to work with UCS's, putting drawing borders around geometry, figuring out dimension scales, scaling views, etc. That type of work was all "non-value added activities" to the work I had to do. As far as I can tell, most of the "nuisance activities" still exist in CAXA draft.

 

I see CAXA draft as a "draftsman's tool". It is based upon technology created in an era when engineering departments had support staff. It has a lot of appeal to people who "grew up" using AutoCAD (to make formal drawings). Part of the traditional CAD Draftsman's job was to set up all the drawing formatting and he was given time to learn how to do it. Unfortunately, I don't see many draftsmen any more. Most companies have cut way back on support staff. When AutoCAD ruled, we engineers use to do mainly engineering work. Today,we are expected to make our own drawings, type our own documents, set-up our own filing systems, program CNC's, etc. We just don't have the time to spend doing "non-value added" overhead work.

 

ICD is much closer to being the tool we currently need, than CAXA draft will ever be. I feel that the IronCAD programming staff should study the 2D modules of the currently popular 3D CAD programs (like SolidWorks) and incorporate their best capabilities into ICD. To me, focusing on improving CAXA draft is just foolish.

 

Hopefully, this provides you some of the information you were looking for.

 

Thanks for your attention.

 

Fred

[IronKevin]

Hi Fred,

 

As you encounter cases where you cannot snap dimensions in he ICD, please send us your .ics and .icd files and we can look into making improvements.

 

Thank you.

[cborer]

Hi Fred

I 100% agree.

About 20 years ago, when I bought Trispectives (as named before “IC”)

Iron Cad was “breath taking” advanced and fast.

Still today Triball, Handle driven behavior, Shape based history, intuitive working and much more, is fantastic and I still LOVE to work with IC.

But the development is very slow and the other CAD developed much faster.

Example: Rhino, gets with the Plugin “Grasshopper” light years away ….

 

Yes, Iron Cad please stop developing Caxa (if you want AutoCad, buy AutoCad!)

No more cosmetics, no more structured parts ….. we just need construction tools….the rest is perfect.

 

After waiting years for a better Perspective Camera (for interior Design) I left Iron Cad under protest (2014) cause of the missing development and came back now (2019) to update the Kernels.

Whats New? : A lot of cosmetics, a lot of assembly, a lot for the LEGO/ Brick fraction, but very small new tools. (4 Years)

 

But the good thing: it looks to me like the surface and curve tools became more stable and constant.

 

Iron Cad: Please develop construction tools for the UP1 update of 2019.

 

Many thanks & Long lives Iron Cad.

Carlo

Edited December 29, 2018 by cborer

[IronKevin]

Thank you for the feedback. Please (as you have) continue to submit specific Enhancement Request ideas in that section of this forum and we will continue to consider your requests for future development.

[cborer]

Thanks Kevin!

Sure?

I had no luck in the last 6 years!

[IronKevin]

Carlo,

 

We have documents showing ERs that we implemented for you

[cborer]

I know! :-)

These are very helpful!

But the last one might be 6 years ago... :-)

[IronKevin]

I looked, you didn't file many requests in your last year on support (2014).

[Doug Gower]

I would like to always work in the original IronCAD Drawing program (ICD).  I work in it as much as possible.  I love that it lets me get colored cross sections of assemblies.  They are very useful for communicating (with the types of 2D documents I tend to create).  My difficulty with ICD, is that I can see geometry on my screen, but it doesn't always put connection points on the geometry.  Many times, I'll want to dimension to a "point" that just isn't there.  If the program knows enough to project the geometry onto the 2D screen, why can't it overlay key points on that geometry.  I know it can be done, because SolidWorks does it! 

 

48545[/snapback]

 

Hi Fred,

Regarding your comment, I have the same problem but I've been able to dimension most points anyway if I use a reference line. It's a work around but I've been able to get by with that.

 

I'm still using 2018 until I can update to 2019 so I don't know anything about that yet.

 

Doug

[Malcolm Crowe]

Hi Fred,

 

I have added a post within the CAXA forum demonstrating how to change the colour of Hatching of Sectioned Views within CAXA.

 

http://community.ironcad.com/index.php?showtopic=12745

 

Malcolm

[Malcolm Crowe]

Hi Fred,

 

Regarding your original question; there is seldom sufficient value to our business in the updates released each year. As a result, we typically upgrade every second year (but that is more about keeping reasonably current). It isn't for me to say that there isn't value for others though, or that IRONCAD are working on the wrong things. They're just seldom of real value to us.

 

Malcolm

[Malcolm Crowe]

Hi Carlo,

 

I agree with you that the development of IRONCAD appears very slow compared to other CAD software. It is also disappointing when simple requests (including bug fixes) take many years to find their way into the software. But I differ from you and Fred regarding the focus of the development.

 

I respect the views of you and Fred regarding development; but I offer my own perspective, simply to demonstrate the difficulty IRONCAD has in trying to satisfy everyone.

 

Our decision to switch to IRONCAD in 2011 was primarily due to the following key features:

1. The collaboration of the dual ACIS and PARASOLID kernel. We need to collaborate with clients using AUTOCAD, INVENTOR, MICROSTATION, SOLIDEDGE, SOLIDWORKS and various BIM software (ARCHICAD, REVIT, etc..); and primarily use *.sat and *.x_t files when exchanging data.

2. The versatility of dual "Innovative" and "Structured" part design. Whereas many users might never use "Structured" part design, we use it regularly in complex part and machinery designs. There are simply some things that "Structured" can do that "Innovative" cannot.

3. The collaboration and versatility of CAXA DRAFT; as working with DWG files is critical to us, along with having powerful 2D drafting tools. We never use ICD as it simply cannot do what we need.

 

With the above in mind, you might appreciate that developments in "Structured" part design and "CAXA DARFT" are of particular interest to us, even though they might not be to you.

 

Malcolm