Great Knowing You All.

[don_temple]

Some time soon my subscription to this board will expire. It’s been a real pleasure speaking with all of you and collaborating on ways to improve IronCad.

 

Over time, there have been many occasions when I wanted to post to this board but decided not to. In the early years I didn’t want to be a rabble rouser. After so many versions and so little progress I tried raising some ruckus. With so many issues still unaddressed my participation has waned because it seems to do little good.

 

It seems that someone has to shake things up so here are my final comments:

* Many members seem to have stopped using this message board. I propose it’s because the thought and effort we invest in proposing improvements and solutions appears to be largely ignored.

* IC development engineers need to understand how the product is used. Watch a new user to see what they have trouble with, watch a seasoned user to find out what functionality is lacking or cumbersome.

* The persistent appearance of the same ER’s and bug reports over several years is evidence that he current system for documenting, prioritizing and implementing bug fixes and enhancements needs improvement.

 

I’ve used a lot of programs over the decades and I really think IronCad could be the best. Please please please, continue improving IronCad to make it the wonderful program it could be.

 

 

[dsulli555357]

I have to smile because I, too, left for quite a while - not because I wanted to, but because a non-user of MCAD made a very ignorant decision. There aren't that many posts in the Lexus Hybrid forum, not because there aren't many RX400hs on the road (There are over 20,000), but because almost every last owner is very happy with the vehicle. The Corvette Forum, on the other hand........

 

Yes, the program is not perfect; I wish you could zoom wherever you place the cursor, as you can in SW and AutoCAD, but overall, IronCAD is lightyears ahead of the more popular programs when it comes to conceptual modeling and designing. An example.....

 

I was recently creating a rather simple "holder" fixture for the assembly line (in SolidWorks). The part that needs to be secured has a tapered bottom surface. However, its pipe-tapped holes are perpendicular to the top surface. At first, I designed a cavity that was perpendicular to the top surface of the block. Later on, after all other details were created, I decided that the cavity should be tapered so that the installed pipe fittings would be installed perpendicular to the top of the block. Unfortunately, I used the "top" plane as my sketch surface and you cannot rotate it. Ah, but you can offset/copy this plane and rotate the new plane/copied sketch before extrude/subtracting the sketch upward.

 

Not so fast! There was a hole in the surface that was created by the first sketch extrude/subtract from the top plane and now that I've deleted that feature, many error messages spring forth like pimples on a teenagers face and body. Okay, I guess I'll delete the hole as well. Oops - more pop up error messages....maybe I'll just delete something else and AHHHHHHH! Get me outta this program!!!!!!

 

Now, where was I? Oh, the lesson here is that despite the small irritations we may experience here and there with IronCAD, using anything else is shear torture. I saw one of SolidWorks' ads in Design News today - it showed a very short, vertical line with huge print announcing the incredibly-short learning curve.

I couldn't help but laugh hysterically.

 

Good luck to you in whatever endeavors you delve. I know you, too, will be back.

 

Dave

 

[wgrein]

I agree with you Don. I have only been a user for about 1 year & am very frustrated by the number of bugs & lack of response from IronCAD. If the IronCAD people can answer your question easily, then you get an answer. If not, you get no response. I even went as far as to send an email directly to one of the IronCAD people asking for an answer to one of my questions in the forum, but I still have not received a reply. My experience with people from IronPRO has been excellent. They reply quickly & come back with solutions quickly.

 

It would be useful if IronCAD would create a master list of improvement requests & known bugs. (You probably have such a list already.) Users can then look at this list and rate how important the item is to them. IronCAD can then use this to decide what will be addressed in the next version. New items are added when new topics are added in the forum. This will help eliminate multiple posts on the same topic, which I & others are guilty of.

 

Dave: Unfortunately there are more than a few "small irritations". There are many irritations, just like there are many irritations in all other CAD programs. The problem is these "small irritations" never seem to addressed. I use to use Solid Works, and when I first started using IronCAD I hated it. I had a hard time giving up my constraints & found the program hard to use. I now like IronCAD. The 3D part is good. The 2D part sucks. There needs to be less emphasis on new features & more emphasis on making the program work better & making the 2D drawings easy to make & look professional. I hope to be able to say I love IronCAD, but that I fear will be a some time from now.

 

Wayne

[don_temple]

he 3D part is good.  The 2D part sucks.  There needs to be less emphasis on new features & more emphasis on making the program work better & making the 2D drawings easy to make & look professional.  I hope to be able to say I love IronCAD, but that I fear will be a some time from now.

 

Wayne

12476[/snapback]

 

 

I couldn't have said it better. Modeling in IC is pretty darn good, almost acceptable but drafting is the worst.

 

I burn so many hours overcoming the bugs in drafting that the job's profitability is sometimes completely lost. I don't want to go into specific bugs but let's just say, customers are sometimes not happy with prints because of the way IC draws and exports them. The problems have and will continue to cost me business if I don't switch.

 

 

[Mike Twining]

I can't decide if the 2D just plain sucks, or if the 3D is sooo good (easy) in comparison that it totally shadows the 2D and warps people opinion of it. Its like a swiss army knife with 200 different cutting tools, but no phillips screwdriver (an incredible tool, with pretty obvious limitations). In IC's defense, there have been some really good 2D improvements over the last couple of releases (in performance and functionality). Sure, there might be a few really usefull items that have been overlooked (and overlooked.... and overlooked), but we are getting new toys in 3D (i.e. mechanism mode...has anyone used that for something work related yet, or is it just a marketing tool?). Now, if I were the IronChief, I would take the IC 9x release and ONLY work on 3D bug fixes, and 2D enhancements. Someone needs to bring balance to IronCAD, and that needs to be done through the 2D. I guess the paperless society has gone the way of Y2K, so you IronDudes need to just get used to it... your not going to be able to ditch the 2D anytime soon.

 

In the end, no matter how many little tricks I need to do in order to complete a design (i.e. produce a 2D drawing package), I think at least Dave will agree with me, "at least I don't have to use Solid Works".

[tlehnhaeuser]

(i.e. mechanism mode...has anyone used that for something work related yet, or is it just a marketing tool?). 

12484[/snapback]

 

Hi Mike,

Working a Molding operation using mechanism mode . Running into problems, but it just may be my newbie to MM. It is a very complex mechanism so it requires just the right order of constrining to work properly and haven't got the formula yet.

 

AS for IC improvements. I for one have seen alot of my ERS adopted so I am very happy (FYI, please don;t assume I have any extra clout in R/D because I don;t).

But after using several MCAD applications, at the at end of the day its like this.

 

"A bay day of IronCAD is still better than a good day of SolidWorks!"

 

tom

[Mike Allen]

While IronCAD 2D still has a long way to go to match my ideal, I like the way it's heading.

 

I still feel that text (notes, etc.) is a second-class entity - no undo for moving text, minimal formatting tools...

 

Nevertheless, I use IronCAD 2D every day to produce some pretty good-looking documents. It's relatively fast - and where it lacks a particular functionality, I've almost always been able to find a workaround that will give me a similar end result.

 

I totally agree with Mike T. - I'd be really happy with a version 9 that focused on bug fixes & 2D enhancements.

 

-Mike

[Guest IronKevin]

It's nice to see that you all are so passionate about IronCAD. We do take the requests of our customers very seriously. Obviously we have not been able to fulfill everyone's wishes, we have focused our resources in making sure IronCAD can be used successfully in specific mechanical markets. We will continue to make the improvements that we believe will satisfy the highest number of users. Many of our users have told me that they are happy with the number of requests that we have implemented into the software, maybe we should all install IronCAD 1.2 and run it for a few days  That might bring a good perspective to IronCAD 8.0.

 

Either way, we will continue to work hard to make IronCAD the best design package available.

 

IK

[dsulli555357]

Today I demonstrated 3D curves to a draftsperson who has extensive SolidWorks experience. I used the curve to connect a "wire" from one location to another. The guy blurted out, "Do you realize just how much LONGER that would've taken using SolidWorks?" He was astounded, to say the least.

The other day I asked an ME to show me something in SW. It took her 2 minutes just to make/dimension a simple block and a couple of planes; I could've done it in 10 seconds using IC. Another example: I often need to include 3D images in procedures:

IC=right-click, background, white.

SW= tools, options, colors, edit, white, okay, uncheck "use gradient background", okay........ You get the picture.

 

As far as IronCAD 2D, I'm puzzled as to why anyone would think that it is inadequate. I use SW 2D and it is only marginally better for the things I do and the latest IC 2D is certainly superior to that of just a few versions ago.

SolidWorks comes on 3 CDs and it shows when you try to do something just slightly out of the ordinary. As I mentioned in MCAD Cafe, most 3D programs are not only bloated with stuff 99% of us will never use, but they subsequently require a learning curve that rivals Pro-E.

 

....I'm not that upset, am I.....

Edited January 22, 2006 by dsulli555357

[cborer]

I agree Iron Cad is still a very good tool to me and I love to work with it.

Most things I want to do, I can do.

And I never saw a CAD that is as intuitive as Iron Cad is!

So it’s the perfect tool for creative people.

 

I work with Iron Cad since 8 Years.

We had good times and bad times (Alventive which stole 2 years of development(and our money), dxf import and export coasts me months, and the all-time missing tools)

 

There has been a lot of intelligent new tools and IC became a powerful CAD.

Always when I show it to others they do not believe what I can do and how fast I do it.

 

Well sometimes I am jealous when I read what other CAD developed for new and how fast they do it. For example Rhino 4.0 will bring some dramatic new shape creation tools.

 

I reed in the Community many asks for comfort and SP1 brought a lot of them.

Let me tell you: Iron Cad is the most comfortable ever!

 

Drawings is mostly good enough to me since there is the “perspective drawing”.

( ….OK I wish better measuring and measuring for perspective)

 

So I think its time to develop the tools in the 3d scene part:

 

My wishes for IC 9 is completing the 3d scene tools:

 

1. Merge 3d curve (better sooner: in SP2! Like the Bonus tools of Rhino )

2. Merge 3d curve with tangency control (parallel / tangent / and maybe perpendicular)

3. More control on any curves: reduce control points, cleaning curves

4. Magnetic 3d line on surfaces

5. Developable surfaces: surfaces to unfold (the “sweep two guide surface” is not proper! (Problems with “thicken” tool too))

6. Moving start and endpoint of closed 3d curve

7. Merge surfaces

8. Merge surfaces with tangency control (cleaning not used edges produces by IC, as the “thicken” tool does)

9. Extend 3d curve

10. Unfolding surfaces (Theoretical unfolding Thickness=0) (…I can do it in Rhino)

11. Layers in the cross section

12. Cleaning all bugs

13. Distance along 3d line

14. Anchor or triball: to center of gravity

15. Combine part with cut out shape (Like windows for Architects)

16. Direct export of dxf from flat faces

17. More control about dxf export (splines are still not good enough/ double lines)

18. Rendering preview picture (from cutout)

19. Metric Sheet metal Stock, better handling for metric, without tinkering in the files!

20. Loft along 3d curve (similar: sweep with two cross sections)

21. Cap from 3d curve

22. 2D & drawings: measure length of splines and curves, measure tangential on curves

23. 2D & drawings: measure absolute distance on curves (nearest / farthest)

24. 2D & drawings: measure at perspective view.

25. IC 9 should come soon!

 

For the moment: no more comfort as we have many ways to do the same things. Please create new tools!

Long lives Iron CAD!

Thanks

Carlo

 

 

PS the merge 3d curve (tangent / parallel) would help at point 6,7,8,9!

Missing the "merge 3d curves" leaves me in a dead line at many points on shape creation! Many jobs are just possible with the merge 3d line. And many bugs of IC are to transship with "merge 3d curve only.

So the "merge 3d line" (tangent / parallel / or smoothly connected) is for many projects a must like "to live or to die"!

Otherwise 3d curves give no sense.

I need it now!

Edited January 21, 2006 by cborer

[dsulli555357]

Wow, what a list! I worry, though, that equipping IC with so many abilities will result in a bloated, buggy SolidWorks-like program that is so complicated, only an MIT grad could figure things out quickly!

 

I think we all would love IC with UGS or Catia capabilities and IC interface, but without the high cost of ownership. This is what many of the other mid-range solid modelers are attempting. Unfortunately, the result is not always pretty. Remember too, that IC doesn't have a programming staff of 20, either. Don't get me wrong, taking the time to generate a wish list is a good thing, but my limited programming experience tells me that somethings that appear straightforward often are like the proverbial "can-of-worms".........

[cborer]

Hi Dave

I do absolutely not agree with you.

My wishes would not change anything in the structure of Iron Cad which I like the same as you.

Most suggestions are just development of existing tools.

The merge 3d line for example is just a "completing the tools", finish the started work.

Others are a kind of bug repairs, like the splited surfaces we get from the thicken tool...or getting a tool to repair it.

 

Then there are some dramatic new tools like the magnetic 3d line or the theoretical unfolder which must be hard to do.

Yes I would like IC to amaze me again!

 

But most of my list are just little things I think (a non programmer)

 

This is just the Top of my list!

As I said: IC is a perfect tool for creative and easy shaping and I want it to go on!

The others are not sleeping as well (...and Rhino can most of this// ...but its not that intuitive for work)

 

No advantage without a list of suggestions.

So I wont stop update my list to keep IC the best!

 

Which suggestion do you think would make IC unstable?

Edited January 23, 2006 by cborer

[dsulli555357]

C,

 

I am not suggesting that any single request will definitely cause problems, it's just that I know that seemingly simple requests sometimes require multiple changes, some representing major obstacles (unforseen by the requester). I spoke a potential IronCAD customer not too long ago. He told me that he attended a SW 2006 demonstration that was presented by a local VAR. The program crashed multiple times, embarassing the presenter and VAR owner. Yes, SW incorporated 200 "enhancements", but they may have also created 200 headaches by rushing the changes out to the VARs.

As I mentioned, generating a list of wishes is good thing, but I'll tale a simpler, more robust program over a super-complicated, do-everything-but-very-buggy program any day!

[Per-Arne Almeflo]

We do take the requests of our customers very seriously.  Obviously we have not been able to fulfill everyone's wishes, we have focused our resources in making sure IronCAD can be used successfully in specific mechanical markets.  We will continue to make the improvements that we believe will satisfy the highest number of users. 

IK

12500[/snapback]

And how many requests have you seen through the years to get the possibility to open linked files by right clicking in the scene browser?

Is it even worth the effort to ask again?

[mmccall]

Don.. what program are you thinking about going to?

 

Is Don still on this message board?

 

 

[mpawlak]

A couple things here...

 

The amount of requests on this board is very large. IronCAD, like any other company, has finite manpower, so requests must be prioritized. I would say they are prioritized based on whether they are bug-fixes and what segment of the community would benefit most by the change. Maybe your request does not benefit the top target segment of the community. I myself do not have much use for surfaces, 3d curves, or sheetmetal.

 

That being said, most if not all the changes made to IronCAD have come from this discussion board. The software has gone through a lot of changes and they've been mainly based on direct customer requests, not marketing or vague questionaires. What other software is like that?

 

If you think pro-e or solidworks or whatever will yield a more satisfactory experience, goodbye, God bless, and see ya when you come back.

[mmccall]

UUUHHHH...

 

YES !... ProE, and WildFire... they suck..

[dsulli555357]

As Joe Greco once told me....."If I want to create something quickly, I use IronCAD."

 

When I attended a 4-day Solidworks class a couple of years back, the instructor had us analyze every part that we were to create, just as a tool and die maker analyzes a drawing before he determines exactly how he will create the part. With Solidworks, a sequence mistake could very well result in scrapping hours worth of work. Ditto for the tool and die maker. Forget to sketch on a plane (instead of a surface)? You will be hurting later. Want to change someone else's drawing or 3D model? Bring out the asperin; you will need it.

 

Certainly, there are little niceties in SW, but the basic methology for creating models is ancient and time consuming.

 

Last week I showed a seasoned SW designer how easy it is to use 3D curves to connect pipe fittings or wire connectors, and then use the sweep shape to create the tube/wire. The example I made took me all of 40 seconds. She exclaimed in a shocked tone of voice, "WHY DON'T MORE COMPANIES USE THIS SOFTWARE? IT WOULD SAVE ALL OF US SO MUCH TIME!"

 

I replied, " They simply don't know about or haven't tried THIS software."

 

[Guest Urban Olars]

I'm actually quite satisfied with how IronCAD has made their priorities for the enhancement requests. The problem is however that this software is not progressing as fast as it need to. With other words: This company needs a lot more programmers.

[Bertrand Kim]

I am quite satisfied with the current 2D drawing although there are still many things to develop. Maybe there were a lot of change in 16 years?

I agree IronCAD needs more programmers, Please increase the user pool by secretly distributing the limited-time crack version on the Internet. Unrestricted use significantly reduces barriers to entry. To be honest, a month's trial period is a very tight time to learn IronCad. And when the time comes, sue them and make money to hire programmers

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by Bertrand Kim

[SSIMMONS]

I was reading this, not realizing the OP was so long ago. I agree that IC has it's issues, but as far as customer support, it must have been very different back then. I have been a user since 2017 and have been extremely satisfied with the quick responses from Cary, RJ, Kevin, and the rest of the team at IC. Keep up the good work and we will keep complaining per usual hahahaha. The community is extremely responsive also, though having a dozen or so more active member couldn't hurt. Cheers.

 

-Spencer

Edited September 29, 2022 by SSIMMONS