There is an expectation that our software will be productivity tools in our work. Accordingly, we need to learn how to use the designed functionalities of the software to produce our products which are design drawings and construction documents. We all have our wish lists which would make out software more useful. In fact, there are productivity upgrades we are even unable to conceive of... thankfully other visionaries do! Not being a software engineer I do not understand how a program evolves new features. Not being a software company manager I do not know the decision process which leads to new releases with new feature sets of a software product.
What I can say is that, it is completely unacceptable to issue a product which is full of defects which result in financial loss to the users. Of course, we expect a learning curve with a new product and the loss of productivity while the new product is integrated into our busines practice. However, it is my belief that a series of flawed decisions and poor management decisions has resulted in a seriously flawed product release which has cost many users enourmous amounts of money.
As a small practicioner, I cannot afford days of down time messing about with software glitches, and endless hours debugging and finding work arounds. This is unbillable time and would kill my business. I cannot imagine the cost to a multi license user having a staff thrown into chaos because the software is full of bugs.
It is my belief that the upgrades must be very seamless. This seamlessness has to be the foundation of the evolution of a software product. It must be engineered into the upgrade to allow users to access the new features... or revert to the former "tools" or features. The failure of being able to easily migrate files from / to upgrades is a serious flaw. The number of reported almost random crashes is unacceptable and represents a major failure of the software engineers.
I suppose that decisions may be made as a result of new hardware available which forces the engineers to create a new product which looks very similar to the older product but underneath the hood a new engine is at work. These marketing decisions force the users to not only upgrade the software, but their hardware as well. There must be very clear productivity benefits to make such an upgrade. Remember if it aint broke dont fix it!
I would like very much to see how the upgrades target productivity increases for the user. A series of tools which are not used makes the product complex, error prone and like asking a locomotive to haul a long train when you only have an interest in the contents of two freight cars.
At some point it becomes clear that CAD software has to be modular so that the user can assemble the functionality he requires. The modules are essentially tools and features... like Renderworks, which sit on top of the basic CAD engine. Some users have no use for cartoonlike 3D images and are focused on 2D drafting. Their product should not be burdened by unneeded capabilities.
It appears to this user that the decision was made to make the basic product more robust, filling it with capabilites that many users have no need for. This seems to have created a product which is full of serious errors.
It is my belief that MORE focus should have been made to allow files to move accurately and seemlessly from / to other CAD platforms. This would allow the VW product to find its way into all workig environments.
It is my belief that the product should be made MORE intuitive and easy to learn and teach. Many firms are reluctant to use a product which has a small market share and seems to stand apart.
I believe that if some serious policy re examination is not undertaken.. the product will not survive. I see other CAD products adopting the more intuitive and user friendly features while VW offers releases that crash and burn.
This forum should be a wake up call to VW. A word to the wise is sufficient!
defjef