hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 28 replies
  • Subscribers 18 subscribers
  • Views 590 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

PC-DMIS Enhancements via Google Moderator

Brian Gudauskas
Have any of you ever used Google Moderator? Google Moderator

I'm considering starting one for forum users for PC-DMIS enhancements. Thoughts?

It wouldn't be "official", it'd be something I use to help forum users vote on their most requested enhancement.

It's just an idea based off of the many requests I get.

thanks.
  • Have any of you ever used Google Moderator? Google Moderator

    I'm considering starting one for forum users for PC-DMIS enhancements. Thoughts?

    It wouldn't be "official", it'd be something I use to help forum users vote on their most requested enhancement.

    It's just an idea based off of the many requests I get.

    thanks.

    Is it somehow going to be more effective than calling 1-800-343-7933?

    I'll take a wild guess and say not. We don't need more ways to ask for the same things over and over, we need for Hexagon/Wilcox to listen and respond.

    You are getting badgered and hounded because you are one here defending the status quo. If you think you are tired of it, try asking for the same things for years and always hearing, "I am in the same boat you are, I might have a little more pull with the developers, but all I can do is submit the issues and wait." I have heard that statement almost word for word from so many Hexagon employees now I think it must be at least the first half of Hexagon Orientation Day 1.
  • I wouldn't suggest it if it was less effective.

    Wes, send me the things you have been asking for over and over, and seriously I will answer every one for you (one way or another). It's a large software with even a larger user base. There is much simpler software that does a lot less that are willing to risk the ire of the handful of users they have in order to make changes. We have to validate changes, and it gets worse when we say yes. Yes to backward and forward compatibility, yes to nearly any PC, yes to most versions of Windows, yes to most CAD systems, if someone wants to do it on some piece of measuring equipment, we say yes a lot. 100's of changes go in every year, and there are many more than that of seats, and even more requests than that a year. Simple math will tell you that it's impossible to do every request, probably impossible to do even a majority of them.

    I'm not making excuses, but try to understand the size of the task. I'm just trying to help, but at some point you can insult me enough to make me question whether it's worth it to try to help here. Instead, I can just do things behind the scenes for customers who contact me directly, and get help. I'm not 100% successful, but I do work very hard at it, and I have gotten things changed many times.

    Please only respond to the original question, let's keep this on task. Thanks.


    The idea, BTW, with moderator, is that we vote on the improvements, and therefore the best ones float to the top.

    We collect the top three every so often, and ask for them with a large number of "votes" behind them.


    I think it's a good idea, but so far Wes has voted against. Anyone else?



    Is it somehow going to be more effective than calling 1-800-343-7933?

    I'll take a wild guess and say not. We don't need more ways to ask for the same things over and over, we need for Hexagon/Wilcox to listen and respond.

    You are getting badgered and hounded because you are one here defending the status quo. If you think you are tired of it, try asking for the same things for years and always hearing, "I am in the same boat you are, I might have a little more pull with the developers, but all I can do is submit the issues and wait." I have heard that statement almost word for word from so many Hexagon employees now I think it must be at least the first half of Hexagon Orientation Day 1.
  • I wouldn't suggest it if it was less effective.

    Wes, send me the things you have been asking for over and over, and seriously I will answer every one for you (one way or another). It's a large software with even a larger user base. There is much simpler software that does a lot less that are willing to risk the ire of the handful of users they have in order to make changes. We have to validate changes, and it gets worse when we say yes. Yes to backward and forward compatibility, yes to nearly any PC, yes to most versions of Windows, yes to most CAD systems, if someone wants to do it on some piece of measuring equipment, we say yes a lot. 100's of changes go in every year, and there are many more than that of seats, and even more requests than that a year. Simple math will tell you that it's impossible to do every request, probably impossible to do even a majority of them.

    I'm not making excuses, but try to understand the size of the task. I'm just trying to help, but at some point you can insult me enough to make me question whether it's worth it to try to help here. Instead, I can just do things behind the scenes for customers who contact me directly, and get help. I'm not 100% successful, but I do work very hard at it, and I have gotten things changed many times.

    Please only respond to the original question, let's keep this on task. Thanks.


    The idea, BTW, with moderator, is that we vote on the improvements, and therefore the best ones float to the top.

    We collect the top three every so often, and ask for them with a large number of "votes" behind them.


    I think it's a good idea, but so far Wes has voted against. Anyone else?

    I did not vote against it, I asked if it was going to be more effective.

    So anyone want to take odds against "End the one major release per year policy" being the landslide winner every single time?


  • So anyone want to take odds against "End the one major release per year policy" being the landslide winner every single time?


    6 - 1
  • I think it’s a great idea….Let the whiners take the back seat.
  • I am somewhat in Wes's court on this one. If someonereally listens, they would have heard what the real issues are.

    I think that fundamentally the problem with PC-DMIS is that it has a fragile feel to it. It seems to be cobled together with some units having a mind of their own, and not really playing ball with other portions of the software. Experienced users know exactly what works and what does not. You learn, the hard way, to avoid time wasting options, because they will cause problems later on.

    I work mainly with 2 packages: LabView from NI and PC-DMIS. LabView is HEAVEN compared to PC-DMIS. It is so incredibly robust and powerful. It is elegant and seems to always work as described. The documentation is fabulous. They have examples up the whazoo. And for that wonderful product, you pay $4k for the complete full version with all bells and whistles!

    Then I have to work with PC-DMIS. I have to back-up every second of the day because serialization:alt is looming behind every key stroke, wiping out my program. I am installing 2010 now on WIN7: why do I have to first install 2010, delete it and install 2009, delete it and then re-install 2010? That's the only way to get it to work (same procedure on 4 different computers now). Try to use a "-" in a feature name (oh what fun). And on and on. It is a great tool but it is expensive and fragile.

    Why can NI create a product for $4k that is incredibly robust? PC-DMIS is expensive and remains cluttered and not cohesive, while providing great functionality if you know how to circumvent the pitfalls.

    In the past, I have compared PC-DMIS with a fixer upper. Somebody, long time ago, build a small nice little house. Then another person build on a family room. Another one a bedroom. Then a play room. Then later a nice rec room etc etc etc. The house now has all the amenities and 10,000 sqft, but it just feels as if there was no plan behind all this. It is just a hodgepodge of functionality, thrown together somewhat willly-nilly. That's the problem with PC-DMIS. It has all you want, but you have to work hard at making it do what you want it to do. And that turns into people worried about ROI: it is just hard to justify sometimes.

    My advice has always been, and will remain, that nothing but a build from scratch, can fix this problem. It is the same as going to an architect and have that person design you a 10,000sqft house and build this home from scratch. Yes, I know, sounds like XactMeasure all over again. I am a user, not a programmer. Why can NI do it and why can Hexagon not? Maybe you ought to hire some people away from NI (but then again, don't: I like my LabView).
  • Labview and PC-DMIS are simply in different leagues with what they have to accomplish, number of seats (millions for Labview, do the math on that), etc.

    My moderator suggestion was directed only at the "they never put in what we want", I was hoping to collect votes on popular ideas that maybe we miss because users don't want to call technical support to ask for them.

    You guys all think that less releases is what everyone wants, but I constantly hear complaints when we don't support a new probe, or a Windows 64, or new versions of CAD, etc etc. Even Windows updates cause us to have to update often. It's very hard to please everyone, so I was hoping for a way to find out what was really desired.

    I'm open to other ideas. Telling me "just fix it" won't work, I know that already. And it's already central to everything we (including myself) are doing. Along with being most used and most loved, comes most picked on. We always need to do better, and we will.


    PS: Moving this thread, I put in CMM's because it's more PC-DMIS, but then it's really not for CMM's only.
  • Brian, wilcox is the one who wants to dominate the metrology market by purchasing as much of it as they can. This leads to what we are experiencing today, attempts to make everything work using one platform. Too many variables that lead to too many "enhancements", and endusers who are left with ????
  • Hi Brian,

    I appreciate what you are attempting, and I vote yes. However I would like to have metrics as well to gauge effectiveness of your efforts.
  • That's nice, how would you propose to measure that?

    I'll consider it. If I do this, it's under my terms since I am doing the work. Today you can call technical support. What I offer is a way maybe we can get some oomph behind requests that are popular. It's just an idea.

    Hi Brian,

    I appreciate what you are attempting, and I vote yes. However I would like to have metrics as well to gauge effectiveness of your efforts.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement