No Magic MagicDraw Reviews

We use it for model based system engineering (MDSE).

I think one of the key things is the plugins for integration with requirements management tools like Doors. I think this is very helpful.

No Magic MagicDraw provides a lot of good features on functionality.

The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to those of the other companies are really a big area for improvement.

The other area would be having some profiles and ready-to-use patterns. It's something that is missing in MagicDraw compared to that in other tools. I think that it would be very helpful to have such profiles and ready-to-use patterns that would kickstart any architecture asset.

Licensing is expensive for this solution.

I believe that the overall UX needs to be completely reformed. The UI UX of the tool is not really user-friendly.

I've been using MagicDraw for probably three years now.

Our experience with technical support was positive. They responded in 24 to 48 hours.

I think the overall setup was very straightforward and easy; nothing was really complex. It took a minimal amount of time given that it's on-premises.

I did the deployment myself.

The licensing is on a yearly basis, and it's expensive. This is one of the qualms of this solution, and that's one of the reasons why we're not going to continue using it.

I would rate it at seven on scale from one to ten because it's still a good tool. It provides a lot of good features on functionality but still has room for improvement.

Before you start implementing No Magic MagicDraw, I would definitely recommend that you look at other solutions. You could take a look at Sparks and compare both Sparks and MagicDraw before you proceed with MagicDraw.

We use No Magic MagicDraw for modeling systems.

The product is user-friendly. There is a lot of documentation available on the Internet to understand its functionality.

The product is very expensive. There could be a trial version for students. It will be helpful.

The initial setup process is pretty straightforward.

I rate the pricing a ten out of ten. It is an expensive product compared to software for model-based system engineering.

I rate No Magic MagicDraw a nine out of ten.

We use MagicDraw for model-based systems engineering. It differs from standard systems engineering applications by using models, as opposed to words or sheets. We define our system or subsystems via models and interfaces and then define the relationships between them.

It is used mostly during the design phase of all of our projects. After the production and testing phases, it is no longer used.

This solution can be customized to your needs.

The technical support is very good.

It is easy to set up and use.

The cost of upgrading the product should be lower.

It would be useful if there were a way of comparing the production and design models. It is not necessary because there are other tools to validate the design but having it included would be good.

I have been using MagicDraw for more close to four years.

It is very stable. They also update the software and when they do, they send an email to let us know what has changed and what new features we can use.

We have six users in the company.

I have been in contact with technical support and they are always there to help you. Whenever I need something, they help me. For example, I was trying to create numbers for a subsystem that followed a pattern like A1, A2, A3... but I could not find it in the program. When I contacted support, they told me that it was possible and they taught me how to do it. In the end, I was able to do it.

The initial setup is very easy.

I set up this software and the Teamwork Server that we use to allow multiple people to work on the same projects. After receiving the software, it took me less than a week to deploy it.

In addition to the initial cost, you have to pay annually for support in order to get the upgrades.

My advice to anybody who is designing complex projects, like defense projects or space projects, is that they have to use this program or one like it. All of the stakeholders have to understand that they need to review the product using models, in addition to the documents. Following this will ensure that it is very easy to understand the product that is being designed. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I use No Magic MagicDraw, but Cameo is the system engineering tool. I'm a system engineer, and I use No Magic MagicDraw for system architecture, requirement management, system simulation, and threat studies.

We use a framework related to system engineering called MagicGrid.

The most valuable feature of No Magic MagicDraw is the simulation capabilities and interface.

The price of the solution could be reduced.

I have been using No Magic MagicDraw for approximately seven years.

I rate the stability of No Magic MagicDraw a seven out of ten.

We have approximately 300 people using this solution in my large company.

I rate the scalability of No Magic MagicDraw a seven out of ten.

I have used PTC Integrity and Eac. I did not switch from using these two solutions to No Magic MagicDraw, they all have different use cases.

The initial setup of No Magic MagicDraw is simple. The deployment took approximately three days.

I rate the initial setup of No Magic MagicDraw an eight out of ten.

The price of No Magic MagicDraw could improve. The price of the solution is too expensive for smaller-sized companies. There should be a better pricing model.

I rate the price of No Magic MagicDraw a six out of ten.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate No Magic MagicDraw an eight out of ten.

It's now called Cameo Enterprise Architect 19. It is my system engineering tool.

I do systems engineering. If you go to my website, www.simtrs.com, there are simulation and training for this solution. You will see the benefits of MagicDraw and how I use it.

I use it for systems engineering and life cycle systems engineering, and even for deployment. The beauty of MagicDraw is that it has a simulation part, so you can simulate your model to validate it. The simulation allows you to bring in code off of an external code that you can write to set up the simulation and execute the code.

We are getting away from the old ways of writing a lot of papers and requirements documents, architecture documents, technical solution documents, interface documents - those days are gone. MagicDraw allows you to model the requirements and by doing so, you've got a good chance of not missing any requirements. The old way of doing things was to decompose the requirements into shell statements.

But when you model it, you will be able to practically make sure you don't miss anything. MagicDraw has a good modeling tool you use for case diagrams. Its use case diagram is part of the UML and SysML that you can use to model requirements to create an architecture. I've created a lot of architectures for the Army and also mapped those components of the architecture as the test procedures.

I wouldn't say anything negative about No Magic MagicDraw. But there is a steep learning curve. The steep learning curve applies to two things - system engineering and INCOSE. INCOSE, I-N-C-O-S-E international systems engineering. INCOSE is what most people use today for system engineering, for building systems, and deploying and maintaining them in a full life cycle. For MagicDraw there is a steep learning curve if you don't have the system engineering domain experience because a lot of folks go in there and say, "Okay, I'm going to do model-based system engineering." MagicDraw has a model-based system engineering tool but it only allows you to draw the diagram or the model. Then you need to understand the relationships between the processes and activities.

So some people can pick it up, but it's a steep learning curve. You have to do the correct keystrokes to portray what it is you're really trying to do. You take a picture, an ER diagram, Entity Relationship diagram, which is a diagram that shows all the components and how they relate to each other, not just an arrow. You can say this component influences another component or another component enables integration, etc... Things like that. You have to know what your relationships are and MagicDraw allows you to do that really well.

But they do provide manuals. They have a lot of manuals that you can go through for each plug-in they have. You have the system engineering piece, and then you have the DoDAAC, which is the DOD architecture. They use what they call a UPDM, that's a DoDAAC standard. You also have the UAF. System Ellis is the base for everything, but you've got other pieces for the government first. When working for the government, they require that you do your architecture using the DoDAAC. So it has the DoDAAC too, because the government likes certain things. It depends on who your customer is and what they want.

For the next releases, I would like to have them import requirements from other sources. They could make it very easy to do that because there are a lot requirements management tools like DOORS, D-O-O-R-S, Dynamic Object Oriented Management. A lot of folks use DOORS to create a requirement. For those requirements you allocate them to a component in the architecture and a verification method for that requirement. It would be good if we could import those into MagicDraw as components so you don't have to manually do these things.

I have been using No Magic MagicDraw for about 10 years.

The way MagicDraw scales is very good. You have the team server which allows a lot of people to use the product for a specific path. I can create different pieces because you don't want to have hundreds of sheets of the same model. Imagine you're flying a plane and you come over a city and see the view from 10,000 feet. But then as you come down you come into more details. When you're on the ground you'll be going to a bathroom, for example. If you want a model of the bathroom you've got to be able to set it up.

MagicDraw will scale that way, but someone has to be able to set it up to give you that granularity. You can get the bird's eye view or you can get the pie in the sky. It's like you are in an aircraft. You can see the city, but as you come down lower, you see the cars start running on the freeways. And as you get lower, you can see the toll booths and the gas stations. That is how it scales, but you have to have the ingenuity to be able to model it so that you can flip from model to model, which it allows. But it would be nice if I could have hyperlinks in there, where I could take the big model, click and see, just like you see Google Earth.

As you click it further up and down, it gets bigger and smaller and smaller and smaller until you get down to the very house that you live in. It'd be nice if they add hyperlinks or something like that so your customer wouldn't have to be an expert in MagicDraw. Because the way it is now, I have to import it to JPEG's or to files and organize it in such a way that it would take me a lot of time to describe what an architecture is. This is especially true for large systems. For small systems it's not a problem but for large systems it can be. For example, if you want to draw an architectural automobile, you start with the basics. But then when you start drilling down into the engine and the carburetor and all those different things, it can get very hairy. So you've got to be able to organize it in such a way and that capability isn't there. You have to do that manually.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give No Magic MagicDraw a nine.

Overall I find it very effective and the customers are happy with it.

I am using MagicDraw as part of my research project.

The most valuable feature of this solution would be model-based system engineering. The MBSE capability of MagicDraw is higher than the other competitors.

The documentation for MagicDraw and the video tutorials compared to other competitors is an area for improvement.

In the next release, I would like to see more profiles and ready to use patterns. Rather than working from scratch, I would like to be able to tap into these patterns.

Some of the other competitors have that capability and I think that it is extremely helpful.

It's a stable solution. We have not had any issues.

I am not able to assess the scalability as we have not attempted to scale beyond the initial installation.

My experience with technical support was good.

I haven't interacted with them often but their response was reasonably fast. I usually get a response within 24 to 48 hours.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We completed the implementation in-house.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use MagicDraw for software design from scratch. We redesigned an electric signature in the last year. It is a good tool. It's a little better than Enterprise Architect. But we cannot delegate the final processes to the user client. I need to export the results to Confluence where the client can check it.

The licenses are expensive compared to similar tools. At the moment, the user is open to using MagicDraw if it's 15% more than other solutions. If it were to cost any more, they wouldn't use it. 

-

Technical support is okay. If we have a question, they respond. 

The initial setup is complex. The repository has to be installed. It's complex and it should be easier. Our clients are enterprise-sized. They have 60 people who work in software development. This company only focuses on a certain project. We also work with a medium-sized company that has bigger projects. 

The only other solution I know is Enterprise Architect. I got reports for the BI. My company is looking to take a step forward and closer to BI solutions. I looked at solutions that we can use for development in the next year.

I would rate MagicDraw a nine out of ten because of the price. Enterprise Architect has a lot of bugs and MagicDraw is a lot more accurate and flexible. It's a level better. 

Used for Business and Systems Engineering modeling. Its role is to support a defense program that consists of multiple product lines.

No Magic software has great capabilities in supporting integrated business and systems modeling.

No Magic has the tools and capabilities to model a complete enterprise and all product lines.

For the most part, No Magic is a great tool for modeling. However, there are some technical features that you have to study and do research on to be able to understand.