Is Proe "old-timer"?

[michael3130]

Gene,


Sorry, hope I didn't offend you. I have seen so many people over the years not constrain their sketches and itoften ends in tears.


I'm still using SW2006 but am intending to upgrade to 2009 soon. It will be interesting to see what you have said about the sketches. It does sound like trouble. A lot of out initial 3D CAD training was spent on how to constrain sketches properly. It seems so many people now just don't know how to sketch properly.

 

[genet]

Offend me NO I have been in the MCAD business since 89 and I just did the math over 30,000 hrs of cad time logged and pencil and paper before that with so many bosses that offend is not a word


I agree with you constraints are good and nessasary and that the new users do not understand that


I too have 09 software but have not loaded it as of yet

 

[mgnt8]

one thing in solidworks which i still haven't tried in proe is the freeform feature.the surface in the file below, was created using boundary feature between two smooth sections, and then manipulated using freeform feature , to make a sharp transition in the surface at one side which fades away at the other side.(isocurves converge at one side, locally).
might not be a good surfacing technique but it was interesting for me.

I didn't have a lot of time to fully duplicate your crease but I can say that this can be done in ISDX Surface Edit command. This could be a good way to model Cadillacs.

 

[gristle]

This has cropped up a few times in this thread - ProE has poor graphics quality.
What exactly are you refering to?
The tesselation?

 

[jeff4136]

> I haven't used the surfacing capabilities in the more
> recent versions of SW. But I think everyone will agree
> that CATIA has some pretty slick surfacing capabilities


The 'slick' stuff is incomprehensible to the average mechanical
cad modeler / user, goes way beyond picking boundaries and pushing
a button.



> (Boeing and Airbus use it for aircraft design, after all),


Yes they do but it is not stock, out of the box or entry
level Catia. Pro/E and CADDS, the Grand Old Timer from whence
Pro/E appears to have inherited some of its functions, are also
used as primary design environments in aviation. I don't think
either SW or IV make that claim due as much to other factors;
unsophisticated database management, relatively poor performance
and zero relevant integrated extensibility if my guess is right,
as to lack of descriptive capabilities.



> and if the same DLLs are in SW,


Hearsay about some DLLs. What functions?


IF SW application programmers create the surface definition; e.g.
list of control vertices, knot vectors and attributes and feed
that definition to the Parasolid kernel for subsequent operations
and topology management then it is possible Dassault helped them.


IF SW application programmers just collect user input and feed that
to the Parasolid kernel and it creates the surface definition then
there's no application for CAA DLLs in Solidworks. Correct?



> the surfacing capabilities must be pretty good there too.


We've already covered that and ASSumptions ... well, you know.
And I still don't know what 'good' is. Good because you can
easily create a surface to close up a hole in a shell? No one
knows anything until we get more specific than 'surfacing'.



> I have seen demos


Oh, please.*



> have all the B-spline manipulation capabilities of Pro/E,
> and then some.


I've never seen evidence of that and doubt its true. Nor have I
seen evidence that it has all the surface definition capabilities
of Pro/E. I posted a link to this ...
[url]http://www.mcadcentral.com/proe/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30 109&PN=1[/url]
... in one of the last big 'my cad's better'n yours' discussions.
I still haven't seen a Solidworks version. When I do I'll attach
some value to that person's opinion.



> I have spent most of my CAD time for the last seven
> years making relatively simple parts and drawings here
> in the Silicon Valley ... All of my customers and suppliers
> are running SW: none run Pro/E any more (and most never did).


Ok. If it's true then we are finally getting around to defining
an environment, a frame of reference within which to view
opinions put forth and within which they are more likely to
be valid than any global sense. All uses of CAD are not equal.



> This is probably due to ...


Maybe. I take what the (you have to pay them for their reports)
reputable analysts say with a grain of salt. Bottom line: SW
suits their needs. There are applications and environments where
that's true enough.


*There are about half a dozen Solidworks users on the internet that
I've watched for years. I've seen examples of their, some quite
impressive, complex geometry models, seen how they solve problems
with the software, I pay attention when they say something about
the software. Watching demos and then saying; "X is ahead of Y",
is way too jon for me.

 

[cristelino]

Maybe i"m wrong.

I never worked for aerospace industry but i don"t understand WHY all people said or think the shape of planes are very complicated?.

I agree;difficult to be Pipping Engineer to Prat &Withney or any engine plane fabricants,dificult to be Stress Engineer or non standard materials job for aerospace industry,or cabling engineer in the same field.

But the mechanichal shapes are simple in aerospace.In my opinion the latest Formula 1 car shape have more complicated surface than the latest plane.

I saw a lot of moulds with more complicated instance of surfaces design than every plane.

















Edited by: cristelino

 

[zpaolo]

This has cropped up a few times in this thread - ProE has poor graphics quality.
What exactly are you refering to?
The tesselation?

I have no problem with Pro/E tassellation as long as I maximize quality settings in viewer.

If "graphics quality" refers to rendering, this is a field where, up to WF4, the results are far from perfect IMO. WF5.0 is much better with integration of Mental Ray.

Last but not least, if "graphics quality" refers to the "wow" factor of realtime rendering (like in NX), it's not so useful for me, never felt the need for it. And it is already in WF4.0 although default scenes are quite dull, gotta try WF4 with scenes from WF5

Paolo

PS: I hope, really hope, that "graphics quality" doesn't refer to the user interface...

 

[design-engine]

Even solid works cheer leaders agree that the large assemblies of the military satellite and aircraft applications brings solid works to a slumbering halt. She just can't handle the large assemblies. Top down design is getting more mature but still is in it's infancy.

Maybe 2010 those enhancements will be made?

I was talking to a contractor last night for one of the major satellite manufactures in DC and he said there are solidworks cheer leaders there too. They got the ear of management because of all the lazy slow workers that don't want to learn... and they put together a benchmark test.

Conclusion:
Management told them solid works cheer leaders to pipe down or get a job someplace else.

 

[jeff4136]

Cristelino,


I think you are looking at a lot of different things without
understanding or discriminating between complex and complicated,
not understanding the shape definition criteria.


Mechanical shapes and system routing; simple surface definitions
(mostly primitives), lots of details, combinations of feature shapes.


Likewise(?) the F1 or complex mold; combinations of more shapes and
transitions between them.


The airplane's shape has fewer features than the F1, at least when
viewed from a distance and considering only the overall envelope.
The shape definition criteria will be similar; fine control of
curvatures and rates. On the airplane its to alter flow characteristics,
pressure distributions, reduce drag, eliminate that nasty supersonic
rumble over the canopy, yadadada.


I thought this ...
http://www.darcorp.com/docman_uploads/AeroPack%20Manual.pdf
... was an interesting, low cost, glimpse into discipline specific
concepts and functions. It's also worth noting that Concepts 3D,
the associated modeler was $1000 - $1500, if I remember correctly,
and seems to have features similar to some probably being thought
of by some of the discussion participants ...
http://www.csi-concepts.com/advancedcover.htm
... and having a minor jon moment of my own; "Lockheed Martin, ...".
http://www.csi-concepts.com/PR/pr040505.htm


(Seems I remember a post by someone in Boeing's wind tunnel model shop
a while back. It would be interesting to hear other views from people
closer to the subject than I am.)

 

[solidworm]

I didn't have a lot of time to fully duplicate your crease but I can say that this can be done in ISDX Surface Edit command. This could be a good way to model Cadillacs.

Thnaks mgnt8, i'll give that a try.

 

[dgs]

I haven't used the surfacing capabilities in the more recent versions of SW. ...


I have spent most of my CAD time for the last seven years making relatively simple parts and drawings here in the Silicon Valley, with no more than a few hundred parts in the final product.

I agree with Jeff, now we are getting a frame of reference on your remarks. Never used SW surfacing, modeling simple parts and modest assemblies. Yet, SW is better than Pro|E in surfacing. Has to be because it's related to Catia and Catia is top notch, right? Have you used Catia, or do you just "know" that too?

... here in the Silicon Valley ... All ofmy customers and suppliers are running SW: none run Pro/E any more (and most never did).

So, the folks in your industry in your city and in your contacts list are exclusively SW, therefore that's how the world rolls. In my experience, we get more requests for engineering and design work from companies (around the world) using Pro|E than SW. What does that mean? Noting. Maybe that's indicative of the world wide trend, maybe not. It's meaningless as is yours.

... most companies around here have recognized the ease of adapting SW (lots of users, easy to learn, Certified Windows Application, great graphics) versus Pro/E (fewer users, difficult to learn, lower productivity, poor graphics quality).

You keep saying SW has more users/is growing faster than Pro|E, but have never provided any stats. Ever. I've called you on it several times. Show me stats. Maybe it is, I don't know and I don't care enough to go digging, but it really bugs me when folks throw these claims out with no justification but their own personal experience and opinions. As I've said more than once, in 2007 Dick Harrison said at PTC|User in Tampa that the overall CAD market was growing 5% while Pro|E was up 15%. Hardly shrinking. What's SW doing?

Your opinions are fine, but don't state them as facts. And don't tell us that you know something (Pro|E vs. SW surfacing) that you have no real experience in.

 

[solidworm]

Bart,
what extra assembly functionality does proe offer, compared to solidworks? how is the top down design more mature in ProE?
Thanks.

 

[michael3130]

Hey guys and gals,


It's getting pretty heated in here. A lot of comments to p!ss other people here. A lot of negative attitude and bah humbug just before Chrimbo.


I was in Hong Kong at the beginning of November for 10days and spent a couple of those days in China. You can get 7 films on DVD, 2 music CDs, SW2009 and ProE WF3 all for about US$15.......allegedly

What a bargain!!!!

 

[[-Skint-]]

Lol michael... heres me just arguing about software piracy over in the rendering section

I hope you made a visit to The Peak restaurant in Hong Kong whilst you was there ? Great views over the city !

 

[solidworm]

no big deal! you can find ProE and solidworks here for 1 or 2 bucks!

 

[michael3130]

Skint,


Yes, I spent a very windy and cold evening at the Peak surrounded by tourists. The views were amazing. The tram is so cool.


My hotel was on the Kowloon side of the harbour so had a great view. Unfortunately with a the weak pound the exchange rate wasn't great so didn't get too many bargains but it is an amzing place. I was there on business signing off a project and the people there were fantastic though had to work a number of late nights......and no matter how much Chinese beer I had I still refused to try the chicken feet

 

[cristelino]

jeff4136

for that Proe is also Powerfull.

In aerospace industry the shapes are already defined by the equations.

Thanks; i really understand difference between complex and complicated.

Also F1 use " wind tunnel model"

F1 cars are plane wings fliped 180 degree.Air pressure push F1 car down.

I will read posted links and answer after


Thanks once again

 

[design-engine]

Shapes of planes are and can be most complex esp when you add the Stealth variables.

solidworm:I have not looked at SW2009 but the top down ordeal in earlier versions pre SW2008 is not much better than that of Pro/ENGINEER from 1995.Thats real important for managing large assemblies and a huge deal from the Aircraft manufacturers. Not that big of a deal for a hand held dentist tool... although with top down modeling skills one could prove out a design (not just model it faster) and manage the 20 mods required from marketing, sales, manufacturing, ergonomics, patent law folks, and the owner of the company.Top down design makes those changes fluid if don't correctly.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[[-Skint-]]

Michael.


haha you wimp.... I stayed in Hong Kong for 5 days but also spent 3 weeks in deepest darkest china, where there wasnt much else other than chickens feet and cats/dogs on the menu`s lol. The first week my body was in a mess, the rest of the time I was eating most thing ( some still alive ) YUK !!


I also stayed in Kowloon, next time you go... take a taxi trip out to Stanley Bay...about 30 - 40 minutes away, theres a beach you can chill on and the bars etc all serve Guinness

 

[jeff4136]

> In aerospace industry the shapes are already defined by the equations.


If the implication is; "the modeler's job is already done", nothing could be
further from the truth. There are parallels to auto body styling. A shape,
i.e. a wing / fuselage fairing, might start as a simple conic fillet foundation
then be refined piecewise or by degree elevation to adjust contours. The
driving criteria, aesthetic appearance or flow characteristics, tolerances,
etc. may differ but the manipulations are similar as is the need to transition
between foundation shapes.


> Thanks; i really understand


The more I learn the better I understand the scope of what I don't understand. ;^)


> fliped 180 degree.


As are some tailplanes / horizontal stabilizers. Verticals are often biased
to compensate for torque, maybe other factors.


> I will read posted links and answer after


It's sorta interesting. That's the only reference to the term "polyconic"
I've ever run across and I keep thinking to look more closely or further.
My initial guess was that a VSS with Rho varied as a function of trajpar
would be an approximate representation (the VSS creates a nonrational third
degree b-spline surface, they may be creating rational second degree b-spline
surfaces or higher order second direction beziers).


Also of interest to me; seeing how a cheap modeler has provided user interface
to ACIS library functions that a more expensive program has not (until very
recently if at all). I wonder if the same is true of Parasolid applications.
I don't have any Parasolid documentation, know, for instance, if Solidworks'
fill / patch function is a Parasolid library function call or if the
application developer must create the surface definition (quite possibly with
a CAA derived function). I suspect the former but that's just a guess.