Continue to Site

Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Register Log in

Solidworks vs. ProE

Thanks Bart,
There were just too many people saying I was making it
up. So,I figured if they fire me for it I'll just go
find a different job.

Here is a screen shot of the Pro/E model tree I was
given.



Compared to the solidworks Tree:



Not sure what their agenda was but it wasn't to create a
fair comparison.
Edited by: Bugzuki
 
So, how did you get the curve to be continuous over the
mirror line.

One thing I wish for is to be able to create fillets in
sketcher that were curvature continuous. That would help
ease that transition at the top where there is a tangent
transition.

I like how you used a sketch to help define the VSS.

Nice job on the model Jeff.
 
cant in proe. Just looks like it in the zebra stripes.

I made that suggestion. Thats a different committee and would require cross communication.
 
Hey Jeff, from looking at what you do with VSS I can see that I am only scratching the surface!!!


They really did bulk up the model in Proe. I've been working a lot with a reseller of solidworks to see what it can do, its come a long way but I dont find it as efficient to work with as ProE, and I have used SW for nearly as long as Proe.


Paddy


PS Jeff did you do a course on that VSS tool or something?? I'm seriously impressed!!
 
I have to admit, my VSS skills are Very limited. Thats some impressive work there Jeff
smiley32.gif
. Hmm maybe I`m going to go on a course specifically for the VSS feature lol.
 
> how did you get the curve to be
> continuous over the mirror line


If the curve tangent vector / direction is normal to the
mirror line / plane the mirrored continuity will be G2(+,
e.g. Control Vertices 1, 2, 3, ..., are symetrical across
the mirror). The same is true for a surface if the same can
be said for its isoparametric curves (or, more specifically,
its control polyhedron) are symmetric, as will be the case
with a swept surface when the section is controlled by
suitable, normal to mirror, trajectory curves.
2008-10-17_070718_mirrored_continuity-wf2.prt.zip


> create fillets in sketcher
> that were curvature continuous


You can with varying degrees of effort and satisfaction.
Continuity, like everything else, has a tolerance. In
many situations the "aesthetic" goal can be satisfied by
2:1 mismatches in end point R(curvature). Conic arcs,
rather than circular arcs, are relatively easy to set up.
Sketcher splines can be constrained G2 (not very useful
for VSS sections), elliptical (sketcher) fillets can be
tried. More complex bezier and b-spline controls can be
also be set up. They offer more flexibility than Sketcher
Constrants (are more suitable for VSS sections) but are
tedious to construct and require some knowledge of curve
definitions. (Sketch 7 in wazzit2-wf2.prt is
representatitve. Note the explicit Control Vertex
dimensioning / constraints and knot constraint as well
as the use of Convert To -> Spline to combine the line
segments and corner spline segment into a single curve.)


For the transition from side to top of that shape a conic
Round may be satisfactory for 'softening' the transition.


> do a course on that VSS tool


No, just a lot of experimentation with the function
learning the nuances of section plane and section curve
control, etc.
 
I say "approach g2" across the mirror plane...Now in Alias Studio it is more evident to get those CV points in a four or five degree NURBS curve to line up.Pro/E is not quite there yet and I understand that there will be no push for that quality in the near future.
Edited by: design-engine
 
Where the mentioned conditions are met*: it is G2. There is
nothing subjective about that, no grey area to be interpreted.
It can be proven by analysis. It's not a manipulation but is
inherent to the mirroring process**.


The reason I say "(+)" is because I ~think~ it actually satisfies
C2 definitions (in addition to CV0->CV1 segment lengths being equal
and CV2 offsets being equal, CV1->CV2 segment lengths are equal).


If the trace curve of a curvature graph is normal to the mirror
plane; what degree of continuity across a mirror plane is
indicated? Why? (It's a question. I have a theory and think I can
dig up substantiating 'documentation'.)


*I should mention, as it may cause confusion, that in the model
wazzit2-wf2.prt, Var Sect Sweep 3 & 4; there is a dihedral angle
mismatch of almost 1 degree across the ZX plane. That slipped by
me and, had I noticed, I would've tried to correct it or refrained
from presenting it as a suggestion as better continuity across the
mirror plane was an assumed requirement.


**Maybe that should be qualified. There may be some caveats that
are dependent on how model accuracy is set up. My assumption is
that when a curve or quilt is mirrored the CV & knot structure
is mirrored. I may be wrong. Also; if a Feature is mirrored,
rather than the geometry, in a Relative Accuracy model all bets
may be off.
 
> That slipped by me ...


Stuff like that bugs me. Revisiting it; (fwiw) it appears
the problem was an unanticipated effect of model accuracy
that resulted in the edges of Var Sect Sweep 2 not being
perpendicular to the mirror plane, as was the assumption.
Removing reference to the offending edge in subsequent
sweeps (VSS 3 & 4) results in the desired zero degree
dihedral angles when the quilts are mirrored.
2008-10-18_185657_wazzit2-wf2-mod.prt.zip
 
We should make a discussion about Max dihedral angle. Under 1 is tangent I presume...Can you use dihedral angle to verify continuity?I didn't think so but I would like to understand that math in more detail.

I define g2 five different ways and A class is defend by three definitions.

g2 can be defined by:
1 if you can take a derivative of the comb plot to get back to the original equation hence the curve in question where it joins another curve.
2 Guass analysis: Gauss is usually used to check for concavity vs convexity issues. But Gauss shaded analysis can be used at where two surfaces join to understand curvature.
3 Comb Plot
4 zebra stripes
5 Shinny surfaces with a crisp specular highlight

Surface normals is useless to understand curvature but it could be considered possible because it uses x/r for the length of the curve normal jetting out from a surface.

Jeff: you should be on the PTC surfacing technical committee with me if your not already.

Ill post on sunday... got a hot date!
Edited by: design-engine
 
I have been using Pro-e for 15 yrs. When I bought SolidWorks for the first time (much cheaper) it was easy to use an intuitive. Sometimes it is not the software that sucks, it's the person trying to use it.
smiley2.gif


As a contractor I stay up with both, I would recommend SW to 80% of companies but Pro-e has the edge.




Fred Heys
 
A couplechoice quotes from Bart's link page above:


"None of the military 'defense contractors' use Solidworks"


"Intent manager is a prime example. in solidworks (when constraining a sketch) you actually have to use the dimension tool to dimension in order to constrain"


If I made a living training people how to use overly complicated andantiquesoftware with dwindling market share, I too would make these statements. Afterall, not a lot of training is required to use SolidWorks. The two abovequotes are false by ignorance or malice.
 
Some Military contract agencies use solidworks. In pockets. But they cant submit a finished design to their database.

And simply stated... solidwokrs does not yet have an intent manager. Once a solidowrks user tried to show me where I was wrong and I quickly realized he had no idea what intent manager was.In the end the high-end solidworks users said "why would you want that". I think I said the same thing in 1998 when version 20 was released with intent manager.

Tell me where I am wrong.The only thing being done out of ignorance is when people who cheer about solidworks.
Edited by: design-engine
 
I have been to Bart's Pro-E training class, and found it helpful. Design-Engine provides some "real world" examples in its training class. I do need to make a correction, however, about SW not having an intent manager.

SolidWorks 2007 uses a tool called "fully defined sketch", and it is similar to the intent manager in Pro-E. After finishing the sketch in SW, if the sketch is not fully constrained, this tool will constrain the sketch. There are occasions where it does have problems, and this may have been solved in SW 2009. I plan to move to SW 2009 soon after SP 2.0 is released.

As an independant contractor/consultant, I have locally seen less demand for Pro-E work from clients (unless I am willing to work onsite). So I currently tend to favor SW as a CAD tool because my clients allow me to work offsite from my home office. You should use whichever CAD software brings in the most income and pays the bills.

I have complained about SW's ability to handle large assemblies, and SW 2009 is supposedly better at this. The demo's look promising, but I will not know until I test it.
 
c_thompson_68



I use SW 2008 and have never had the software fully define the sketch for me when I finish the sketch. I have the option set so I have to have a fully defined sketch and I get a warning that the sketch is not fully contrained and it will not let me leave the sketch until it is.


Am I missing something?


Kevin
Edited by: kbrault
 
what is really called the "intent manager"? is it the part of the sketcher responsible to create automatic relations and the weak dimensions?
i don't quite understand the need for weak dimensions. why does the user need to see them? i have disabled showing weak dimensions .
as far as i can see, both systems work with under defined sketches. some geometries really need to be underdefined like splines.


Edited by: solidworm
 
Kevin,

Here is a post of the SW forum that discusses the "fully defined sketch" tool. I suspect you where missing the calculate step discussed in the response below. Let me know if this solves the problem.

Here is the link to this question on the SW forum:

[url]http://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=10&a mp;threadid=15018&highlight_key=y&keyword1=fully%20d efine%20sketch[/url]

Question: SW Fully Defined Sketch
In SW08SP3, what rules must I comply with for my sketches to be Fully Defined?



How should I respond to the messages:-



"Fully defined sketch is complete but is still undefined"?



"The sketch can now find a valid solution - Select the desired solution and press accept" (no solution is offered)?


Response:
this simply means you have an un-constrained entity, (basically not enough dimensions to make it 3D)



there is an Auto Dimension functionality known as Fully Defined Sketch



Whilst in sketch mode



Simply select origin ( or entities to dimension from)

and press icon for Fully Defined Sketch

or Tools>Dimensions>Fully Defined Sketch



then choose from radio Button

All entities or selected entities and press Calculate ,



This then Auto Dimension the sketch ( and fully define)


Edited by: c_thompson_68
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top