Solidworks vs. ProE

[wsylvester]

You can't create a CNC program with SOLIDWORKS; that's what it is. If someone is claiming they saw another person doing so, they were in error; that's what it is. If you can't do something, but continue to try, it would take forever; that's what it is.





In error? while I haven't done it in SolidWorks I have done it in AUtoCad using VBA ,close to 6 years ago, longer if you include doing it in Lisp.


With SolidWorks having VBA then there would be no reason not to be able to tweak the Acadvba code to suitSW's object library. Granted you're not going to do complex surfacing, but a good deal of parts are just profiles,pockets and holes.


Manycnc machines have canned pocket routines that only need the boundries do to pockets.. those 3 digit g codes that no one uses. quite a bit can been done with looping and g10 also. If one has the imagination to do so. Environiment as CncWhiz puts it.


So okaytechnically you can't do it alone with Acad or SW, but vba is included. So I consider it part of them. You just have to have a basic understanding of it. It's not that hard! So that you don't think that I'm just blowing smoke out my rear here's some partial code sniglets from Acad vba routine done 6 years ago.


No, I didn't see someone else do it, I did it. Cnc's since 75? APT? Punched cards?Those were the days

--------------------


Public obj As AcadObject
Public poly As Acad3DPolyline
Public ln As AcadLine
Public ar As AcadArc
Public pt As AcadPoint
Public pts(0 To 2) As Double


--------


Open fn For Output As #1


For Each obj In ThisDrawing.ModelSpace
'Debug.Print q, obj.ObjectName
Select Case obj.ObjectName


Case "AcDbLine"
Set ln = ThisDrawing.HandleToObject(obj.Handle)
aline


Case "AcDb3dPolyline"
Set poly = ThisDrawing.HandleToObject(obj.Handle)
apoly


------


Public Function apoly()
var = poly.Coordinates
Print #1, "G01";
For q = 0 To UBound(var) Step 3
Print #1, " X"; Format(var(q), fs); _
" Y"; Format(var(q + 1), fs) _
; " Z"; Format(var(q + 2), fs)

'pts(0) = var(q): pts(1) = var(q + 1): pts(2) = var(q + 2)
'Set pt = ThisDrawing.ModelSpace.AddPoint(pts)


Next q


End Function

 

[Heathbn]

Edited by: Heathbn

 

[wsylvester]

whoever it was who was talking about sending work out to a Mcam shop.


If your Iges'ing, then before you send it layer key geometry out, things you know they will use for their cutter paths.


Mcam levels, same thing as layers, are numbered. So use numbers for your layer names, but don't start at 1

start say at 100. Then it will be leveled out in Mcad and the programmer can hide geometry not needed for the particular cut and not have to sift thru the mire. Then if a rev. is made they can blow away the old geo. and reimport the new stuff, while keeping the cut parameters , updating the geometry thru operations manager.. cake walk.


You've help reduce your job shops time, in turn if they aren't Nasa ..lol they will pass that savings on to you, which will allow you a edge on your pricing .


IMHO

 

[rharter52]

I have been following this post for some time and now I will give my humble opinion.I have been programming CNC'S since the mid 70's and have used numerous CAM systems.If you know the machining process and techniques you want to use,you can make any CAM system work.I have been using PRO/NC since 1993 and after the long learning curve I can do just about anything,especially with a native PROE part.Granted there are some issues with imported files but I will fight to keep PRO/NC at my company.I also took the Gpost course and develop my own posts so the process is seamless.

 

[Metoo]

"Cnc's since 75? APT? Punched cards?Those were the days"


Gee, I didn't think those were the days; I don't miss it at all.





"Public Function apoly()
var = poly.Coordinates
Print #1, "G01";
For q = 0 To UBound(var) Step 3
Print #1, " X"; Format(var(q), fs); _
" Y"; Format(var(q + 1), fs) _
; " Z"; Format(var(q + 2), fs)

'pts(0) = var(q): pts(1) = var(q + 1): pts(2) = var(q + 2)
'Set pt = ThisDrawing.ModelSpace.AddPoint(pts)


Next q"


In the time it took you to write this loop a complex prismatic part could have been programmed and posted to machine code in any of the three afore mentioned CAM systems I spoke of in earlier postings. This and parametric (macros) programming is a relic of the 80's and early 90's when the cost and size ofmemory limited the program length to a few K.





As far as the old autoroutines, circles and rectangle, Fanuc did away with the more than twenty years ago, and of those machines that still use them in a 3 digit G-code - HAAS for one -I don't know any CAM systems that come with a post or sell a post, that write code to an autoroutine.





With modern controls able to directly interpolate nurbs geometry, why would anyone waste time writing a routine to generate movements from a polyline? I don't know about you, but the calender on my computer say 2009, not 1989.

 

[GLEN20]

Awsome Posts..........since my manager was released ----- I guess I can call it my maintenance and tool room (for now). Officially today, I will now manage the Maintenance and Parts group (that makes the Plant my responsibility)---- of course at the same pay rate I was making!!!! I have to think about the tool room succession plan --- half these guys can retire tomorrow (thought they were going to walk out with my manager). I think their computer says 1969 --- No Joke, I have this Giant dinousour mill that was originally made for fabricating the collars for the astraunauts helmets! No offense fellas - I would put money on my 60 year old machinist (without any CNC) against ya! This is why I mentioned outsourcing in earlier posts. IGES it is......


Check this out--- http://www.solidworkspremium.com/

 

[wsylvester]

Before you said it can't be done, oops. Now you're saying how long it took me to write the code. ..lol


You don't know me, that's right.it's more about not holding programming captive from the operators who like to take on new hats.


Never did I say that ProE doesn't kick butt. Do whatever you want -k. No need to be snide

 

[Metoo]

Again, you can't generate CNC code with Solidworks, and you didn't show an example of doing so. Your logic is twisted and misleading. By using it asthe standard, any software that includes VBA, and all software compilers would be considered CAM systems. Afterall, you don't need the obj library, you couldjust substitute equations forthe graphics geometry.


In what manner does your example make Solidworks a CAM system?

 

[cncwhiz]

I am and have done work with people that get a paper copy of the part and draw the tool path from scratch? As far as proman being the best thing for programming a CNC, I don't agree. I have been programming with pro manufacturing from rev 17. I like the fact that you can replace the part and re-post but thats about it. I don't think that the people that built pro manufacturing ever talked to a "real" machinist programmer? Why do they insist that efter every step in a pocket "by default" they retract? you will never see pro engineer in any job shop? If the company requires a model for programming and they are lucky enough to have software that will use 3d. they will be using an iges? As far as "can't be done" you need to clairfy that. If you have a macros built in a program like excel, Can you not buid an array of points and then ecport it to excel? Would that not be programming in solidworks and posting thru excel? I will continue to use pro manufacturing for the future as long as I work where it is supplied?

 

[Heathbn]

The collective Lacking of education, and knowledge of people is exactly why the USA no longer competes in manufacturing in a world market.

First of all this post is not about CNC!

Second to many of you are just tiring to piss each other off (weather they deserve it or not its a waste of time).

Third if you know anything about what you are talking about then just talk about that( you know things you have actual experience with or tried).

cncwhiz,

I'm sure you know their is many ways to create path in Pro-E.

It is true that Pro-man is much easier for people (I think by design) that use the CAD package first or also.

I ran a dedicated Pro-E shop with for 2 years.

We programed for many machines and we did it all in Pro-E.

That being said company is an engineer design company not a machining job shop.

Something usful you might want to consider.

IGES has seen its day and that day is over(IGES is and always has been a PAIN).

Step is a much better tool, and you lose much less data. This is only true however if you software is current.

OK guys if I pissed anyone off I'm sorry so plz don't aim to piss me off and i think if we are going to continue talking about this topic we should start a new one.
Right?

 

[Metoo]

Yes, the IGES format has seen its day, but I believe it is still the standard neutral format forelectronic file transfer for DOD jobs, and has been since 1982. That being said, the contractor has to deliver in the format agreed to in the contract.


Obviously, STEP will supplant IGES, as IGES is an old format not capable of defining solid elements; just surfaces andlines, points, arcs, and splines... I'm not sure there's any plans to release updated versions of IGES after current release (5.3?)


Very few job-shops own PRO-NC, and fewer use it. Pro-e's CAM system isn't very good compared to the top sellers in the market. There are some companies thoughthat have to have it to do business withsome defense contractors, who (claim to)use it as their primary design software. This is true of Lookheed Martin in Central Florida. There are shops producing parts for lockheed that own a copy as terms of doing business with them- none that I've dealt with actually use though.





I used to work for Lockheed, I've worked for numerous of their subcontractors, and I currently work for a company that was bought by Lookheed and is undergoing the process of being integrated into their simulation plant, but I've never seen a PRO-E file from Lockheed. Over the years I've seen UG, Catia, Solidworks, Mastercam, Espirit, but never a Pro-e file. One ofLockheed's shop managers told me that they don't use Pro-e either; that they refuse to use itbecause it was "junk"; they use Catia and Espirit instead. Back in 2002 I had another from the misiles and fire control planttry to hire me because of my MASTERCAM programming experience. His comments about Pro-e were much the same; they refused to use it too.





"First of all this post is not about CNC"


The thread is about Solidworks compared to Pro-e. If you'd bother to read up the thread a little ways you'll find a poster that lauded how fast he was able to program a part in Pro-e after watching another person spend days trying to program it in Solidworks. So, the comparison was made. Albeit,the truth of the statement is doubtful since you CAN'T program a part in Solidworks. Coming up with caviats about accessing VB through DWG Editor (which is not Solidworks; its DWG Editor given away free by SOlidworks Corp), was silly.


Nevertheless, there are often questionable statements made on this forum. One made earlier in this thread where a person claimed to have performed a modeling time test comparison between Pro-E and Solidworks by modeling the same part in both. His story sounded bogus, so after a few days of prodding him, he finally produced the part, claiming that he could get in trouble from his company for disclosing their proprietary work. There followed a flury of posts about this part, butnobody seemed to noticed thatit wasa dead-ringer of a 3-d training part published by Solidworks, not hardly one that came from the proprietary archives of his employer.


You might tire of seeing it, but if there are people who want to make such outlandishlly false statements as some have made on this forum, I'm inclined to string them along. But, you're right, so, maybe we should start a thread comparing PRO-NC to BobCAD/CAM?

 

[design-engine]

METOO: I think you got one part of your post a little mixed up. The propriety part comparison between Pro/E and Solidworks that bugzuki posted... That was not created by Solidworks training provider but by eager Solidworks fans within a major manufacturer internal ranks.

I saw the document and met with the engineers/people who made the document... The company had standardized to Pro/ENGINEER years ago and some engineers withing the group started modeling parts in solidworks against managers best wishes. Factions creating a rift within the company. To stop the dual use 'rift' of both software packages... Management made a decree that all internal work should be done in Pro/ENGINEER and it quickly became obvious to me that my job was as a trainer to help the solidworks guys become advocates of Pro/ENGINEER. To show them its the same in Pro/E and get everyone on the same page. Smooth over bad attitudes and get everyone on the same page.

The cad manager 'bugzuki' showed me the document while i was teaching a week long workshop to beginners/intermediate users. I made a point to the cad manager simply that you model the part the same in Pro/ENGINEER as you do solidworksand showed a couple surfacing tricks. The solidworks guys within the company had published a document and turned it into the managers showing how bad Pro/ENGINEER was ... slow, more menu clicks... that was the false hood. The Cad manager bugzuki then re-created the document by practicing some in SW and Pro/E and remolded each part using both tools in approximately the same time.

Switching gears some to speak about other manufactuers.
Managers don't really know Pro/E so they were looking to their engineering staff to help them make decisions. Vendors had been allowed to switch to Solidoworks and that switch was being pushed on the manufacturer. I want to simply point out that you don't let your vendor force the switch on the manufacturer. The manufacturer should force the switch to the vendor and make the use of Pro/E a mandate on their Request for Proposals.This is a common mistake with major manufacturers. Ive seen the more progressive manufactures 'always' have within their RFP detailed restrictions on how to utilize AAX and specific top down modeling techniques and no imports. As the instructor of these training classes... the progressive manufacturer hires a training group to teach a custom class for 'plastics-surfacing-top down design' The manufacturer invites a Buyer in for one day of lecture for the plastics class. The manufacture invites one representative from each industrial design firm and tooling vendor for the surfacing and top down class. All this is done for the betterment of the firm and their vendors every other year.

The strength of Pro/ENGINEER is the use of the tool from start to finish. If a vendor is not using Pro/ENGINEER then the manufacture should simply choose another vendor or get the vendor up to speed on Pro/ENGINEER. Get some backbone. If vendor wants the work they will do it.

Comments?


Question to all:

If Soldiworks does not have an NC utility, then how do the 3rd party toolks work? Does the third party tool require an export as well?or do they update like an assembly drawing? When a part is updated the tool path updates as well.The export would allow a vendor to manage scope creap but I was always tool that that was the strength of Pro/ENGINEER that everything is associative.


To HEATH:
If a complex upper housing is modified by the manufacture... the mold base simply updates... all the progressive graphite updates (electrodes) and all the multiple tool paths that create the graphite updates.A complex Motorola plastic housing might require 30 separate graphite electrodes to burn the tool. I can't imagine exporting and redoing all that work just for one change. But that is what would have to happen if the vendor was using a separate utility and not leveraging the strength of associativity that Pro/ENGINEER offers.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[Metoo]

First of all, associativity is a selling point for software vendors, not a big advantage to the user. Nevertheless, tool path data created in CAMWORKS, which runs in the Solidworks environment, is directly linked to the Solidworks file

 

[design-engine]

you sound quite knowledgeable about tooling data and tooling process. I want to take up tooling next.

I was referring to the vendor keeping everything associative like PDT became famous for. Customer delivers Pro/E parts such as complex plastic housing ... vendor uses top down, surfacing and Pro/MAN to generate complex multi pull geometry in 5 weeks. Most shops take 16 weeks to do the same because they don't leverage Pro/E correctly.

Anyone besides Heath herd of them? http://www.pdt.com
Edited by: design-engine

 

[rharter52]

Metoo-Do you have alot of time on pro/nc,doesn't sound like it.The posts That I created in G/post are second to none.As for pocketing routines,tell me what is better then the mill volume in pro/nc

 

[Heathbn]

OK metoo.

If you think associativity is a selling point for software vendors. Then you just are wrong. Sorry no polite way to say this you are wrong.

I don't know why you FEEL this way.

What I do know is that I use this selling point and many others use the ASSOCIATIVITY daily to accomplish Top down design. It not only Works in Pro-E, but their are ways to do it in Solidworks as well.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

Here read this
[url]http://www.designfax.net/news/archive/09-23-2008/stories/fea ture-1.asp [/url]

Again this thread is not about CAM.

Its very clear to me that you are entrenched in an opinion based on how you feel about something.

This rant is not about feelings and defiantly not about CAM.

The next time you feel like sharing please stay on point.

 

[Metoo]

I like VOLUME, its probably the strategy I like best about PRO-NC.I haven't used PRO-NC in quite a while. I used to do design work for a company that used PRO-E as their primary design software. (about 7 years)I also did some of their machining, so I would often use PRO-NC to get started - VOLUME is great for that - then change to MASTERCAM for finish operations. Last time I used PRO-NC was a while back. I hadn't used it for couple years prior, and had to ask how to define VOLUME; PRO-NC isn't very intuitive, even for people that have a number of years using it.


If you have time to fix the generic posts that come with PRO-E it would be very helpful, but last I've seen, ( about two years ago)PTC has not intergrated the high-speed strategies into their system. As you know, there's only so much you can do with the post; the CAM system has to be able to interpet the underlying geometry in a manner that advanced high speed toolpath can be created.


If you've looked at some of the newer systems (when I say newer, I mean in the last five years) that are employing feature recognition, I think you'd agree that PRO-NC's best days are behind it. What you would call VOLUME in PRO-E automatically happens in the new feature recognition system as soon as you define the stock.


1) SurfCam's high speed system is outstanding; though the rest of the package is lacking. No advance feature recognition.


2) In CAMWORKS you'd be posting toolpath before you had the VOLUME defined in PRO-E. High speed toolpath creation isn't as good as MASTERCAM or SURFCAM in my opinion, but would leave a generic posted pocket routine in PRO-NC in the dust. Matter of fact, you couldn't optimise the post enough to overcome what's lasking. CAMWORKS is an outstanding CAM system, and can be purchased now as a standalone. (they give you a SOLIDWORKS interface; full 3 axis machining for less than 10k)


3) ditto for FeatureCAM; about the same time from file open to toolpath output as CAMWORKS with highspeed strategies behind MASTERCAM.FeatureCAM isowned by DELCAM, so that's a little surprising they've not added some of the advanced features of a high-end system; its a pretty simple system along the same lines as SurfCam.


4) NX-CAM: best I've seen. File open to toolpath output is nearly as fast as CAMWORKS, with strategies as good as MASTERCAM's, with of-the-shelf posts as good as anything custom written. NX-CAM will directly open a SolidWorks file, but I'm not sure it maintains a associative relationship to it afterward, like SOLIDCAM, CAMWORKS, or MASTERCAM does. NX-CAM (NX-CAM Express)can be purchased as a standalone; don't need to buy NX or Solid Edge. (Express looks like they built it on top of Solid Edge, as you get a basic version with NX-CAM Express)





You stated "Do you have alot of time on pro/nc,doesn't sound like it". Actually, it sounds like you don't have much experience with other cam systems. It doesn't cost anthing, but your time, to call in your local CAMWORKS, FeatureCAM, NX-CAMdealer.An honest test run withany of those would clear your mind of where PRO-NC stands in the pecking order capabilitiesof CAM systems. You might down load a democopy of BOBCAD/CAM, it would be nearly as good as PRO-NC for tool path creation, and as fast as PRO-NC for time from file opening to toolpath output.

 

[Heathbn]

<h1>Pro/E vs. SolidWorks — a working comparison</h1>
<a style="font-style: normal;" class="noprint" href="http://www.designfax.net/news/archive/09-23-2008/stories/feature-1.asp#" onclick="javascript window.print;" target="_blank">
Print this article</a>
Product
Development Technologies (PDT), a full-service, award-winning product
development firm headquartered in Lake Zurich, IL, is known as one of
the largest users of Pro/ENGINEER (a 3D CAD parametric feature solid
modeling software) in the world of product consulting. With 50
licenses, 80+ users, and more than a million hours of Pro/E experience
collectively among its team, the company has truly earned that
reputation. In recent years, however, PDT has had more clients
requesting databases created by Pro/E’s competitor, SolidWorks, as
their end deliverable, and so the company has grown its SolidWorks
expertise to meet that need.
With
a great deal of confusion in the market about the relative strengths of
each of these CAD software packages, three PDT mechanical engineers
were willing to sit down and share their experiences and compare the
two side by side. Bjorn is a Pro/E expert from PDT’s Chicago office,
Steve a SolidWorks master from Lake Zurich, and Stanislav is the
company’s switch-hitter for both teams, working from PDT Ukraine.
<div style="margin-right: 2em; width: 400px; float: right;" ="caption">

</div>


Bjorn:
In the past we always used SolidWorks sort of begrudgingly. We learned
it on the fly … we’d start the work in Pro/E, then our counterparts in
Ukraine would convert it into SolidWorks. The way it progressed through
PDT was great, though, because it made for fantastic training for our
Ukraine team, who are now top-notch SolidWorks experts. Now, if a
client uses SolidWorks, we’ll start there rather than in Pro/E because
we have team members who are experts both in the U.S. and abroad.


Stanislav:
That’s right. It was a crash course in both of the softwares as well as
effectively and efficiently communicating with overseas team members.
In my opinion, SolidWorks is intuitive and, dare I say, simple. Pro/E
is more advanced with a huge amount of optional licenses and
opportunities — strangely, though, there’s still no polygon feature in
Wildfire 2 …


You don’t have to read a manual to figure
SolidWorks out. On the other hand, you wouldn’t learn Pro without a
manual or a good teacher.


Bjorn: The biggest
downfall of SolidWorks in my opinion is the inability to share
geometries and features across parts. Pro has a master part so all your
outside surfaces, location of keys, features, sketches, datum points,
axis — anything — can be shared among all of your (potentially
thousands of) parts.


For a candy bar cell phone, for
example, there’s a battery door that comes off. When the battery door
is put on there, it needs to be smooth and integrated and exactly
matching up with the back surface of that cell phone. If you can create
all that geometry in one location and have it shared into the housing
and the battery door, you can guarantee that the housing matches the
battery door and that they’re all based off of one thing. In
SolidWorks, you can do that, but it’s almost rudimentary compared to
the way Pro/E handles it.


Steve: SolidWorks will
carry surfaces, planes, solid geometry, and axis. It won’t let you
share curves, but the work around is instead of a curve, you extrude a
millimeter surface.


Bjorn: That’s really clunky. I think for serious projects, that’s a big negative.


Steve:
I’ll give you that the whole concept of a master part is not as
developed in SolidWorks as it is in Pro/E. This is definitely one area
in which Pro/E is superior. However, it is easy to get used to defining
features and sketches in assemblies in SolidWorks. So external geometry
and surfaces can be defined in a master model and then split off,
assembled in a master assembly, and have features added to them in the
context of the assembly.


Stanislav: Pro/E has more sweep options and surfacing is much easier.


Steve:
You’re right … there are issues with lofts and sweeps, but SolidWorks
TRIES to make things work. In Pro/E, you just get errors. I like that
at least an attempt is made even if you do end up with some funky
surfaces at first.


Stanislav: Pro/E is complicated
but it allows you to do any geometry you want in it; you just have to
know how to do it. I actually think SolidWorks is strong in solid
features and surfaces but weak in drafts and rounds.


Bjorn:
Pro/E’s surfacing is better because there are some things you can’t do
in SolidWorks. In SolidWorks, there tend to be issues with lofts and
sweeps if they aren’t smooth. If they have edges that don’t match up to
what you’re lofting to, you get those funky surfaces. I think it’s
worth noting that a number of our industrial designers work in
SolidWorks occasionally. There’s a stigma that goes along with Pro/E
that the learning curve is steep, but Pro/E changed their user
interface drastically in the last six years. They went away from the
menu picks and tried to pull a lot out of the menus out into icons. I
think it’s more intuitive now.


Steve: Engineers are
typically trained to be very structured in the way they think, so you
find that many engineers prefer the logical structure and process
involved with developing and defining features in Pro/E. After all,
Pro/E stands for Pro Engineer. It was designed, developed, and tested
by engineers, so it’s going to have a logical feel to it.


I
have found that the more creative half of our industry, the industrial
design sector, prefers to use SolidWorks for the interface. It
basically comes back to preference: bland with a pinch more speed or
easy to use but a tiny touch slower.


Stanislav: SolidWorks doesn’t change its interface from version to version, it just adds features — you’re not relearning each revision.


Steve:
It also leverages the average person’s knowledge of Windows and uses a
lot of familiar interfaces. For example, the way you save files is the
same way you’d save them in Microsoft Office.


Bjorn: True … but I do love Pro/E’s working directory. Once you grow accustomed to using it, it’s a fantastic file management tool.


Steve:
If you’re working with any mechanism where you need to see motion,
SolidWorks is the only option — it handles kinematics beautifully,
measuring velocities, motion, acceleration. It has special mates for
gears …


Bjorn: You’re right. I’ve taken data from
Pro/E and put it into SolidWorks so I could see the mechanism in
action. If you have two parts moving, Pro/E is fine, but it you have,
say, a four-part linkage, forget it. The other option is just build a
physical prototype.


Stanislav: I would like to touch
on the assembly aspects of both programs. I believe, and get almost
unanimous agreement, that SolidWorks is superior when it comes to
mating parts or assemblies.


Steve: Yes! Recently I
used an advanced mating feature in SolidWorks that allows you to set
angular or linear limits. Technically, the model was fully constrained,
but motion was allowed within the limits defined by the mate. I’m
pretty sure this can be done in Pro/E, but it may be much more involved.


Stanislav:
What’s great about having expertise in both softwares is [that] if we
get an .iges or .stp file occasionally SolidWorks is better at
importing it, sometimes not. It’s great to have both because you don’t
necessarily know which will be better. This is especially an issue when
it comes to data from laser scans or during a reverse-engineering
exercise.


Bjorn: Of course, in the end, the
determining factor for us on what software to use at PDT is solely
based upon what the client needs. Whether they need a SolidWorks or
Pro/E model, we can do that.


Special thanks for this
article goes to Product Development Technologies, Inc., Steve Jones,
Bjorn Gunderson, Stanislav Dmitriyev, and Tanya Sillitti. www.pdt.com.


See the latest that SolidWorks has to offer at www.solidworks.com


See the latest that Pro/ENGINEER from PTC has to offer at www.ptc.com

Metoo

It's hard to stay on point.

Keep trying.


<a target="_blank" href="http://www.ptc.com/" target="_blank">
</a>

 

[design-engine]

Yea I read that article Heath. Maybe we should pick that article apart as an exercise? I don't need to get anyone else upset with me ... I don't know mechanism well and haven't really played with it much more than creating a four bar assembly and I thought that moved great!Ive pushed and pulled on the PTC engine's piston (the engine model that everyone has to do when doing an update class) and that works quite well.

And for the assembly placement with an angle. Just the fact that the user commenting above does not know how do do that in Pro/E ... lost a little credibility there. Not to be too critical because everyone knows I can be critical.

Im eager to see you guys keep going back and forth on the Pro/NC thing because now I get to learn.

PDT by the way (the authors of the article) or the owners of PDT are the original Pro/E bad boys. And they changed the way manufacturers do rapid steel mold base tooling.I hope i said that correctly. They were the first to perfect a process of using Pro/ENGINEER and all the separate modules to crank out consecutive impossible jobs. A 5 week complex mold base. Correct me if i am wrong but that was in 2002... Someone from PDT should join in here and correct me cause I don't speak for them.

Meto: I am no machinist but I find it really hard to believe you would do one part of a tool path in one software and export to another master cam for finishing operations. To be honest i quit reading at that point.

Maybe one day I will get converted to Solidworks like Paul of Sol was converted to Christianity. I doubt it tho. I did not know Solidworks didn't have tooling module. Shows how much I know about solidwrks. I did call to ask some questions to a solidworks reseller once. From what I am learning solidworks does not have enough modules yet either..

Compare PRO-NC to BobCAD/CAM? Anyone think that is a good thread?I still can't get past the export thing....I don't see how you can get by all the changes that always take place.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[dgs]

The strength of Pro/ENGINEER is the use of the tool from start to finish. If a vendor is not using Pro/ENGINEER then the manufacture should simply choose another vendor or get the vendor up to speed on Pro/ENGINEER. Get some backbone. If vendor wants the work they will do it.

I'll say for the product development side, I absolutely agree. I'm surprised how many posts go across the PTC|User forum saying that their design or engineering consultancy did their work in SW or in a new version of Pro|E, what can we do to convert it? My answer is they need a new design firm. If your design or engineering firm won't use the software and version you specify, worse yet if they don't even ask, you're using the wrong folks. I've got WF1, WF2, WF3 & WF4 on my PC as well as SW 2006, 2007 & 2008. If you need WF5 or SW 2009, I'll get it. Heck, if you need me to go back to Pro|E 2001 I'll try to figure that out. Whatever you need me to use, I can do it.

From the manufacturing side, that's a bit different. If you're a big enough customer, you can probably get your sheetmetal or injection molding vendor to buy Pro|E, but if you are not big enough, requiring Pro|E will really limit who you can get to do the work. I don't think for most people having a manufacturing vendor use another package is as big of a deal as it is on the design side.