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

Mike,


My comments were not meant to be persoanlly critical. Simply stated; if you (anyone) truly understands surfacing, the question of whether solidworks or Pro-e is better at surfacing would not be a topic. From some of the postings I've read, I'mleft with the impression that some people assume volume of menu items within Pro-e or another software determines its capabilities of surfacing.


For reference, Here's a list of solidworks features I use when surface molding:


Surfacing: Loft, Fill, Trim, Untrim, Offset, Delete, Extend, Knit.


Non-surfacing: Line, Arc, Spline (3-d spline), Trim, Split line, Move, Rotate, Projected line.


As you can see, there's no magic menu items. Any package with these core abilities can be used to create surface models of the complexity of thoseI posted. Of course, I have my preferences, and as things stand, I prefer to use Solidworks, or solid edge for surfacing. I find them much faster and easier to use than Pro-E. In fact, I'd use a non-parametric software (MasterCam, Rhino, etc) before going back to Pro-e.


When it comes to surfacing, the end result is driven more by the person's capabilities than the difference in software abilities (given that the software in question has surfacing, as not all do). It's been my experience that those who don't really understand what a surface is and the limitations to working with them, tend to get into a bind when they take on complex projects; like a spa design, or boat.


I've been doing 3-d modeling since the 1980s, and I've donejobs for numerous companies throughout the globe. The fact is, there's not many designers capable of taking on surfacing modeling projects that require large numbers of patches. There's a lot of concept guys; (car bodies, boats, etc..) but, few of them have what it takes to produce a design that product can be built from. They get hung up and confused when asked to make their designs producable. Since the wide spread use of 3-d design software (about the year 2000 onward, I've spent a lot of time re-doing these guys' designs; taking them from concept to producable design.





Flayl
 
The magic is in the work a rounds. That is how to get all the functions to work together parametrically. For example...In solidworks I have an elliptical shaped curve but no ellipse function that runs with a 'rho' value. Well I have come to love how i can glue four ellipse shapes together using Pro/E to make an ellipse ... project that shape up and use that surface to make an eventual surface.

In Solidworks the surfacing tool has it difficult to grab the edge of the surface where the curve intersection occurs.

A designer in solidworks would have to modify the underlying curve geometry as well because the boundary blend tool does not utilize selection sets where a designer can select part of a surface edge. the work around is to simply modify the underlying curve geometry. An annoying workaround. All these things designers don't know they are missing really. By selection sets i mean partial edge selection ... just get more control in Pro/E. Every year solidworks adds functionality to catch up which is nice!

I can upload some examples in both Pro/E and Solidworks.

Edited by: design-engine
 
Metoo said:
I've been doing 3-d modeling since the 1980s, and I've donejobs for numerous companies throughout the globe. The fact is, there's not many designers capable of taking on surfacing modeling projects that require large numbers of patches. There's a lot of concept guys; (car bodies, boats, etc..) but, few of them have what it takes to produce a design that product can be built from. They get hung up and confused when asked to make their designs producable. Since the wide spread use of 3-d design software (about the year 2000 onward, I've spent a lot of time re-doing these guys' designs; taking them from concept to producable design.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with you on this point, being given models by people who can allegedly model in CAD is a sore point with me. One old colleague in particular was terrible at modelling, I dreaded the times when he would hand me a model, usually totaly unconstrained. I would often either have to remodel the part or go through it step by step and fix things.


My expertise would lie in designing / engineering parts so that they can be produced.
 
hi guys,
who cares which is better? just do your job, they are both good.

-> the boundary blend tool does not utilize selection sets where a designer can select part of a surface edge

watch this short video.




Edited by: solidworm
 
Well I guess the newer 2008 version can do that trim back now. Like I said... they play catch up....

... But did you see how in the video the solidprofessor folks show users how to model completly wrong.

Notice the striation and globing in the surface but that is a different story.
 
Hi bart,
thanks for pointing that out! actually one of the teachers, used the term "fatigue striations" a few days back, which i didn't know what "striation" mean! i just looked it up in my dictionary.

btw, do u mean the degenerate point? maybe he will fix that later with a fill surface. who knows?

Edited by: solidworm
 
I think the correct way to build a bike seat type form is to start with the fill surface then trim that back to look like a three part boundary. That gives you both ends then you build up the center part with a four part boundary forcing end constraints as required.

Arash or Solidworm?

Did you purchase those solidprofessor videos? I'm just curious if they were priced differently in Iran or do they require you to use a credit card and convert in US dollars?
Edited by: design-engine
 
no i don't have those videos, and i don't think they are available here, i found that demo on their site some times ago, interestingly, you mentioned partial curve/edge selection isn't possible in sw, and i recalled that video.
yes, that surface looks bulgy, they had to make the video a little bit dimmer to cover that flaw.
smiley2.gif







Edited by: solidworm
 
The techique you're discussing came from early CAM systems, and is commonly refered to as "chaining". Solidworks has had it for the lastthree version releases.When I first started using SolidworksI thought it was a feature hard to live without. I haven't used it since Solidworks has included the tool. I find that not usingthe featurehas driven me to better surfacing; it hasn't slowed me down either.


Frankly put; I don't use any of the so called "advanced surfacing tools". I find it better to build a foundation of line geometry and either work directly from it, or use it a base reference.
 
I see what your saying. Makes since. I still like more options for myself when modeling my way out of a pickle someone else created. Can't hurt to have a multitude of solutions.
 
michael3130 said:
Which reminds me, if anyone wants to sponsor me, let me know and I'll post the link to my 'justgiving' website. I'm sure I'll be inundated with requests for that in the middle of a credit crunch!!!


And if anyone wants to know about the various friction burns and chaffing I've experienced over the past months, I'll be only too glad to share it!!! Prob not appropiate for this site though!!!
Click to expand...


Sorry to re-open this link but thought I would as a reminder to my sponsorship page for the Paris marathon I'm taking part in on the 5th April. I know the credit crunch isn't helping but any donation at all can make a big difference. Thanks for all your support
smiley4.gif



Here's the link http://www.justgiving.com/paris09michael
 
dibbs_pbp said:
Ihave recently been urged to change over from ProE (Wildfire 2.0) to Solidworks and having tried for about 4 months now I have to say Solidworks SUCKS!! (for engineering applications at least). It's sketching is awful, it's surfacing is awful, the graphics are rubbish, and as for the drawings - well, I've seen more pleasing things on an Etch-a-Sketch!! The ability to manipulate, place, and display dimensions is shocking!! I really can't believe that anyone at Solidworks has ever tried to create or read a technical drawing in their life. I think they have put too much emphasis on fancy rendering and the like, and forgotten about the basics of actually being able to create a production drawing from a model. Really guys, just download a freebie version of Wildfire 2.0 (from about 4 years ago) and a crack code and tell me your 2007 drawing creation even comes anywhere close. If you think it does, get your head examined!!! REALLY, if you are a professional (engineering) outfit and you want your drawings to look like you are a professional outfit spend the money and get ProEngineer (the clue really is in the title!!). If you've come from using2D systems such as AutoCAD for sure you will be wowed when the salesman showsyou fancy solid models and photo rendering and for sure you'll be amazed at how your models are linked to your drawings but, trust me, if you've got the money buy ProE (and if you haven't download a cracked version).
Click to expand...


Trust me, I have experience on both platforms. If productivity,data sharing& meeting deadlines are your goals & they obviously should be in the today's design world, then SolidWorks is the way to go. So many features & functions are easier compared to ProE & w/o a doubt much quicker. Power handling on both sides is now at parity. You have little to no real world experience on the later versions of SolidWorks & that is obvious since it is a flexible & powerhouse CAD package with excellent company support.
 
The great thing about Solidworks is anybody can run it.

The bad thing about Solidworks is anybody does run it.

And good luck with Co.s Over five Users trying to share files with their Enterprise system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top