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

Yep - It's pointless - but we got you to chime in :)


Face it - obviously -what really sucks is when the companies make you change platforms, and it's out of your control ---- that's what it really is. It's not that Pro, SW, Re-inventor....... sucks --- it is CHANGE that sucks.... and you guys can't handle the fact that someone made you change. It's not that Pro, SW, Re-inventor......fault, it's management, I.T., lead engineer.......


Remember when we were all 2-D ACAD, CADAM guru's, then 3D came along..... the initial conversion to come up with drawings Sucked --- because it changed our process.... Now, you're bitching because one platform Shows all dims, while another you have to create dims....... it's CHANGE that sucks, but as I mentioned from day #1 ---- We're engineers first and these platforms are just tools.


You might own a TI85 calculator, a HP, or a Tandy ---- did it matter which calculator you used as long as it gives you the right answer?
 
Its kind of like when I was a kid. My mom would make me do yard work and no matter which tools I got out of the garage I still had to pull the same weeds?
 
Bart,


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Ford and Nasa use SDRC!!?? What do they use now? Isn't SDRC gone?


I started on SDRC in uni. I liked it but it was on unix platforms which noone had a clue about.
smiley5.gif
 
cncwhiz
You hit the nail right on the head... GET THE JOB DONE.


I started on CV back in the early 80's with Acad at v2.6 and then migrated to UGI, UGII, Pro/e, NX and BETA SW IN 94, from there the tools have greatly improved.


I've found the throughout the years that many companies really never utilize the full extent of the CAD software they purchase anyways. Each software tries to satisfy all, some better in other areas then others.


All in all, get good at the tools at hand. If it's UG, Pro/e, SW, heck even CADKEY is alive again, it doesn't matter, long hrs, new button selections, reading, they all help.


Good luck ...
smiley32.gif
 
Ford has 50 seats of Pro/E and not sure how many seats of Unigraphics. Probably more than 200!

NASA has standardized to Pro/ENGINEER 10 years ago. That's why Northrup lost a big contract. They for some reason standardized to Catia and that is against the NASA contract.

Can anyone back me up?
 
Not sure about the reason for loosing the contract but it would make sense. Most designers at NASA are using ProEbut some do use Solidworks; just depends on the contract they areworking on. I've even seen some who are still using IDEAS. I wondered why the drafting schools in my area started teaching Catia and now it makes sense since the shipyard gets designers/drafters from one of the schools that I know of. I also wondered why because most of those I talked to who worked at the shipyard said they were using AutoCAD or Solidworks.
 
design-engine said:
NASA has standardized to Pro/ENGINEER 10 years ago. That's why Northrup lost a big contract. They for some reason standardized to Catia and that is against the NASA contract.

Can anyone back me up?
Click to expand...


Sounds about right, we work closely with Nasa and use Pro/E. There are some older programs using V4. When I worked at Boeing Satellites (previoulsy Hughes Aerospace) they were using Pro/E but the mother Boeing (Seattle) is making them switch over to V5. Either way, Pro/E will be there for the next 5 years at least because they phase in CAD systems by program. They still have designers using CADDS on older programs! I have searched jobs with Northrop and it appears they have a equal amount of jobs advertised for both Pro/E and V5, maybe leaning more towards V5.


In the end if you're using any of these tools, they are great, it's really all about the engineering work. I'm a lifetime Pro/E user so I prefer to use it.I have beentrained extensively on V5 and really was impressed but since Boeing haven't had a chance to use it. Enovia (their Windchill PDMLink) is pretty confusing to use though. The Catia GUI beats Pro/E hands down but I haven't used it enough to attest to it's stability and efficiency in a production environment. Have used Soliworks briefly and don't have an opinion on it really.
 
Here at Philips some of the Engineers were pushing for a couple years to switch to Solidworks. Since I am the CAD support person it was kind of given to me to do a small test of Pro/E WF3and Solidworks 2008.


I spent time looking at functionality and feature creation. In large both have similar capabilities, but each has some features the other does not and some work smoother then the others.


I had some of the Solidworks promoters show me how to do stuff to make sure I was using Solidworks at it full potential. They were bragging how I could use Solidworks as good as I was without any official training.


I also had them give me some SW models so I could see how they made things compared to the Pro/E models. There was a statement that SW was 2X faster then Pro/E. The models that they provided were infinitely different and it was clear that the SW model would have been faster to model and change then the incripted Pro/E model they created.


So, I recreated both models using they exact same feature set. I then practiced following the creation instructions I created. Then, I timed myself to see which application was faster on a strictly geometry creation project with no "Design" involved. The time I ended up with was 38 minutes for Pro/E and 39 minutes for Solidworks.


That sure made the Solidworks supporters mad. The complained that it was not a fair comparison that showed real world design process. So, we came back and tasked them with coming up with a test that would show real world design. We also stipulated that designing a part in one program and then redesigning it in the other was not a fair test because you would have the experience of the first design.


In the end they could not come up with a real world design test that would fairly test each application without some form of favoring. And some of them admitted that I did a fair comparison.


Due to what I found and presented to management and the fact that we have many years of legacy Pro/E data and no previous SW data, we decided to stay with Pro/E as the supported CAD tool. The engineers are aloud to use whatever they want on initial design, but they have to recreate everything in Pro/E once they get funding for the project. Hopefully the managers will see the error in this thinking but...


****


Long story short - There are gives and takes with both programs, but Pro/E has more functionality available, just Solidworks has a much better marketing campaign and better pricing. So, the little fab shops that support the large companies tend to purchase Solidworks then try and push it up the their customer.


It should be the other way around and the fab shops should use the application that their customer uses. If I want something CNC machined I am not going to let the supplier machine it with a drill press. Why let the supplier stipulate that you let them redesign your product in a different CAD application and hope it does not loose any intent.


I will get of the soap box now. By the way - most of that is just my oppinion and the observations that I saw in our situation.
 
SO- everyone agrees!!!!! WE ARE ALL ENGINEERS FIRST, and these Platforms are nothing but TOOLS!!!!!


FOR the record Guess who bought Computevision Personal Designer, CADD 5x....(DESIGNED by Software Engineers) ---Hint: another Heavily Design by Software folks.........Come ON ----- THINK ABOUT IT --- If the Platform was designed by MECHANICAL ENGINEERS - It would only have been one Done/Return command and on to the next command...... it takes a Software Engineer to hit DONE, then DONE/RETURN...... I was Surprised it did not ask ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE DONE - YES/NO..... YEP-YEP...... PTC was on a BUYING SPREE, trying to buy the Championship! I still Love Pro-E, even all of those OE's :)
 
It's pointless to compare 2 CAD's by making exactly the same part and using exactly the same features. That way you have to find the common ground and common ground is rarely the ground in which anyone program excels.


What you can do is layout the same project, with different parts to model and to assemble, make drawings of it showing the same information and then go through some changes in the assembly (modifying parts, restructure assembly, exchange some parts, ...). A real life task, so to say.


Then you let an experienced user of each system use the CAD-tool in the best way they know to accomplish the task. This gives each the opportunity to take the most suitable path available.


Why ? Because you do things differently depending on the CAD. In Solid Edge for example (not SW) I will model using existing geometry to full extent because I know it is safe. It will only take me seconds to repair a sketch when these links fail. In ProE on the other hand I will setup independent datum planes and sketches to steer different features in the course of modeling, because that's the safe way in ProE. Similar for assembly.


So you see, it all depends on the tools. You tackle a tree differently when you have an axe than if you have a saw.


Alex
 
-> "In Solid Edge for example (not SW) I will model using existing geometry to full extent because I know it is safe.In ProE on the other hand I will setup independent datum planes and sketches to steer different features."

i don't think they are different in this aspect. they all operate on the same rules. try this in every history-based,parametric cad system on the planet and they will all fail:

create a block (extrude a rectangle), add a chamfer to one edge, edit the sketch (rectangle), delete only the side of the rectangle that builds the face which the chamfer resides on, and replace it with a single piece of line (the overall sketch should still be a rectangle). rebuild the part and your chamfer fails. so this can't be safe in any cad system! we are all walking on a banana peel.



Edited by: solidworm
 
You're right but still they are different. SE will go ahead and build the part and show me the problem like in attached image. One click to go into edit and one click to select the obvious edge is all it takes. Solving the problem is not equal in every CAD. That's why in one CAD you know you can afford to pass through this process while in others you can't. Like in ProE you have to solve this problem while in others you don"t. This can be important in changes that you want to execute that need different steps. When the programs lets you go ahead with unsolved problems you can get to the change you want rather directly. When you have software that doesn't allow you to get along without every problem being solved modifications can be much harder.


Take the example where you have left a part with the last half of its history suppressed and you get back into the assembly it sits in. In ProE you have to click your way through freezing the assembly before you have the chance to get back to the part. In SE you leavethe assemblywith problems, get back to the part, unsuppress the history, get back to the assembly and that's it.
 
Depending on what you are trying to do you don't necessarily need to solveevery problem with the model. Solve the ones you need solved, suppress the others, complete your task, then start working through the other problems as required. A few have mentioned before but you need to learn the software workflow. In the case of ProE you'll need to learn to work with Resolve Mode and when to work with the options. One of the things that drove me nuts when I first started using ProE was when to use Quick Fix or Fix Model but later found out I didn't understand what the options were really for. Quick Fix allows you to work on the currently failing feature and Fix Model lets you work on features in the model except the failing one. At least for the example above of a part with half its family tree suppressed is not that bad. If you know the problem is the model tree being suppressed, instead of freezing the components use Fix Model>Component>Insert Mode and select a part before failing one. This will suppress the rest of the parts in the model tree and allow you to exit Resolve Mode. You can then open the part, unsuppress the features in the model tree, and go back to the assembly and resume the suppressed parts.
 
Wormy,


> we are all walking on a banana peel.


That's true.
It's the nature of parametric / relational / history based modelers.


I'm just wondering if you know ...


> delete only the side of the rectangle that builds
> the face which the chamfer resides on, and replace
> it with a single piece of line


When you delete the line you should have gotten a "This entity is
referenced ..." warning message. Click "No" to cancel the deletion
and convert the line to a construction entity* instead. Now create
the new (coincident) line element or any other curve entity; arc,
conic arc, spline, and (Menu: Edit) Replace the original line element
with the new one.


* Convert to construction just to make it easy to differentiate old from
new. You could, instead, Pick from List; new entity is listed first.
If you really want to dig into details analyse the entity to determine
start and end points to prevent downstream 'end swap' failure potential
before replacing.

You can also Replace dimensions (that may be used in downstream relations
to avoid rerouting).
_ _ _ _


Alex,


I can appreciate your apparent preference (and might share it, in general,
if I knew the program), but ...


> In ProE you have to click your way through freezing the
> assembly before you have the chance to get back to the part.


freeze_failed_assy_comp YES ?
Clip Suppress ?
Trace and reroute dependencies before making the change?


... not so much as argument as to question;
"Like in ProE you have to solve this problem while in others you don't.",
presented as an absolute.
_ _ _ _


I almost liked Bugzuki's evaluation. Assuming it can be accepted as
fact (and isn't a Vogon design which is of no interest to me unless
it's a really trick configurable top down design) all that's missing
is a representative geometry set to put it in perspective.
_ _ _ _


FOR the record (Glen) most of us here are students, tire kickers and
peddlers. I'm not an ENGINEER at all, just a cad monkey. I'd hope most
ENGINEERS would have better things to do with their time than squabble
about the CAD software they use.
smiley4.gif
 
Jeff,
as i didnt know what you mean by "CAD monkey", i googled and found a meaningful story:

A
tourist walked into a pet shop and was looking at the animals on
display. While he was there, another customer walked in and said to the
shopkeeper,
 
Well CAD MONKEY (Jeff) - STUDENTS???? (since Joined: 11 August 2003 ---- must be the 5 year plan???)


Some of us engineers are here to see whats hot and whats not (OK - I'm also in the RE-Inventor and SolidWorks Rant and Rave section). By the way, when I was laid off from using PRO, and received some retraining benefits, I took Solid Works courses..... in which was beneficial.A Local Mom & Pop Machine shop was in this section looking for help on platforms (he ended up buying Solidworks). I helped him on a few projects utilizing his new Solid Works, as he maintained his old Cadkey and since he was too busy to take the Advance Course - I trained him...... regardless --- he's doing very well, and I was very thankful for the gig to last until I got another Engineer position. Long Story - Short, I'm not squabbiling, in-fact, I have expanded my network of friends in different industries as well as different CAD TOOLS! If you want to share your last name, maybe I can place it in the "Engineering Black Ball list", so you can maintain your CAD MONKEY status :)


SO SMART but yet just another TIRE KICKER, I guess that explains the 5years (must have been out of sync in a couple of semesters...)
 
5 years is the later part of it.Searching for the name will take you way back. ;^)


If you want to know what's 'hot'; ask Jon.
Edited by: jeff4136
 
You couldn't be Dr. Jeff Howard ----- unless you arethe Jeff Howardwith:
<H2 style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">Objective</H2>


I'm seeking a senior level strategic design position with a firm focusing on advanced research and development in the area of service or experience design.


Did your Social Robotic Walker ever made production? :)


This can't be you either - because the model looks like it was cleaned up in Inventor or SolidWorks :) But then again - You're right Graphics Design are the WANNABE Engineers :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top