[B]Opinions on Solid Edge[/B] 2

[TheWonderer]

We are currently looking at replacing our existing 3D modeling and 2D design package with another system and would like user opinions on Solid Edge. What does it do well, how easy is it to use, any bad points, annoyances or bugs etc?
We would be using it to create 3D solid models for NC programming and for creating 2D machining detail drawings from the solid.

Your opinions would be appreciated.

 

[beachcomber]

Strengths:
Easy to use.
Use 'traditional' parametric modelling or direct modelling or combine the two in a single model.
Direct modelling lets you modify imported models.
Handles very large assemblies well.
Does not require super-powerfull hardware (unless you are doing REALLy massive assemblies of several hundred thousand parts)
Excellent 2D drafting from 3D models.
2D Drafting can be used stand-alone.

Weaknesses:
Complex surfaces.
Probably not as many 3rd Party add-ons as some other systems.

Bad Points:
Can't think of anything really. Many improvements have been made over last 2 releases especially. Now, even I have grown to like the interface - and I was one of its biggest critics.

Annoyances:
In my opinion some small changes are still requred to the drafting interface, just to save few mose clicks here and there - but that is just my opinion.

Bugs:
Can't think of any at the moment, but I'm using ST2 not ST3

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

Where would we be without sat-nav?

 

[KENAT]

Biggest weaknesses are those associated with smaller market share. Less vendors will be using it. Harder to find experienced folk on it. Less add ons. Smaller online community...

We're considering moving away from SE because some of our management have got hung up on the above issues, however as an actual user I'm not saying my management are right in how much weight they attach to those issues.

As a program I'd say it's broadly comparable with the other 'Solid' competition. We're a few versions behind on SE (V19, pre synchronous), and I just went and did training on the latest version of Solid Works, 2011. Overall Solid Works 2011 was slightly better, but it's about 5 years newer than our SE version. I'd love to have a go on the latest Solid Edge to see how it compares.

I will say I think Solid Edge is still ahead in the 2D drafting, though I didn't do enough in the Solid Works training to be too sure.

However, depending on what you're doing SE's ability to treat imported geometry almost as native may be a big advantage over the opposition.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[burhop]

Solid Edge ST3 generated a lot of press. You should find quite a few reviews, comparisons and blogs if you google for
"Solid Edge ST3" or"Solid Edge ST3 versus SolidWorks"

BTW - I work on the FEA code for Solid Edge

 

[Raaden]

I would also say that one of SEs biggest strength right now is that it has its "big change" a few years behind it (synchronous tech + ribbon gui).

Pro/E just recently died and got reborn as Creo

Autodesk Inventors fusion technology is still in beta.

Solid Works big change (going all cloudy + switching modeling kernel) is still a few years into the future, which makes it currently the least recommendable mid-range cad package on the market.


I have a friend that got a job at a startup company that had gotten a "nice price" for NX+Teamcenter.
No evaluation had been made someone had just thought that if it's good enough for the automobile industry then it must be good enough for us, oh and look at that shiny low price tag...
Turns out is wasn't good enough for them and the consultant hours required for getting Teamcenter up and running ate up the price tag really fast. Now they are looking at throwing out both the cad system and pdm system and replacing it with an Autodesk solution (Inventor+?).
So the moral of this story is: Do a proper evaluation, get the supplier to demo the products and also get to try them yourself for a few weeks. Then make the decision.

 

[beachcomber]

Also don't fall into the "everyone else is using it" trap.
If everyone went down that route we'd all still be using AutoCad 2D (or still working on drawing boards)
Yes, you need to consider suppliers needs etc. but that should not be the only criteria.
You have to make sure whatever product you choose will do the job that you need it to do, so make sure you get to try it on your own products.
Draw up a check list of what you need.
How complex are your parts - simple machined or complex curved surfaces?
What type of parts - cast, machined, sheet metal ? (SE has excellent sheet metal capabilities.)
How complex are the assemblies - how many parts at final product stage? I have over 100,000 parts in the top-level assembly.
What will the hardware requirements be?
(I'm running on a 2.4GHz quad core with 4GB ram, on 32-bit SE - it is a bit slow at times but it does it. We find the network is the main sticking point)
Pick a few parts and assemblies that encompass everything you do and get the vendor to model them and create drawings etc. at YOUR site so you can watch and have a go while they do it.
Also get them to show you how to handle big assemblies, how you copy and rename files; how to set, change and use file properties etc.

Also post the same thread on other system's forums.
I can almost guarantee you will get the same answers.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

Where would we be without sat-nav?

 

[PatCouture]

I'll second Beachcomber for making them work on your own product while you are watching, not only will you be able to pick up a lot of things from them but you will also be able to evaluate each VAR abilities. That information can be very valuable when you will need customer service or simply to have the right person set you up strait from the beginning.

I've been using SE from V14 to ST2 the last 6 years and now I've been using SW 2010 since July. The biggest difference between the two that I've noticed thus far, is that SW has more advanced feature for the assembly part at the expense of good usability for large assemblies compared to SE. But if you're not planning on doing much assemblies anyway I would choose SE in an heartbeat only for Synchronous technology. Because for the history part of both softwares they are pretty even.

Like others have said it really depends on what you need from the software because they both have their strong point.

My 2 cents

Patrick

 

[FSDS]

Slow performance on big assemblies
Eidt parts directly in an assembly is not good
2D is in many ways not very good
No family tables
Pattern function is not good
Synchronous technology is filled with errors.
Synchronous technology is a nightmare if you want to edit your parts.
Many claims that sheet metal in Solid Edge should be particulary good compared to other programs, this is not my experience.

Solid Edge is relatively easy to learn compared to for example Pro Engineer.

 

[HDS]

There are family tables for parts and assemblies but they have limitations (some are the same as Pro/E's limitations).

 

[asimpson]

Technical support I have found in SE very poor. It is delegated to local rep. who is understaffed and not very good. Sometimes days to get response and even then got completely wrong end of the stick.

I used ProE and their technical support was excellent (some might say it needed to be) However I preferred ProE. Seemed more structured. Sales always pushing stuff you didn't need or want.

 

[beachcomber]

FSDS,
Performance on big assemblies will depend to a large extent on how you use it, your hardware and the network.
Parts can be dimensionally edited directly from an assembly by use of the variable table, or double-click to open it in the context of the assembly, or RMB and 'Open' to open the part exclusively. Similar for sub-assemblies.
However, you cannot see all the structure of each individual part from an assembly. Personally I find this a blessing with large assemblies.
2D drafting - what isn't very good? Can you be specific.
I've never been unable to produce the drawing I need.
Patterns - again can you be specific?
Synchronous Technology is still in development, so there are bound to be limitations.
Sheet metal works OK and has some good features, but as with any mid-range modeller there will be limitations. It does not handle material deformation for example.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

Where would we be without sat-nav?

 

[HDS]

asimpson

If you are in the US you have direct access to corporate support from Seimans for Solid Edge (GTAC). They are very good. Outside the US you have to go through the VAR.

 

[KENAT]

Yeah, in the US GTAC is pretty good.

thread724-223361 may be of use for tips on general comparison of software etc.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[beachcomber]

I've never really bothered with support anyway - I usually come here.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

Where would we be without sat-nav?

 

[mulledmind]

I have used SolidWorks and Solid Edge, and i have to say, I really don't like Solid Edge. You have to do things exactly the way it wants you to. for instance, in solid works, if i want to make a protrusion from a sketch, then in the sketch i can hit the protrusion button, but not in solid edge, there I have to exit the sketch, decline to make another sketch, start the protrusion then select the sketch, but only in the window, not in the tree on the side. Big pain.

this is one of many many examples of little things that add up to make it generally harder to use. Not "hard" to use, just if you're used to the freedom you get in SW, it's a real pain going back like I've had to.

 

[swertel]

How long have you been using SE, mulled? Based on your short description, you are doing it the hard way. No wonder you think it is a big pain and don't like it. Actually, I don't know anyone who does it that way except those who come from another application and expect SE to work exactly the same way as their prior program did.

If you want to make a protrusion, start with a protrusion. Simple. If you want to make it off an existing sketch, select it. If you don't want to, create a new profile on the fly. There are many ways to get to the same end geometry. You don't have to do it exactly one way.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[KENAT]

That's why comparisons are so hard to do, whichever you pick up first you tend to want use the new one the same way.

I had to try really hard not to do that when I was in SW training a couple weeks back. Initially it seemed really clunky having to create a sketch first etc. Then I thought about it some more and creating the sketch and then choosing if it's going to be a protrusion or cut straight from the sketch isn't that much different from SE.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

In SW, you don't have to create a sketch first. Like SE, the function (extrusion or cut) can be chosen beforehand if that is preferred.

Unlike SE (if I remember correctly), SW does not offer the ability to create sketch planes "on the fly". That is why the workflow leans toward creating the plane, and often the sketch, before selecting the function.

 

[KENAT]

SE can definitely do sketch planes 'on the fly'.

Although, for an error prone dufus like me who occasionally hits 'protrusion' rather than 'cut' by accident, the more typical SW work flow has advantages!

Certainly it seems mulledmind wasn't using the usual SE work flow.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

For the error prone dufusses, SW has an Instant 3D function which allows a protrusion/extrusion to be easily changed to a cut feature ... and vice versa.