Considering buying Solid Edge - some questions 9

[pkelecy]

My company is considering buying a seat of Solid Edge, and I have a couple of questions:

1. How stable is it (honestly)? I ask because I just attended an SE seminar where the guy demoing it bombed his laptop 3 times in 60 mins! He said it was a graphics driver issue. Perhaps. But if I were demoing software to prospective customers, I would make absolutely sure I was using qualified hardware. So I suspect a software problem (especially given it's a new release).

2. We have someone new coming on board who has prior experience with *SolidWorks* (not Solid Edge). How hard would it be for him to make that transition? I've heard they have similar interfaces, so perhaps not too bad. His experience is with an older version (he currently uses Inventor, which we're not considering) - so there with will be some transition for him even with SolidWorks. Just not as much, I expect.

We're also considering SolidWorks, so any feedback on how these two compare would be appreciated also. We design and build electric motors and actuators at our facility. So our needs are pretty basic (at least at this point) - part and small assembly models, prints for fabrication, revisions of existing designs to accommodate new applications or customer needs, etc. I'm sure either package will work. Ease of use, stability, good support when we need it -those are really the main factors. We tend to have more work than time so we're looking for a tool that will make us the most productive.

Thanks for any feedback on this. I appreciate it. -Pat

 

[beachcomber]

As you are probably aware there is a new version of Solid Edge that departs from the traditional parametric approach of sketches and feature history.
This is available now but has some limitations in functionality, and has been discussed in several threads on this forum. It is referred to as V100 or ST. I understand there are also some stability issues with this version.
The 'traditional' version is still available and is now at V21.
As for stability, I can't comment on the new versions, but I have found V20 to be VERY stable. Any problems are usually caused by graphics card issues, network problems, or hardware not up to the required spec. (Which I think is generally lower for SE than for SW).
My previous contract involved assemblies of up to 30,000 parts and we ran it on 2.4GHz quad-core workstations with 4GB of ram, an gigabit network and with everything stored on a server. Have a look through this forum and the SolidWorks forum for stability issues - you will not find many here.
In comparison with SolidWorks, there is little to chose in functionality.
In my opinion:
SE is stronger and more efficient in assembly modelling (particularly large assemblies).
SolidWorks has better part configuration functions, but they can get very complex if over-used. It probably also has more third-party add-on's.
I found SE drafting to be easier than SW, and you can quite easily do some 2D drawings and sketches without models.
These can be parametric also.
Your new guy will probably want SolidWorks, as I've found that SW users have little time or inclination to use anything else, and will rarely accept that anything else could be as good (check the SW forum !!). If he's any good he will soon adapt, but seriously think about training courses to get the best of whichever system you use.
If you can't do training courses, SE has some good tutorials that will get you going, and it is easy to learn (my son is only 13, he's used it for a couple of years and he can do some pretty complex stuff in it)
SE also has some built-in revision management functionality,
where you can copy, replace and rename files whilst maintaining all the links.
Solid Edge should do everything you need, but so, probably, would SolidWorks.
I've always found SE support to be pretty good, but then it helps if you know who to ask, and depends on whichever VAR you chose.

Hope this helps.


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

 

[PatCouture]

Your new guy will probably want SolidWorks, as I've found that SW users have little time or inclination to use anything else, and will rarely accept that anything else could be as good (check the SW forum !!).

This is so true, each time I get a new colleague to learn SE from a SW background it's always a tedious process not because SW is better but only because the feature don't work in the same manner. So it's tough to get them to know how SE thinks in order to be efficient with it. That's why the training is necessary. Once you know how to do things it's really a powerfull software. I think the same can be said for someone coming from an Inventor background too.

From what I hear and see SE with Synchronous Technology is far appart from SE V20 so I would have a tough time comparing it to any other cad software right now. SEST seem to be a great tool if you have to use a lot of imported geometry.

My 2 cents

 

[PatCouture]

Another thing I forgot is that SE is very good with sheetmetal, for me that's always been the deal maker.

Pat

 

[pkelecy]

Thanks for the responses.

I realize I wasn't very clear in explaining my second question. The new guy has actually been using Inventor for the past two years. He used SolidWorks prior to that (version 2006 I believe). He specifically said he preferred SolidWorks to Inventor when I asked (thought it was easier). He's never used Solid Edge, but said he was willing to give it a try. I was trying to gauge what short of reaction he was likely to have, and whether his prior experiences with SolidWorks and Inventor would be a help or hindrance in learning SE. Sounds more likely a hindrance, based on the comments. I wonder if the perception would work the other way (ie would an SE user find SW difficult)?

I think a longer learning curve (or relearning curve) could be forgiven if the end result was more productive. I expect that conclusion will depend largely on the specific modeling tasks involved. We'll probably just need to try them both and see.

As for stability, I believe the demo was of the new Synchronous Technology. Apparently it still needs further shakeout. I expect the traditional mode (v21) would have behaved, and since that is where we'll probably start, I'm not too concerned. ST is pretty impressive though, and once matured could be a real productivity boost for the types of work we do. A definite plus for SE!

Thanks again for the feedback. Any other comments are welcomed.

Pat

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

The new guy should be able to adapt fairly easily and quickly if he is using only one CAD system daily.

A few years ago I did some work (evenings and weekends from home) for a company which used SE (V16 I think). I found the switch to be very frustrating, but that was probably because I was using SW on a daily basis in my regular job. The main problem was getting used to the different terms and screen layout. I was very lucky in that I had a great mentor working at the other company. SE and SW are pretty well equal in overall capabilities (including sheet metal). Overall their methods of feature creation are different. SE is generally more consistent in its approach to feature creation methods (which can be good or not so good depending on how your mind works) but for the most part, both can be coerced to work like the other.

Anyone who has worked with one system for a number of years will have some trouble adapting to another, no matter which systems are involved. So yes, SE users complain as much abut SW as SW users complain about SE or Inventor or Wildfire or ...

The new ST may or may not be the panacea SE thinks it will be, but that's an argument topic for another thread, and only time will tell. I cut my teeth into the 3D world with Co-Creates Solid Designer, a true and mature history-free program, and while I really liked it, it was not without limitations.

Also, if the new guy used a pre-SW08 version he will be in for some re-training anyway (albeit comparatively short) to get used to the re-vamped interface and shortcuts.

You have already decided to do the absolute best thing you could do ... test the programs yourself. If you have more demos of any software, make sure they don't just do their canned demos. make them work on some of your most awkward parts and assemblies. Make them work for their potential sale. Make them prove beyond doubt that their software will do what you want it to.

 

[pkelecy]

CorBlimeyLimey -Thanks for your comments. Sounds like you've had considerable experience with both platforms, which makes them especially valuable.

Your assessment raises an interesting question though. If SE and SW are truely equivalent in terms of capabilities and ease of use (assuming adequate training), and if they cost about same (which is what I've generally found), then it seems the tie breaker would be all the secondary factors, like third party support, vendor compatibility, availability of training materials, user group support, etc. By those measures I think it's safe to say SW wins hands down. So why would anyone buy SE?

I guess I could ask you that, having used both, why did you choose SE over SW, given the other apparent benefits of going with SW? Was that dictated by your employer?

With ST now part of the package, that could be the answer (which is probably Siemens thought also). If it proves to be as useful as Siemens is expecting, I'm sure it will be.

Thanks again.

Pat

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

pkelecy,
I have to correct your assumption about my SE experience. Although it was fairly intensive during the time I used it, it was actually limited to (I think) V16 and lasted for only a few months.

"By those measures I think it's safe to say SW wins hands down."
You may get some differing opinions on this forum, on that one.

"So why would anyone buy SE?"
For existing customers ... loyalty and legacy data. Over the years, SW and SE have been leapfrogging each other in terms of capability. The "tie breaker" items you mention weren't always there, and some will argue they are not there now.
For new customers ... word of mouth recommendations from trusted friends or associated companies (existing customers). I would rather take the word of a friend or associate over any CAD salesman.

"why did you choose SE over SW"
I actually use SW and do so because I joined a company which already used SW. Previous company used Solid Designer.

 

[pkelecy]

CorBlimeyLimey wrote: "I actually use SW and do so because I joined a company which already used SW. Previous company used Solid Designer."

Sorry, my mistake. I obviously assumed you were an SE user.

I guess I should have qualified my question somewhat. Why would a new user, or someone without any prior affiliation to either SW over SE, choose SE over SW, given the considerations I mentioned above? I think that's a fair question.

If you're already using an existing product, then there's certainly a lot of incentive to continue with it, and for the reasons you pointed out. It's also a good reason for not being too quick to jump into something.

Also, the big assumption I'm making with the question I posed is that SE and SW are actually equivalent, which is not really true. They may have equivalent features and capabilities, but it sounds like the interfaces and modeling approaches are different. Given that, one may just feel more natural to use then the other, depending on personal preferences. That would be a good reason for choosing it, in my opinion.

Thanks again for the feedback. -Pat

 

[teebarr]

Pat
Both packages will work for what you are doing. SW is easier to use - the SE work flow can be a little clunky at times and this can really frustrate someone used to SW. On the other hand, an experienced SE user usually finds SW a bit "clicky".

"So why would anyone buy SE?"

If you look at the profile of SE customers it is heavily weighted to companies who do a lot of sheet metal and large assemblies (neither seem to apply to you).
Sorry CBL, SW and SE are definitely NOT equal in sheetmetal capability. SW is short on proper tools, instead relying on features pulled from the feature library - definitly not as robust.

SW has many more plug-ins is more likely to be integrated into support products. The online community is also much bigger.

As for stability, V20 was rock solid. The traditional environment in SE w ST seems fine also. The new ST env. definitely has issues and I would be skeptical of the graphics card excuse used by the demo guy.

As you have a SW user, it would seem that SW is the obvious choice.

There is one other consideration however and that is ST. While very useable at the moment, you should think of it as an emerging technology as opposed to a fully featured package. The expectation is that both features and stability will improve in time.
Also bear in mind that ST is very different to trad. SE and SW and you will need to budget for additional training if you are to exploit its capabilities.

Tony

 

[beachcomber]

"SW is easier to use - the SE work flow can be a little clunky at times"

Not to me it isn't - I found exactly the opposite.

"If you look at the profile of SE customers it is heavily weighted to companies who do a lot of sheet metal and large assemblies"

Again I dont think this is necessarily true, but perhaps this type of user need something better at the job than SolidWorks.

SW does probably have more users - but AutoCad 2D has even more, so on that basis that's what you should use.

Maybe you can see now what I mean about SW users !

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

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

beachcomber,

"Maybe you can see now what I mean about SW users !"
... but teebar is a SE user.

I would have to agree with you on SE workflow. I found it to be more consistent (than SW) in its method of feature creation.

 

[pkelecy]

teebar, - yes, you're right. Very little of our work involves sheet metal or large assemblies. So from that standpoint, SW would work fine.

But as I mentioned above, we're planning to try both. So we'll see for ourselves (and for the types of parts we model) which is actually easier. I expect though there will be cases where each shine. I've decided to start to with SE in our trial. That should actual favor it in this comparison, but if SW is truly easier to use overall, than that should come out regardless.

The other thing we're really looking for, and this gets back to my first question, is stability. That is very important. We're actually coming from another CAD package - Cobalt (from Ashlar-Vellum) - which suffers in this regard. Cobalt is very easy to use, which is why we originally went with it. BUT, development on it has really lagged over the past few years, and there are a number long standing issues that really plague it. One painful lesson we've learned with it is that any productivity gains that come from having a nice, intuitive user interface or work flow (which it does) can quickly be wiped out by annoying bugs, unexpected crashes, and clunky work-arounds needed to produce usable drawings and export files. Now that business is growing, these issues have really become intolerable, and it's why we're looking for a better alternative. Hearing that SE traditional is "very stable" is a big, big plus for it, in my opinion. SW I'm less sure about. I've heard SW08 had some problems (enough that apparently a lot users decided to skip this release). Hopefully SW09 is better, but if not, that would be a concern.

ST is another plus favoring SE. I've been very impressed by the demos I've seen (crashes notwithstanding) and I think it could be a big help in some of the work we do (R&D stuff especially). Stability appears to be an issue, however. But unlike Ashlar, I expect Siemens will get this sorted out.

Anyway, thanks again for all the feedback. It's been very helpful. If nothing else, its confirmed that both SE and SW deserve our full consideration.

Pat

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

"I've heard SW08 had some problems (enough that apparently a lot users decided to skip this release)"

It wasn't so much 'problems' as the substantial interface change. Much of it just change for the sake of change. It caused a knee-jerk reaction from the more vocal user base which in turn scared-off many users from upgrading.
Those users who actually adopted the changes have found themselves to be more productive.

Only the in-depth testing you plan on doing will determine which system is better for your products and users.

 

[teebarr]

I've been an SE user since V16 and like it. I also love the addition of ST and can't wait to see what sheet metal ST is like, coming in the next release.

I am just giving my honest opinion to Pat's situation. CAD users like what they are used to and unless there is a strong case for changing, it often is not worth the continual "In my last software I was able to........"

The big thing I would be considering if I was Pat would be the ability to use my existing models. Both SW and SE trad. have direct edit tools, but ST has the potential to model dumb geometry as if it were created nativly. This could be a big deal.

I agree whole heartedly with CBL that canned demos are a waste of time. The only way to compare software is to send parts or drawings to the VARs and get then to demo the generation of the part AND assembly.
Then ask for a specific set of modifications to be done on one of your existing models.

I have done this in the past and the results can be quite surprising.

At the recent SW World they openly admitted that a focus of 2009 was to improve stability. Instability issues are have been broadly discussed amoungst bloggers. That said, they seemed to have responed and 2009 is generally accepted as a good release. So I wouldn't see it as cause for concern.

Pat, let us all know how the demos go!

Tony

 

[pkelecy]

Thanks again for all the feedback and will keep you posted as to how it goes. In fact, I expect I'll be back fairly often once the trial starts, which I'm looking forward to.

Pat

 

[KENAT]

pkelecy,

I haven't worked SW but from what I've seen, read, heard etc. I believe they are broadly comparable in performance/value etc.

Others have highlighted specific areas where they believe one is better/worse than the other.

I'd say the biggest decider would probably be the 'secondary' issues. Fundamentally SW has a larger user base in most geographic locations than SE, although it varies some. This has advantages and disadvantages, for instance while easier to find employees familiar with SW, it's easier for them to find a job elsewhere using it. There are more 3rd party apps etc for SW, but will you need them?

I've got to say that since coming to the US I've found the Solid Edge 'GTAC' customer support pretty darn good. I can't remember if in other parts of the world you have to contact your VAR though.

As to stability, it's never been too much of an issue. Dont' get me wrong, occasionally SE has been crash happy but this is usually due to what we're trying to do with it or how it's configured etc. not fundamentally the Software. V19 has been pretty stable for us I think.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at

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

 

[Bhaveshn]

I am using SE since last 1.5 years, shifted from SW. I had used SW for 5 years including Sheetmetal. My Honest Opinion would be with SW. SE is no way near SW as far as Part modeling Assembly & draft is concern.

I haven't used Sheetmetal in SE, so I am not in position to comment about it.

SW is far more flexible & robust.

I have many pending issues with SE which might easily do in SW. Some of them are listed below....

1. Full round blend is not possible
2. View reorientation in draft is not possible
3. Part/body mirror, scale in part environment is not possible
4. Ref-axis can’t used as ref. for other feature
5. “Detail envelope” line properties change is not possible
6. Image retrieval in draft from part modeler is not possible
7. Limited assembly mate options such as Symmetric etc. I could not put a edge on face.
8. No helical curve feature (can be derived from solid)
9. Dim. Can’t moved between views
10. Linear dimension line can not be jogged
11. Rounding off dim. With user defined least-count is not possible
12. Intersection point with annotation line can not be used as dim. Origin
13. Construction solid in part model is not possible & imported part is difficult to locate with reference to home part (too little control)


This list keeps on adding without satisfactory answers in this forum.

 

[Sabastian7]

I have used both SW and SE. Personally, I have found that Solid Edge is much more user friendly. And its capabilites with sheetmetal make it my choice.
If your keen to train your company in Solid Edge you should check out

http://www.soliddgetutorials.com/buy

they offer a range of Solidedge Video Tutorials with a full site licence and are developing Solid Edge with ST Video Tutorials.

 

[pkelecy]

Bhaveshn,

Thanks for your feedback. Not being familiar with either SE or SW. many of the items on your list I can't really appreciate. But it's certainly clear SE still has room for improvement. ;^)

A couple of the items you listed did surprise me though.

For example, number 8 - no helical curve. So you're saying SE doesn't have any tool that can do that? I'm very surprised, because even Cobalt (what I'm currently using) can do that. It's very useful too (if not indispensable) for creating screw or bolt threads. I actually needed to do that in a recent project.

Some of the others, like (1) and (11), also seem like they should be part of a CAD package at this level.

Since you have used both SE and SW quite a bit, you're also in a good position to answer the converse. Have you come across any useful features or capabilities in SE that SW doesn't have? If so, I would be very interested in hearing those as well. It would be good to know what I might miss by going SW instead of SE.

Thanks again for your comments. They were helpful. -Pat