difference between PROE & CATIA

[muadib3d]

as far as I remmeber it right Catia was not fully feature based. There was no model tree. If You wanted to change something You had to run special Modifying menu which shew the structure of model as a graph(I remind it similar to that in Ideas before 9 realease. And it was really pita for me.

sh*ty case that was, and it always push me back from doing anything it V4. There is no reason to talk about taste of V4`s interface to say at least.

So maybe those were the reasons they switch the kernel?

 

[jeff4136]

> in my humble knowledge ProE is a solid modeler.
> Numerics behind surfaces of the model is
> aprox. the like in surface modeler.


It's a b-rep modeler. The b-reps can be created using 'solid modeling' functions or surface by surface and then Solidify'd if desired. The same surface definitions (math) are used in either case. Spline entities are calculated to absolute or effective accuracy depending on file setup option. Analytic entities are calculated to floating point accuracy minus a few digits of accuracy for noise and rounding buffer.


There is no(?) practical difference between today's solid and surface modelers except to differentiate between those that 'support' solid entity representations (i.e. Pro/E, SW, SE, Catia, UG, etc.) and those that don't (i.e. Rhino; it cannot represent a hollow sphere without an interconnecting surface between the interior and exterior shells, does not have a database entity to collect the 'body' and 'void body').


> "out of the closed shell" and "in the closed shell".


That is precisely what surface (and shell, a.k.a. 'quilt') normals do.
;^) Sometimes it doesn't work, though ...
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=658287
Q: What color the inside of a 'solid'?
A: Not any color. Backfaces are not shaded.


> Further from here it can tell the center of weight,
> and basicly treat the model as virtual prototype as
> we all know today.

That is a 'volume' property. It is represented by a closed shell (quilt).
If you add an attribute called density to a database structure called 'solid'
then you can determine the mass, too.


> Please answer: why they didn't cotinue adding functionality to V4


Catia ... never seen it but ...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb496979.aspx
indicates there are a lot of misconceptions being passed around here
about what it (v4, in particular) is and isn't, what type of geometry
representations are used. Search the page for CSG if you don't want
to spend time reading, though a little reading of something informative
never hurt anyone.


To tell you the truth ... I could care less 'why'. What difference does
it make? At any rate; I don't pretend to know. Neither should you.

 

[cgosnell]

Coming from both CV and Solidworks before starting with Pro-E in rev 19, and ENOVIA (CATIA viewer?)now. I would like to add the following:

1) The interface matters. To this day Pro-E will find ways to hinder your productivity. One instance---When you add dimensions to a drawing view, Pro-E will let you select other dimensions, notes, even hidden edges/points/etc. Very poor interface design.

2) When exiting sketcher for a protrusion the system will complain that the sketch is not closed. Several problems - the dialog box is smack in the middle of the screen, obscuring your sketch. Moving it repaints the screen and hides the highlighted open ends. And most of the time, the highlighted ends don't highlight.

This is one example. The other situation with PTC is more concerning and confusing.

I asked a PTC rep why they bought ABORTEXT? After he told me the standard answer, I suggested that PTC would have been better served creating an ADOBE Acrobat 'plug in' that worked in MS Windows Apps, and that also allowed printing using Acrobat.

Why did PTC buy NC Graphics? Is it to control the Modeler that is used by 5 of the top 10 NC programs? Or is it used to create 'World Class' HSM code?

Jack-of-All trades, expert at none.

I'm a not ranting against Pro-E. I think it is a VERY GOOD surface modeler. They just need to hire some UI people. (Fingers crossed for WF4!!!)

2) CATIA had a reputation as being complex also, but the User interface in V5 is actually 'helpful'.

 

[Creator6]

I have been using Pro/E for a year now...I have been using Unigraphics for the previous 7 years & AutoCAD for 6 years prior to that. If I had a choice of Cad softwares...UG would win hands down.


Pro/E with Windchill has so many issues I don't even know where to start.


Very Frustrating....but I love the company I work for so I have learned to deal with it...I guess you have to pick your battles. I am at least getting the experience with the program. If I ever leave this company I probably wouldn't get a job with a company that used ProE.


I haven't used Catia so I don't have an opinion on that..sorry.

 

[bgervais@drs.ca]

Lockheed Martin uses Pro/E because when EDS bought UG and I-DEAS they were worried about the impact of legacy data being lost when the tools merged to NX. In 2002 they performed a tool evaluation and signed a good deal with PTC for corporate discounts. Pro/E is the current preferred CAD tool at Lockheed Martin however the legacy tools are CATIA and I-DEAS NX. I-DEAS used to be the preferred CAD tool of Lockheed Martin. CATIA is still used for most of the complex geometry at most facilities.


I hopped on Pro/E for the last 9 months. I use to use I-DEAS NX for 7 yearsand CATIA V5 fora 2 months.Here are my thoughts:


Pro/E -user friendliness is average -Geometry power is low -modeling speed is extremely fast -Assembly management is extremely powerful


I-DEAS NX - user friendliness is average -Geometry power ishigh - modeling speed is slow-Assembly management is average


CATIA V5 - user friendliness is very good - Geometry power is very high -modeling speed is average -Assembly management islow.


If I were to pick one tool to do it all I would pick CATIA because I find the most frustrating part of modeling is not being able to create the geometry I desire. So I would buy CATIA if I could afford it......

 

[jeff4136]

Ben,


I'm interested in the goemetry related assessments.
Will you elaborate, at least to a description of the type of geometry?
Ideally, some comparative descriptions regarding definition and creation.
Curiosity, not skepticism.
- - - - - -


Can one buy Catia? I have the impression (from hearsay picked up somewhere)
it's all a license lease deal now? (I've not seen mention and it's a pretty
important factor, in my mind.)

 

[Pliso]

Hi all,


I had worked with ProE 20 than with UG 17-NX2 and Catia V5, now I'm in ProE WF2. All of them has they own menthodology, advetages and disadventages.


I made molds and reengineering in Catia V5 and it was apiece of cake, to switch to ProE tooks me two weeks to work with it, but on the "let's say amateur bases". Some of tools which I was using in V5 I'm missing in ProE or I didn't founf it yet and other way around.


To correct one post, ProE builded ProDesktop to cover midle segment on marked but it was piece of crap and they stoped progres and support for that.


Finally, there is NO Winner in this competition, Winner is customer! If my customer will expect from me work in "Autocad", I will do it in "Autocad".


BR Pliso

 

[phoxeoy]

I want to respond to the response someone made about Catia allowing over and under constraints. I guess this is ok in a flexible kind of way but really? This was something I noticed when using soldworks for the first time. I didn't really care for the willy nilly way you can do things. I like knowing that my sketch is not defined completely or I have to many constraints. It helps in regards to clean up or helps to find I need more information in order to complete a complex feature. If your allowed to do continue without knowing you have to little information could cause problems down stream.

I have never used Catia although I would like to have the exp. Pro/E has been good to me and although it can be a headache at times, its only because I'm stretching the envelope.

 

[Kaz Z06]

Suhir's original posting about "Catia vs. Pro/E" has been inappropriately placed into this forum. This is the "Analysis" forum and should be used foranalysis topics only. The description of this forum's topics is made very clear on the main page:<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


Analysis: Pro/MECHANICA Structure, Thermal, Motion & Mechanism Design issues and techniques.


Amore appropriate forum would have been "Rant & Rave" or "User" as their descriptions more closely match what this topic is about. Certainly the "Analysis" forum is one of the furthest from this topic. Please read the forum description pripor to posting. You'll likely get more attention as well.


Thank you

 

[psaravananbe]

hellllllllloooooo i love Pro-E. Automatic constrains is possible only in pro-E Ex- Length equal and radius equal options are automatically comes . in catia u will constrain all things.

 

[dickint13]

I DESIGNED AND BUILT A AIRPLANE IN SOLIDWORKS.

 

[megaladon]

Solidworks,is not a true solid modeller? As far as I'm aware it only emulates solid gemetry which is much easier to carry out (I'm led to believe) than the true mathematical solution which is why Pro/E can sometimes struggle. I don't think there is anything Catia can do that Pro/ENGINEER cannot? How does Catia compare with family tables & interchange assemblies? It really depends on what you are using it for. Some companies have many assemblies only slightly different (which is where family tables come in).

where do you work?


family tables are forbidden exceptfor one instance here. flat patterns for sheet metal.


END OF STORY

 

[jvidal]

Here is a simple example. in sketch mode,

 

[Israr]

I think the discussion should be informative and positive but not letting down one another in favour of both software.


WF5 is having 3D contact , and ropes as new features in MDO. Since WF4 CETOL is now part of ProE.


What new features in Catia V6


One biggest advantage of CATIA over ProE is ABAQUS which is fully compatible with CATIA.

 

[miguelVR]

C'mon... this is wrong... you can also click, drag and
type in a dimension in Pro/E. And you don't need to exit
the circle function. You just select the next function -
square, centerline, accept sketch or whatever - and the
previous function will be automatically cancelled.

All you need to do is to activate the weak dimensions.

Can you tel me how to activate this?
because when I click, drag and type the dimension, It
doesn't work.

Miguel

 

[jvidal]

C'mon... this is wrong... you can also click, drag and
type in a dimension in Pro/E. And you don't need to exit
the circle function. You just select the next function -
square, centerline, accept sketch or whatever - and the
previous function will be automatically cancelled.

All you need to do is to activate the weak dimensions.

Can you tel me how to activate this?
because when I click, drag and type the dimension, It
doesn't work.

Miguel

1. Enter Sketcher Mode
2. Click Tools > Options
3. Check the WEAK DIMENSIONS check box

Weak dimensions are used by Pro/ENGINEER, because it requires a fully dimensioned sketch at all times.

So anytime you create an entity in a sketch, Pro/ENGINEER will automatically dimension it. All you need to do is change this value and press ENTER.

To have this setting automatically every time you enter sketcher mode add the following line to your config.pro file:

sketcher_disp_weak_dimensions yes

I would also add the following options:

sketcher_dimension_autolock yes
sketcher_disp_constraints yes
sketcher_lock_modified_dims yes

This is the way I have mine set up.

Hope this helps.

Best regards!
JVidal

 

[promark]

Far at the bottom and most likely won'tbe read,and agreeing with the gentleman that pointed out this is in the wrong forum, I had to comment.


I am fotunate enough to work at a place that has all 3 of the now big hitters (Catia V5, Pro-E WF3, and Inventor) I have alot of Pro experience (10+) and approximately 3+ years on the others. We are an R&D firm and try to meet the clients needs, hence the "clump" of CAD programs. We also have SW and UG but I cannot claim any experience in those. Most of my co-workers and I agree that some of the programs exceed the others in certain areas and wish that on some projects that we could do what the client is asking in another program. But again we aim to please the client, so that leads to dealing with most all of the 'rants" about which program does what stated in this thread. That being said, here is my comment.


Junk in.......Junk out, to me it's all about the USER! A good user will find a way to ge the job done.

 

[pro_champ]

CATIA vs Pro/E... It depends on the user. These days all solid modellers can do pretty much everything. With CATIA you have more modules than Pro/E, hence covers a wider stream of engineering, but as solid modelling, they are both fairly close. It is debatable because each person has a favorite way of doing things, and both software has its own strength and weaknesses.


CATIA comes from the boolean approach and only recently had the parametric solid modelling capabilities which now is more or less a standard in the engineering industry, while Pro/E was the pioneer of such methodology.


CATIA has more feature capabilities (some very neat) than Pro/E in the solid modelling module, but it depends on their frequent use. There are some features that you will never use, simply because there isnt a need to use them. So if you are comparing feature by feature capabilties, then CATIA has a bit more, but if you are comparing the basic features that are used more frequently then both have similar capabilties.


These days Industrial designers and Engineers can both use the same CAD software because of the "free-form" capabilities. Most CAD software are doing well in that department however, CATIA and Pro/E head the list. Solidworks has some cool features when it comes to that, but lacks in grunt.


In terms of flexibility, CATIA is more flexible with constraints, while Pro/E is more rigid, that means that all features have to be defined for it allow you to create a model. This point here is also heavily debatable, because Pro/E advocates (mostly engineers) will argue that when you have all the right dimensions on a model, then you are not guessing, therefore you wont have loose ends (if you like)...

 

[muadib3d]

good statement pro-champ

if I could afford for small statement, real puting cat among pigeons..

apart of differance between interfaces the real issue regarding what is better lays - IMHO - in the differance in marketing field.

Coming to the point - what Pro/E end user such me, can say about software which haven`t been used by him till this moment? Nothing. All we can say, claim and predict is based on stuff available on the net.

So more eye candy pictures related to software X, push people to gain the statement - "this software is really cool".

In this competition - intresting stuff available on the net - Catia seems to be the winner. So not in the funcionlity but on focusing the attention.

In the end we are - as me - the end users, which tend to have no impact on chosen software. In reality I suppose the maintanace, price, special deals between VARs and end clients, seems to play major condition of decision which software to buy, not the extra features or interface itself.

So, for me, all these debates what is better is oddly related to the each new software release and its multimedia campaign. When it ends it is quiet again...

Correct me if I am wrong.

But to not waste the time on the air here You got cute links regarding Catia and its potential:

http://www.classasurfacing.com/index.php

and some Sweep tutorials done by Adam O`Hern

[url]http://www.classasurfacing.com/class-a-surfacing/t174/msg248 /#msg248[/url]

 

[handyman2000]

Lets not forget about all the things that are missing from Catia V5. Pro-e has robust Family tables and instances, powerfull simplified reps, and can handle much larger assemblies on drawings for installation views. I have several years of experience on both programs and haven't found anything about Catia that I couldn't do in Pro-e but lots of things that are missing from Catia for functionality of large assemblies.