btcoutermash
Industrial
Does anybody have any good articles where they have compared history based -vs- Non history based CAD software??? Primarily I was lloking for productivity benchmarks. Any help would be great. Thanx.
Brad
Brad
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
History-vs-Non History based CAD softwares 8
- Thread starter btcoutermash
- Start date
- Status
ongybill
Is Ashlar, an history based CAD? With your posts, it seems to me that you are talking about some kind feature organization, but not an history based CAD.
In history based CAD, you have a parent/child relationship. Picking your example of selecting several holes at once and deleting them, that can be very simple in SW, depending on what type of model and modeling technic you are using (design intent). If you are practicing good modeling and you are not able to select all holes to delete, it's probably because it was ment to be that way. There are difterent holes, with different parent/child relationship and there's no reason to delete them at once. That can even cause the part to fail to rebuild.
On the other hand, holes of the "same family" should be modeled in a way that any modification (new dimentions, suppressing, deleting,...) would be easy to do, otherwise will have a case of bad modeling.
In SW you can also organize features in folders and rename them in order to make the model more easy to handle. A model with tenths of cuts, extrudes and paterns will be very hard to handle. But if organized in folders and/or with meaningful feature names it will be very easy.
I don't think that's a case of choosing power steering and power brakes. It seems to me that you can't have a car in clear black. It can be clear, it can be black, but not both. And that does not mean that the clear car will be better or better used than the black one. Just drive the one that suits you better.
Regards
Is Ashlar, an history based CAD? With your posts, it seems to me that you are talking about some kind feature organization, but not an history based CAD.
In history based CAD, you have a parent/child relationship. Picking your example of selecting several holes at once and deleting them, that can be very simple in SW, depending on what type of model and modeling technic you are using (design intent). If you are practicing good modeling and you are not able to select all holes to delete, it's probably because it was ment to be that way. There are difterent holes, with different parent/child relationship and there's no reason to delete them at once. That can even cause the part to fail to rebuild.
On the other hand, holes of the "same family" should be modeled in a way that any modification (new dimentions, suppressing, deleting,...) would be easy to do, otherwise will have a case of bad modeling.
In SW you can also organize features in folders and rename them in order to make the model more easy to handle. A model with tenths of cuts, extrudes and paterns will be very hard to handle. But if organized in folders and/or with meaningful feature names it will be very easy.
I don't think that's a case of choosing power steering and power brakes. It seems to me that you can't have a car in clear black. It can be clear, it can be black, but not both. And that does not mean that the clear car will be better or better used than the black one. Just drive the one that suits you better.
Regards
CorBlimeyLimey
{... just realised, with your tube example, if you RMB the graphical feature you can select Edit feature & change from mid-plane to Blind & set Direction1 and Direction2. That's still several more steps than with Vellum but beats having to add another feature to the tree. OSD has a similar function & I really like that. }
Good suggestion, never thought of doing it that way.
??What does OSD stand for??
MElam
{Look up "Move/Size Features" in Help . . .}
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it and couldn't get it to work, probably because I was in an assy and it talks of multi-body parts. Or perhaps because the parts were fully defined. If either of those guesses are right it's a very limited, but still useful tool (I don't do many multi-body parts). But, I'll play with it later and see if I can figure out how to make it work. I try to learn a new command a day, that's a good one for today.
{... just realised, with your tube example, if you RMB the graphical feature you can select Edit feature & change from mid-plane to Blind & set Direction1 and Direction2. That's still several more steps than with Vellum but beats having to add another feature to the tree. OSD has a similar function & I really like that. }
Good suggestion, never thought of doing it that way.
??What does OSD stand for??
MElam
{Look up "Move/Size Features" in Help . . .}
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it and couldn't get it to work, probably because I was in an assy and it talks of multi-body parts. Or perhaps because the parts were fully defined. If either of those guesses are right it's a very limited, but still useful tool (I don't do many multi-body parts). But, I'll play with it later and see if I can figure out how to make it work. I try to learn a new command a day, that's a good one for today.
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
OSD = One Space Designer (formerly Co-Creates Solid Designer)
See my post on 7 May 05 23:16
![[cheers]](/data/assets/smilies/cheers.gif "[cheers] [cheers]")
Making the best use of this Forum. faq559-716
How to get answers to your SW questions. faq559-1091
Helpful SW websites every user should be aware of. faq559-520
See my post on 7 May 05 23:16
Making the best use of this Forum. faq559-716
How to get answers to your SW questions. faq559-1091
Helpful SW websites every user should be aware of. faq559-520
Applicon CAD/CAM is history ...![[lol]](/data/assets/smilies/lol.gif "[lol] [lol]")
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
macPT
{Is Ashlar, an history based CAD? With your posts, it seems to me that you are talking about some kind feature organization, but not an history based CAD. In history based CAD, you have a parent/child relationship.}
I'd say Ashlar is more flexible. I'm not a programmer, & I'm not sure the full definition of history/non-history based. I'm also 6 years out of date with Ashlar's software. But, the older software is more of an either/or proposition. You can work as history based, or you can simply draw what you want w/o paying any attention to the history, or you can do a combination (the history's there if needed). I used it mostly when I wished to resize holes. Ocassionally, I find history based to be superior. Most of the time it's slower, more tedious, more steps, more time. I seldom used that feature in Vellum for this reason. Same way I seldom used dimension or equation based sketches to draw something. Ocassionally useful and superior, but unneeded for most of what I draw.
You can add parent/child relations when they're helpful, or if you want to, but you aren't forced to (I think you can set it to do so automatically like SW, but not sure). Which I like as I find parent/child to cause more problems then they solve in most cases. I know Ashlar's newer software allows you to use constraints, but doesn't force you to all the time like SW. Constraints again are a useful tool (something I really missed w/ Vellum), but not all the time.
Also I find SW models are much more fragile. You mentioned not deleting holes right and causing rebuild errors. For me that's a new one. Not used to models being so fragile. I get models all the time from our engineers that have obsolete parts in the assys. They're afraid to delete them because they'll likely create errors if they do. I just kept a part in a large assy for the same reason. Everytime I deleted it it caused massive problems. Couldn't figure out any way around that, so for the first time in years I deliberately left a part in a fixture that doesn't exist in real life. Lousy practice and not something I'm happy about (likely to confuse someone down the road), but. . . .
When I started using SW having people tell me well you drew that wrong remodel it this way and it'll work surprised me. I haven't scrapped a model and started over because I didn't create it properlly since Autocad. Though I've done it quite a few times this year.
I'm finally getting proficient with SW, though I have tons to learn still, but I'm more convinced all the time that in many signifigant ways it's inferior to Ashlar's software, at least for me.
Organizing things is slightly different in Vellum. You don't put them in folders, but you can group them together, or put them on the same layer, or add parts together, or other ways of organizing things. Of course an assembly is one file, not a file for each part as SW does it. It's definately a different animal.
I see SW more of your car is black, clear is NOT an option, so just deal with it.<G> Like being forced to start every part as a 2D sketch (no 3D drawing allowed).
For me at least, SW is an OK tool, far superior to what I used in college 12 years ago, but definately not what I'd choose if I had the choice.
Well, probably more then you wanted, and I'll probably get reamed for saying SW is inferior to anything in any way, but just 1 man's opinion.
{Is Ashlar, an history based CAD? With your posts, it seems to me that you are talking about some kind feature organization, but not an history based CAD. In history based CAD, you have a parent/child relationship.}
I'd say Ashlar is more flexible. I'm not a programmer, & I'm not sure the full definition of history/non-history based. I'm also 6 years out of date with Ashlar's software. But, the older software is more of an either/or proposition. You can work as history based, or you can simply draw what you want w/o paying any attention to the history, or you can do a combination (the history's there if needed). I used it mostly when I wished to resize holes. Ocassionally, I find history based to be superior. Most of the time it's slower, more tedious, more steps, more time. I seldom used that feature in Vellum for this reason. Same way I seldom used dimension or equation based sketches to draw something. Ocassionally useful and superior, but unneeded for most of what I draw.
You can add parent/child relations when they're helpful, or if you want to, but you aren't forced to (I think you can set it to do so automatically like SW, but not sure). Which I like as I find parent/child to cause more problems then they solve in most cases. I know Ashlar's newer software allows you to use constraints, but doesn't force you to all the time like SW. Constraints again are a useful tool (something I really missed w/ Vellum), but not all the time.
Also I find SW models are much more fragile. You mentioned not deleting holes right and causing rebuild errors. For me that's a new one. Not used to models being so fragile. I get models all the time from our engineers that have obsolete parts in the assys. They're afraid to delete them because they'll likely create errors if they do. I just kept a part in a large assy for the same reason. Everytime I deleted it it caused massive problems. Couldn't figure out any way around that, so for the first time in years I deliberately left a part in a fixture that doesn't exist in real life. Lousy practice and not something I'm happy about (likely to confuse someone down the road), but. . . .
When I started using SW having people tell me well you drew that wrong remodel it this way and it'll work surprised me. I haven't scrapped a model and started over because I didn't create it properlly since Autocad. Though I've done it quite a few times this year.
I'm finally getting proficient with SW, though I have tons to learn still, but I'm more convinced all the time that in many signifigant ways it's inferior to Ashlar's software, at least for me.
Organizing things is slightly different in Vellum. You don't put them in folders, but you can group them together, or put them on the same layer, or add parts together, or other ways of organizing things. Of course an assembly is one file, not a file for each part as SW does it. It's definately a different animal.
I see SW more of your car is black, clear is NOT an option, so just deal with it.<G> Like being forced to start every part as a 2D sketch (no 3D drawing allowed).
For me at least, SW is an OK tool, far superior to what I used in college 12 years ago, but definately not what I'd choose if I had the choice.
Well, probably more then you wanted, and I'll probably get reamed for saying SW is inferior to anything in any way, but just 1 man's opinion.
Theophilus
Mechanical
ongybill, are you more of an engineer or an industrial designer? I would guess ID, based on the non-legacy flexibility you indicate as your preference. Good post.
Just as the history can be somewhat constraining, it can certainly be used to be much more powerful--moving from a hindrance to an asset.
For instance, I modeled a single part with seven solid bodies and lots of surface bodies through over 450 features. That was a complex part (injection molded housings) that will be broken into separate components. It would have been impossible for me to create that part (feasibly) without reliance on history. Hundreds of times I had to move up the tree (back in time) and tweak a value to change things deliberately downstream. If I can double-click a dimension, or simply move a feature backward or forward along the process, this can be incredibly powerful.
The difficulty is that training a mind to build models in such a way is difficult and slow. It comes down to a logical process such that edits can be made easily without the catastrophic results you mentioned. I faced that all the time when I learned SW back in 1997. I kept finding myself wondering why the confounded software wouldn't allow me to perform a particular operation, only to figure out what I was trying to do was geometrically irrational and therefore logically impossible. (So I wasn't having difficulty with the software, but the laws of reality.)
Meanwhile, the history stored in the feature tree can be used such that the poor practices you mentioned (and I agree with your assessment) aren't necessary--within assemblies or parts--but the modeling does need to be done according to rather strict practices. I can't stand having corrupted parts or features in models as necessary legacy. They can always be removed, but if the modeling was done poorly (or merely without foresight as to how the models would be used in their current context), the time is sometimes not justified to correct the bugs.
Since the mode of thinking is so much different with history-storing models, it will take some time and practice to make it work to your advantage instead of to your detriment. That comes with the proficiency you mentioned and I think you'll find it useful down the road.
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
Just as the history can be somewhat constraining, it can certainly be used to be much more powerful--moving from a hindrance to an asset.
For instance, I modeled a single part with seven solid bodies and lots of surface bodies through over 450 features. That was a complex part (injection molded housings) that will be broken into separate components. It would have been impossible for me to create that part (feasibly) without reliance on history. Hundreds of times I had to move up the tree (back in time) and tweak a value to change things deliberately downstream. If I can double-click a dimension, or simply move a feature backward or forward along the process, this can be incredibly powerful.
The difficulty is that training a mind to build models in such a way is difficult and slow. It comes down to a logical process such that edits can be made easily without the catastrophic results you mentioned. I faced that all the time when I learned SW back in 1997. I kept finding myself wondering why the confounded software wouldn't allow me to perform a particular operation, only to figure out what I was trying to do was geometrically irrational and therefore logically impossible. (So I wasn't having difficulty with the software, but the laws of reality.)
Meanwhile, the history stored in the feature tree can be used such that the poor practices you mentioned (and I agree with your assessment) aren't necessary--within assemblies or parts--but the modeling does need to be done according to rather strict practices. I can't stand having corrupted parts or features in models as necessary legacy. They can always be removed, but if the modeling was done poorly (or merely without foresight as to how the models would be used in their current context), the time is sometimes not justified to correct the bugs.
Since the mode of thinking is so much different with history-storing models, it will take some time and practice to make it work to your advantage instead of to your detriment. That comes with the proficiency you mentioned and I think you'll find it useful down the road.
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
{ongybill, are you more of an engineer or an industrial designer? I would guess ID, based on the non-legacy flexibility you indicate as your preference. Good post.}
You would be right, though I also do a great deal of design work. I spend a great lot of time doing parts drawings of complex assemblies. Design intent, parent/child, & history is just time consuming nonsense when all I wish to do is draw widget Y purchased from company X. I just want it close to the correct size, with accurate mounting features, as quickly as possible. The rest of it's useless as I'm never gonna build the part, and it's not possible to tweak the size.
Of course even in my design work, the legacy flexibility is of limited usefulness as so much of what I do is custom work. Meaning there's little chance of building that part again, and there's seldom a family of similar parts to worry about. So while useful, it's of limited usefulness to me personally.
{The difficulty is that training a mind to build models in such a way is difficult and slow.}
I'd certainly agree with this statement. I find much of SW to be totally counter-intuitive. Such as starting all 3D models as 2D sketches. Not sure I'll ever understand why it works that way. In fact I wasted a great deal of time up front because I found it so difficult to believe that was actually how things had to be created. But, after much searching I've accepted that SW isn't a 3D drawing program, at least not in the way I'm used to.
{Since the mode of thinking is so much different with history-storing models, it will take some time and practice to make it work to your advantage instead of to your detriment. That comes with the proficiency you mentioned and I think you'll find it useful down the road.}
True, I'm gradually finding it more useful. Just would prefer not to be forced to use it most of the time when it's a detriment not a help. Perhaps someday my thought processes will get warped into SW mode & it'll make sense.<G> Now it's just a bunch of unnecissary steps SW needs because it wasn't set up very well to begin with.
It'd also help tons if the tree didn't act like a possessed slinky. Maybe there's some logic to how it expands and contracts which parts are open and where on the tree it is, but I can't figure it out. I hate when I wish to modify the mates of part X and I have to keep refinding and reopening the correct folders in the tree. Or worse accidentally modifying the wrong part because it closes part X and opens window on part X(2)which I don't want to change. Frankly I don't EVER want the program to ASSUME what I want to see in the tree, it should stay EXACTLY the way I left it until I change it.
The biggest difference is the difficulty of manuvering in a 3D environment in SW. Example to draw anything in SW you need a plane to draw on at the EXACT point in 3D space you wish to draw. In vellum planes are infinite. If I have the front plane selected I can draw on the front plane anywhere on any part, or just out in random space (then move the part to the final location later). Or, I can select a part then click on any point on a drawing and extend a line in the proper direction (it automatically snaps to axis & tangencies) to mirror a part. Or transfer any dimension from any part to any other part without needing to measure it and make notes.
Consequentally, all the time spent creating planes, axis, worrying about origins, measuring existing parts, ect. is just wasted time due to software limitations (at least in my mind). I'm used to it, I can work around it, but I find it incredibly tedious and slow. I've lost the FUN in solid modeling (work is much more work then it used to be).
You would be right, though I also do a great deal of design work. I spend a great lot of time doing parts drawings of complex assemblies. Design intent, parent/child, & history is just time consuming nonsense when all I wish to do is draw widget Y purchased from company X. I just want it close to the correct size, with accurate mounting features, as quickly as possible. The rest of it's useless as I'm never gonna build the part, and it's not possible to tweak the size.
Of course even in my design work, the legacy flexibility is of limited usefulness as so much of what I do is custom work. Meaning there's little chance of building that part again, and there's seldom a family of similar parts to worry about. So while useful, it's of limited usefulness to me personally.
{The difficulty is that training a mind to build models in such a way is difficult and slow.}
I'd certainly agree with this statement. I find much of SW to be totally counter-intuitive. Such as starting all 3D models as 2D sketches. Not sure I'll ever understand why it works that way. In fact I wasted a great deal of time up front because I found it so difficult to believe that was actually how things had to be created. But, after much searching I've accepted that SW isn't a 3D drawing program, at least not in the way I'm used to.
{Since the mode of thinking is so much different with history-storing models, it will take some time and practice to make it work to your advantage instead of to your detriment. That comes with the proficiency you mentioned and I think you'll find it useful down the road.}
True, I'm gradually finding it more useful. Just would prefer not to be forced to use it most of the time when it's a detriment not a help. Perhaps someday my thought processes will get warped into SW mode & it'll make sense.<G> Now it's just a bunch of unnecissary steps SW needs because it wasn't set up very well to begin with.
It'd also help tons if the tree didn't act like a possessed slinky. Maybe there's some logic to how it expands and contracts which parts are open and where on the tree it is, but I can't figure it out. I hate when I wish to modify the mates of part X and I have to keep refinding and reopening the correct folders in the tree. Or worse accidentally modifying the wrong part because it closes part X and opens window on part X(2)which I don't want to change. Frankly I don't EVER want the program to ASSUME what I want to see in the tree, it should stay EXACTLY the way I left it until I change it.
The biggest difference is the difficulty of manuvering in a 3D environment in SW. Example to draw anything in SW you need a plane to draw on at the EXACT point in 3D space you wish to draw. In vellum planes are infinite. If I have the front plane selected I can draw on the front plane anywhere on any part, or just out in random space (then move the part to the final location later). Or, I can select a part then click on any point on a drawing and extend a line in the proper direction (it automatically snaps to axis & tangencies) to mirror a part. Or transfer any dimension from any part to any other part without needing to measure it and make notes.
Consequentally, all the time spent creating planes, axis, worrying about origins, measuring existing parts, ect. is just wasted time due to software limitations (at least in my mind). I'm used to it, I can work around it, but I find it incredibly tedious and slow. I've lost the FUN in solid modeling (work is much more work then it used to be).
Theophilus
Mechanical
A POSSESSED SLINKY! HA!
I think many share your sentiments regarding the feature tree. I'd like to be able to toggle off the tree action when selecting thing as an item on a toolbar instead of something burried in the Options.
I believe SW was set up the way it was for constrained engineering purposes, and less for quick form creation. (That's why so many ID guys/gals like Rhino for doing so.) However, coming from ACAD, where you have to specify and fully constrain everything just to draw a line, SW was quite a "loose" feeling tool in the engineering field when released. Things could actually remain unconstrained indefinitely (albeit with the limits you discussed regarding plane placement, etc.).
Although I'm an industrial designer, I do my own plastic part engineering, etc. for production and leverage great utility from the history (having undergone the full mind "warp" to play nice with SW). For quick form development without dimensional hindrance, a NURBS-based, push-pull-surface program would probably be of more use. Past that, into the quantified and absolute sphere of engineering, SW sings. And that's what it was designed to do.
Certainly, it pays to use the right tool for the job.
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
I think many share your sentiments regarding the feature tree. I'd like to be able to toggle off the tree action when selecting thing as an item on a toolbar instead of something burried in the Options.
I believe SW was set up the way it was for constrained engineering purposes, and less for quick form creation. (That's why so many ID guys/gals like Rhino for doing so.) However, coming from ACAD, where you have to specify and fully constrain everything just to draw a line, SW was quite a "loose" feeling tool in the engineering field when released. Things could actually remain unconstrained indefinitely (albeit with the limits you discussed regarding plane placement, etc.).
Although I'm an industrial designer, I do my own plastic part engineering, etc. for production and leverage great utility from the history (having undergone the full mind "warp" to play nice with SW). For quick form development without dimensional hindrance, a NURBS-based, push-pull-surface program would probably be of more use. Past that, into the quantified and absolute sphere of engineering, SW sings. And that's what it was designed to do.
Certainly, it pays to use the right tool for the job.
Jeff Mowry
Reality is no respecter of good intentions.
You're right Theophilus.
I was a Pro/E user, back in those days where Pro/E only worked in UNIX workstations (last used version was V17).
For these versions there was nothing like unconstrained sketches. Everything needed to be 100% constrained. Every modification on the design, by changing sketch dimensions or feature dimensions, needed to be very whell planned because Pro/E could "easely" fail to rebuild (this is not a complaint; it was the state of the art at the time).
When I started to use SW, I was surprised how tolerante it was. No need for fully constrained sketches, almost all modifications could be successfuly performed, no matter how different the result was. So it sounds a little strange to hear someone complaning how rigid SW is!
As I told before, the type of work is the firts thing to analyse when deciding the type of CAD to use. The last post from ongybill prove this. I get the feeling that puting a ID guy using SW it will be like puting a painter painting using a drawing board and a ruler. But I can't imagine doing my work (that also includes ID into some extent) without a good history.
Regards
I was a Pro/E user, back in those days where Pro/E only worked in UNIX workstations (last used version was V17).
For these versions there was nothing like unconstrained sketches. Everything needed to be 100% constrained. Every modification on the design, by changing sketch dimensions or feature dimensions, needed to be very whell planned because Pro/E could "easely" fail to rebuild (this is not a complaint; it was the state of the art at the time).
When I started to use SW, I was surprised how tolerante it was. No need for fully constrained sketches, almost all modifications could be successfuly performed, no matter how different the result was. So it sounds a little strange to hear someone complaning how rigid SW is!
As I told before, the type of work is the firts thing to analyse when deciding the type of CAD to use. The last post from ongybill prove this. I get the feeling that puting a ID guy using SW it will be like puting a painter painting using a drawing board and a ruler. But I can't imagine doing my work (that also includes ID into some extent) without a good history.
Regards
I think I've confused people.
I'm not complaining that SW has a history tree. I'm used to that. But, that it ONLY has a history tree. (Don't get that)
As far as solid model creation Vellum is superior (in my estimation). There are a few advantages of SW 2005 over Vellum 2000, but from my research on Cobalt 2005 most or all of those advantages no longer exist.
Vellum is vastly superior to SW for 3D drawing (solid or sketching). MUCH easier to move parts around, create parts, use references from existing parts, assembling parts, ect.. You can acurately draw very complex parts 100% 3D w/o ever making a single 2D sketch; drawing so much as a single line or point; defining a single plane or axis; inserting a dimension; ect.. SW doesn't even come close to this functionality.
Bottom line is SW is good software. Not the best, but perhaps 2nd best (I'm too out of date to know). It typically takes me 3-4 times as long to create 90% of the models I create w/ SW (this will reduce some w/ experience, but not that much). The other 10% of models are quicker or equal w/ SW. Most things w/ SW simply take more steps, more commands, & more mouse clicks to acheive the same results.
The models once drawn have no appreciable benifits over each other. Both are "smart" solids, both have a history tree, ect..
I'd rank them this way:
For 3D solid design I'd give Vellum a 9 and SW a 5.
For 3D solid drawing (drawing things that are already designed) I'd give Vellum a 8.5 and SW a 7.
For detail drawings I'd give Vellum a 6 and SW a 8.
For file management I'd give Vellum a 8 and SW a 4 (sorry assemblies with hundreds of part files still drive me insane, much prefer 1 file for 1 assembly).
For finding pre-drawn parts on the web I'd give SW a 10 and Vellum a 1 (it's fringe software, no where near the # of users).
For modifying and using imported parts (something I do quite often) I'd give Vellum a 10 and SW a 2. Vellum can easily use 3D wireframe data to create models, and can work with dumb solids w/ almost zero problems; neither is true for SW.
I'm not complaining that SW has a history tree. I'm used to that. But, that it ONLY has a history tree. (Don't get that)
As far as solid model creation Vellum is superior (in my estimation). There are a few advantages of SW 2005 over Vellum 2000, but from my research on Cobalt 2005 most or all of those advantages no longer exist.
Vellum is vastly superior to SW for 3D drawing (solid or sketching). MUCH easier to move parts around, create parts, use references from existing parts, assembling parts, ect.. You can acurately draw very complex parts 100% 3D w/o ever making a single 2D sketch; drawing so much as a single line or point; defining a single plane or axis; inserting a dimension; ect.. SW doesn't even come close to this functionality.
Bottom line is SW is good software. Not the best, but perhaps 2nd best (I'm too out of date to know). It typically takes me 3-4 times as long to create 90% of the models I create w/ SW (this will reduce some w/ experience, but not that much). The other 10% of models are quicker or equal w/ SW. Most things w/ SW simply take more steps, more commands, & more mouse clicks to acheive the same results.
The models once drawn have no appreciable benifits over each other. Both are "smart" solids, both have a history tree, ect..
I'd rank them this way:
For 3D solid design I'd give Vellum a 9 and SW a 5.
For 3D solid drawing (drawing things that are already designed) I'd give Vellum a 8.5 and SW a 7.
For detail drawings I'd give Vellum a 6 and SW a 8.
For file management I'd give Vellum a 8 and SW a 4 (sorry assemblies with hundreds of part files still drive me insane, much prefer 1 file for 1 assembly).
For finding pre-drawn parts on the web I'd give SW a 10 and Vellum a 1 (it's fringe software, no where near the # of users).
For modifying and using imported parts (something I do quite often) I'd give Vellum a 10 and SW a 2. Vellum can easily use 3D wireframe data to create models, and can work with dumb solids w/ almost zero problems; neither is true for SW.
-
1
- #31
I want to see the models you are making your poll on. I bet I can out do Vellum in many different ways.
Break down:
Why? What are you modeling in Vellum that you can't do better in SW? - Please list a place where these files can be uploaded.
I don't understand this? "(drawing things that are already designed)" You mean you can't make a drawing in SW better then you can in Vellum for models that are already in SW? Please elborate.
Even though you gave SW a higher score, im still surprised, because SW draiwng usually get a low score, because they are not AutoCAD drawing, and most user frown at SW drawings. However I think they do a great job and always had since I started using them in 96 and at the point SW was limited versus where it is at now.
File management does suck, but that what PDMworks is for. It is to help you control and track your files better.
I had system at one of my previous employments, without PDMworks and we setup a system that worked for us quite well and again that was in 96 when SW was extremely limited. I think if you had the proper tools you wouldn't feel the way you do about this.
Of course and there is a reason for that... because SW is better then Vellum. If Vellum was that good then SW would be the one with limited models online.
This varies depending on the Data translator the files came from. What type of files do you import into Vellum and SW? The "types" may be the problem, more then the import. Your Options maybe not be setup correctly or not set up efficiently. Please list the types and a site to what files you are importing. I would like to see this for myself.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
![[pc2]](/data/assets/smilies/pc2.gif "[pc2] [pc2]")
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
Ongybill, how long have you used Vellum and how long have you used SolidWorks? I think you are experiencing "software familiarity" rather than "software limitations".
[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Howdy,
Don't have a great deal of time at the moment.
MadMango is certainly right that much of my frustration is a function of software familiarity.
My biggest annoyance with SW is the difficulty in 3D design work. I confused scott some with this.
I break it down into solid drawing; where you pick up something measure and draw it, or you take a 2D drawing and draw a solid model using the dimensions on the drawing. No design work required. Then there's solid design, where you have to design parts from scratch.
Both programs are capable of this, but in SW's case, the software itself inhibits rather then helps the design process. Being limited to drawing on fixed point planes makes it very time consuming and slow to attempt to transfer points from parts A & B to connecting bracket C you are attempting to design. 3D sketching capabilities in SW are pathetic. Here I'd give Vellum a 10 and SW a 1, there is no comparison. SW has other features that help later in the design process, thus I upped it's score to a 5 and lowered Vellum's to a 9. But, for whipping up a quick sketch to work through several different design ideas SW sucks.
One thing I've found as I gain more design experience is that designs get more complicated because instead of struggling to think of something that'll work I have to quickly decide on one of the 6 different ideas that pop into my head. It's quite easy to do this in vellum by simply positioning known parts in approximate locations and sketching ideas around them. Using a combination of simple solid shapes and 3D wireframe.
With SW it's easier to sketch on paper (which I'm not that good at).<G> An article I recently cut out of Design News (I think) says it better then I can: "CAD systems often constrain engineers rather then liberate them to do their best and most creative designs....Most CAD tools available are not focused on creativity...The tools are meant for documenting not creatively developing a design. I find SW extremely constricting when designing things. SW is very inferior when it comes to ease of manuvering and manipulating things in a 3D environment.
I'd disagree that market share means a product is 'better'. For many years Apples OS was vastly superior to Windows (not much difference anymore). Autocad was lousy software when I learned it, vastly inferior to CadKey which I also used, but it still dominated the CAD world for years (only meant it was more well known and marketed better, not that it was better). Vellum made the mistake of being strictly Mac software, up until about 2000 which greatly limited their market.
I will say that I can, eventually, draw most anything I wish to with SW. But, in many instances it's not nearly as straightforward as I'm used to, takes many more steps, and I spend the majority of my time not thinking about the design and how to improve it, but how to use the software (hopefully that'll improve).
Don't have a great deal of time at the moment.
MadMango is certainly right that much of my frustration is a function of software familiarity.
My biggest annoyance with SW is the difficulty in 3D design work. I confused scott some with this.
I break it down into solid drawing; where you pick up something measure and draw it, or you take a 2D drawing and draw a solid model using the dimensions on the drawing. No design work required. Then there's solid design, where you have to design parts from scratch.
Both programs are capable of this, but in SW's case, the software itself inhibits rather then helps the design process. Being limited to drawing on fixed point planes makes it very time consuming and slow to attempt to transfer points from parts A & B to connecting bracket C you are attempting to design. 3D sketching capabilities in SW are pathetic. Here I'd give Vellum a 10 and SW a 1, there is no comparison. SW has other features that help later in the design process, thus I upped it's score to a 5 and lowered Vellum's to a 9. But, for whipping up a quick sketch to work through several different design ideas SW sucks.
One thing I've found as I gain more design experience is that designs get more complicated because instead of struggling to think of something that'll work I have to quickly decide on one of the 6 different ideas that pop into my head. It's quite easy to do this in vellum by simply positioning known parts in approximate locations and sketching ideas around them. Using a combination of simple solid shapes and 3D wireframe.
With SW it's easier to sketch on paper (which I'm not that good at).<G> An article I recently cut out of Design News (I think) says it better then I can: "CAD systems often constrain engineers rather then liberate them to do their best and most creative designs....Most CAD tools available are not focused on creativity...The tools are meant for documenting not creatively developing a design. I find SW extremely constricting when designing things. SW is very inferior when it comes to ease of manuvering and manipulating things in a 3D environment.
I'd disagree that market share means a product is 'better'. For many years Apples OS was vastly superior to Windows (not much difference anymore). Autocad was lousy software when I learned it, vastly inferior to CadKey which I also used, but it still dominated the CAD world for years (only meant it was more well known and marketed better, not that it was better). Vellum made the mistake of being strictly Mac software, up until about 2000 which greatly limited their market.
I will say that I can, eventually, draw most anything I wish to with SW. But, in many instances it's not nearly as straightforward as I'm used to, takes many more steps, and I spend the majority of my time not thinking about the design and how to improve it, but how to use the software (hopefully that'll improve).
I'll have to investigate PDMworks. Never used it. Anything that'll help with file management would be welcome.
As far as imported parts, usually these are provided by customers (old Autocad files being most common). Perhaps there's a way in SW to import 2D wireframe data and then use the 2D wireframes to create a 3D solid, but I had zero success when I tried. My main comment was being able to take existing 2D files and converting them to 3D solids. If there's a tutorial or someplace where I could get suggestions on how to do this in SW I'd love to know about it. I could only import Solids, not wireframes.
{I want to see the models you are making your poll on. I bet I can out do Vellum in many different ways.}
You're probably right, I've seen, and learned from, your web-site, and you're obviously an expert w/ SW. I think it's simply the time and # of steps to draw something that drives me nuts with SW. I can draw pretty much anything I wish to with SW, it just takes more time and steps (creating planes, axis, 2D sketches, adding dimensions, ect that aren't necissary in Vellum). Perhaps many of these steps can be eliminated with experience. I hope so.
The only model I have anywhere on the web is It's a part I drew in SW (limit switch roller). Not sure it's helpful at all. Though it'll likely just show you what an amatuer I am with SW's.<G>
Anyway, gotta get back to work, thanks for your time.
Bill
As far as imported parts, usually these are provided by customers (old Autocad files being most common). Perhaps there's a way in SW to import 2D wireframe data and then use the 2D wireframes to create a 3D solid, but I had zero success when I tried. My main comment was being able to take existing 2D files and converting them to 3D solids. If there's a tutorial or someplace where I could get suggestions on how to do this in SW I'd love to know about it. I could only import Solids, not wireframes.
{I want to see the models you are making your poll on. I bet I can out do Vellum in many different ways.}
You're probably right, I've seen, and learned from, your web-site, and you're obviously an expert w/ SW. I think it's simply the time and # of steps to draw something that drives me nuts with SW. I can draw pretty much anything I wish to with SW, it just takes more time and steps (creating planes, axis, 2D sketches, adding dimensions, ect that aren't necissary in Vellum). Perhaps many of these steps can be eliminated with experience. I hope so.
The only model I have anywhere on the web is It's a part I drew in SW (limit switch roller). Not sure it's helpful at all. Though it'll likely just show you what an amatuer I am with SW's.<G>
Anyway, gotta get back to work, thanks for your time.
Bill
ongybill,
How much experience do you have with SolidWorks or any CAD software? And how much mechanical design experience? Not trying to trash you in any way, just trying to get an idea where you are in the way of comparing CAD software.
Also, if this discussion is to go further, there should be a new thread.
thanks
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
How much experience do you have with SolidWorks or any CAD software? And how much mechanical design experience? Not trying to trash you in any way, just trying to get an idea where you are in the way of comparing CAD software.
Also, if this discussion is to go further, there should be a new thread.
thanks
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
I take items off my desk and design them every day. How do you think the Bionicle made it into SW?... not from dimensions given to me.
CBL posted this in another forum - and I can't express how easy this is to accomplish in SW and they seem to be completely Identical in function... I'm sure Vellum copied SW in that respect.
Under the "A" section of page 2 -
What are they talking about that is a drop in the bucket even for them most newest of users. If you have done the Online Tutorials then this should be easy!
Then why is SW leading the pack? I think a lot of your problem is that you are not experienced enough with SW to know the proper function or how to use the software correctly. Plus you probably can't let go of an older CAD system.
Construction geometry and construction planes will fix this problem. If you know how to manipulate the planes this is easy to accomplish.
Have you seen the bionicle? That mask was made with several 3D sketches, surfaces, etc... to get the correct shape. I want to see you make that shape/mask in Vellum. With it's "9" in 3D sketching.
just a couple things come to mind:
Configurations of parts
Assembly sketches
With assembly sketches you can then start a new part in the assembly and convert those sketches into parts and then you have your part in the assembly... How easy is that?
This is because you don't know how to use the software. It's apparent in your answers. If you would use some of that negative feedback towards learning proper function and use in SW you would understand why we use the software everyday and why we don't use Vellum
Who ever said market share makes a better product? Function, function, function is the best CAD tool and SW provides it if you only understood SW. I now not only think your Biased towards SW, because your MAC guy and you are trying to convince us out here that MAC is the best. MAC's are good, but SW is a great application and just because they don't support MAC doesn't mean we should change to Vellum. If you only understood the application and proper use you wouldn't be posting such negative things about SW.
It's not straight forward because your used to a certain way and your unwilling to give 100%. If you forgot completely about Vellum and truly tested SW to it's full potenial I think you would understand why we use it.
In conculsion:
Your knowledge of the SW Software is way too limited for you to be judging the software. You need someone like a VAR to train you on proper function and technic. Your Polls are miss leading because the files you are making are probably easy to make in SW, you just don't know the proper function to make this file SW. I still challenge you to make not only the Bionicle Mask like mine, but also to post some of your models from Vellum, that you think takes to long in SW to make or can't be made.
If you don't accept these challenges, then how can we honestly trust your opinion about Vellum, but that may just be my opinion.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
CBL posted this in another forum - and I can't express how easy this is to accomplish in SW and they seem to be completely Identical in function... I'm sure Vellum copied SW in that respect.
Under the "A" section of page 2 -
What are they talking about that is a drop in the bucket even for them most newest of users. If you have done the Online Tutorials then this should be easy!
Then why is SW leading the pack? I think a lot of your problem is that you are not experienced enough with SW to know the proper function or how to use the software correctly. Plus you probably can't let go of an older CAD system.
Construction geometry and construction planes will fix this problem. If you know how to manipulate the planes this is easy to accomplish.
They have not been the best, but after years of working with them the are not that bad. You have to just understand how they work. SW06 is going to fix a lot of the 3D sketch limitations though.
Have you seen the bionicle? That mask was made with several 3D sketches, surfaces, etc... to get the correct shape. I want to see you make that shape/mask in Vellum. With it's "9" in 3D sketching.
just a couple things come to mind:
Configurations of parts
Assembly sketches
With assembly sketches you can then start a new part in the assembly and convert those sketches into parts and then you have your part in the assembly... How easy is that?
This is because you don't know how to use the software. It's apparent in your answers. If you would use some of that negative feedback towards learning proper function and use in SW you would understand why we use the software everyday and why we don't use Vellum
Who ever said market share makes a better product? Function, function, function is the best CAD tool and SW provides it if you only understood SW. I now not only think your Biased towards SW, because your MAC guy and you are trying to convince us out here that MAC is the best. MAC's are good, but SW is a great application and just because they don't support MAC doesn't mean we should change to Vellum. If you only understood the application and proper use you wouldn't be posting such negative things about SW.
It's not straight forward because your used to a certain way and your unwilling to give 100%. If you forgot completely about Vellum and truly tested SW to it's full potenial I think you would understand why we use it.
In conculsion:
Your knowledge of the SW Software is way too limited for you to be judging the software. You need someone like a VAR to train you on proper function and technic. Your Polls are miss leading because the files you are making are probably easy to make in SW, you just don't know the proper function to make this file SW. I still challenge you to make not only the Bionicle Mask like mine, but also to post some of your models from Vellum, that you think takes to long in SW to make or can't be made.
If you don't accept these challenges, then how can we honestly trust your opinion about Vellum, but that may just be my opinion.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
I couldn't say it better Scott!
a star!![[thumbsup2]](/data/assets/smilies/thumbsup2.gif "[thumbsup2] [thumbsup2]")
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
a star!
Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
We're not communicating very well, so there's little point in continuing this. For example I'm not a mac guy and wouldn't advise anyone to buy one today. Too many assumptions.
I do have lots of questions agout SW. I'll occassionally post specific ones.
I don't believe I've ever said there's anything that's impossible to draw with SW. Nor have I ever claimed to be an expert, not even in Vellum. I do however use both programs every day side by side. I see many things that are easier to do in Vellum. Perhaps it's due to a lack of training in SW. But more and more I think it's just that SW takes more commands and more effort to do certain things. INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS IT IS. Doesn't mean SW isn't good or even GREAT software, but that it's not the BEST AT EVERYTHING.
From my EXPERIENCE with both programs Vellum is MUCH easier to learn on your own. Even though SW's tutorials are better then any I've used from Ashlar. My OPINION.
END OF DISCUSSION
I'll post this as a seperate question, but just one thing that is much easier to do with Vellum. I draw a LOT of electrical boxes. So, I punch a lot of holes in boxes for connectors. With Vellum I have a lot of connector models that also have 2 solid model hole patterns (1 for clearance & 1 for tapped holes). With Vellum I insert the connector in the drawing with the box then simply put the appropriate hole pattern model where I want the connector & subtract it. This instantly gives me all 5 holes properlly sized and placed. Quick & easy.
Is there a good way to insert standard hole patterns in SW's? I have dozens of standard connector sizes we use. Really don't want to keep drawing 5 holes ea time I need a connector somewhere. I know I can place the connector then use that to locate the holes, but still much slower.
I've been attempting to do something similar with SW.
Thought I could do it with the JOIN command, but that doesn't seem to work in assy mode, neither will the cavity command. I can't insert the connector layout model into a part file and then subtract it. If I draw the model IN the part file then I can subtract it, but it's easier to just draw a sketch and holes at that point, so what's the point. Can't figure out any way to do this with hole wizard.
Ok, figured out how to do it. IF I take the box model part, then create an assembly w/ the box in it, then insert the hole layout model into the assembly & position it, I can use the cavity command to create the holes. Process: place part into assy, place hole parts in assy, pick the box, select edit part, then pick the cavity command, then select the hole model/s. Then HIDE the hole model/s & the holes are there. But, you cannot ever delete the hole models. You can only hide them.
For a connector panel with 20 connectors on it, that means I have 20 extra models I have to keep. Works, but not as easily, requires more steps, more models (3 models/connector not 1), and the end result isn't as clean.
Is there a better way to do this? I haven't found it.
I do have lots of questions agout SW. I'll occassionally post specific ones.
I don't believe I've ever said there's anything that's impossible to draw with SW. Nor have I ever claimed to be an expert, not even in Vellum. I do however use both programs every day side by side. I see many things that are easier to do in Vellum. Perhaps it's due to a lack of training in SW. But more and more I think it's just that SW takes more commands and more effort to do certain things. INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS IT IS. Doesn't mean SW isn't good or even GREAT software, but that it's not the BEST AT EVERYTHING.
From my EXPERIENCE with both programs Vellum is MUCH easier to learn on your own. Even though SW's tutorials are better then any I've used from Ashlar. My OPINION.
END OF DISCUSSION
I'll post this as a seperate question, but just one thing that is much easier to do with Vellum. I draw a LOT of electrical boxes. So, I punch a lot of holes in boxes for connectors. With Vellum I have a lot of connector models that also have 2 solid model hole patterns (1 for clearance & 1 for tapped holes). With Vellum I insert the connector in the drawing with the box then simply put the appropriate hole pattern model where I want the connector & subtract it. This instantly gives me all 5 holes properlly sized and placed. Quick & easy.
Is there a good way to insert standard hole patterns in SW's? I have dozens of standard connector sizes we use. Really don't want to keep drawing 5 holes ea time I need a connector somewhere. I know I can place the connector then use that to locate the holes, but still much slower.
I've been attempting to do something similar with SW.
Thought I could do it with the JOIN command, but that doesn't seem to work in assy mode, neither will the cavity command. I can't insert the connector layout model into a part file and then subtract it. If I draw the model IN the part file then I can subtract it, but it's easier to just draw a sketch and holes at that point, so what's the point. Can't figure out any way to do this with hole wizard.
Ok, figured out how to do it. IF I take the box model part, then create an assembly w/ the box in it, then insert the hole layout model into the assembly & position it, I can use the cavity command to create the holes. Process: place part into assy, place hole parts in assy, pick the box, select edit part, then pick the cavity command, then select the hole model/s. Then HIDE the hole model/s & the holes are there. But, you cannot ever delete the hole models. You can only hide them.
For a connector panel with 20 connectors on it, that means I have 20 extra models I have to keep. Works, but not as easily, requires more steps, more models (3 models/connector not 1), and the end result isn't as clean.
Is there a better way to do this? I haven't found it.
Library Features will make it easy for you insert different connector cutouts. I also design "black boxes" and use a mixture of mil spec and commerical connectors....I create the cutout once and store it as a library feature for use on another project...
Best Regards,
Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SW2005 SP 2.0 & Pro/E 2001
Dell Precision 370
P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
XP Pro SP2.0
NIVIDA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)
Do you trust your intuition or go with the flow?
Best Regards,
Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SW2005 SP 2.0 & Pro/E 2001
Dell Precision 370
P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
XP Pro SP2.0
NIVIDA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)
Do you trust your intuition or go with the flow?
My point is don't go judging both pieces if you don't have enough expereince in either of them. It's Obivisous you don't. So running Scores like Vellum 10/SW 1 - is BS, because you giving a negative image about something you know little about.
Sorry you have taken offense to this, but I don't think you should judging something you know nothing about.
I have not judged Vellum in a poll versus SW. I think SW can run circles around Vellum with just the few PDF files I have read recently. Vellum pushes out how great it is and the PDF tutorials and white papers are just ways of blowing steam up the you know where.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
Sorry you have taken offense to this, but I don't think you should judging something you know nothing about.
I have not judged Vellum in a poll versus SW. I think SW can run circles around Vellum with just the few PDF files I have read recently. Vellum pushes out how great it is and the PDF tutorials and white papers are just ways of blowing steam up the you know where.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question