Is there any good CAD software? 2

[EsoEng]

I was trained on PRO/E. Even the tutors didn't have a good grasp of the software. I later used SolidWorks - it's terrible. I've used Inventor - it's terrible. I've used FreeCAD - I didn't stick around long enough to learn how terrible it actually is. Now, I'm using Solid Edge - it's beyond terrible.

The purpose of this thread is two-fold: to complain about the diabolical standard of available general mechanical design software; and to ask is there is actually any that is not terrible.

Solid Edge is the current software that is torturing me. I gave-up on the other programs I mentioned. I will not be using Solid Edge again after I have finished my current project. It is inefficient, it is counter-intuitive; its graphical presentation (of the model being made) is utterly deplorable (it hides errors), and it lacks basic functionality. Things that should be easy and simple are either hopelessly inefficient (requiring esoteric knowledge and a dozen steps where one obvious step would have done), or do not exist.

At this point, I know what you are thinking: that I simply do not know how to use this program properly. Yes, you are right. But then, who does? I'll tell you who does: people trained following a lengthy and involved period of indoctrination (yes, indoctrination), and whom use the software frequently - every day - know - eventually - how to use it without having a mental breakdown each time. Me? I have not had specific training for it (only tuition for PRO/E), and I do not use it every day. What chance do I have? None! Well, maybe if I hired a tutor for a few £thousand and put aside a couple of hours a day to keep practising it, like I put aside time to exercise, use the toilet, eat, and generally respire.

The software is shamefully bad to the point that I can barely comprehend that it was not made the way it is with deliberate intent. Are real-life products actually designed using this garbage software that costs so much money? I am at a loss. I don't think there is any alternative to it. All the CAD software I've used works in very similar ways - just some very bad and others extremely bad. There is nothing good out there, or is there? Is there anything I don't know about? I Google for lists of this software, but nothing looks promising out of returned options I am yet to try (because it's either browser-based or made by the same companies that made the junk I've already used).

Photoshop. This is software I also do not use every day but it is far more intuitive than Solid Edge, and I do not get stuck with Photoshop as I do with SE. Why can't SE be more like PS with respect to basic operation? CAD programmers need to study Photoshop and learn how software can be intuitive and friendly to use.

Solid Edge is beyond frustrating. I actually feel hatred towards the company and people that made it. I wish they hadn't bothered. They have cost me months of my life with their awful, horribly made garbage software. I spit on them.

 

[dgeesaman]

Drawoh, you've described a bit of a nightmare scenario. Having manufacturing tooling and processes hanging on the actual design data is not something I've done before and I can see how much that would complicate life.

In designing the new version, I would probably have two CAD sessions open side-by-side and make the super duper with parts either used exactly as-is or recreate my own clean model from scratch. It rarely works out well to armwrestle a messy model into new production data.

My personal preference is to keep parametrics contained within each file. Parametric relationships across parts (or top-down) are a Bad Idea except in the case of parts that only exist and have relevance in that one assembly (e.g. a run of tubing). I've done a little top-down and it very quickly gets out of hand.

 

[kjoiner]

I do some top down modeling but at some point, I have to lock down the design and break references between parts. Interpart relationships could be faces, edges, sketches or even an entire part that is referenced. Those are great for development, but 6 months later, I will have completely forgotten why they are there or implications could be when changing things. Breaking these links and ensuring proper driving dimensions is important to avoid surprises.

I do have families of parts that are driven by a main model. These can be a simple as fasteners where I'm adjusting the length or could be cabinet panels where I am adjusting multiple dimensions. In this case, managing those relationships is worth the effort to avoid the risk of keeping up with multiple separate models.

 

[drawoh]

Drawoh, you've described a bit of a nightmare scenario. Having manufacturing tooling and processes hanging on the actual design data is not something I've done before and I can see how much that would complicate life.

One of the benefits of 3D CAD is that manufacturing uses your model.

Let's go way back in time. One of the traditional design and manufacturing rules is that once a part or assembly is finalized, you do not revise it to change form, fit and function. If a new part is not forwards and backwards compatible with the old part, it must have a new part number. This rule simplifies management of 3D CAD models, and it has simplified manufacturing for something over a century.

Your read-only CAD model represents something that has been fabricated, stocked, installed in product, and stocked to support service. In mass production, there very likely is thousands of dollars worth of tooling. The CAD model the tooling is based on must not be modified.

If you want to modify a casting, you are requiring your company to spend thousands of dollars on new tooling. They may not want to. In these circumstances, CAD management is a detail. Consider that you are designing a casting that requires clean-up machining. If you generate a model and drawing for the casting, and a separate model for the as-machined part, you can save-as the machining drawing, and create a new part without affecting the casting moulds. Good CAD management enables good design and manufacturing practise.

 

[3DDave]

That brings to mind that the CAD tools rarely have a means of adding commentary or reminders about why certain things are done in certain ways or to leave instructions about how to make the models function in an expected manner.

OTOH - I preferred, in complex assemblies, to create sub-groups of related parts and features. A cover with a gasket and all the related hardware would be grouped under something like "MAIN ACCESS COVER GROUP" in the model tree. That way I could audit the assembly, seeing that exactly the right hardware was in exactly the right locations; one could see 50-100 major component groups at a glance. It made creating the assembly drawings a snap as I could deal with placing the callouts on the drawing one group at a time and not have any concern about missing anything.

Turns out, this was too difficult** for the majority of users who prefer not to do any such work and will put in all the major pieces and then put in all the fasteners, making for a model tree thousands of lines long and with no way to be certain that they haven't doubled up on the wrong fasteners. I think it's just laziness. No other explanation was ever given; I would get my models back with all the groups deleted, even though no effort was done to the grouped parts.; no different than dumping the contents of a tool cart onto the shop floor and putting the tool cart in the crusher.

**Again - management paid for how hard people were working, not results. So users made their own work harder.

 

[dgeesaman]

One of the benefits of 3D CAD is that manufacturing uses your model.

Yes, of course.

The 'nightmare' to me is having manufacturing build parametric tooling, etc based on parametric 3d models, which are parametrically related to each other using poorly-planned top-down relationships. Then if someone actually manages to push a change from the original design models, the manufacturing content would likely burst into a mess.

I can see value in putting a clean break between the design and mfg data by having design publish a 3D STEP file or the like with each part revision. That way manufacturing engineering is insulated from the mess that could be occurring in the original 3d models. That's how I do it now with my vendors, but even if they were in house I'd consider the same firewall.