Is there any good CAD software?

[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.

 

[3DDave]

Each sort of software requires the user to have a matching mental model. PTC has done well enough with maintaining upward compatibility of their models and the mental model is rather straightforward, but you have to know what to look for.

When software doesn't meet expectations it's better to read all the documentation, look at what the expectations are, and find the features the software has that does what is desired.

Photoshop is relatively easy because it is simply taking one action after the other without much regard for all the previous steps. It is simple the way a pencil sharpener is simple compared to a CNC lathe. Photoshop can become complex if one decides to create Actions (I assume that function is still there.)

What made Pro/E/ Wildfire/Creo very usable to me is that it is an interactive parametric procedural interpreted modeler with a GUI. I can change parameters or change the procedure (AKA model tree and Program and relations) at any time; reorder to have the model better match the goals, change references, build simple to complex programs and relations to drive geometry in complicated ways with simple inputs.

I find that those who mainly have trouble have never written a program in any language; most of what is happening is that as the model is built the internal program that re-creates the model is also being built and if the user doesn't understand what that means and thinks "regenerate" is just something one has to do, they go off the rails pretty easily.

Keep in mind that one is not "building a model" in PTC software, one is building a procedure that builds a model.

 

[mfgenggear]

OP
I been out of the loop, and need to work back into it.
When Autocad was first released it was awful.
It tool a long learning curve. After some time many talented cad designers would tailor it to be more efficient. With shorter steps. You need to hang with designers that do this.you tube fails miserably in this aspect. They only show very elementary procedures. Freecad can beening free software. Is improving every day. Learning to program it , can be extremely efficient. If you learn how to tailor it. Proprietary software can also be tailored to be more efficient. Some are better than others.

 

[MintJulep]

Keep in mind that one is not "building a model" in PTC software, one is building a procedure that builds a model.

That's really insightful!

I think it applies to any "parametric" CAD software these days.

Thirty years ago, when I actually used CAD as part of my job we used AutoCAD. In those days 3D objects were built from Boolean operations on primitive shapes. It was not "parametric".

Recently I've started using FreeCAD, just for hobby stuff. Initially, with everything I modeled I was silently screaming "Why is everything so fragile?!?!".

As I learn, my models are becoming more robust. I've needed to adjust my thinking in ways that are basically aligned with what @3DDave wrote.

As with any tool, you need to learn how to wield it effectively.

There's an old adage: "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools."

 

[TugboatEng]

I liked working with Pro E. I used to make a game out of how few steps I could use to produce a model.

Inventor was buggy at the time and not intuitive to me. I never got to work with other programs.

 

[3DDave]

"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools."

Kind of. At the time that adage was created the craftsman made their own tools or specified the main features, perhaps to a blacksmith; that the blame for the tools lay with the one who chose them, which was the craftsman.

I do understand some of the frustration. I have tried to get used to Blender a few times but, maybe for lack of a specific task to complete or a willingness to spend a lot of time with it, never really got a good handle on it.

 

[MintJulep]

According to Google Gemini:

The adage "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools" is a very old and widespread proverb, with its roots going back centuries.

Here's a breakdown of its history:

* **13th Century French Origin:** The earliest known iteration of the saying can be traced to 13th-century French, appearing as "mauveés ovriers ne trovera ja bon hostill," which translates to **"Bad workmen will never find a good tool."** This original phrasing emphasizes that a poor craftsman's lack of skill means they'll always perceive their tools as inadequate, regardless of the tools' actual quality.

* **17th Century English Variations:** By the 17th century, English versions of the proverb emerged, such as "A bungler cannot find (or fit himselfe with) good tooles." The sentiment remained similar, focusing on the workman's inability rather than the tools themselves.

* **Modern English Formulations:** Over time, the phrasing evolved into the more common forms we hear today, like "A bad workman blames his tools" or "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools." While the exact wording changed, the core message of personal accountability for one's work, rather than blaming external factors, remained consistent.

**The Meaning and Its Nuances:**

The proverb essentially means that a skilled individual will find a way to perform their task effectively, even with less-than-ideal equipment. Conversely, an unskilled or incompetent person will often attribute their failures to their tools, rather than acknowledging their own shortcomings.

It's important to note that the saying isn't meant to imply that tools are unimportant. Good tools certainly make a job easier and can enable higher quality work. However, the proverb highlights that true mastery lies in the ability to adapt, problem-solve, and take responsibility for the outcome, regardless of minor imperfections in one's equipment. A truly good craftsman knows how to maintain their tools, choose the right ones for the job, and compensate for any limitations they might encounter.

 

[3DDave]

I have a great deal of respect for AI generated answers.

 

[ctopher]

I have been using CAD software's since the beginning.
They have evolved quite a bit.
I currently use SolidWorks, and train new users. I hear all the time how they complain that it's not like PTC, CREA, SolidEdge, etc.
You have to learn how to adapt. No two are exactly alike.
If your heart is in using PTC, find a job that uses it.

 

[3DDave]

The best part is "THIS software doesn't have THAT feature." I find that often the problem is that some package has some group of simplifications and users cannot imagine any other approach.

I recall some "Bravo!" user being so delighted that a closed circle could be flipped to being a polygon of n sides; there was a command to make that change, vs. CADDS IV where one could create the polygon directly, but it required putting math into the prompt. Pro/E/Wildfire/Creo had no easy way to do that in Sketcher, but it did allow saving the hexagon sketch that I used all the time. What I really missed from CADDS IV was the ability to use any shape I could think of to use as a pattern for a line font. And fills. CADDS IV was terrific at area fills. PTC never seemed to get the hang of it.

 

[drawoh]

EsoEng,

I have been using SolidWorks since 2001. I have been playing at home with OnShape and FreeCAD. I am very productive with SolidWorks. I have learned most of its quirks, and all sorts of ways it make it sing and dance. I have figured out much of OnShape, and I am still frustrated with FreeCAD.

I spent fifteen years on a drafting board, and five using 2D AutoCAD. Moving from the drafting board to AutoCAD was straightforward. AutoCAD to SolidWorks forced me to re-think my design methods. I re-thought them. At first, I coped, then I learned to take advantage of the 3D modeling. In parametric 3D, you generate your critical drawings, particularly your fabrication drawings, immediately. If your tolerance stack fails in early design, you have the time and resources to re-think your design, and come up with an elegant solution. If you document an idiotic assembly procedure, you can fix your design. Your drawings update when you modify your models. Early, quality documentation is a DFMA strategy. Your ability to generate drawings that update automatically, makes it easier to collaborate with co-workers.

Back in the day, I had a drafting board with space for E-sized drawings (44x34in), and a cubicle with space for two E-sized drawings to hand on the wall. I still have a D-sized drafting board at home. I had a Diazo whiteprinters. I don't mind the smell of ammonia. I used a sharp, 5H pencil to do layouts, and I hung prints up on my wall where people could red-line them. My co-workers did not take advantage of this. If I absolutely had to generate a perfect drawing, I would go out and buy a Leroy Template set, and then use my Rapidograph pens to do ink on Mylar.

No tool works perfectly. They all have limitations, and cool new resources.

 

[Gr8blu]

I have used several 2D and 3D CAD products over the years, including Pro/E, Catia, Helix, Solidworks, Autocad, Inventor, and - yes - even a manual pencil-and-paper version. All have had their pros and cons; all have required time and practice to become proficient.

I look at languages the same way. English comes easy for me now, along with a handful of others (French, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, and sign language). But I didn't start out with my current level of understanding of spelling, grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc. in any of them - not even my native tongue. I had to learn it, and practice with it, and push my horizons and investigate word (and phrase) meanings. And then I had to do it all again in several more languages, for a variety of reasons - including the fact that the other languages made my life easier because the new ones had something or did something better than the ones I already knew.

 

[btrueblood]

Whooee. I learned engineering drawing with two triangles and a mechanical pencil. Projected views and whatnot. I worked with other designers who created complicated devices and made complex castings for those devices on 2d drafting boards. Take a look at an Allison V12 or the Merlin engine of WW2 fame - and realize they were done as paper drawings and wooden mockups before being committed to patterns and machined parts.

Later in my career I learned to use 2D Autocad...but mostly using the techniques I learned in 2d drawing class, and adding stuff as I went along, learning from people who had learned to use the software in 3d mode in a university course. I used Autocad in that guise to make some of my first sand cast parts drawings/models.

When good 3d modelling came along (IronCad, SolidWorks, Inventor, ProE), I learned to use it too, and have done so for the last 20 or so years. All of the big 3d modelling software companies have similarities and differences, and you can poke holes in any of their software...but a lot of good designs come out of them from people who got used to using them.

 

[IRstuff]

I'm always a bit suspicious of people claiming they're the only people who know how to do something right, since that makes everyone else who claims to be productive either part of some bizarre conspiracy or just plain idiots.

 

[lucky-guesser]

To start off, it's hard to make a recommendation without knowing what it is you are trying to make.

Considering you've used the 3 major players (in my industry) and have a fundamental hatred for all of them, there seems to be a common denominator.....

Learning to complete a task takes time, and learning how to do it quickly and consistently takes a whole bunch more. That said, I'm all self taught with my first ever program being solidworks and it took me a couple weeks to get proficient, and to get truly good has taken years. Inventor isn't as good but if you can drive one you can drive the other. I've never used Solid edge but I've heard good things about it. If you think those are bad, I've used some smaller scale proprietary programs that would make you put a hole through your computer.

It doesn't matter what makes sense to you, it's about what makes sense to the program. You have to learn to think like the program and what inputs it needs for a given function, and in time you will learn what the limitations of it (and yourself) are.

I've also used photoshop. Comparing a 2D picture editing tool to a quite versatile and complicated 3d software seems....ill founded.