Is there any good CAD software? 1

[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.

 

[DanStro]

I do design a lot of products (not consumer) with SW and while it's not perfect it is fine. In the past I've used AutoCAD, Mechanical Desktop, and Inventor and they all of their own set of quirks and (misguided) philosophies.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but maybe the problem is not the software but is somewhere between the keyboard and chair.

 

[drawoh]

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.

Anybody who does stuff my way can be perfect too. With SolidWorks, I like to claim that there fifteen ways to do anything twelve of which are wrong.

 

[rb1957]

as said above ... "good" is a very personal opinion ... I can think X good and Y bad, but you can think the opposite (because our situations are different)

 

[CWB1]

Many of the "quirks" in CAD modelers are due to machine learning (AI) and changing modeling techniques. Years ago we had to mathematically define/constrain everything. Today a lot of design is done by pulling on flexible bodies and generative design.

 

[IRstuff]

With SolidWorks, I like to claim that there fifteen ways to do anything twelve of which are wrong.

That's kind of my point; relative to OP, you are either part of bizarre conspiracy to sell existing CAD software, or you're an idiot spouting nonsense about the CAD software that OP thinks is crap.

 

[3DDave]

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.

I prefer "ignorant."

When Pro/E first arrived at the company I was working with a guy who had done Bravo! work. I noted that some of the parts he was producing had very long model trees relative to the number of features. I used the single-step function and started at the beginning to see what was happening. It soon became clear that whenever some feature wasn't what he wanted, usually the border of the shape, he would create a cut to completely remove it. Sometimes he would change his mind entirely and wipe out multiple features in a single stroke. It was like watching the way mountains form as tectonic plates collide. They rise up and then get removed and more rise up.

He had missed that one could redefine the shapes. I showed him how to reduce his model from 40-50 features down to about 8 and not lose any references for the drawing or linked to in the next assembly. It was like opening a treasure chest.

The most common irritation that I ran into with this was those who wanted to make a change, but did a similar thing - delete a feature rather than change the references or the dimensions. I'd be working on a top assembly and dozens of parts would suddenly be flagged as missing references.

Sure, there are modal problems. Choosing what mode to solve the problem can make things easier or more difficult. Not so much right or wrong but more along the lines as being more flexible or damage resistant. Some methods are very brittle, requiring a lot of work if any alteration is required, but they are "faster" and might save the originator a couple of seconds.

Suppose a simple flat plate with some holes for bolts to pass through. Some would get strident about using the "hole" feature and then complain about how much work it was as they placed each hole individually. If they had read more, they would have seen the "pattern" function and created a pattern table, but there was no end of times I had seen the ones who didn't read about them do some damage in altering existing parts, collapsing all the pattern entries to the same point. They would then manually, individually, place new holes. The next level up someone would see that there was what appeared to be one bolt and, usually, washer, and then add all new washers and bolts for the empty holes, not realizing that the patterned washers and bolts were all stacked up, nearly doubling the part quantity for those items. The problem with the holes and patterns, aside from this foolishness, was that one could not easily have a baseline dimension to some index hole and then all other holes placed from it. This meant that the dimensions for all the holes come from a single origin, and that won't have matching values in the mating part, making confirmation more difficult. Also not aided by failing to align the bolt into both concentric diameters.

I preferred bullet-proofing. Create all the holes in a protrusion sketch by first placing axis points and sketch centerlines them followed by making the circles coincident. By dimensioning to the centerlines there is more flexibility in redefining the sketch if someone decides it should use some other surface as a datum feature. Better, if someone wants to change from a hole to a slot, aligning the axis of the fastener to the axis created by the axis point means that the change between hole and slot has no effect on the higher assemblies. Unlike patterns, there is nothing that can be collapsed so there is never an easy mismatch between the number of holes and the number of fasteners. In the end the dimensioning scheme could be whatever the design required, could be "shown" on the drawing, and worked exactly as one would expect it to work.

The complaint? "What if I have 1000 fasteners? Then I have to place them one at a time. Oh, the humanity!" To which I think, for the non-automated industry we were in, somebody is going to be on the assembly line putting 1000 of them in place, so quit whining. Also, there's an assembly function that says "install another part, just like this part, with all the same references, except the ones that are different." So, install one, then pick the fast mode, the first fastener, and then select the axis as the variable and get to clicking.

Usually the critical number was closer to 10. 10 was too many.

The same thing applies to Excel, where I have seen someone with a calculator tapping away and then entering the result from the calculator into the spreadsheet.

If I had to pick a common theme for differences in modeling technique - it would be "F' everyone else, I want to do this fast and it doesn't matter how much more work it makes for everyone else."

The last project I worked on there was a demand that the on-drawing PLs match the model. It was a purchased document package that had been structured to not match that goal and the task was to restructure the assembly to match it. Not too tough. I worked on one assembly, got it into shape in a few days. The other guy spent weeks on his, nearly identical, assembly and, when it was submitted, had simply made a text table because the model didn't match the PL rather than a repeat region that followed the assembly exactly. But that was easier for him because he was ignorant of how to do the job correctly and, instead of passing on the task, went with the FU mode.

tl;dr I would say the better suspicion is when someone says how many hours they have in using the software instead of what functions of the software they used and how they used them.

 

[Brian Malone]

My experience is similar to many of the previous posts - I have used many of the more popular/common programs as the market has evolved: AutoCAD, AutoCAD Solids, AutoCAD Mech Desktop, Pro-E, Solidworks, Inventor, Solid Edge, NX. Whatever program was being used by my employer is the one I got good with. The parametric models are all similar. Certainly, some have features that work better for a given task but I have not found any to be pure crap. I have my preference for Solidworks because I have used it the most for the last 20 + years, but previously, I preferred Pro-E for the same reason. I did not care for Solid Edge's feature system I have tried out eval versions of Fusion, Creo, Rhino, and FreeCad but since I wasn't being paid to use them I didn't get any expertise.

The OP has been radio-silent. Maybe their post was put up just to see what responses they could trigger. . .

 

[human909]

I've used Inventor for 15 years. And I believe the software is great. Sure like every piece of software it may have its quirks and it's difficulties. But like most complicated and flexible packages most of the issues stem from the user not the software.

Excel is probably the most commonly used calculation package out there. It is used across very diverse fields. 99% of the time used "poorly". But it gets the job done and the time it takes to use it 'correctly' might outweigh the benefit.

Along came SolidWorks (and SolidEdge and Inventor). Their focus is to minimize the time required for a poorly trained user to take zero existing content and make a 3D model(s) and drawing(s) at a package price of $5k. Assemblies have no discernable order of evaluation - parts are held together with 'constraint soup'. Stability of the geometry and drawings after changes is secondary. If the wind shifts your drawing will lose half of its dimensions. Sketches encourage you to push on without stable dimensioning and constraint schemes. Re-usability of content is an afterthought.

If the model is a constraint soup then it has been modelled poorly. But I agree that many complex models end up like that especially with different users working on the same model.

 

[dgeesaman]

If the model is a constraint soup then it has been modelled poorly. But I agree that many complex models end up like that especially with different users working on the same model.

It is not. I'm referring to the fact that Creo assembles components in an order and components have parent-child relationships to each other. Inventor assemblies have a flat structure, such that every constraint of every component is evaluated simultaneously, and when there are sick constraints they interact and the steps required to fix them are unintuitive and sometimes more than should be necessary.

If there is a way to force Inventor to evaluate component placements starting from the top and working the way down in order, I'd love to make it work that way.

 

[Prometheus21]

Having used Solidworks and Inventor I could not agree more with dgeesaman; "The software has degraded into a tool for quickly creating a drawing with crap under the hood" - I would add that the tool in question is a not a very sharp one; as Inventor in many cases have inherent flaws that never seem to change; no matter how many times improvements are voted on in their forums and implemented after (many) years of complaining (and finally implemented poorly most of the times).

Many threads have faulty minor, pitch and major diameters imbedded in the underlying default files; sectioning of threads in an assembly is poorly implemented and do not adhere to any standard drawing convention, automatic hatching is a nightmare and every update seems to bring their own glitches and faults. The overall quality of the program has been downgraded as well from what it once was. Now that last bit I can understand; the software was better when Autodesk offered perpetual licenses; then again there is little money to be made on those...

That being said I have no experience with NX; but have heard quite a few liking it compared to other softwares mentioned in this thread; how would you say it compares to Inventor when it comes to creating 2D drawings?

​

 

[TugboatEng]

Well that sums things up about right. I really liked working in ProE, took a break from it, and then tried Creo and was stumped by it. It's like comparing Windows NT to Windows 10 or the new Excel. They're all terrible to work with.

When I got stuck with Inventor I was doing centrifugal pump impellers at the time and had nothing but trouble modeling the vanes. It worked ok for straight impellers but ran into trouble trying to model mixed flow.

 

[enginesrus]

Maybe the future is bright, this is a good place for AI, simple design software. That has no level of difficulty.


Makes me think of certain CNC programming software, it was so less trouble not to make a 3 D model in it, and just program what simple 1D tool path that was needed.

 

[dgeesaman]

Well that sums things up about right. I really liked working in ProE, took a break from it, and then tried Creo and was stumped by it. It's like comparing Windows NT to Windows 10 or the new Excel. They're all terrible to work with.

When I got stuck with Inventor I was doing centrifugal pump impellers at the time and had nothing but trouble modeling the vanes. It worked ok for straight impellers but ran into trouble trying to model mixed flow.

Ugh I'm trying to do a mixing propeller in Inventor and plotting curves by equation is like juggling in handcuffs. Can't get much done if you can't build the foundational section curves.

 

[ghostdigital]

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.

Sit down and pay attention; a boomer has something to say.

I started on the drafting board—I know what bad is. Around 1984, I started on CAD/CAM, which was 2D, and you pressed keys on a side box to draw lines. Then came CATIA, onward to Intergraph EMS, which actually sucked for most folks; however, I could make the software sing and dance. Then Solid Edge, SolidWorks, and I've had some experience with MicroStation, UG and even Proe vers. 18.

Here's a pain point you'll never understand: UNIX and mainframes. Back in the early days, everything on computers was command-line, and the computers ware about as fast as an intoxicated turtle. You had to know things like grep, ls -l, pwd, mv, top, and more. The computers were these giant boxes that required a filter change on a regular basis just to keep the disk drive from grinding up and losing your files. Not until the Pentium CPU was invented and put into service did we port over to Windows, and a real GUI was at our fingertips. Also, no product data management (PDM) systems existed, so teams would work over each other and erase progress, and you were responsible for keeping current revisions straight on your computer.

CAD is imperfect but a savior for those who do design and drafting. Even the most rudimentary CAD software I've used amplified productivity, eased the effort of making changes, and allowed my lettering to look consistent and uniform.

I have no idea why you've taken such a harsh view of modern CAD software; however, given my 40 years of experience with CAD, CAM, and people like you complaining without cause, I can suspect it's you, not the software.

I'll soften up just to lay the groundwork for my point. The workflow in CAD can be awkward without familiarity; however, with practice, you adjust and thrive. I think it took me about two weeks to understand the workflow on Intergraph EMS, which was a Boolean-based 3D/2D software as opposed to feature-based like most modern CAD.

You have it easy. Technology is your friend, and the CAD workflow has been optimized for the fast-moving design and development environment you appear to take for granted.

Drop the "CAD-ditude," get with the program, and actually learn the software. The real issue is that you haven't learned it properly. DO the tutorials, watch the videos (I had none), and do the work to learn the software.

Good luck.

BTW, FreeCAD does suck.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I have been building models and assemblies in CAD tools for roughly 20 years. In that time, I've used NX, Creo, Pro/E, IDEAS, and Solidworks professionally for various things. I use Solidworks at home when I need to model something.

Put gently, the skill of CAD modeling - what separates people who are good at it from people who aren't - is a built-in level of spatial understanding which some people have and some people don't (can you see what you want to model in detail in your head before you model it? Can you internally visualize how two parts are going to mate together??) combined with a strong understanding of modeling best practices. Since the advent of parametric modeling, all of the major systems are substantially similar except for where the buttons are. Some do very specific things better than others because of the way their different kernels work, but ultimately If you don't have these traits, you don't have them and you're going to struggle. It's not the software.

Anecdotally, I've used SolidWorks on high powered desktop systems to model entire manufacturing lines with thousands of parts, hundreds of thousands of fasteners, etc without trouble, and generated end results that could load on regular machines just fine. I've used it to generate huge weldment assemblies with hundreds of unique members and all the associated piece drawings. I've used it for modeling of highly complex 3D lofted shapes - a thing SolidWorks isn't the best available tool to use, but can be done if you know how. All with perfectly fine results. That's not because I'm a savant - it's because when I first started good standard practices were either beaten into me by other more experienced people or learned the hard way over time.

If you can't model a coffee cup with SolidWorks, it's not the software. It's you.