making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

[AndrewTT]

Which software is easier to work with for making 2D drawings with GD&T?

My company currently uses Pro/e but we have been talking about switching to Solidworks. We are also beginning to use GD&T. If one software package is better to work with for making drawings with GD&T it might make our decision easier.

Thank you!

 

[greenimi]

I even say "poor choice of words"

 

[JNieman]

So yea, how 'bout them CAD packages....


I have no experience with Pro/E, but from what I've seen Solidworks is pretty straight forward on accessing the various objects and symbols and being able to apply them in the manner needed. I don't think I've ever come across any issues with graphical errors, or an inability to attach things as needed. For example, there's issues with some softwhere, where a Datum attach to a circle will not appear "just right" because the trianglular leader-end / arrow will not conform to the curve of the circle. You end up with a triangle on the end of the leader with a tangent flat-side, rather than fully conforming to the curve, and it looks weird.

I find NX is a bit too 'picky' about how to attach/place GD&T frames extended from a surface - these are things that make software easier/harder to 'use' GD&T in the drawing end of things. I would barely consider the differences as having any amount of weight in software decision-making, however. They are all "good enough" to get by with, and any minor issues like I mention are made insignificant by the pros/cons with the general modeling, file management, and whether or not the software is best for "the type of work" you do.

 

[AndrewTT]

Thanks JNieman. This is the type of answer I was looking for.

So far, with no real training on using Pro/e to make 2D drawings, I have found Pro/e somewhat difficult to use w.r.t. making the drawings look the way I want. specifically my trouble is getting the datum feature symbol to show up where I want (attached to a FCF) and also having FCF disappear from the drawing even though it is in the model tree/drawing tree. Is this user error/ignorance? Very possible. Do most of the people I speak with who have used Pro/e and SW say SW is easier to use in general? Yes.

I sat through a 2 day SW intro course a while back and the instructor quickly went over the drawing functionality and did a little GD&T. I remember thinking that it looked much easier and cleaner than what I have dealt with in Pro/e.

FYI- currently we use AutoCAD for our 2D drawings. I believe that ACAD mechanical is coded up to the 1994 ASME standard. We are going to implement the 2009 ASME standard.

The rest of this conversation is interesting though....

 

[KENAT]

<sorry continuing the off topic 'cause ewh & I don't disagree often so I need to whip him back into line >

ewh, sure tolerance analysis and implication of required tolerance on manufacturability etc. do form part of the design process. One of the reasons I like doing my own drafting is that it's during drawing creation and assigning tolerances that I typically address this in more detail than when I'm modelling.

However, how you document/communicate the permissible documentation from nominal shouldn't really be a factor in determining the actual design of the actual hardware. For example it's the fact your design needs need .0001 flatness to work that may drive a design change, not the fact you put an FCF with .0001 flatness on the drawing.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[KENAT]

Andrew TT, like I said it's been a while since I used Pro E and I'd assume it's ease of use has improved since but back then SW would have been easier to use across the board.

Originally you said you were on Pro E and considering changing to Solid Works, but now you imply you're actually on AutoCAD (2D only?).

I would caution against changing from one more or less adequate 3D CAD system to another more or less adequate 3D CAD system - there can be a lot of head aches if you already have a lot of stuff in the existing system, and all your folks are trained on the existing system, your company processes implicitly or explicitly are tied into the CAD system.....

I find it hard to believe in most circumstances that the benefits of one 3D CAD package over another to justify a change. Even the justifications of 'it's more common' are pretty weak. Obviously there are circumstances where change is necessary such as major customer that demands it (so major saying no isn't commercially viable option) or if you merge with another company (or perhaps more likely are taken over) and need to coalesce your CAD data bases fully or similar.

I've been in the situation twice where folks in management arbitrarily decided to switch 3D CAD systems . First time ended up an abject failure & was pretty much given up on (tech director that made the decision quit and it fizzled out). Second time I'm still working through the pain since being told it was happening circa 2009.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[AndrewTT]

OK, more background.

We have been using Pro/e for 3D modeling since ~97-98. We have been using ACAD for 2D drawings since much earlier. We were bought by a German company that uses SW a few years ago. Prior to being acquired by the Germans we had many that wanted to switch to SW from Pro/e b/c SW was cheaper. When I started in `99 I was told we would probably be switching to SW soon. I was also told that we would be going away from using 2 different software packages, one for 3D and one for 2D. Ideally we would model and draw in one software package. I have heard that same message every year since.

If SW is easier to make 2D drawings with GD&T on them than Pro/e it may finally be enough to make this happen. So I was hoping to find a couple people who have used both SW and Pro/e and could say what their preference was.

 

[3DDave]

The people on the PTC Community that have contract design businesses that deal with both generally keep that SW is a bit easier to use, but tends to fail in ways that Creo doesn't. I guess it's a choice between fast vs reliable. And the difference in speed is pretty small for anyone motivated to learn. I think what SW users miss in coming to Creo is that PTC doesn't build in a lot of hand-holding/predefined point-and-click things they think are required (What!!! Creo doesn't have a hypoid gear set generator so I can 3d print a model of a differential with two clicks - that stinks!) In contrast Creo allows the user to build anything, and that's much beyond where SW can go.

I think the result is much the same as moving from an automatic town car to a manual heavy duty truck. Want to get a pop tart? Truck seems like overkill. Want to run a business on software that has support for opening models any time from the last 20 years because the company believes that's important? Then that's Creo.