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!
Pro/E vs Solid Works vs Solid Edge
- Thread starter CADgurl
- Start date
Guest0527211403
Mechanical
There is no easy answer to your question.
A number of CAD users suffer from a serious case of "fanboy-ism" (or "fangurl-ism"
), and as such will tell you that their CAD system is the best thing since sliced bread.
So get into specifics:
What kind of files are your contractors working with?
What packages have you worked with before?
What do you need to do with your CAD system? What sorts of products will you be designing?
A number of CAD users suffer from a serious case of "fanboy-ism" (or "fangurl-ism"
), and as such will tell you that their CAD system is the best thing since sliced bread. So get into specifics:
What kind of files are your contractors working with?
What packages have you worked with before?
What do you need to do with your CAD system? What sorts of products will you be designing?
- Thread starter
- #3
Since we have various contractors they all tend to use different programs.
I have used both Pro/E and Solid Edge, but I will not necessarily be the person using the CAD package.
With the CAD system we will need to open the file from the contractor, view it, and then make any modifications that we deem are necessary.
The products we will be designing are for army vehicle systems.
Have you heard of/used Rhinoceros (Rhino)? That is another program we are considering purchasing. Thanks!
I have used both Pro/E and Solid Edge, but I will not necessarily be the person using the CAD package.
With the CAD system we will need to open the file from the contractor, view it, and then make any modifications that we deem are necessary.
The products we will be designing are for army vehicle systems.
Have you heard of/used Rhinoceros (Rhino)? That is another program we are considering purchasing. Thanks!
Guest0527211403
Mechanical
Rhino is a great surfacing package, but if you're planning to do any parameter-driven modeling, it's probably not the way to go.
When you open contractor files and making modifications, are they simply "for show"? (i.e. will the contractor then need to remodel in whatever CAD package they use, based on your suggestions?). From time to time, we get models that we modify, and all we send back to the supplier is a JPEG of what we want the thing to actually look like.
The problem with working with multiple vendors and CAD tools is that a program that can open & edit one format will not necessarily be able to open another. So if the majority of your suppliers are using Pro/E and only a couple are using Solidworks or solidedge, then it's probably the best choice. When you do get a file from one of the other CAD programs than the one you've picked, it will come in as a 'dumb block' model that can't be modified by changing around the dimensions (mind you, most of the latest releases of CAD packages offer "feature recognition", but this isn't the most reliable thing yet). However, you could still use your CAD program to model on top of the dumb solid to suggest modifications, and send it back to the supplier for them to work with. It's really all dependent on your process.
Consult with the others in your organization to see what they like to work with the most as well, and don't trust what a CAD sales rep tells you, since they're even worse than the fanboys.
When you open contractor files and making modifications, are they simply "for show"? (i.e. will the contractor then need to remodel in whatever CAD package they use, based on your suggestions?). From time to time, we get models that we modify, and all we send back to the supplier is a JPEG of what we want the thing to actually look like.
The problem with working with multiple vendors and CAD tools is that a program that can open & edit one format will not necessarily be able to open another. So if the majority of your suppliers are using Pro/E and only a couple are using Solidworks or solidedge, then it's probably the best choice. When you do get a file from one of the other CAD programs than the one you've picked, it will come in as a 'dumb block' model that can't be modified by changing around the dimensions (mind you, most of the latest releases of CAD packages offer "feature recognition", but this isn't the most reliable thing yet). However, you could still use your CAD program to model on top of the dumb solid to suggest modifications, and send it back to the supplier for them to work with. It's really all dependent on your process.
Consult with the others in your organization to see what they like to work with the most as well, and don't trust what a CAD sales rep tells you, since they're even worse than the fanboys.
justkeepgiviner,
That is one of the best descriptions I have heard on this site for a long time. I deal with CAD data migration all day long.
The other option not mentioned is to translate a feature based model from the vendor CAD system into yours. ONLY then will you be able to fully modify the model with the same features as were used to create it. Yes, the feature recognition available now is not very reliable. Even if a 3rd party translator is using feature recognition, it is not very reliable.
Bart Johnston
Translation Technologies
That is one of the best descriptions I have heard on this site for a long time. I deal with CAD data migration all day long.
The other option not mentioned is to translate a feature based model from the vendor CAD system into yours. ONLY then will you be able to fully modify the model with the same features as were used to create it. Yes, the feature recognition available now is not very reliable. Even if a 3rd party translator is using feature recognition, it is not very reliable.
Bart Johnston
Translation Technologies
I have used all three programs during my career. And in my professional opinion you would be best off going with Solidworks. It has the greatest capabilities with opening and saving out as a huge amount of other formats. It is also probably the least expensive of the 3.
If you have used Pro-E and Solid-Edge especially, it will be a breeze learning. It isn't as robust as Pro-E of course, but much like Solid Edge it has built in tutorials and is very user friendly.
I wouldn't recommend buying SW '08 right now unless they get some more bugs worked out of the new release with whatever service pack they are up to now.
Dale DiSalvo
Sr. Mechanical Designer (Contractor)
Pro-E WF2.0
Missourian = "SHOW ME"
If you have used Pro-E and Solid-Edge especially, it will be a breeze learning. It isn't as robust as Pro-E of course, but much like Solid Edge it has built in tutorials and is very user friendly.
I wouldn't recommend buying SW '08 right now unless they get some more bugs worked out of the new release with whatever service pack they are up to now.
Dale DiSalvo
Sr. Mechanical Designer (Contractor)
Pro-E WF2.0
Missourian = "SHOW ME"
jeff4136
New member
- Dec 5, 2002
- 215
> A number of CAD users suffer from a serious case of "fanboy-ism"
> (or "fangurl-ism"
), and as such will tell you that their CAD > system is the best thing since sliced bread
> ...
> and don't trust what a CAD sales rep tells you, since they're even
> worse than the fanboys.
Most fans and most CADgurls posting in forums are in sale or are loafing
AEs. Some are just cranks, banquerites. Even the earnest, how can you
tell?, user seldom has the experience and scope, again how can you tell?,
or sufficient information from the person making the query to offer much
of value.
Case in point:
"The products we will be designing are for army vehicle systems."
Fishing, banquerite, bored skoolkid? Leading into SE with Synchronous
Tetetechnology? Co-Create? Should we be concerned about our armed forces?
-Jeff Howard (wf2)
Sure it's true. I saw it on the internet.
I was just asked by a friend to do a critical comparison of Wildfire vs. Soldworks. Granted, I've got more experience in WF, and so do all of my coworkers, but (as objectively as we could) we concluded that WF was a much better CAD program for what we do in product design.
The biggest feature that WF has that SW doesn't is mastermodeling features. This lets you create one file that drives other parts. e.g. one file may have the curves to define a rivet that connects two parts. If you later want a bigger rivet and move it, you just change that curve in the mastermodel part. Then the rivet will change appropriately, and the two parts that it assembles together also change.
WF can do this with explicit features that define which curves, surfaces, etc from the mastermodel get "published" out to other parts. This makes your modeling very clean and organized. But more importantly, if (and when) it fails, you can fix it: it's obvious what failed, and is very fixable. e.g. you delete that curve that drove the rivets&company. Naturally, your rivet fails, as do the parts to be riveted. But you can easily see that it was the publish feature that failed, and that it was looking for a curve. You redirect it to the curve (or a new curve you made), and (hopefully) voila... everything is back to normal.
As far as I can tell (and i asked the SW instructor that spent a week at my company), SW can only do this through assembly references. e.g. you make the rivet and place it in the assembly. then those two parts with rivet holes will reference the rivet and assembly to see where it is and how big it is. Sounds fine and dandy (WF can do this too), but when it fails, you have no clue that went wrong and were to look. Also, since it's an assembly reference, I'm never really sure my rivet holes are updating because i might not have the assembly open. And (last one), assembly regeneration is MUCH slower. I suspect it's because of all these assembly references rather than direct publishing from mastermodel to parts.
Hmm... i suspect i might be using words and phrases that only a certain type of CAD user might understand.... Nevertheless, if you make assemblies where part designs rely on eachother, WF has a huge advantage.
And to be fair, I'll give one prop for SW: you can create multiple solids in one part - even if they overlap. You can't in WF2 (maybe WF4 you can). eg - you're building a simple part just to study a pin in a hole in a plate, and you want zero-clearance (the diameter of the pin matches the diameter of the hole). when you build those two solid extrusions in WF, it'll merge them into one solid because they touch. In SW, you can say they are separate solids - even tho' they're in one part. If you have to do that in WF, you have to define them as surfaces, not solids. And surfaces a more cumbersome than solids sometimes.
Oh... and SW is like $50 cheaper (the difference is not as big as people think)
The biggest feature that WF has that SW doesn't is mastermodeling features. This lets you create one file that drives other parts. e.g. one file may have the curves to define a rivet that connects two parts. If you later want a bigger rivet and move it, you just change that curve in the mastermodel part. Then the rivet will change appropriately, and the two parts that it assembles together also change.
WF can do this with explicit features that define which curves, surfaces, etc from the mastermodel get "published" out to other parts. This makes your modeling very clean and organized. But more importantly, if (and when) it fails, you can fix it: it's obvious what failed, and is very fixable. e.g. you delete that curve that drove the rivets&company. Naturally, your rivet fails, as do the parts to be riveted. But you can easily see that it was the publish feature that failed, and that it was looking for a curve. You redirect it to the curve (or a new curve you made), and (hopefully) voila... everything is back to normal.
As far as I can tell (and i asked the SW instructor that spent a week at my company), SW can only do this through assembly references. e.g. you make the rivet and place it in the assembly. then those two parts with rivet holes will reference the rivet and assembly to see where it is and how big it is. Sounds fine and dandy (WF can do this too), but when it fails, you have no clue that went wrong and were to look. Also, since it's an assembly reference, I'm never really sure my rivet holes are updating because i might not have the assembly open. And (last one), assembly regeneration is MUCH slower. I suspect it's because of all these assembly references rather than direct publishing from mastermodel to parts.
Hmm... i suspect i might be using words and phrases that only a certain type of CAD user might understand.... Nevertheless, if you make assemblies where part designs rely on eachother, WF has a huge advantage.
And to be fair, I'll give one prop for SW: you can create multiple solids in one part - even if they overlap. You can't in WF2 (maybe WF4 you can). eg - you're building a simple part just to study a pin in a hole in a plate, and you want zero-clearance (the diameter of the pin matches the diameter of the hole). when you build those two solid extrusions in WF, it'll merge them into one solid because they touch. In SW, you can say they are separate solids - even tho' they're in one part. If you have to do that in WF, you have to define them as surfaces, not solids. And surfaces a more cumbersome than solids sometimes.
Oh... and SW is like $50 cheaper (the difference is not as big as people think)
The best description I have heard of Pro/E is "User Hostile". If you don't already know what you are doing it can be very hard to figure it out. This makes it a pain to learn. SolidWorks is definetly more "User Friendly" That being said, I do prefere Pro/E for some things. Importing and exporting board files is much easier and complete in WF. Solidworks has the circuitworks add-on but creating and exporting board files so the electricals can use them is very dificult and cumbersome. There are a lot of name and format conventions that you do not have to deal with in WF.
samplesecond
Automotive
- Dec 12, 2006
- 26
I am a recent convert from SW to Pro/E. If you are a looking to expand your capabilities as an engineer or company, I would definitely recommend Pro/E. I think it ends up being more money for all of the bells and whistles, but it was an easy cost for us to justify.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Helpful tip
- Locked
- Question