PTC (Pro-E) article truths.....10 ways Solidworks slows you down 1

[SolidsMaster]

http://www.ptc.com/solutions/small_medium_business/mcad.htm

The above link is to an article published by PTC stating all the things SWX can't do, or do well. Note: no where does it state what version of SW they compared it to. This type of stuff just doesn't fly with me. So, how about some real life comparisons from people who have used both hand in hand. I've only dabbled in Pro-E enough to stay away from it.

What's the feeling, technically on the claims.

John

 

[cloche]

No, no, no, no, please, not again this matter about comparing one CAD with another. This stuff always come out to flames. Anybody can tell pros and cons of every CAD or whatsoever in the market, and it's not because Ferrari exists that one may not be pleased with a Fiat.

By the way: PTC is well-known for this kind of "non-comparisons", but also others do the same.

 

[Heckler]

Just another piece of worthless MCAD propaganda. Other than Variable Section Sweeps, Equation driven datum curvesm, and Eval GRAPHs SWx runs circles around WildFire. PTC and AutoDesk that have perfected this type of meaningless propaganda that lacks facts. They really made no technical claims just feeding to people's emotions. I use Pro/e 2001 on a daily basis (so to upgrade to WF 3.0) and can tell you I'm 200% more productive on SWx 2005.

Best Regards,

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SW2005 SP 3.1 & Pro/E 2001
Dell Precision 370
P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
XP Pro SP2.0
NIVIDA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

"There is no trouble so great or grave that cannot be much diminished by a nice cup of tea" Bernard-Paul Heroux

 

[MMike1]

My CAD can beat up your CAD......

 

[macPT]

Cloche

Why do you compare ProE with a Fiat?;-)

Regards

 

[PDMAdmin]

Heckler is right; you can spin just about anything to prove the point you're trying to make. Every CAD company has been guilty of that, including SWx. Several years ago, I knew a PTC sales rep who was especially notorious for talking trash about competing CAD products. Soon after that, he was laid off, so he went to work for a competitor; now he talks trash about Pro/E. What a tangled web...

 

[ctopher]

The way I see it, if a company has to trash a competitor, they are having problems.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)

FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[GBor]

I'm a novice SW user and a Pro-E non-user, so my comments are more to this type of advertising:

1) If the person running the models is an avid Pro-E user and a novice SW user, it makes sense that it would take them a fraction of the time to build the models and assemble them.

2) If Pro/E is so much better, why do they feel it necessary to compare themselves to SW?

3) PTC's comment #3 is a valid one, I think, but, again, define the "limitations" or, better still, don't mention SolidWorks at all unless you perceive them to be a threat! I also think, if you build that part in a little different sequence, SW will actually do that, won't it?

4) I like the words, "you could waste up to XX hours"...yea, if you're not too bright and account for your lunch hour in considering the time it takes to do something, you "could waste a lot more"!

5) There are MANY details missing in the comparison: platform, user, the giggling clown in the corner to distract you while the truth slips through...

I'm not stuck on or avidly opposed to either of these packages, but Pro/E must be in trouble if they are using such strong language and such a HORRIBLE advertising technique. I hope people see through this and do a real comparison before deciding. Pro/E may still be what they need, but I would hate to see the decision made based on this information, if you call it that.

 

[engAlright]

To settle this once and for all I would suggest a "CAD-LYMPICS" - each MCAD vendor would bring their best stuff to a comptetion pitting one against the other in a battle of performance, power, versatitlity and "non-crashiness".

This would lead to worldwide recognition, huge TV contracts and international fame for the competitors until of course, the inevitable doping scandals (let's hope coffee wouldn't be a banned substance!) bring the whole thing down like a house of cards in large assembly mode.

 

[smcadman]

Bashing the competitor is nothing new in advertising, whether they are selling trucks, cars, headache medicine, etc. Here is some more fuel for the fire. The old "cube tests":

http://www.ptc.com/WCMS/files/23982en_file1.pdf

http://www.cadventureinc.com/white-papers/assy_perf_cubes.pdf

Flores

 

[SolidsMaster]

I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a flame war. Just wanted in-depth compare at same company usage. Where they switched from one to another.

"Mods" please delete this if it gets out of hand. thanks

John

 

[PDMAdmin]

SolidsMaster,

I have observed two things regarding the switch from Pro/E to SolidWorks:

1) We had six users with Pro/E installed, and in the past two years, only one had ever used Pro/E. One of them didn't even know he had it installed. As soon as we switched to SolidWorks, we started running out of licenses because everyone wanted to use it. Even the "CAD illiterate" users were going through the online tutorials and creating their own parts.

2) For experienced users in either CAD system, productivity has been slightly higher in SolidWorks. For novice CAD users, SolidWorks wins the productivity contest hands-down. However, it should be kept in mind that Pro/E does some things better than SWx, and vice versa.

 

[Theophilus]

Wow, number five on the list appears to be completely fabricated.

As an industrial designer, I do the ID and engineering for almost every project I take part in. The gaps represented as file translation time were astonishing in this point. I require no gaps. Lots of propped-up assumptions necessary here, even if I were to import ID files from Rhino or some other such package. It certainly wouldn't require 16.5 hours for a project of less than 60 hours of total design time.

I also have clients who bring me files in ProE format and work with those files (from surfaces). There are some nice tools available in ProE, as mentioned above. But the article linked above gets quite ridiculous in blowing things out of proportion. Assumptions and premises make all the difference, and this article takes to much liberty at placing both at the extemes for the comparison.


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[GregLocock]

As an amateur level user of both programs (I've only ever done serious drafting in AutoCAD (Gulp) or IDEAS) my observation is that SW seems to be much easier to pick up in the first 10 hours. I think the history tree in particular is fantastic. On the other hand I found the 2D drafting was better in ProE.

Since I am more interested in creating good (ie robust) parametric models quickly, than engineering drawings, SW gets my "vote" at the moment, from that experience.


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[afb66t9]

I first used pro e at a university level many years ago (Version 17 - V2001). When I first started to use Solidworks I found the surfacing not as powerfull as Pro E . However in the last few releases of solidworks the surfacing has been improved dramatically. I have included a few interesting articles.

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/solidworks/select/cadcamnet_proe_vs_solidworks.htm

http://www.design-engine.com/feature.php?feature=34

 

[J-C]

Well I created both model fillets in their "3rd reason" that they claim Swx can't do.

The first produced the same results if you use a face blend.

The second one will work with one fillet but looks a little strange, two fillets smoothed it really well.
----

As for the rest, it would help if they would show the assembly used. Even working on 2000 part assemblies, saving, opening are no where near what they say.


Jason

 

[cloche]

Hi everybody!
When I mentioned "Ferrari vs Fiat" I didn't mean to associate SW or PRO/E to any of the two: it was only to point out that EVERY cad system on the market can fit some particular needs of particular companies. You may find some where SW is unbeatable, others where PRO/E is.
In my past, I had to make a full-parametric model of a "somewhat" complicated geometry: hydraulic radial turbine blades. Of course in this case, Pro/E's VSS and some other advanced modeling capabilities (equation-based curves, geometry piloted by graphs,...) were ABSOLUTELY necessary, so SW could NEVER have been used (even if v.2006 existed when Pro/E was at v.20). But, ask yourself that question: in how many cases such "extreme" capabilities are necessary?!? in ID, as far as I know, free-form is more important than math-definition. In mech Design, I know only one case in which math curves are necessary: cam design. SW is not born for that, you'd better look at UG. And, however, probably some plugins from third-parties exit that can add this functionality to SW (or SolidEdge, or ThinkDesign, or...).
However, right in this forum there is another thread on about the same topic that lasted more than 61 posts to come to nowhere, because of course each poster had different views / different NEEDS / different budgets / different skills...
"Repetita juvant", they said, but in this case perhaps not...

Bye!

 

[ctopher]

One difference not mentioned, what hardware was used in the comparison. It would make a huge difference.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)

FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

no where does it state what version of SW they compared it to

Just noticed, at the top of the chart on page 2 ... "SW2004 Office Pro"


Making the best use of this Forum. faq559-716
How to get answers to your SW questions. faq559-1091
Helpful SW websites every user should be aware of. faq559-520

 

[Theophilus]

Sort of an old version for a "Just In" comparison. Maybe that says something about PTC's own comprehension of time?


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.