Pat or anyone, I noticed you have been looking at these software packages since 2005. I am in exactly the same position you were in then. I also noticed you have postings as current as this month (Dec. 2008)on the same subject. Have you purchased one or the other? I am trying to make a decision by the first of the year. The biggest part of my decision is revolved around training. Are there any important questions to ask here? I have no CAD experience and little computer experience. How many hours of training should I ask for? I am leaning toward solidedge classic at this point. Anyone using Synchronous technology? SIS is my solidedge distributor and Trimec is my solidworks distributor. They both seem that they would do a good job for me. Any feedback would be appreciated.
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!
"pkelecy" Solidedge vs Solidworks 2
- Thread starter magoo75
- Start date
Mark,
As beachcomber said, same for me.
The scrollbar sure doesn't sound right, but it's there, since the Ribbon's height is fixed. It doesn't look to me like a glitch, since scrollbars are used elsewhere in the Ribbon. Really silly UI design, to be polite...
Let's hope that SEwST2 brings us more UI improvements than just the QAT changes. I'm hoping for what SW seems to have done between SW2008 and SW2009, which is give back users some customizability...
@ BC: Following the crowd is the right expression. I sure would like to know why everyone in the CAD industry is so enamored with the Fluent interface. Has Adobe adopted it for its CS4 suite? Hell no! Even if they are no strangers to increasing functionality. But then, they're also producing it for another OS.
As beachcomber said, same for me.
The scrollbar sure doesn't sound right, but it's there, since the Ribbon's height is fixed. It doesn't look to me like a glitch, since scrollbars are used elsewhere in the Ribbon. Really silly UI design, to be polite...
Let's hope that SEwST2 brings us more UI improvements than just the QAT changes. I'm hoping for what SW seems to have done between SW2008 and SW2009, which is give back users some customizability...
@ BC: Following the crowd is the right expression. I sure would like to know why everyone in the CAD industry is so enamored with the Fluent interface. Has Adobe adopted it for its CS4 suite? Hell no! Even if they are no strangers to increasing functionality. But then, they're also producing it for another OS.
Here is a link to a Siemens post on how to alter your ribbon layout that may be of help to some of you. I don't like the ribbon bar either but don't get that excited about it. While I have not implemented any of the stuff from this guys post yet waiting on V2's "improved" interface, if things do not change significantly I will be following some of these tips.
beachcomber
Mechanical
There is no customisation allowed on the ribbon bar.
All you can do is turn it on or off.
The link actually shows how to customise the QAT, but the problem with the QAT is that you can't re-order the commands on it to create logical groups.
I am sure the new interface is requiring more clicks than the old one.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
All you can do is turn it on or off.
The link actually shows how to customise the QAT, but the problem with the QAT is that you can't re-order the commands on it to create logical groups.
I am sure the new interface is requiring more clicks than the old one.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
PatCouture
Mechanical
Hi Beach
Maybe you are already aware of this but you may be interested in the discussion called "V20 and ST GUI statistics..." on the solid_edge.misc newsgroup dating of october 1st.
The user made a comparison between V20, ST Traditionnal with the same part.
Hope it helps
Patrick
Maybe you are already aware of this but you may be interested in the discussion called "V20 and ST GUI statistics..." on the solid_edge.misc newsgroup dating of october 1st.
The user made a comparison between V20, ST Traditionnal with the same part.
Hope it helps
Patrick
Hi Magoo
To get back to the title of this thread...
I use SE100 or 21 traditional two weeks now. I gave up on ST because too many things don't work yet. With SW and Inventor I worked several years. With Cadkey / Keycreator I have some experience.
It depends what you use your CAD program for. As a designer and developer my opinion is very clear and simple: Solidworks is the most efficient, consistant and mature program with the least frustration potential with a quite steep improvement curve. It works.
The distributor is also important but the best support can't take away the lack of a program.
Greets Patrick
To get back to the title of this thread...
I use SE100 or 21 traditional two weeks now. I gave up on ST because too many things don't work yet. With SW and Inventor I worked several years. With Cadkey / Keycreator I have some experience.
It depends what you use your CAD program for. As a designer and developer my opinion is very clear and simple: Solidworks is the most efficient, consistant and mature program with the least frustration potential with a quite steep improvement curve. It works.
The distributor is also important but the best support can't take away the lack of a program.
Greets Patrick
beachcomber
Mechanical
The thread has wandered off it's original subject a little, but never mind.
I gave up on ST within about 1/2 hr. I just can't get on with having to put dimensions all over my model to make sure it's controlled.
The 'live rules' is just too complicated and it's too easy to miss something happening on another part of the model.
I tried to adjust a the height of a block with a curved top face and it was a pain.
I'm having a go with SpaceClaim in my spare time, and although it's also direct modelling I seem to be able to do many things easier than with ST - and it's the same 'Fluent' interface but a more simple implementation. It does appear to have it's own faults & limitations though.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
I gave up on ST within about 1/2 hr. I just can't get on with having to put dimensions all over my model to make sure it's controlled.
The 'live rules' is just too complicated and it's too easy to miss something happening on another part of the model.
I tried to adjust a the height of a block with a curved top face and it was a pain.
I'm having a go with SpaceClaim in my spare time, and although it's also direct modelling I seem to be able to do many things easier than with ST - and it's the same 'Fluent' interface but a more simple implementation. It does appear to have it's own faults & limitations though.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
beach, that's interesting. Your experience with ST mirrors many of my concerns I had after seeing the demo.
It just didn't seem like you were explicitly controlling things the same anymore.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
It just didn't seem like you were explicitly controlling things the same anymore.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
beachcomber
Mechanical
From what I understand, there have been many complaints about it to VAR's as well.
It's interesting that the menus don't go across the full width of larger, high resolution screens - suggesting that it's designed for smaller screens such as laptops.
It looks totally rediculous on a 24" wide screen running at 1900x1200!
This wouldn't be so bad, but the replacement for the pathfinder area needs far more width that the pathfinder did.
Hopefully Siemens will recognise that an "Office" interface is not suitable for CAD and put things right very soon.
No doubt Microsoft will change the standard again with Windows 7.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
It's interesting that the menus don't go across the full width of larger, high resolution screens - suggesting that it's designed for smaller screens such as laptops.
It looks totally rediculous on a 24" wide screen running at 1900x1200!
This wouldn't be so bad, but the replacement for the pathfinder area needs far more width that the pathfinder did.
Hopefully Siemens will recognise that an "Office" interface is not suitable for CAD and put things right very soon.
No doubt Microsoft will change the standard again with Windows 7.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
It seems to me that the GUI change was a bad decision. I have been using SE as my sole 3D design tool for ten years and the change of GUI has resulted in loss of productivity.
This has made me to looking at replacment for SE. The most likely candidate is SW since it supports chain of tolerances control that is lacking in SE.
This has made me to looking at replacment for SE. The most likely candidate is SW since it supports chain of tolerances control that is lacking in SE.
SW went to the Fluent GUI before Solid Edge did. It's the same pile of MS for both CAD packages.
--Scott
--Scott
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
There is one excellent thing about the SW version of Fluent GUI. It can be turned off.
So many users complained so long and so loudly to SW when they introduced the GUI, that SW relented and incorporated an option to switch it off. Many users have done this and use the 'S' key set of shortcuts which, in combination with other keyboard shortcuts, is far more productive. No Fluent and no toolbars cluttering up the screen.
So many users complained so long and so loudly to SW when they introduced the GUI, that SW relented and incorporated an option to switch it off. Many users have done this and use the 'S' key set of shortcuts which, in combination with other keyboard shortcuts, is far more productive. No Fluent and no toolbars cluttering up the screen.
Want to know something funny.
A little while before SE went 'fluent' SE were circulating links to SW message boards with users complaining about the interface changes. They sent it to us to try and give us ammo in our 'why not go to SW' battles that flare up.
Then, they go and do the same thing.
Idiots.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
A little while before SE went 'fluent' SE were circulating links to SW message boards with users complaining about the interface changes. They sent it to us to try and give us ammo in our 'why not go to SW' battles that flare up.
Then, they go and do the same thing.
Idiots.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
So start your own revolution. "WHAT ABOUT THE WORKERS?"
I believe it all started with SpaceClaim. They were the first to adopt the Fluent interface. And then, everybody else had to follow... Which is something that I've been trying to understand since (with no success). Is Microsoft paying them or what?!?
Notice too that Synch Tech is Siemens PLM's response to SpaceClaim's 3D direct modeling. Autodesk annonced recently Inventor Fusion, and let's not forget CATIA V6 released last year has the same type of technology. You don't hear much about it though.
So SpaceClaim, even if it's had so far a marginal market penetration, seems to be a trend setter...
Notice too that Synch Tech is Siemens PLM's response to SpaceClaim's 3D direct modeling. Autodesk annonced recently Inventor Fusion, and let's not forget CATIA V6 released last year has the same type of technology. You don't hear much about it though.
So SpaceClaim, even if it's had so far a marginal market penetration, seems to be a trend setter...
I've been using ST1 for about 8 months now and the UI really isn't that bad. There is no doubt that this first implementation is far from perfect, but I dont think I am any less efficient than with V20. Clearly if you have used the SE as long as PerBear you will have gotten very proficient with a customized UI, so a major change will inevitably bring some loss in productivity. My guess is that the more flexible customization in ST2 will at least bring it on a par with the old UI.
Actually, I find there are some benefits. The task bar can autohide freeing up screen space.
The UI improvements in ST2 look to deal with many of the other annoyances. But as I said, it takes a fair bit of getting used to because it is quite different, though once you get familair with the layout it is OK.
I have also started to integrate Sync modelling into my workflow. It really was NOT love at first sight and my normal workflows just did not work. It was actually very frustrating. I have perserved though and found that a good understanding of Live Rules and how to manipulate them is essential to getting the desired outcome.
Even though Sync modelling is still a bit "warty" and lacks some functionality, I find that I am now reluctant to use Trad if I can help it. Fundamentally, there is a freedom in Sync that Trad just doesn't give you. I am not even saying it is quicker, I just like it better. It has really grown on me.
Personally, the more I understand it I thinks Siemens have really got something in Sync, but I think the "ease of use" thing is over-sold. It acutally has alot of depth and functionality that is not immediately apparent and needs to be well understood. If you just dip into it you will get frustrated very quickly.
With regard to copying Spaceclaim, I am pretty sure the development of Sync had started long before the release of Spaceclaim. Bear in mind, Spaceclaim launched March 2007 and ST1 in Aug. 2008 - hardly enough time to develop a whole new modeller. That said, the high profile of Spaceclaim seems to have paved the way for the acceptance of Sync. as the next progression of a parametric modeller.
Tony
Actually, I find there are some benefits. The task bar can autohide freeing up screen space.
The UI improvements in ST2 look to deal with many of the other annoyances. But as I said, it takes a fair bit of getting used to because it is quite different, though once you get familair with the layout it is OK.
I have also started to integrate Sync modelling into my workflow. It really was NOT love at first sight and my normal workflows just did not work. It was actually very frustrating. I have perserved though and found that a good understanding of Live Rules and how to manipulate them is essential to getting the desired outcome.
Even though Sync modelling is still a bit "warty" and lacks some functionality, I find that I am now reluctant to use Trad if I can help it. Fundamentally, there is a freedom in Sync that Trad just doesn't give you. I am not even saying it is quicker, I just like it better. It has really grown on me.
Personally, the more I understand it I thinks Siemens have really got something in Sync, but I think the "ease of use" thing is over-sold. It acutally has alot of depth and functionality that is not immediately apparent and needs to be well understood. If you just dip into it you will get frustrated very quickly.
With regard to copying Spaceclaim, I am pretty sure the development of Sync had started long before the release of Spaceclaim. Bear in mind, Spaceclaim launched March 2007 and ST1 in Aug. 2008 - hardly enough time to develop a whole new modeller. That said, the high profile of Spaceclaim seems to have paved the way for the acceptance of Sync. as the next progression of a parametric modeller.
Tony
Hi all, I have just come back from PLM World and can shed a little light on this long running thread. I had no idea how integrated many of the MS products were with SE until now. Excell of course can be used to drive parts and I use it just a bit for sheet metal now. Don't really understand how to implement it yet but one of the users was kind enough to set up a sample for me and now with an odd duct transition I have to make on occasion all I have to do is input new dimensions and SE will spit out the right parts and cut sheets and whatever else I need to fabricate the new duct. Before there was a lot of fooling around to do this with my other program. Where the interface with MS is critical to SE is in data management with teamcenter and teamcenter Express and the dependency of SE on the MS programs especially for server functions and data flow and there are no viable substitutes for some of these so MS is here to stay in that area and others because of this. Teamcenter was not a particular interest of mine as I am a one man shop and sorry I can't elaborate more on this. I sit in some of these sessions and see what can be done with SE and I am just amazed. There is a lot of the capabilities that I will never learn as it is just to much for one individual especialy one who is interested primarily just in modeling and MCAD. But if you wished you can do it all from concept to the customers glossy pamphlet and training manuals to worlwide integration of data. However, on to the dreaded "ribbon bar". There has been a lot of changes here based on user feedback and the new version is much better and I have no issue with it any more. ST2 has sheet metal in as a synchronous function now and you have to see it to believe it. The pick choices for how to get synch to work are still somewhat quirky but this is still new stuff and the improvements are dramatic. Can you tell I like what I saw yet? I think of all the time I used to waste with my old parametric only modeler and know I am in the right place. As a history note ST was started some time before the release of ST1 or Spaceclaim and it took a few years to first think of the idea "what if we could do it this way?" to maybe we can to we can now lets figure it out. I will state that there is nothing out there that will touch this right now and the only reason that ST will not start to seriously devour SWX market share would be if Siemens continues the famous tradition of lack of marketing that UGS was so famous for. If you are my competitor I hope you stick with the other guys stuff because it will make my life easier.
Lapuser
Good to hear that improvements to the ribbon may pursuade those still on V20 to move accross. There is no doubt that the ST1 ribbon has some major flaws, but I don't think they are conceptual, it is more to do with implementation. That said, the Develpoment team seemed pretty responsive to input and have addressed many of the issues raised.
Can't wait to get my hands on Sync sheet metal - it looks very cool.
Did you get a chance to play with the edit by section feature? I am interested to know how well this has been implemented.
Tony
Good to hear that improvements to the ribbon may pursuade those still on V20 to move accross. There is no doubt that the ST1 ribbon has some major flaws, but I don't think they are conceptual, it is more to do with implementation. That said, the Develpoment team seemed pretty responsive to input and have addressed many of the issues raised.
Can't wait to get my hands on Sync sheet metal - it looks very cool.
Did you get a chance to play with the edit by section feature? I am interested to know how well this has been implemented.
Tony
Tony, I agree on the ribbon bar as there were changes. Edit by section was in one of the demos and I know that demos can be well rehearsed but from what I saw there will be great utility here. It is hard to fake functionality like this as if it works there it will work for you at home to. They could take section profiles and edit as though it were a solid so yes another way to do things now. I am really pleased with all the ways to work on imported parts now no matter from where they come from. I can change parts
MUCH faster in SE from other companies then they can in the original cad program. You will really like ST2 and it will move the fence sitters off to join I dare say. Dave
MUCH faster in SE from other companies then they can in the original cad program. You will really like ST2 and it will move the fence sitters off to join I dare say. Dave
- Status