Solidworks vs. Autocad

[JoeSenihcam]

I realize that most of you in here are using Solidworks now but I thought some of you might have experience with AutoCAD also.
We are trying to decide what program to get next. We have some people using AutoCAD 2000 and some using CADKey. We have experienced problems with them both. We heard about solidworks. What I want to know is would anyone recomend solidworks over the other two? If so, why?

 

[dgiy]

I used AutoCAD 2D for a number of years.
Then I used Mechanical Desktop for a number of years up to relase 4.0.

I have been using Solidworks seriously for about 3 months.

For the most part any 3D parametric program is going to be far superior to 2D. (Standard Autocad, yes I know they have solids but really there is no comparison.)

As for Mechanical Desktop compared to Solidworks...

I find Solidworks to be far superior. There are a lot of little things that solidworks has that make it easy to use.
Some of them are intangibles. Some are very tangible.

In fairness to Mech Desktop... maybe their future releases(after 4.0) became more easy to use, I can't say.

Also Autodesk has Inventor, which in my eyes was Autodesk's attempt at Solidworks. I haven't used it but it is probably comparable to Solidworks. Someone else can weigh in here.

DG

 

[badboggs]

Solidworks, because 3d is just darned cool.

No really, Solidworks can be very powerful if you have the staff that is willing to use it the way it can be used. Design times can be greatly reducted and many simple errors can be eliminated.

 

[MadMango]

My company used AutoCAD exclusively till 1997 (AutoCAD r10-r13), when we switched over to using SW96+. We haven't looked back since, and have stayed current with our subscription.

3D parametric modeling is hard to explain if you've never been exposed to it. It's very different than AtoCAD 3D or MDT for that matter. I guess it's comparible to trying to write a novel with a manual typewriter or a modern word processor. The end results are the same, your finished novel.

The methods to get there is much easier. Using 3D its faster to make changes, its easier to see clearances and fits, easier to create BOMs, easier to generate new views, the list goes on and on.

But there is still room for 2D. SW is not efficent in creating wireing diagrams or schematics on it's own. In fact, I don't create any 2d sketches in drawings at all because of this issue. That's why we still have AutoCAD floating around here, for documenting electrical/electronic products.

You should be able to get a 30-day trail of SW to test out. In 30 days, you should be able to go through tutorials and have plenty of time to experiment with the program to see what types of gains you will see.

MadMango
"Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities."
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[Mandrake22]

Joe,
We have switched from Cadkey (after making 20000 files) and will never look back.
What kinds of things are you working with?
Do you make sheet metal parts?
Do your parts move?
Do you make assemblies of parts?
Is clearance/interference detection a factor?
Do you have need for basic FEA capability for your parts?

 

[ctopher]

Good for you. Dump AutoCAD ASAP and go with SolidWorks or Pro-E, whichever you can afford. SolidWorks is usually the best bet for a xfer from AutoCAD.

 

[Rocko]

Also be aware of the latest fiasco with autodesk inventor and the prices going up for features in previous versions.

 

[StarrRider]

JoeSenihcam

I have to disagree with MadMango

A 30-day trial will probably not be enough time. I am not saying that you shouldn’t get a 30-day trial or have your people evaluate it, but there are some things that you should consider when you make your decision. Nearly everybody that changes from AutoCAD (or CADKey) to SolidWorks goes through a transitional period. They expect the program to operate in a way they are familiar with and become frustrated when they cannot find a command or have to learn a new way of doing things. Their training and thinking inhibit a lot of the productivity gains that the program provides. This is especially true if they are still using AutoCAD or CADKey to do normal production work. Going through the training that your VAR can provide will reduce the transitional period, but this is an added expense that is not included with SolidWorks or with an evaluation.

Here is another idea. Identify some of the problems that you’ve had with CADkey and AutoCAD in the past. Then have one of your people build an assembly from scratch and record the time that it takes. Contact a SolidWorks VAR and challenge them to do better on one of your systems at your site. I think that SolidWorks will win hands down.

As far as recommending SolidWorks – I have done this many times. I had over 10 years on AutoCAD and 4 years using Mechanical Desktop. I also used Inventor for a few months when it was first released and several other cad packages. I moved to SolidWorks in 1999 and I never want to have to go back. I considered myself very GOOD with AutoCAD & MDT – I’ve written a lot of Lisp routines – edited menu’s and dialog boxes. I haven’t changed – I write macros now and do a number of other things with SolidWorks. The difference is the product. SolidWorks allows me to be much more productive. It is far easier to learn and much more intuitive.

Lee

Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.

 

[cadcoke5]

I've been working in AutoCAD for over 15 years, much of it doing 3d work. About a year ago, I had our company seek to upgrade our CAD work by going to one of the parametric programs. Solidworks, Inventor, and Pro-Engineer were the obvious leaders. However, for our industry parametrics were not really a need. And, in fact, the parametrics themselves proved to be a liability. One person described a parametric model as a giant mountain of data. But, this mountain of data is surprisingly fragile and can collapse. Also, the need to constrain every piece created a great deal of additional work which wasn't needed in AutoCAD. AutoCAD was MUCH faster for most of the work we did.

At the time, none of the programs seemed to be a perfect solution, and I figgured if I choose the Inventor Series, we could just fall back on to vanilla AutoCAD if needed. After about 3 months of frustration with Inventor, I did end up going back to vanilla AutoCAD. But, now I am starting to discover errors with AutoCAD itself. I am speculating that the 3D functions of AutoCAD are languishing in a bit of inattention now that Autodesk is promoting Inventor as their "3D Solution".

Some upcomming mechanical designs are really going to demand we use a good parametric mechanical package. So, I've decided to give Solidworks a go. But, I really don't expect to know for sure if it was a good choice for another 6 months. It takes a great deal of time to really test a new package along with creating a new workflow, etc.

I saw a demo of SW 2004, and was quite impressed with the new weldment feature. It seems to simplify the task of creating weldments so much that it may actually be faster to do than in AutoCAD.

But as for the "Marketing Monster" that seems to control many software companies, it seem that the monster is on the loose at Solidworks also. Eg. Maintenance releases are only for subscribers. They collect donated 3D models from users, then require subscription to be able to access them.

Joe Dunfee

 

[cadcoke5]

Oops, forgot to add my conclusion. The bottom line regarding Solidworks vs. AutoCAD. There are increased frustrations and hassles when going to a more advanced program. Whether they are worth the effort is the question, and that will vary depending on your work.

Joe Dunfee

 

[adaniel65]

I've used AutoCad 2000, ProEngineer, and Solid Works. I must say that ProEngineer is a powerful program!

But if you have never used a 3D modeling program, I find that SolidWorks is easier and more logical than Pro-E.

Solidworks is windows based. ProEngineer is Unix based.

If you have been using windows programs for many years you will find that SoliWorks will be easier to master.

Good Luck.

 

[tractorman49]

My introduction to CAD began in early 1992 when I introduced a great 2D DOS based CAD package into the company I was at as a step up from manual drafting.

The program was Generic CAD 6.0 and it was reasonably easy to use and very powerful.

Within 12 month's AutoDesk had bought the company out and were attempting to kill the product off and offering very low cost upgrades to their new entry level AutoCAD LT.

We bought the upgrade but found the product much more user-unfriendly.

I became a freelancer in 1999 and FORCED myself to become proficient using AutoCAD LT 2000i.

I found the product very powerful for 2D and it did have the advantage of full file compatibility with the full-blown AutoCAD product.

At the end of 2001, two of my client companies had moved to 3D parametric solid modelling. One using SolidEdge and the other using SolidWorks.

I looked long and hard at both products. My conclusion was that Autocad was a "Ford”, SolidEdge a "BMW" and SolidWorks a "Mercedes Benz" so I bought SolidWorks.

I am delighted with the power, total Windows intergradations and quality of the training material. I've always found the support to be "first class" and they bring out new and very useful enhancements several times each year. I was testing the Beta SolidWorks 2004 last month and am already running a Pre Release of Solidworks 2004 Office in parallel with my SolidWorks 2003 installation.

As a small company (in which I am a stake holding partner), the money we invested in Solidworks Software and training has been a very worthwhile investment.

Mike Farmer - Sapphire Computing & Consulting Ltd, UK

 

[MrPickles]

tractorman49,

Are you saying that a Mercedes Benz is better than a BMW?


-----------
Mr. Pickles

 

[Theophilus]

Joe,

Being an industrial designer, 2D is rapidly becoming totally irrelevant within my circle. To describe a swoopy ergonomic handle in 2D would require oodles of sections and would be too impractical to attempt in the first place. To do the same within SolidWorks requires a couple of 3-D sweeps. I send the file to our manufacturer and we are off and running with tooling and molded parts.

I understand 2-D documentation is much more important in other areas besides mine. I learned and used ACAD and Mechanical Desktop before switching to SW 97. The differences (in what I'm doing) are so amazing that I have since converted several other companies to SolidWorks just by showing my work to them.

Parametrics allows me to edit parts very quickly. If the edits affect other parts within an assembly, I can even build the assembly in such a way as to automatically (somewhat) make adjustments in the surrounding parts.

2-D is dead in industrial design. I would never be able to compete within its confines.




Jeff Mowry
DesignHaus Industrial Design

http://www.designhaus-i-d.com

 

[Panzer1970]

I learned AutoCad on release 9 and been using it since Release 13. I knew there had to have been something better out there. I kept reading about this mid range 3D modeler named Solidworks, every article raved on how wonderful a program it was. If at that time I needed to make a decision on which package to choose, then it would have been Solidworks. I been using Solidworks for the last 2 years now and I understand why all the articles were raving about it. It is a great piece of software go with it. Any AutoDesk (crap) products will have hidden costs, fees and extras that will cost more money and quite honestly it isn't worth it.

 

[JNR]

Some different perspectives.

Where is SW (probably the best example of this) now - approaching 300,000 seats? Well, it ain't going away anytime soon and there are going to be lots of people out there running the same software as you.

Note a sidebar to this. They (like some others)started out with an inexpensive product. Others (Pro-E is a good example) stared out with an expeeeensiiiive product and eventually had to drastically cut their pricing to stay in business. That takes massive cuts in your operation which was geared to run on the excess fat. Who now has BOTH the business model and the cash flow to be very self-sustaining and able to invest in more improvements to the product?

ALL progams have their problems. None is perfect. ....And I definitely agree with one post - the more capable (ie. complex!) the software the more effort (and frustrations, perhaps) involved in learning, using and bending it to your particular needs. Truely simple, low cost CAD is appropriate for some applications!!

All products have their special strengths and weaknesses. None has eveything. This will always be the case. Only if you absolutely must have something special and it is unlikely that others will support it in future revs, then you might consider a unique choice. Otherwise I suggest you look at the total picture.

One should always consider these types of practical rather than technical issues in chosing a CAD system. Note I said "consider" - so don't come back bitching at me anyone ;-)

3/4 of all the Spam produced goes to Hawaii - shame that's not true of SPAM also.......

 

[ctopher]

I know of several companies in the past that started using AutoCAD because of an engineer or manager brought in an illegal copy and loaded it on several pc's in the company. Then a couple years later thaey were fined $$ by AutoDesk and were now forced to stay with it because they had to pay for it. Now they are stuck with it. Alot of them were not experienced with CAD products and learned on their own.
A couple of these companies are now 'waking up' and making the transition to parametrics (SW, SolidEdge, Pro-E).