I'm a beginner in regards to both but from what I understand about Tedds its more like a spreadsheet in word format. You can't solve a system of equations simultaneously. I haven't had the chance to do much with it yet though. However the library side of the program is great if you prefer doing hand calcs. I'm an EIT and its a great learning tool. Their help is great as well.
TEDDS appears to be solely directed at structural calculations and documentation. I've only seen the Lite version, so I have no idea how the sheet was created, or what else it's capable of doing.
Ostensibly, Mathcad should be capable of doing most of what TEDDS can do, but with a lot more work, since the code documentation, material properties, and section properties are not specifically integrated into the program. However, Mathcad is a general purpose calculation program, and can do a lot of other things that might not be of particular interest for a structural analyst. Nonetheless, Roark and Young calculations have been recreated in Mathcad, as have a number of other user-supplied calculations. However, bear in mind that Mathcad's documentation format is definitely not as clean looking as that of TEDDS.
So, it boils down to how narrow are your interests, and what you intend to do with the programs. Given an unlimited choice, having both programs would be the ideal case, since the overlap in capability, while substantial, is not 100%.
I've used TEDDS and have a little experience with Mathcad.
If it is you who is paying I suggest you save you money and use spreadsheets. Open Office is free.
- it has most of the core functionality of Mathcad (including units-awareness, symbolic calculus, etc), but at a much better price. (You can't beat free!) I use Mathcad at work, but use SMath Studio on my home computer, and on my Windows Phone.
I was so impressed that I donated to the developer to encourage him to continue developing the product - take a look!
jhardy1 - On your recommendation, I downloaded the Smath program and gave it a spin. I wasn't able to use the units as I am with MathCad. The units only work for symbolic and not for evaluation. Am I missing something?
Also, just so this isn't off topic from the original post...
I've used MathCad since 1998 and find it very useful in structural engineering design and analysis. I use it for it's matrix functions and thus far it has not disappointed me.
I've not used TEDDs.
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
jhardy1 - On your recommendation, I downloaded the Smath program and gave it a spin. I wasn't able to use the units as I am with MathCad. The units only work for symbolic and not for evaluation. Am I missing something?
Yes, units ONLY come from a contextural pulldown menu, which is why I don't particularly like it.
You can enter units into SMath directly by using the apostrophe key; this puts the SMath into units-entry mode, and you can type the units in directly.
For example, to get a variable called "Span" set equal to 6 metres, just type the following keystrokes:
Span:6'm[Enter}
Voilà!
I'm not sure what you mean about units not being available for evaluation. If you assign units to one variable, and then use that variable in another expression, the units will be carried through (just like Mathcad), and SMath will pick up any problems with units-incompatibility, etc (just like Mathcad).
True, SMath is not a powerful as Mathcad, and given free access to both, Mathcad would win hands down. (The electronic version of "Roarke's Stress & Strain" that came with my company licence is worth the purchase price alone!)
However, I can't afford or justify a personal copy of Mathcad, and SMath gives me most of the functionality I need. It runs on my Windows Smart-phone too, which is very handy in the field. (I have a few "quick and dirty" worksheets set up for doing basic design checks in the field. When I get back to the office, I can easily copy the worksheets to my computer, and even convert to Mathcad and integrate into my formal design calculations.)
SMath is not quite a Mathcad clone, but it's possibly close enough for many "light" users.
I see now, you have to invoke the apostrophe and the units appear in blue text. Previously I wrote the units without the apostrophe and the evaluation would not carry the units forward. They do now.
Thanks
Q
Regards,
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
Thanks, that's precisely what I as referring to. There are also some awkwardness with keystroke behavior between SMath and MC, which makes it difficult to alternate between the two programs.
As a side note, if you do not need the programming, or the complex functions of MC, a cheap alternative is Studyworks, which was Mathsoft's erstwhile foray into educational software. It's a stripped version of roughly Mathcad 2001, but will do the units, and some level of symbolic math. It was intended support students' math through calculus, so it has numerical integrations and indefinite integrals and derivatives as live symbolics, but not as MC static symbolics. Fortunately for me, I rarely need anything beyond those. It's usually available on Ebay for less than $20.
While both the Science and Math Studyworks are the same program, the Quickbooks are different. The Math one has tutorials and examples for math up to calculus, while the Science one has tutorials and examples on biology, etc., but since the content is not completely about math problems, I think it's not worth it.
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
