Solidworks & ProE, which is most usable?

[gnewton]

I started using ProE with 2000i2 in 2001, and have been frustrated with the poor usability (a lot of unnecessary mouse use) ever since. In 2005 I did a week-long tutorial of Solidworks, and my impression at the time was that it was what ProE could have become, as far as usability is concerned.

There are a number of users on these forums with extensive experience with both, so I would be interested in their impressions of how the programs compare in terms of ease of use.

Up until now I have approached the usability topic in terms of someone having a Repetitive Strain Injury, which applies to a certain percentage of CAD users. The topic of usability / ease of use, however affects 100% of us. If ProE has you wasting lots of time clicking things you shouldn't have to, you won't be as productive, not to mention the increased RSI risk.

To see examples of what I'm talking about, you can check out my website, www.SoftwareCausesRSI.org
If you do so, realize that every example of increased RSI risk is also an example of bad usability that is wasting your time. My website, although conceived in terms of RSI, is actually a quest to put the usability of ProE on the financial map of PTC. Bad usability = users with RSI = lawsuits against PTC = PTC loses lots of $$$ = PTC makes usability & user satisfaction a top-level priority.
Got it?

The basic principle applies to all software, of course, not just ProE. The whole industry needs to change their mindset, and RSI lawsuits just might help.

So which one has the greatest ease of use, SolidWorks or ProE?

 

[mgnt8]

OK, I'll bite. Do you have any facts from experts to back up your claim besides Wikipeida and your own use? Experts in the field, peer-reviewed studies, medical professionals, personal injury precedents, case studies, etc.? I trust that you are an experienced user with a lot of personal insight, but others may not have as much faith in your opinion. I also respect that you are working for improvements, but you're making some bold accusations while only singling out PTC. Here's what I'm looking for: 1) definitive proof that more clicks equals more injuries 2) definitive proof that Pro/E has more clicks in their workflow than the other CAD systems.

 

[AHA-D]

<snip>I'm looking for: 1) definitive proof that more clicks equals more injuries 2) definitive proof that Pro/E has more clicks in their workflow than the other CAD systems.

These studies are around. I've seenCAD comparisons showing interface-driving-differences around 4 times difference best-to-worst case. It will take some time though to dig one up. But pure for illustration : edit a parameter in Solid Edge part is :
<UL>
<LI>click once on feature (in tree or in model)
<LI>click once on appearing 'dynamic edit' button
<LI>click once on any part of appearing parameter dimensions
<LI>type new value in field that is default highlighted to editing state, no mouse movement here
<LI>press 'enter'
<LI>hit 'esc' or click pointer tool or click other dimension</LI>[/list]


Alternatively you can start with : rightclick a feature, leftclick 'dynamic edit' on the flyout, for the first 2 steps.


Pure from memory you have to doubleclick a parameter in ProE and you have to exactly hit the displayed value bit, often requiring panning and zooming to locate it. Forgot how many 'done' you have to hit to get out.


Oh, and as a non-scientific fact : the first time I got severely hit by RSI and had to review my habits thoroughly was while working ProE2001, after 12 years of other CAD.
Edited by: AHA-D

 

[mgnt8]

There's has to be more proof. Here's what I found on the other side just with a quick google search:


http://www.ecomconsultantsinc.com/FACTS.pdf


"PRO/ENGINEER ranged from 25-90% faster than SolidWorks"


Also from wikipedia RSI entry, a source that he notes in his letter:


"The medically accepted condition in which it occurs is when muscles in these areas are kept tense for very long periods of time, due to poor posture and/or repetitive motions."


" Good posture, ergonomics and limiting time in stressful working conditions can help prevent or halt the progress of the disorder."


So this condition is partly caused by actions by the Operator and it can be prevented if the Operator takes the necessary precautions which are well documented.


At this point I have to conclude that it is a weak case. Please prove me wrong.

 

[AHA-D]

Tool Inc is a design office that - according to their portfolio - does lots of freeform modelling. That's not quit representative for the market. In my last 5 years of contracting I've only come across one job with a reasonable amount of freeform modeling (which was done in Catia).


Next, don't trust "independent" sources. First,it's hard to evaluate their independence, second, depending on the exercise at hand you can steer any result. Let others do something you are particularely good at, et voil

 

[jelston]

http://www.ecomconsultantsinc.com/FACTS.pdf


"PRO/ENGINEER ranged from 25-90% faster than SolidWorks"

Pro/E is 90% faster, at locking up and crashing!


I mean come on SW using windows based hotkeys. If i want to use a drawing viewin another drawing i can hit Ctrl + C and paste it there. I need a Congressional act to do this in Pro/E. Pro/E is a dinosaur, not a T-Rex, like a brontosaurus or something!

I been using both programs for long enough to have a good feel. Pro/E has some good spots, but usually it has spots that were almost good but are only half-a** done.


I should know better than to get caught up in this!
Edited by: jelston

 

[prohammy]

I should know better than to get caught up in this!

Again?

 

[gnewton]

OK, I'll bite. Do you have any facts from experts to back up your claim besides Wikipeida and your own use?


but you're making some bold accusations while only singling out PTC.


Here's what I'm looking for: 1) definitive proof that more clicks equals more injuries 2) definitive proof that Pro/E has more clicks in their workflow than the other CAD systems.

In truth, my argumentation is not as watertight as I would like. I am proceeding from the assumption that less of something (mouse use) who's cumulative effect can be a debilitating condition, is a good thing. No I don't have anything to back that up, besides perhaps common sense. Would there be a lower overall risk of auto accidents if there were fewer miles driven? I think so.

Which is not to say that my assertion could not be backed up. I haven't done the research. I am sure there are studies about that sort of thing somewhere.

I see that you immediately latched onto my RSI angle. Ultimately the RSI thing is to bring about better usability in ProE. Do you not agree that ProE is bad in that regard? Did you see the example page on my website? Do you enjoy clicking "done" "done" "done" "are your really sure...?" If you do not have problems with RSI ( I hope you don't), don't you at least see that as a major waste of time? It doesn't have to be that way, you know. PTC could improve the interface dramatically if they were so motivated, don't you agree?

What do you see as my bold accusation? That software causes mouse related RSI? I stand by that. Software operation is the only thing that makes you move your mouse. I singled out PTC because that is the program I was using intensively when I got RSI, and because I don't have the time and energy to include other programs or OS's. I really think the whole industry needs to have usability / lower RSI risk on their radar, and then the rising tide will lift all boats, including PTC.
Of course, ProE is a good place to start because it is a good example of bad usability.

As for your point #2, it is not relevant. Software is a hand-operated information processing tool, and as such, the interface designers should be held responsible to make their interfaces as low RSI-risk as possible (which goes hand-in-hand with greater usability). I would only need to show that PTC includes more mouse use than they would have if they had taken reasonable care in designing the interface, and that, I have done.

FYI: clicks themselves aren't necessarily the bad guy. Static tension is the bad guy, and you can have tension in your hand while waiting to click, for instance.

Edited by: gnewton

 

[prohammy]

[/QUOTE]

In truth, my argumentation is not as watertight as I would like. I am proceeding from the assumption that less of something (mouse use) who's cumulative effect can be a debilitating condition, is a good thing. No I don't have anything to back that up, besides perhaps common sense. Would there be a lower overall risk of auto accidents if there were fewer miles driven? I think so.

[/QUOTE]


Not true, if you want to decrease your chances of having a crash, make sure you don't drive at peak times, not decrease your mileage


Kev

 

[gnewton]

If mouse use is equated to miles driven, then a low RSI-risk program would mean less miles driven in all sorts of traffic conditions. Whether you are working to a deadline, under pressure (rush hour), or if there is not much to do at the office (blue ridge parkway), in all situations, you are driving less. You can take the beltway from A to E.

With high RSI-risk software, you do much more driving, and every trip takes twice as long and is more stressful because you first have to travel through town to B, C, and D. instead of building a beltway, the town planners invested your money in automated traffic signs that only become readable when you bring your car to a full stop in front of them. But that is a feature, of course.

In this scenario, you run a much greater risk of having an accident.


Edited by: gnewton

 

[prohammy]

gnewton,


My point is pedantic, but I hope an illustration of what I was tring to say in the previous post....


OK, you are still equating risk (RSI strain/miles driven) to time involved in the activity. My point (I should not have tried to be funny obviously) is that ifI mouse travel 500 miles of circular motion with no mouse clicks(driving with no traffic, zero risk barring me fall alseep {which is quite damn close at the moment}) then that is no where near as risky as 'jerky' repetative mouse clicks and moving your mouse randomly all over the place with sharp acceleration and decelerations (think heavy traffic and constantly having to avoid other bad road users ie cyclists, truckers and cabbies).


In conclusion, time is not the only factor here.


Kev


PS I can't believe that I have gotten drawn into a ProE/SW flame war again. I quit and I'm off to use my etch-o-sketch. No mouse clicks, just nice harmless circular motion. Somehow I don't expect my productivity to be so high, but long term I won't be suffering (or employed)

 

[design-engine]

For me ... with respect to surfacing I have to make for many more work arounds for solidworks. I guess that sounds like a rant from typed words on a page perspective... Ill try to make one specific with respect to usability in terms of workflow and not interface as an example here.On the surface uninformed users only use their eyes to look at user interface iconography. Interface means so much more when you look at workflow. Thats what design engine teaches instead of menu clicks by the way... 'workflow'.

And I could make a rather large list....

Take a ellipse and project that ellipse onto a surface. Now use one half of the ellipse to make on one side and create a recess for a button type of feature.

part of the first day of a proe surfacing workshop at design engine.

To do this in solidworks you have to split the ellipse before it's projected so that it creates to hemispheres.The problem is a simple yet annoying workaround due to the surface boundary tool will not let me select only half of the ellipse. I have to select the entire sketched portion of the resultant projection.

I would think that Solidworks would have a technical committee much like PTC does. Alias can't do it either.

It is workarounds like this that make my speed in solidoworks 40 percent slower than that of Pro/ENGINEER surfacing.Each year solidworks makes improvements beyond visible user interface like my above example.If it's not clear I could make a video comparison... but solidoworks should pay for that kind of assistance.

I could make a comparison next to mouse clicks next I guess...

I found solidworks users (and most proe users) tend to be rather uninformed with respect to mouse movement. In Pro/E there are many icon hiding from users in the right mouse click. That is another thing that annoys me about solidworks. I have to actually move my mouse over to click on that green check mark to exit a sketch.

Any solidworks user who sits next to me gets rather frustrated and says "I've never seen anyone run Pro/E like that"Alias and Rhino users say the same thing.

The only injury I get from working on Pro/E or SW is from falling out of my chair from laugher. Maybe I should avoid talk boards or forums because I can get hurt.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[jeff4136]

Just curious ... how many involved in the discussion are, or are not, using a spaceball or similar device?

 

[c_thompson_68]

This week, I showed Bart (Design-Engine) some SolidWorks features that Pro-E is missing, such as vent and mounting boss while visiting Chicago. I think these are useful features that PTC should consider incorporating into Pro-E just as SW should consider incorporating the anatomical lip feature and curve driven equations currently found in Pro-E.

SolidWorks surfacing tools have greatly improved. Now it would be helpful if SW would improve its large assembly management and not require an equipment upgrade with each new release. A parallel discussions can be found on the SolidWorks forum ( [url]http://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=8&am p;threadid=13554[/url]).






Edited by: c_thompson_68

 

[Metoo]

"It is workarounds like this that make my speed in solidoworks 40 percent slower than that of Pro/ENGINEER surfacing"


HA HA HA HA; now that's funny. "40 percent"; such an exacting figure. Did you or yourself do the timingon that?


Really now; this forum is not such a good place to infer that Pro-e just might have some very minor flaws in comparison to SolidWorks or Solid Edge. Doing so will inflame the passionsof the true Pro-e believers. The hardcore and most dedicated of the lot are either too emotionally tied or financially invested in Pro-e to allow any slight or blimish to her reputation. They will defend her honorwith facts and precisely measured statistics.


The true Pro-e ers remind me a lot of the dedicated DOS dunces of the 1990s; they were all so sure DOS could never become obsolete. Funny thing is, I haven't heard much from them guys over the last decade. Wait another five years, and these Pro-e ers will go the same way as the DOS dunces.

 

[prohammy]

"It is workarounds like this that make my speed in solidoworks 40 percent slower than that of Pro/ENGINEER surfacing"


HA HA HA HA; now that's funny. "40 percent"; such an exacting figure. Did you or yourself do the timingon that?


Really now; this forum is not such a good place to infer that Pro-e just might have some very minor flaws in comparison to SolidWorks or Solid Edge. Doing so will inflame the passionsof the true Pro-e believers. The hardcore and most dedicated of the lot are either too emotionally tied or financially invested in Pro-e to allow any slight or blimish to her reputation. They will defend her honorwith facts and precisely measured statistics.


The true Pro-e ers remind me a lot of the dedicated DOS dunces of the 1990s; they were all so sure DOS could never become obsolete. Funny thing is, I haven't heard much from them guys over the last decade. Wait another five years, and these Pro-e ers will go the same way as the DOS dunces.

PTC envy?????

 

[design-engine]

we should make an intelligent contest.A crave competition.... We can do A sanctioned race.

I think if I win it would people would say it was from from my experience...A true race would be for each of us to model the product assembly in both software programs. Maybe time the (circular motion of my mouse) effort for the products or assembly. Make it something simple that can be done in less than an hour.Maybe test a few parts like that. We would all win from the experience...We would have to make rules in places where Pro/E is understood to be advanced like top down design... It just would not be fair.

design-engine.com covered a similar competition before solidworks was so much more advanced (2002). The article is on design-engine.com archive someplace. Ill dig it up and paste the link.

By the way Chris did show me some cool things with his laptop of solidworks. Chris took a plastics class by the way. Although this class was in Pro/E, I could have done the class in either or both software programs.

Any suggestions?
-Ill start it off and suggest a Harley Davidson foot peg. We can get Harley to supply a 2d drawing... or a moderator will change it some so not to give away company detail drawings.7 degrees draft everyplace on the forging.

-I have a bunch of tutorials that we could give to Chris to remodel in both software programs. That way he could choose interesting challenges that are evenly matched.

-How about if we get both software resellers involved. The competition can only make both programs better.


Solid works users remind me of mac users. I use both mac and PC BTW. And unix of yesteryear.


Did anyone see the motogp race on CBS last week? Search 'Rossi motogp'in youtube. The one at leguna seca. The Ducati was so much faster than the Yamaha but the Yamaha won in the end. Good racing makes for better motorcles. Maybe a good race will make all the software programs better!Besides I want that cad program Iron man was using and at the rate our software is evolving I will never see that kind of digital sculpting. That would have been some bad ass PTC product placement. Imagine a holographic PTC logo pops up before Iron man makes changes to the holographic model.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[AHA-D]

Every comparison in CAD is biased and there is no objective way to measure the difference. The best you can do is make partial comparisons. Also everyday life tends to be different from what is shown in tests.


First flaw in comparing is that different tools and methods exist in CAD depending on its overall architecture. You could for instance say that CAD A has very poor layer functionality compared to B. But if A has the same - or better - functionality by using visibility on object classes and properties, then the two don't compare.


Second flaw is "the right tool for the right job". Bart does a lot of freeform modeling so that's a big issue for him. If I have a software that demands twice the effort for the same thing then I will loose 4 hours on a year (doing little or no freeform) while Bart won't get his work done. It is as with vehicles : the best choice to drive one person around town is not necessarily also the best choice to get 30 tons of equipment across the state.


Third flaw - that is often overlooked - is real life experiences. In classes you buildsome model, put them in an assembly and make a drawing of it. In real life you have to modify and sometimes make entirely different concepts and assemblies. It is seldom measured how hard it is to make your work survive these changes. Can you modify, substitute, exchange, re-order ... without starting all over ?


Alex

 

[gnewton]

I agree with design-engine that comparing by actually doing something is the best way to go. In the end, we all want to make models, drawings, and then change them, so if we do all that with the same object, then all the "different tools and methods" go into the "black box", and what remains is the total effort to get the same result.

I suggest using mouse tracking software to get a comparison of the mouse use required by the different CAD programs to get the same result.

I believe that mouse tracking software could ultimately be used to make an objective comparison in usability between CAD packages. (see the description of "Tension Tracker" in the "Letter to PTC" section of my website). Over time, statistics could be gathered: ProE users average X mouse use per day, SW users average Y. (Mouse use being a combination of clicks and movements)

 

[Jacoolo]

I suppose the earth will start to turning in opposite direction first,rather than poeple obtain real results "which software is best".

I think, it is hard to say what is better, best - easier is to say what is more popular

I think this - popularity - could be checked much more easily than real comparison of advantages X vs Y.