Continue to Site

Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Register Log in

difference between PROE & CATIA

S

sudhir.patyal

New member
can anybody tell me difference between proe and catia or some other different softwares
WHY PROE ??????????
pls tell me.............
 
the name itself?
smiley2.gif


uuu....aaa.... I am not sure if You are aware of the length of such discuss? it can be long
smiley36.gif
 
opinion:

pro-e is a upper mid range 3d software and catia is a high end 3d software. the costs reflect the differences, although I hear that can be somewhat competitive these days...

differences also carry over into the PDM systems, depending on who you talk to, smarteam vs windchill system.

ideally, these two are targeted at different clientele. I doubt there are any functional aspects where pro-e exceeds catia in terms of capability, however, catia exceeds pro-e in several specifics such as surfacing, 2d, interfacing with other software, etc...

cars, aircraft, certain high end products...expect to use catia

cheers,

M
 
I do belive Pro\E has some nice funcionality in drawing mode - show/erase for dimensions, Z - Clipping, Simp Rep. But it suck view creation where in Catia it is done much better.

The same according to par modeling - Catia has nicer, more eye candy interface. The sketcher has analysis tools evaluating profile by default. Pro/E misses this up to WF 4.0

However, References window in Pro/E is one of those thing worth to consider. No doubt.

Surfacing - no doubt, that is where Catia shows it strength.

Solid Boolean operations - well this can be really fine stuff to deal with - strange cores, cavities in housings. However it provides a little mess in the model tree and You must be aware of many "Part Body" You created. Some times it is really demanding to catch what is going on.

Some feats miss nice dynamic preview You have by default in Pro/E.

...
 
How should I put this? Pro/E is like dating a girl who has these fits all the time. However you learn to live with them...until you meet her older sister, Catia.

Catia is more mature, doesn't take hissy fits or shut down on you. She's much prettier on the eyes, and she's MUCH more user friendly. She's also a hell of a lot more intuitive.

Of course, dating Catia is more expensive, but to me she's worth it in spades.

The end.
 
Here is a simple example. in sketch mode, to draw a circle in catia. 1. click 2. drag. 3. type in dimension. in Pro/e. 1. click 2. drag. 3. exit circle function. 4. double click on dimension. 5. type in dimension.

I've used catia very little, but this was one huge difference that I noticed. I don't think user intuitive is the right phrase. After I click and drag, I have to enter the dimension if i want it right. To ME Catia is a better thought out system, but again, that's an opinion after very little time playing with it, not using it.
 
Trouble with ProE is that it wants/needs/expects zero degrees of freedom, no more no less, in all sections of the software. And when it is not so it stops or freezes or expects you to do so. Furthermore ProE is designed by mathematicians/programmers that do not fully grasp the day-to-day reality of designing. ProE is not a girl but an old aunt with her own will and you have to be very carefull to lead her where you want her to go. You have to understand her crooked way of thinking and talk to her the way she (dis)functions. Once you understand all that there is way to get things done.


Catia is more forgiving. You can underconstrain or overconstrain without trouble. There are definitely some real humans active in the interface design. And the software seems to go a fair way in solving by itself the problems you put it in . But in Catia you are never sure whether you have a part, an assembly or something in between. Guess that's coming through history of the past. Understanding how an assembly fits together is a visual mess, and the available relations are somewhat poor. Sheetmetal is poor, you can hardly pattern or mirror anything in this workbench, and most of the time you have to explicitely build the bends. But then on the other hand: does ProE excel in sheetmetal ? Making things visible or invisible in Catia can even be worse than in ProE since you can have individual partbodies or even surfaces becoming invisible, depending on how deep the activation goes.


On a general level I think Catia is easier to handle and smoother when design changes occur. They're probably a close match in modelling capability, though I only scratch the surface of "deep modeling" in either software. In 2D Catia is clearly better but that part is not a main issue since many times I model without making a drawing and rarely make a drawing on itself.


Alex
 
I see that there are a lot of Catia lovers here...


The truth is like follows: ProE is a first parametric, feature based 3D ever invented. All other followed (Catia V5 in 1995 if I remember correctly). So think about more mature.


Generally, Catia UI was much ahead ProEs until Wildfire release, now this is also not true any more.


ProE IS a high-end CAD system, and there is no field where it has no functionality to mach or excede Catia, only difference is that PTC holds it as the only CAD system in house, so there are versions priced at SMB market. This is actually much better then in Dessault where they have Solidworks as "weaker" CAD and Catia as more expensive solution (these two are not compatible at all).


When we speak about surfaces you must mean Catia V4 is better then ProE. That is correct since Catia V4 is a SURFACE MODELER (not solid!!!). On the other hand Catia V5, as a solid modeler is not stronger in surfacing then ProE.


Regarding drawings, I had an expirience in Catia where it missed to display a contoure of a view of some complex geometry. You have to draw in manually in drawing. And if change occurs, it breaks apart.


To be honest: I had a chance to work on both systems, I am a little stronger on ProE side. The real truth is that theese two softwares are top of the offer in 3D CAD world. They are both great, better engineer is the key of functionallity!!!
 
Hmmm..... Did you know that Airbus stated that the fault for delay of shipment for new A380 is, to quote "Poor CAD tool...". I guess you didn't....


And furtermore: did you know that Lockheed Martin is on ProE, US Army also.... Even Airbus uses Windchill as PLM solution.


I don't defend ProE, I just see a lot of misinformation here. Which is strange since we are in ProE section of MCAD central.
smiley5.gif



Maybe we could organize a benchmark? Any suggestions?
 
I would say it is not bad to throw some stuff that not only show off Pro/E strength and advantages. You can be blind then for surronding You world. If Pro/E users are will to say some true words about what is better done in another software, then it means only people are thinking.

The same I do - I work with Pro/E, I like it, but it does not mean I am blind for its weakness or for competitors achievements.

PTC should not be such either
smiley36.gif
 
Hey Sugarsmoking,

Airbus uses CATIA, and one of the reasons they had delays on their new superliner was because of software incomparability issues between CATIA V4 and V5. It wasn't the software per se that was the problem, just the way it was being used.

Thank you for pointing out that Lockheed Martin uses Pro/E. I wasn't aware of that, and I was wrong to make the blanket statement that airplanes are not built on Pro/E.
 
 
Solidworks,is not a true solid modeller? As far as I'm aware it only emulates solid gemetry which is much easier to carry out (I'm led to believe) than the true mathematical solution which is why Pro/E can sometimes struggle. I don't think there is anything Catia can do that Pro/ENGINEER cannot? How does Catia compare with family tables & interchange assemblies? It really depends on what you are using it for. Some companies have many assemblies only slightly different (which is where family tables come in).
Edited by: pjw
 
Well, I can't speak for pure Catia since I'm working on it in Virtual Product Management environment. Meaning that large assemblies are built in VPM and not in Catia. Easiest way to explain it is is that VPM (Enovia) is the glue that bonds parts together, it keeps track of where the parts are but doesn't build any relations. That being said, small subsystems are still built as assemblies, called "products" in Catia. Anyway, exchanging parts in an assembly can go as easy as loading the assembly, load the alternative part and then change one part for the other one loaded in memory. Not that hard to do.


Talking about Catia V4 in a comparison is about as honest as speaking about ProE 2001 I guess, which is also around and used in some places.


User interface in V5 is globally easier than WF2. Want to tell me how many clicks you need to break out of editing a feature in WF2, compared to hitting ESC ?


And this thing about true sollid modelers vs not-so-true solid modelers ? I haven't worked with any modeler lately that would allow me to peel off one surface showing a hollow inside. So they are solid I suppose. But all of them allow me to sketch a profile for a cutout on their outer surface and leave the suggestion open to cutout to the outside. Any human knows this is pure nonsense so maybe they are not that solid after all.


Alex
 
>> As far as I'm aware it only emulates solid gemetry which is much
>> easier to carry out (I'm led to believe) than the true mathematical
>> solution which is why Pro/E can sometimes struggle.


Nonsense. The only difference between a Solid Modeler and a Surface
Modeler is that the Solid Modeler limits the user to boolean operations on
Closed Shells, always maintaining a Closed Shell.


See http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=211821&page=1 for related
discussion. Search the page for "mired". It's a long thread.


Edit:
Oops. A caveat, sorta ... A strict 'surface modeler' (i.e. Rhino), not having
a 'solid' database entity, can't calculate the volume of a solid with a fully
embedded void (closed shell, surface normals on the internal volume side).
There are probably others, too. Point is: the two types of modelers, or more
precisely, modeling operations both create the same type of surfaces using the
same mathematical definitions.


- - - - -


> allow me to peel off one surface showing a hollow inside


Inventor allows the user to Delete a Solid Face leaving the open shell.



- - - - - - - -
and edit again ...
PJW,
I believe what was being related to you wasthe difference
between CSG and B-Rep modelers. A simple explanation ...
[url]http://www.cadalyst.com/cadalyst/article/articleDetail.jsp?i d=79619[/url]
In depth technical treatments can be found if the subject interests you.
- - - - - - - -
Edited by: jeff4136
 
There is a difference between mathematics behing surface and solid modeler in terms of volume representation.


Paradigm of software is different and not totally compatible.


All new MCAD is solid modeling software, which is a paradigm PTC introduced with ProE, and others followed. Which, again, by itself, doesn't put ProE on the nr.1 spot.


But, in my opinion, other things do. I'll try to elaborate.


ProE is the ONLY MCAD solution that has a such footprint to fit in almoast all fields, from SMB to enterprise. Pricewise and functionwise. Of course that you will be able to find some specific software better in some narrow field, but non of those is so versetile like ProE.


When you look Catia and UGS NX you can see they are being held hostage by competitive solutions from same house, Solidworks and Solid Edge. Sa, when we talk about Dessault they have 3 non compatible names in MCAD: Catia V4, Catia V5 and Solidworks.


@AHA Catia V4 is still being developed because of the large install base, parallel with V5, so we really cannot compare 2001 and V4 in any way, since it is on one hand solid vs surface modeler, and on the other old release vs maintained.


There is a word out that Catia V6 is coming soon, and it will NOT BE compatible with V5. The reason is that Dessault deceided to write the kernel from skratch. If the V5 kernel is fine, my question is WHY????


On the other hand, GRANITE in ProE is same from version 1. This is also a reason why ProE works on less powerfull stations and has smaller installation size.


I had a chance to work on both and whoever tells that Catia does not crash is lying big time. Try to put on some complex rounds for example.


Some more diferentiators: Reporting capabilities, Behavioral Modeling, Flexible components, Family tables, Patterning (which is actually best by far when you look at the possibilities), rounding (also best).


There is of course much things that can be better, but I think that this is a case with almost all software, it can always be better.


And for the end: someone at the beggining of this thread said that ProE is too strict on users. Whoever worked on a serious project will have to agree, any sloppyness (ie. underdimensioning or overdimensioning or similar) will wait for you or some other engineer down the chain behind the corner to hit you right back in the face!
 
Yeah, that's the problem with discussing religion, politics, software PRODUCTS;
brings out the nr.1 spot'rs and other assorted true believers.


sugarsmoking,


Would you please explain; "There is a difference between mathematics behing
surface and solid modeler in terms of volume representation. Paradigm of
software is different and not totally compatible."?


That's fuzzy talk used by sales people without a technical understanding of the
subject matter ... something I've learned is best avoided or treated with
generous amounts of soap and water if not.


What is Pro/E? A solid modeler? Surface modeler?
 
in my humble knowledge ProE is a solid modeler.
Numerics behind surfaces of the model is aprox. the like in surface modeler.
But, surface modeler only takes care of normals and their direction, and solid modeler represents the space as "out of the closed shell" and "in the closed shell".
Further from here it can tell the center of weight, and basicly treat the model as virtual prototype as we all know today.
Please answer: why they didn't cotinue adding functionality to V4 and make it a solid modeler but instead they wrote a new software?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top