Is Proe "old-timer"?

[jeff4136]

cristelino wrote:
> jeff4136 you disagree to transform Pro E forums in HI 5 subsidiares?


I guess you mean fan club or propoganda mill? No.


People that read forums are hungry for information.


I scour forums for it, eager to learn almost anything about any software.


There is no information in this discussion except that Ledo (and he isn't alone)
can't come to grips with Pro/E. Four pages discussing the nature of air and one
objective observation; you can't create an entity in Sketcher and then Offset it
in the same Sketch.


That tells me more about Ledo (the variable) than it does about Pro/E (which I
know) and I'm not interested.


Zero objectivity. Zero technical content. A dilution of information that, when
multiplied by a factor of 100 or 1000, becomes objectionable to any forum reader
except the salesmen that thrive on disinformation and illusion among us.


Let's assume everyone agrees; Pro/E is "old timer". What does that say? Does
it tell anyone anything or does it create an illusion?


> Bad boy


I am what I am.
I think this discussion and it's all too common kind paint CAD users with an
unfavorable light. I doubt most of them are actually initiated by users and
if they don't know enough to be articulate and concise in their arguments,
are unable to support and substantiate their arguments with something
quantifiable, are too lazy or insincere to describe the context (neither all
users nor all uses are equal) in which they think their arguments are valid it
doesn't matter anyway.


Do you prefer CAD forums serve as gossip groups?

 

[dgs]

Ledo,

Pro|E doesn't work like you want it to. Join the club. Do a little searching and you'll find that I and others have been ranting about how Pro|E works for years. I've used it for 12 and used SW for about 5. Yes, I'm a huge fan of Pro|E and I don't like SW much. Part of that is that I learned Pro|E first, part of it is objective. If you were honest, I think you'd have to admit the same for your SW bias.

Yes, Pro|E is full of some old ideas and yes it is missing some features that would be nice. Get over it, so is SW and any other program you name. I agree with Jeff, there's little value in this discussion anymore.

If you are trying to work with Pro|E and need help getting your work done. bring it on. There's a wealth of knowledge here ready to help you. If you're interested in a psychology experiment or to test our objectivity, just go away. Frankly, it seems to me that you are just as biased as you claim we are. Pro|E doesn't do what you want in the way you want so it's old and worthless, no amount of discussion can convince you otherwise.

 

[cristelino]

jeff4136

it was innocent joke

 

[jeff4136]

> it was innocent joke


An innocent

joke?


They need to add a 'the devil made me do it' emoticon to the pallet.

 

[marker4x4]

It's fascinating how easily pple get sucked into useless rants like this

Aaah, the "power" of internet.

 

[Mindripper]

Anybody who has read any of my previous posts on this subject knows my opinion on this matter. However, I haven't posted anything on this website in over a year, so I'll state my position again. Yes, I am an Old Fart: I've been doing 3D solid modeling for 23 years now. I have around six years of Pro/E time, and roughly an equal amount on SW. SolidWorks is superior to Pro/E in all but a very few minor details. It has all of the capabilities of Pro/E (and many more).The surfacing capabilities of SW used to be behind those of Pro/E, but now it's ahead of Pro/E: Dassault has taken the surfacing capabilities of CATIA and put them in SW. Literally: I have been told they are the very same DLLs. I have also heard positive things about Inventor, but I have no personal experience with it.


Many Pro/E users are indeed stodgy Old Farts, who are loathe to change - but many are are also like me, who embrace change for the better. But I'm being paid to run Pro/E as my full-time job now, so I have learned to accept the slower pace that Pro/E demands. Crappy menus, limited functionality, 'software with an attitude', horrific support and second-rate graphics. Did I mention that the drawing package sucks, andhasn't been improved in at least five years?But the upside to this can be job security: notas many users these days, and even fewerwith the patience to tolerate itafter having used SW (or Inventor).

 

[dgs]

I don't know why I get drug into these things ...<br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">SW users like to say that the world is moving to SW, but I've never seen any facts to support that. Lots fo claims, but no facts. Those facts would be hard to come by, I'd think, since no software company releases the details to make a comparison. I did hear in 2007 at the PTC|User conference an assertion by a PTC bigwig that it was significantly outpacing general MCAD growth. Yeah, it's biased and likely colored to paint PTC in a favorable light. I'd love to see a read, objective statistic on SW vs. Pro|E growth.<br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">On the other hand, Pro|E folks like to say that Pro|E is more capable, but again our experience colors our judgement. I think that the real difference in day to day tasks is small, but there are real advantages to using Pro|E.<br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I'd like to counter Mindripper's assertions with some personal experiences from our company:<br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

1. Surfacing. We had a recent modeling job where we were given a surface model done in Alias (we believe) and told to duplicate it in Solidworks 2008. Couldn't do it. The engineer, with solid surfacing experience, fought with it for quite some time and eventually came up with an acceptable approximation, but not an exact duplicate. He gave it a try in Pro|E and produced it on the first shot.
2. Configurations. Show me how you can distribute and maintain company wide and client specific configurations in SW. You can't. In Pro|E, I have a config file for the company, another for each user and another for each client that we load as needed. We run at least 3 versions of Pro|E concurrently to accommodate client needs. I've been trying to do something similar in SW and you just can't. No way to enforce start part usage or distribute configuration settings company wide. Are Pro|E's text based config files a bit arcane and difficult? Yes, but they are very robust and very flexible and there's nothing even close in SW.
3. Preferences. We have a couple ID guys that have used SW for some time and recently started using Pro|E due to client requirements. Both initially complained about how much harder it is but both now prefer Pro|E to SW because of the greater control they have over their geometry, particularly in surfacing.

These are anecdotal, not factual, and don't prove anything other than there are differences in opinion. SW is a good program that shook up the marketplace and continues to do so. It's good for Pro|E and for all of us to have this competition. But don't drink the SW kool-aid, it's not taking over the world and it's not as capable as Pro|E in advanced modeling situations.

Oh, and best I can figure, I've got about 15,000 hours of Pro|E experience ni the past 12 years.

<br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
Edited by: dgs

 

[jeff4136]

> It's fascinating how easily pple get
> sucked into useless rants like this


It's sorta like an 'adopt a highway' program.
I've got a dayglow vest I put on when I see one of these gossip sessions. ;^)
_ _ _ _ _


> The surfacing capabilities of SW used to be behind
> those of Pro/E, but now it's ahead of Pro/E: ...


(Nov 2007) [url]http://www.mcadcentral.com/proe/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35 288&PN=0&TPN=4[/url]
"complex surfacing, where SW lags Pro/E."


What's happened in the last year?
Don't suppose you could be coaxed into posting some example geometry (neutral format
please)? If it's the fill / patch surface the examples I've seen didn't impress me a
lot. Maybe you have something that shows it in a more favorable light but I also
hope you aren't basing "ahead of" on one function, too.


> Dassault has taken the surfacing capabilities of CATIA and put them in SW.
> Literally: I have been told they are the very same DLLs.


But you can't literally produce anything to substantiate this claim of CAA / SW /
Parasolid cross breeding. Correct?


(I've wondered why SW isn't ported to CAA and SE / UG like interop added. I've also
wondered why Catia's high end styling is done with ICEM. Any thoughts?)


> Crappy menus, limited functionality, 'software with an attitude', horrific support
> and second-rate graphics. Did I mention that the drawing package sucks, and hasn't
> been improved in at least five years? But the upside to this can be job security:
> not as many users these days, and even fewer with the patience to tolerate it after
> having used SW (or Inventor).


Woops! You really had me going until "or Inventor". That explains a lot.

 

[design-engine]

I hate working with inventors because they never have any money and the software inventor will never make you any money.Inventor implies the novice old fart messing around with gadgets and other various crap... like inventor the software.I guess I was trying to change the subject.

I like the intent manager in SW better and the way you can switch between solids and cuts all in one feature in sw... or did I get that mixed up?

I am beginning to think interface designers prefer solidworks over proe since the interface is looking so similar now-a-days.

If solidworks users were more powerful and mature then I would listen more to what they had to say. That is why I call them "solidworks cheer leaders" because they cheer and cheer and don't really say anything.I convert twenty solidworks users to Pro/E users per year many of which I also got them to sign up to this forum.

Edited by: design-engine

 

[design-engine]

I thought of an analogy that will piss off some solidworks cheer leaders.

On the race track last year some of the Pros were talking late night at a weekend trackday. They were complaining how rough the track is at Autobahn a race track 40 minutes outside of Chicago.Being an old timer motorcross racer rough stuff seldom bothers me and I said that's not so rough I exclaimed.One of the pros said "if you don't think thats rough then your simply not going fast enough'.

"Ya....", I says with a quick comeback... "I guess it's rough there but that's where I pass everyone. They slow down and let off and I hold the gas on hard over that bad pavement".

The truth is the track is rough but the pro is right. If you go slow like the intermediate user then you don't even know the track is rough. The pros are so much faster they realize the complexities of the terrain and require the more sophisticated machinery and better configured equipment.

If your a 'solidworks cheer leader' then you are simply don't need the race bike. Be happy with a BMW or something dorky and get off the track... your lapped already.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[[-Skint-]]

lol bart, " your lapped already " .. i like it

 

[dgs]

The surfacing capabilities of SW used to be behind those of Pro/E, but now it's ahead of Pro/E: ...

Don't suppose you could be coaxed into posting some example geometry (neutral format please)?

Hey, post it in SW & neutral. I've got SW, I'd like to see those superior surfacing capabilities.

 

[msummers]

ledo,


There are many tools in my virtual CAD toolbox. I try to use the tools that best fit the job at hand. From my perspective asan Inventor, Solidworks, AutoCAD, and Pro-E user, it is obviuos to me that the right tool in your toolbox for your job at hand is Solidworks. It is a great program, and seems to best fit your needs. Some day, you may have a job that requires the additional tools offeredby Pro-E, or one of these other parametric CAD tools available, but until that time, you will most likely not understand the additional fuctionality offered by PTC.


I suggest you continue to use Solidworks and keep an open mind on the others.


My $0.02.


-Mark

 

[mgnt8]

These posts never end,do they. I just checked and you can offset sketched entities in sketcher in WF 5.0 - pretty sweet.

 

[cristelino]

I have the last "seat" ProEngineer Wildfire 4 installed on my IBM laptop.

All others work with Solid Works and UG.(Also Mechanichal..........but you know

)

Machinning wth Mastercam and Solid Cam

Last mons we recevied various demands from a new client,not something very big ,but interesting.

He need some model,stl extensions to reproduce few complicated shapes .Is in the area and for that parts he dosen"t found sistem 3D mesurement to Reverse Engineering and also not big enough Sinterstation to validate some products shapes

So,we had ocasion to start a challenge ,and after all, (because the same discution we have here internall) analyze results .


i"m very proud to say;ProE win.

I must mentioned;for some parts i start modeling using photos of the components like background .

The prize was when must optimize volumes,shapes ,mass etc


Only battle lose by Pro was (SW win) in file transfer to Sintering station machine.

Aparently some things gone wrong frome Proe,and SW was more accurate,but i suppose its because of me


I can write some pages with our conclusions.During the contest co-workers found some options in SW for example ,that they don"t use never before.

.They promise me the next time SW will win

 

[solidworm]

one thing in solidworks which i still haven't tried in proe is the freeform feature.the surface in the file below, was created using boundary feature between two smooth sections, and then manipulated using freeform feature , to make a sharp transition in the surface at one side which fades away at the other side.(isocurves converge at one side, locally).
might not be a good surfacing technique but it was interesting for me.


2008-12-10_095059_freeform2.zip
Edited by: solidworm

 

[genet]

I use both SW and PROE, I find that SW is too easy sometimes what I mean is it does not always constrain things and later in design life you end up having to go back and fix things becuase they where not constrained in the beginning like they should have been


SW drawing package is terrible once again related back modeling too easy


Like I said I use both and both have good points and bad


It sounds like you should just stick with SW and quit frustrating yourself trying to learn and use 2 systems

 

[michael3130]

Gene,


The only reason things wouldn't be constrained in SW is if the use does not constrain them. Even in ProE, if the dimension on a sketch is grey, I will go in and replace it. I like my sketches to be fully constrained by me. I cringe at the thought of using people's models who do not constrain their geometry fully and leave things up to the software to look after.


I have used SW and ProEs drawing package and find them both OK. Maybe people are too used to AutoCAD and can't get to grips with it cause it isn't AutoCAD. Who knows!!!


I do agree with you on your last 2 points

 

[genet]

Michael I too like to have control of the sketches and always constrain them


I use WF3 but use SW08


08 seems to let you get by without constraining alot to make it faster for users but trouble in the long run


I have been a proe users since 1989 and although I can and do use other cad programs I think personaly proe is the best

 

[Mindripper]

I haven't used the surfacing capabilities in the more recent versions of SW. But I think everyone will agree that CATIA has some pretty slick surfacing capabilities (Boeing and Airbus use it for aircraft design, after all), and if the same DLLs are in SW, the surfacing capabilities must be pretty good there too. I have seen demos of the surfacing capabilities of SW 2k8 (at the rollout), and it appears to have all the B-spline manipulation capabilities of Pro/E, and then some.


I have spent most of my CAD time for the last seven years making relatively simple parts and drawings here in the Silicon Valley, with no more than a few hundred parts in the final product. Being able to share models with customers and suppliers (such as component manufacturers and industrial design firms) is of great value. All ofmy customers and suppliers are running SW: none run Pro/E any more (and most never did). This is probably due to (1) most companies around here aren't designing or building highly complex products and (2) most companies around here have recognized the ease of adapting SW (lots of users, easy to learn, Certified Windows Application, great graphics) versus Pro/E (fewer users, difficult to learn, lower productivity, poor graphics quality).


The only (other) companies here in the Silicon Valley still running Pro/E make semiconductor capital equipment and other humongous stuff, like BAE Aerospace and NASA Ames. Most of those operations are in decline, and have been for years. Every other company in my business segment (biomedical) here in the Silicon Valley has switched to SW (including our competitors), or simply started with SW and have stuck with it.