Solidworks & ProE, which is most usable?

[design-engine]

See... I don't think we should measure who is faster exactly. We should make our push for the common good ... to push the technology.To me it's not which is best. I don't benefit financially for one over the other. I suppose I make more money when it takes longer.

Lets do this for to push both.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[solidworm]

i have used both (proE much less), solidworks is more straight forward. ProE is more robust. in proe i like BMX (solidworks totally lacks BMX functionally) and ISDX but don't like the sketcher. there is something similar to ISDX dynamic surface manipulating capabilities in solidworks 08 but is much slower and ages behined. solidworks has almost all ProE surfacing capabilities -(minus) trajpar+(plus) a magic fill tool which does n sided surfaces with G2 conditions .

overall i prefer solidworks for machine design and proE for surfacing.

Edited by: solidworm

 

[Metoo]

Ok, now I'm really laughing. I think I was just challenged to a design-off; or, at least something like that for "the common good... to push technology". Does this mean when I wipe the CRT with him PTC will actually bring their software's capabilties upinto this century, andchange their interface to make it more user friendly?


Since you want to get software resellers involved, I got a better idea. Instead of challenging me; a lowly Solidworks user, why don't you make that same challenge to an NX or Solid Edge reseller. I'm sure they'd love to pluck a Pro-er; give him a lesson in modern 3-d modelingat the same timedemo-ing their new modeling technology. Come on man, be brave; its for the common good; show the world they got it all wrong - Pro-e's still king. Maybe DOS will come back too.

 

[design-engine]

Don't forget the solidworks big brother Catia.

 

[michael3130]

I've just read thia post and it makes interesting reading. I'd be up for the SW-ProEmodelling comparison. If you get some drawings of the Harley foot post it please. I use both ProE and SW most days so would be at a roughly comparable level in both programs.

 

[AHA-D]

If done it's important to make a setup where the outcome is as much "comparing apples with apples" as possible. So a breakdown in different disciplines comes to mind (mechanical engineering, freeform, draft, assembly, rendering, animation, ...). One should also be carefull about different modules. Plain vanilla Pro-E versus plain vanilla SW with exercises both can handle. And of course not only "how fast can you model this" but also "now make this a bit longer and that a bit wider and throw out that feature entirely" because that's what real life is all about.


Alex

 

[blumb]

I usually stay away from these...<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


From a RSI question into a Pro/E vs. SW rant.


On the RSI question, Pro/E can be customized with a users personal design set by creating mapkeys and UDF's (user defined features) to create commonly used features like SW's boss and vent tools. It would be nice if PTC included a library of common feature sets with Pro/E but it is up to the designer/engineer to decide which is the best form for the function of the part rather than the software. A company wide database can be made and built upon for this purpose using both Pro/E or SW. Ansys doesn't include a material database but the information is easily obtained from MatWeb so why complain that that function doesn't exist?


I started using CAD in 1988 with AutoCAD 2.5 (i think) and thought it was amazing when 3D first came out (wire frame). I then learned Mechanical Desktop for 3D solid modeling, along with the

 

[michaelpaul]

I would have to choose Pro/E for its ease of use,

Really? are you using the same Pro/E that I use? ease of use is certainly never a phrase that I'd use to describe such a fabulous piece of software.......

When Pro/E upgrades, all of the feature sets upgrade. I don't have to wait for a Gold partner to modify it's program so I can upgrade nor do I have to worry that the partner software is going to be completely compatible.

and yet I can't upgrade to 4.0 until Interlink or PDM link or whatever new version comes out because WF 4.0 won't talk to Interlink 3.3 so instead I have to wait for one piece of software that PTC writes to be able to work with another piece of software that PTC writes!

Michael

 

[jelston]

I would have to choose Pro/E for its ease of use,

WTF!!! You mean because of it's kajillion secret codes (config.pro options). Pro/E has more secrets than Mortal Kombat.

Edited by: jelston

 

[design-engine]

I am building a forging workshop and will have a good example of a forged kickstand.... One that used to be welded.Ill model one up.

The task will be to make some changes and add 7" draft to the entire welded part so it can be forged. We should have groups try it not just one or two. Maybe something that would take less than an hour in each program.


Edited by: design-engine

 

[gnewton]

What about all the useless mouse work in ProE? Nobody has taken me up on my central gripe against ProE. I admit the examples are hidden away in the "ProE is Unsafe" section of my website, but I would expect people (at least ProE users) to be able to relate to the phrase "useless mouse work". Of course, some of you may never have thought of it that way. From my very limited SW exposure, it does not have all that useless mouse work. Do all you SW users feel that all your mouse use is contributing information to the model? Or do you waste your time compensating for a poorly designed user interface?

In response to blumb: I have made mapkeys, but I am not a power mapkey user.
My contention is that the user should not have to make mapkeys to make their work easier. That is something PTC would do if ease of use were any sort of priority, which it obviously is not.

The gripes in the "ProE is Unsafe" section of my website are also pretty much basic things unrelated to the workflow of any given function (another whole area of improvement possibilities). Most involve using the mouse to reveal information that should automatically be visible to the user, thereby avoiding the mouse use. Analysis is an exception, and I describe how it could be, indeed should be improved.

 

[michael3130]

Is there anyone else out there besides me who really doesn't give a damn about the number of mouse clicks it takes to do a certain feature. I reckon I do thousands of extra and un-feature related mouse movements and clicks purely spinning my model and rolling back etc to check various aspects are correct. The technology still amazes me after all this time. I'm sure I'll get a torrent of abuse now from all those RSI sufferers out there but I love using ProE and SW, both of which (most of the time) allow me to acheive what I set out to in the first place.


Yes, there are certain aspects of ProE I prefer over SW and visa versa but if people really dont like clicking a mouse that often then go do something else un computer related.

 

[[-Skint-]]

Yup I agree michael... infact I probably do a million mouse clicks too many per model by going back and correcting all my mistakes I made along the way

. I guess in court I would get away with this as RSI... Repetitive Stupendous Infractions.

 

[michael3130]

Lol Skint, I'm sure we could come up with a lot more RSI meanings.

I reckon a lot of people blame RSI on mouse clicks when really it's to do with other wrist related matters

 

[[-Skint-]]

Yeah... I was thinking Tennis too ( ahem ) lol.

 

[jeff4136]

> Is there anyone else out there besides me who really doesn't give a damn
> about the number of mouse clicks it takes to do a certain feature.


I own and use a seat of FEMAP.
Pro/E's mouse clicking is a non-issue in comparison.


> I reckon I do thousands of extra and un-feature related mouse movements
> and clicks purely spinning my model and rolling back etc to check various
> aspects are correct.


That's why I asked about the spaceball. In my mind there's a 'tension' in
model view manipulation that's probably far worse for RSI than the clicking.


I also wonder how many simply use MMB when it's available instead of moving the
cursor to and clicking Done. Or start the next Sketcher command instead of
'finishing' the current one before starting the next. I believe if someone
were to do a study they'd find many users do more clicking than is necessary(?).


> The technology still amazes me after all this time.


Truly enjoying what you do probably doesn't hurt the situation a bit. ;^)

 

[HARMAN]

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

I am a sufferer of rsi and one of the biggest benefits i found was getting a spaceball, however i do prefer the older 4000/5000 type. I think the number of mouse clicks between different software is largely overhyped, if you use any of the softwares to their full capability you can reduce mouse clicks by hotkeys/mapkeys/macros, etc. Obviously you can program the keys on a spaceball as well to take over some controls.


I started having rsi problems using another mainstream software and do not feel that the extra mouse clicks in proe (and there are a lot of them) are aproblem. I have a large screen and that is more of a problem as the pop up menus awlays appear in the top right with the dash board in the bottom left and the rest of the menus at the top left = lots of wrist movement. More functionality on rmb please ptc.


My advice for what its worth, get and use a spaceball, work in a reduced window if you have a big screen, learn to use your mouse with your opposite hand (tricky but helped me a lot), try to find a mouse with weaker button return springs, get a wrist support with a splint in, finally don't blame the software blame the line of work you are in.

 

[gnewton]

Yes, (static) tension is worse than clicking for RSI, but this thread is also about usability, and clicking is an issue for that. Although some of the previous posters don't mind the extra mouse work, isn't usability, in the end, about reducing exactly that? If a function is easier to use than in the competing CAD program, isn't that because it has fewer steps, which works out to less mouse use?

Our line of work has an inherently higher risk of mouse-related RSI than many other types, but doesn't that mean that PTC should do all they can to make the risk as low as possible on the software side? (the user has to take care of the workplace ergonomics side of the risk) There is an inherent risk in driving a car, but since when does that absolve auto manufacturers from the responsibility of making cars as safe as possible?

 

[jelston]

Is there anyone else out there besides me who really doesn't give a damn about the number of mouse clicks it takes to do a certain feature. I reckon I do thousands of extra and un-feature related mouse movements and clicks purely spinning my model and rolling back etc to check various aspects are correct. The technology still amazes me after all this time. I'm sure I'll get a torrent of abuse now from all those RSI sufferers out there but I love using ProE and SW, both of which (most of the time) allow me to acheive what I set out to in the first place.


Yes, there are certain aspects of ProE I prefer over SW and visa versa but if people really dont like clicking a mouse that often then go do something else un computer related.

Actually, not just trying to play the antagonist, I really, really do give a damn. It waste my time, and if you don't mind wasting time maybe you're not busy.
Edited by: jelston

 

[michael3130]

When I use ProE or SW, my right hand is on the mouse around 95 to 100% of the time, either just resting there, moving the mousearound the mousemat or clicking the buttons.Reducing the number of mouse clicks to do certain activities will not make things any better, itmay just allow me to do my work more quickly. And then the next job will come along and I'll start all over again and my hand will be on the mouse around 95% of the time. Yes, I'm in no doubt that in our line of work, we are at a higher risk of RSI but using a mouse to do this job is one of those things that is required until someone else comes up with another method.


So in summary, no matter how much PTC manages to reduce the number off clicks, in a 40hour week, my hand will be on that mouse, clicking those buttons and zooming over Tweety Pie (Tweety's on my mouse mat) around 38 to 40 of those hours as long as I'm working in a job which primarily requires me to use my ProE knowledge.