Solidworks vs proe

[proximo]

Telecomguy, i feel your pain. Secondly, who mis-informed<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"> [/B]ralexy. With Solidworks you have the OPTION to use excel, which makes BOM ordering SO easy. Pro/E doesn't offer that. Second with your dimension post, I didn't understand what the heck you were saying.


I look at a lot of the post in the forum and wonder how in the heck could someone POSSIBLY say Pro/E is more robust, more powerfulthan Solidworks then i realize that I am IN A PRO/E FORUM. And realize that Solidworks doesn't need a helpforum because it is much more intuitive, not as complicated to do the same thing.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><O></O>

Please read my post above for the explanation on why Pro/E and Solidworks should not be compared.


Solidworks isa great program but it's not a high end CAD Program. It's a Mid Range. Pro/E is a High end CAD Program for a reason. It's simply more powerful.


Again, read my post on the perception of what you may be calling easier. Easier does not mean more useful.


As far as your comment with Excel, I would like to update you on another fact. Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire is fully compatible with Excel for Family Tables and BOM's.


But let's go one better than Excel.PTC now owns MathCAD which is integrated into Pro/E making it even more powerful. MathCAD allows you to use very complex equations to drive design models. Excel could never handle this level of control.


Pro/E uses both Excel and MathCAD making it more flexible and powerful. Yes, you could probablyMaster Solidworks quicker than Pro/E, but you don't have much to Master in Solidworks when compared to the many flexibilities Pro/E provides, making Pro/E much morepowerfulwhen used by a trained individual.


Anyone can agree that it's easier to drive a Honda Civic with an automatic transmission, than it would be to drive a Ferrari Enzo. But with the Enzo and the proper training. You can do amazing things with a car that the Civic just can't do.


Solidworks is great for many companies and it will get the job done, but when you really need a powerful and flexible solution to drive your designs to higher levels. Pro/E is the better choice.

 

[jelston]

This is my last post because I am now with a company using a "more flexible and powerful" yet slower program, so I need to spend my time waiting for it to regenerate. Preception is reality, bud, if you wanna think that walking around the block to get NEXT DOOR is better then fine, do that. I think I'll directly walk next door.


OKAY, OKAY, PTC owns mathcad, so i'll use Pro/E to study for the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. But, how many people need, to "use very complex equations to drive design models" in everyday design. I just want the d*mn thang to regenerate, don't need the program to"run" complex" equations.Seems to me that PTC spent all of its time trying to woo and wow people, but couldn't get the basics right. For future reference Pro/E people (and maybe it's just yet another glick in WF 3.0) VERY, VERYfew people use countersink in THREADED HOLES, we actually need them in clearance holes.


By the way, Proximo, what is the best selling car in the US, with the highest resale value? Hint? Not the Ferrari Enzo.
Edited by: jelston

 

[prohammy]

Gentlemen.....


Easy on the abuse. You are participating in what has become an almost timeless game that ProE & SW users get involved in, to date there hasn't been one winner recorded in humanity's log book.


Keep the bile and vitriol for the rant n' rave section


Kev

 

[jelston]

Sorry.

 

[proximo]

In the end.


Buy what works for you.


I used both and speak from my experience. They are both great for what they do. They both have advantages and disadvantages.


Study what you really want to accomplish and choose the one that will meet your needs the best.


I prefer the one that may be more difficult to master but gives me more options down the road. Others may design simple things and just need a program that can handle simple designs.


ItestedSW for 2 month's in order to evaluate it. They gave me the software for free to try and win our business. I had the top level SW Guru's visit us and they could not deny that the complex modeling and surfacing that we did, could not be done with SW and they did not try to defend their position, because it was a lost cause.


Like I said. If you design simpler products. SW will probably work great for you.


So choose what works.


By the way. My analogy with the cars was based on Power and Performance. The Enzo cost about $650,000 and would never sell as good as a Civic.


Pro/E and Solidworks are about the same price. If the Enzo cost the same as a Civic, what would you drive? It may take you some time to learn how to drive the Enzo, but would you choose the simpler to learn Civic if they where the same price?


No need to answer that one. I was just pointing out that my analogy was based on Power and Performanc and not the price. Pro/E and SW are comparable in price.
Edited by: proximo

 

[jelston]

6 YEARS PRO/E, 8 YEARS SOLIDWorks,TWO MONTHS with "gurus"; were these sales people? Promise, I'm trying to take the high road! Just wondering, Proximo, what do you design?
Edited by: jelston

 

[proximo]

LOL,


Jelston.


There is no reason to continue the debate. I respect your point of view and I also agree that SW is a great program.


You must choose the software that makes the most sense for you. We design very complex models and SW could not handle them. The Guru's I speak about are not sales people.


They actually flew in the top SW consultants to see what our issues where. I appologize I don't have any names, but the guys I worked with from SW where the real deal. Great bunch of guys too.


They where not in sales and where very honest with me. After actually looking at what we do and showing them how I create the models with Pro/E. We tried to accomplish it with SW but never could. They did find some work arounds, but even they admitted that they where not very good and took to much time to get it to work.


The great thing about these guys was their honesty in the end. They looked me right in the eye and said that SW just can't create the complex designs we make, but they will improve the software in the future.


Again. Choose what works best. SW is the better choice for many companies. Pro/E is the only choice for us, because it's the only one that has the power and flexibility toaccomplish the job. Yes, you will take longer to Master it, but that is the case with many other programs that are very powerful.


I bet you can master MS Paint faster than Photoshop. But does this make MS Paint better? If MS Paint is all you need to accomplish your art work, then yes. It would be stupid to buy Photoshop if you don't require the power.


This is all I am saying.


Take care and I wish you the best.
Edited by: proximo

 

[jelston]

Didn't answer the question must mean you design boxes.

Still, no harm, no foul, would still shake your hand if i met you and take you out to lunch and pay for it.
Edited by: jelston

 

[proximo]

LOL


Jelston,


Sorry about that. I forgot to answer your question.


We make Construction and Mining Equipment.


It does not sound like you would make wierd shapes in this biz. but it's far from the truth.


One of PTC's top AE's knows me very well and he was very impressed with some of the complex surface models we produce. In fact, he visisted us to talk about ISDX which I run right now.


Most of our surfacing is done with ASX, but I plan on using ISDX in the near future, for further control and flexibility.


Not everything we make is complex, but many of our products are organic in shape.

 

[ralexy]

...mis-informed<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"> [/B]ralexy...

To "jelston":
I think you have some provision from SolidWorks Corporation. If I use "proximo" analogy then Pro/E is Ferrari Enzo and SolidWorks is DAEWOO Tico.

 

[AHA-D]

ProE may have the engine of a Ferrari Enzo but often when I work on it I have the feeling that I can't get it beyond 2nd gear ...


And then a Daewoo or something else passes by ...


Alex

 

[jelston]

ralexy,


can't talk right now.... trying rebuild a Ferrari Enzo engine that was built incorrectly.

Edited by: jelston

 

[jelston]

Just for everyone's information...


I am not "provisioned" by Solidworks. I am just a regular ole design engineer. I started using Autocad, and few years later found Pro/E and was instantly in love. Like some romances, a lot was good but just some things weren't right (like your significant other eating with their mouth open). Then I began using Solidworks and solidworks had everything a needed in Pro/E but was much simpler to do and other things that i didn't know i didn't wanna live without (autocomplete, drag and drop, cut and paste between unrelated sheets, etc.) and then i found myself using Pro/E and again. Long story short, Pro/E still eats with its mouth open and now has the audacity to cut one at the table.

 

[prohammy]

I was wondering what that strange smell was everytime I started ProE.....and I always assumed the chomping sound was the processor working it way through another meal of matrices


Kev

 

[proximo]

LOL


Now you guys are getting funny.


Here is the facts. Software in the 3D world will always have problems. Both programs in question work and do amazing things when you think about the code behind the software.


Both programs in question mess up and get us mad from time to time.


Both programs have plenty of capabilities. Each can accomplish what the user requires and based on what you require of it, you will choose one or the other.


Yes, The Enzo can get stuck on 2nd gear from time to time. But once I have that baby loose, it will run like a bat out of hell.


Sometimes the Daewoo will upset you when you get passed going uphill and you must get to the top in a hurry.


So it's the same on both camps. We will always have days where we will not be happy with our vehicle.


But I think most of us can agree, that in the end. You will make it home. Sometimes smoother than others.


So use each program to it's advantages and don't get too upset when something does not work out as planned. Nothing is 100% perfect.


I think this would be the best post to end this in a very positive note.


Unless you guys have some more funny stuff to share.

 

[jelston]

Calling Solidworks a Daewoo is not positive. I like the Civic. I mean, I didn't call Pro/E a Datsun p210 because I don't know what I am doing, mainly because i do know what i am doing, but that's what it feels like to me or at least far from an Enzo.
Edited by: jelston

 

[treddie]

A year late, but hey! I just found this thread. Maybe people are still reading it.


In the interests of informing people about some of the troubling aspects of ProE, I should first say that:


1. I have never used SW, and desire not to, due to my consensus from all the opinions that I would just be opening yet another modelling "CAD of worms"!


2. I have spent 8 years with Pro. It is Love/Hate on steroids. I love its flexibility. I hate its irritating limitations within that flexibility.


That having been said, I find that Pro has the same fundamental development problems of most other software, so if you are looking for the "Holy Grail" of programs, you won't find it with Pro. What I mean by this is that, like most software developers, PTC will introduce all kinds of new tools without fixing the limitations of existing tools. Cases in point:


1. This problem had me going for a good two days. All PCs (and MACs) only support Radians, not Degrees. If you want degrees you convert Radians yourself to Degrees. From a purely mathematical sense (and perhaps elegant sense), it makes sense to always think in radians since this is TRULY the way the universe "thinks". Degrees, although much more common are a sort of bastard of the angular measurement world, soin my opinionyou should only convert to degrees when you need to. Like for input/output. But internally, programs that allow the writing of "scripts" should stick to Radians. Working this way keeps everyone on the same page. I don't mind having Degree functionality...I just don't want it to be at the expense of Radian "supremecy". My experience was one of building a ProRelation for the first time, and I knew the math was correct, it just wouldn't work! Never would I have thought that a program would have dissallowed the universal computer programming convention of working in Radians...but Pro did! I don't mind breaking with convention...when it's appropriate. As a result, Pro set me back two days until it dawned on me by looking at the results in both vb and Pro, that Pro does not let you work in radians.

2. In the world of the sciences, the functions SGN() and ABS() have been part of the universal toolkit since dinasaurs ruled the earth. But not with Pro. Which astounds me!

When working with Relations (with regards to a relation in a Variable Section Sweep, for instance) there is no support for SGN()!!!!! Even worse, if you are working with equation-based datum curves, not only is there no support for SGN(), but you can kiss goodby to ABS() as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As a result, you have to build these functions yourself from more primitive functions, but division by zero then becomes a likely result in many instances. This brings me to the next point:


3. By offering Relations, PTC has essentially initiated the use of programming techniques, yet has failed to offer some of the most essential programming concepts you would find in even the most basic, BASIC language; theincorporation of IF/ELSE/ELSEIF blocks, FOR/NEXT loops, unconditional jumps, simple error handling and more. Without these,...and SGN(), ABS(),...your Relation building experience will be a frustrating one. I have code that works great in vb, but is of no use in ProE when it fails to work at all, or in the least, may require a lot of extra and precious time spent trying to find a workaround. THIS HAS NOT CHANGED IN 8 YEARS!!!!!

Unbelievable and sloppy. If you are going to introduce programming, then you are obligated to support the most fundamental principles to support it. Yah, yah, Relations aren't REALLY programming. But it is sooooo close to programming in the traditional sense, thatit might as well be, and to miss that connection is a classic case of Moronity. Quit being lazy PTC and support BASIC syntax in Relations and Equation-based curves.


4. When working with Graphs, Pro will not allow vertical slope. In other words, PTC has neglected the incororation of the special case of infinite slope (90 degrees) as a viable option. This is such an easy scenario to account for, itbaffles me.

It forced me to spend once again, an inordinate amount of time to find a workaround to one of the most basic problems in programming. In other words, a vertical line on a graph IS a special case that can be detected easily in code, and upon detection can be dealt with by the corresponding special solution. I do it in vb all the time.


5. I am constantly frustrated by the fact that it takes 10 mouse clicks to do something that should take 2. For instance, it is truly amazing what you have to do, to do a very basic Copy and Paste operation. Yah, it's nice to have the extra paste options. So call that "Paste Special". But 99% of the time, i just want a bare-bones copy right over the existing one. Again, PTC throws honest-to-good universality out the window.


6. You can start a new file and import (via CopyGeom) surfaces from an existing file, yet you can't do much with them!!!! You could Thicken the original file's features, but not the new file's CopyGeom surfaces!!!!!

!!!!!! Unless you build yet MORE surfaces from the CopyGeom'd surfaces via Legacy mode. Yet more time wasted.


One curious thing is the behaviour of regeneration of rounds. I like to equate this with being "pre-approved" for a loan. The color of the round will change to an intermediate color as the clock ticks. But until the color changes to a THIRD color (white), you aren't gauranteed NOTHIN in the end! It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

DoH!


On the negative side, PTC has not addressed some very fundamental issues with Pro, and there is no indication that they intend to do so in the forseeable future. PTC has had more than ample time to streamline the workflow in so many areas and it confounds me that they do not see the EXTREME positive impact such simple fixs would have on the customer and his workflow.


All in all, Proe is pretty damn stable for the amount of math involved in solid modelling, and for that I am grateful. It DOES crash to the desktop from time to time, but again,...not bad. Still, to this day, Rounds are the most troublesome features I have to build for moderate to complex models (Outside of organic shapes). As you add more and more rounds, you simultaneously reduce your flexibility with each round and often, I find myself backed into a corner where I may have to delete some of the rounds I just built so I can approach the remainder from a different approach. But having reasonably successful rounds at all is a major feat, and for this I say, Thank you, PTC". And yes, rounds HAVE improved from version to version.


One additional request for PTC...PLEASE...PRETTY PLEASE, let an equation-based curve be possible as the section for a Variable Section Sweep. Essentially a Relation within a Relation.


All in all, how do I feel about ProE?

treddie

 

[tmay]

MathCAD might seem to be an altermate solution for the bulk of your
needs, and the MathCAD interface to Pro/E WF 4 would seem to be the
direction that PTC is going. I recall that a moderate amount of MathCAD
functionality is being considered for the Relations editor, starting with WF
5.0 and continuing.

I have had Pro/E for quite some time and added SW about 18 months ago
to support a few customers. I find SW (2008) is substantially less stable
that Pro/E running on XP. Vista is still not recommended by my
Solidworks VAR. I can't speak for Pro/E on Vista, though I will have to
address that this winter (looking to upgrade to Nehalem at some point,
probably a Mac Pro).

YMMV

tom

 

[ProE_Addict]

treddie,


I feel your pain. We've been almost exclusively SolidCompromise for the last two years. I'm sure I've posted on the topic before so I'll just say be happy with what you have. It is truely the best thing out there.


PTC has been trying to update the look and appeal of the software. It's like PCs trying to look like MACs.Who need a "round wizard"? They're copying SW"fillet wizard." Unfortunately, these tools rarely work unless you're in the hockey puck business. If they'd stop trying to look and function like the "other guy" and fix the few issues they have, they'd be further ahead. And stop changing the stuff that works fine (measurement tools in WF3 bite).


They havealso stopped "selling" to small companies. This is were the competition has taken over. They need to focus on getting the small guys because many of them grow up.

 

[proximo]

WOW,

I did not expect this thread to come back alive.

Treddie, I am going to make an assumption here. I understand your points, but it seems that you are using Pro/E at an Advanced level when compared to most. The cool thing is that the ability is there. Not always the way you would like it, but the fact that Pro/E can do some high level operations is the reason I believe it's the better program in the end. At least you have room to grow and expand with Pro/E.

I agree that it's not always done correctly and PTC does add functionality without first addressing the current problems. Look at the GUI for instance. We are in WF4.0 now. HELLO....PTC. Can't you finish the GUI? By the time it's completed, it will need another new coat of paint to keep up with the industry.

It's sad, but true. CAD Software is getting more and more powerful, but we will always live with issue in this world. The great thing is that we are smart enough to get around the limitations or come up with solution in most cases. That is what makes a CAD Jock.

I still believe that SW, Pro/E and some other CAD programs are all great. Choosing the right one will depend on what type of work you do. But you will always have issues with all of them.

I can list many things that are messed up in Pro/E that should have been fixed a long time ago, but all of you already know most of this stuff. Let's just hope these issues get some time on the development table.