Solidworks vs. ProE

[dgs]

Let's face it: there hasn't been any fundamental
improvement in Pro/E in over a decade. Wildfire added some limited
functionality: a few functions were changed and some functions were
iconized (to this day, many functions still do not have icon-based
menus) and the workflow was altered slightly, but the limited
flexibility, lack of Windows integrationand poor graphics
remain.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with those statements. First, a lot of significant improvements have been made in the past decade. Off the top of my head (and yes, some of these are a direct result of competition from SW):

<ul>[*]Ability to use extremal or internal sketches[*]Switch between cut, protrusion or surface on the basic features (extrude, revolve & sweep[*]Integrates VSS tool that will toggle between standard, constant
section sweeps & the various variable section types as well as cut,
protrude or surface[*]Mechanism constraints
[*]ISDX[*]Revamped import data doctor with feature recognition[*]Moving to a more free work flow where many actions can be wither action-object or object action. I wish more of Pro/E had this freedom.[*]More advanced replace functionality in assemblies[*]Replace references in sketcher[*]Leave failed features hanging (no resolve mode)
[/list]

Also, I find Pro/E very flexible, much more so than SW.
<ul>[*]I can change round types at will (constant to variable and back, surf to surf to edge and back, etc). Not so with SW.
[*]Change from surface to cut to protrusion. Not so in SW.
[*]Change from neutral curve draft to neutral plane and back. Not so with SW.[*]Replace sketcher entities (change a line to an arc to a spline) to retain entity IDs so that down stream features don't fail. Not so in SW.[*]I also find Pro/E far more robust when changing features early in the tree. I end up fixing failed features in SW more often.[/list]As far as graphics, maybe this is personal preference, but I find SW's graphics more 'cartoony' than Pro/E's. That said, the built in perspective mode, shadows and simple real time rendering in SW are nice. But comparing standard graphics to standard graphics, I much prefer Pro/E.

 

[moriarty]

You guys need to get on the WF5 boat - perspective,
shadows, simple realtime rendering are all there. Still no
ability to change edge color - annoying.

A recent review of the graphics performance of a bunch of
CAD packages put WF5 as state-of-the-art, go have a look

http://www.deelip.com/?p=2730

Mindripper - what version of WF is torturing you ?
Edited by: moriarty

 

[solidworm]

mindripper, if you are looking for "real evolutionary change" like changing kernel,then yes, it's only solidworks that will evolve, and perhaps brings you a whole set of new bugs, alot of rework for development team and many lost functionalities.
if you look at the latest releases from 2008 to 2011 of solidworks, there is almost no added power to solidworks geometry creation tools.instead they have changed more towards ProE workflow. an example is the reference plane feature in solidworks 2010. they put aside their method and exactly copied ProE.it takes years for solidworks to re-invent what ProE has today.


Edited by: solidworm

 

[michaelpaul]

it takes years for solidworks to re-invent what ProE has today.

and we're still waiting for features/functionality in pro-E that SW has had from day one!

the number one best feature in SW that Pre-E lacks is the ability to extrude - offset from surface. SW has had it forever. still can't do it in SW. I have to first create an offset surface or datum and then extrude up to that feature. this may or may not be a simple operation but the fact is, it takes many extra steps to accomplish something that is so simple to do.

 

[dgs]

Have you looked at the expand option in the offset tool? Sounds like exactly what you are looking for.

 

[Mindripper]

I'm running WF3. According to theory, we will be upgrading to WF4 some time during the next year.


Most of the 'improvements' to Pro/E claimed by dgs have little value, especially for users like me.


The use of extenral sketches isn't new. This 'new feature' simply automatically selects the previous sketch as the sketch to use in the next protrusion/cut. Most users who create swept blends have been doing this for years, although they had to copy the sketch entities manually.


The ability to switch from a cut to a protrusion is fo very little value. I think I have used this functionality a couple of times in the last four years.


Resolving feature failures is little improved over the last ten years. Pro/E still typically does not allow the user to leave anything unresolved, or imposes some form of grief on them. It's frequently easier just to eliminate an entire feature than to chase out a single alignment issue.


I do not use VSS, ISDX or analysis tools in Pro/E: I have no use for them, or they are too cumbersomoe compared to the simple, easy-to-use tools in SW. Doind an FEA in SW is so easy even a neophyte can step through the process in a couple of minutes.


Rounds are much easier in SW than Pro/E. One if the differences is that SW will simply figure out complex rounds without endless constraints being imposed by the user: those not familiar with SW may not realize this, since they are accustomed to the laborious and time-consuming rituals they endure (enjoy?) from Pro/E.


I do very little work in complex surfaces: my work is almost entirely simple parts and assemblies, with drawings for the parts. Assemblies and drawings are painful in Pro/E, but simple in SW. For assemblies, the user simply drags and drops parts between tiled windows: no need to go through lengthy menus to load parts. And different configurations of an assembly are a snap: no need for elaborate tables or loadingbunches of unusedfiles into memory. Drawings are easy: no need to create endless part or assembly features to generate simple drawing views and GD&T symbols.


I read the article referenced by moriarty, which compares the graphics PERFORMANCE of several CAD systems.It clearly states that the PERFORMANCE of Pro/E graphics on a particular video card is 'state of the art'. But there can be a huge difference between performance and quality: just ask anyone who ever owned a British or Italian sports car. It's the poor quality of Pro/E graphics that gets me down: edges are light, not dark, and only pastel colors are available. It's necessary to constantly toggle back and forth between shaded and HLR modes in Pro/E: I never run anything other than shaded in SW. I d rarely use any of the fancy shadows or texturing in SW (except wood, so I can identify the grain direction): such stuff is only good for dog-and-pony shows. But speaking of presentations: I find it comical that a number of users here export their models from Pro/E to SW simply to create images for presentations, because the graphical image quality is so much better in SW, and sectioning is so much easier.

 

[SW]

I'll try and separate facts from my opinions.

To me, the strength in Pro/E is fact that it does not run out of steam, if you can make (or even if you can't) you can be pretty sure you could model it properly in Pro/E. I am as quick as the next man to point out the frustrations often ridiculous oversights in the interface and lack of coherence in the product, but it is not short of power.

For example, I have recently working on beer (well lager really) fonts, and the big brewers and a non-engineering designer spends a lot of effort making them look pretty. I then had the job of taking Adobe Illustrator sketches into a working product. I can't say it makes the beer taster better, but they want nice surface reflection lines and fancy branding features, internal cooling lines and illumination. This requires complex surface intersections and curvature control. Then the design is altered and I need to significant changes that impact on the outer surface, the interal piping and all the associated manufacturing features. And they don't give me a great deal of time. Whatever they throw at me, I find Pro/E can handle. The designer said he would send me a Solidworks model of the outer surface, but he had to cheat to follow his Illustrator files, not a problem for a concept, but when you actual have to make the thing too...

Or how about Unmanned Air Vehicles? Top-down design and complex, well controlled surfaces. Consumer products with flowing outer surfaces and complex mechanisms? Pro/E gets the job done, whatever that job may be. With Solidworks you inevitably get to a point where you would be better with Catia. And that is another argument. Not just my opinion, Dassault Systemes are banking on it.

Sam

Edited by: SW

 

[michaelpaul]

Have you looked at the expand option in the offset tool? Sounds like exactly what you are looking for.

it's there, and it works similiarly. but it's not as obvious as feature - extrude - offset from surface. all the other extrude options are in the extrude dashboard. expand is buried in another menu that you have to know about to look for or use.

hence one of the big problems of Pro-E. the functionality is there, it's just hard to find and placed in not so obvious menus.

 

[michaelpaul]

Most of the 'improvements' to Pro/E claimed by dgs have little value, especially for users like me.

to some extent, I agree. most people claim how much better Pro-E is because of ISDX and advanced surface modeling. Great. if you need those features. I don't. I've used SW and Pro throughout the years. there isn't anything I can't do in either package that I actually need to do. each one has it's quirks. each one forces me to do some things a certain way.




But, I honestly believe that SW is superior for almost every CAD user. It's more intuitive to learn and easier to work with. it infers your actions better. Heck, just for assembling you can pick two points and without entering the Mates command, you're given the option to Mate the two points for assembly purposes. In Pro-E, you have to first add a constraint and then pick the points.

The ability to drag and drop a component out of your assembly model tree rather than constantly insert a new component.

the fact that not every gawd darned module has it's own freaking .pro or .ini or .win or .dtl or .whatever file that you have to edit to change options. options which half the time you don't know exist in the first place so why would you think there's some arcane toggle you have to turn on or off to get the functionality you want@!#$^*^&%^$@#


The things I do every day are just plain out easier to do in SW.

the Pro-E geniuses will argue otherwise and I'm sure that for the power users, Pro-E has far better functionality. but you don't need a Bugatti Veyron to get your groceries!

 

[dgs]

... my work is almost entirely
simple parts and assemblies, with drawings for the parts. ...

No offense, but that statement alone explains a lot. If all I was doing were simple parts and assemblies, I'd be all over SW too. however, to extrapolate from "better for simple stuff" to "superior for everything" is simply wrong.

Very little of what I do is simple geometry. Even the parts that are are simple are usually part o a larger, complex assembly. When I do work on those things in SW (due to client specifications), I miss the flexibility that pro/E gives me to change how my model is built.

Simply ,for the complex geometry that I deal with every day, I find that doing the same thing in SW is harder than in Pro/E.

The use of extenral sketches isn't new.

incorrect. Prior to WF, you simple could not use an external sketch. WF brought, like SW, the ability to select a sketch rather than create one and to redefine a feature and select a new sketch.

The ability to switch from a cut to a protrusion is fo very little value.

For you perhaps, but I use it all the time. mostly, I'm switching from solid to surface (which SW also cannot do), but I do swap from cut to protrude as well.

Resolving feature failures is little improved over the last ten years. Pro/E still typically does not allow the user to leave anything unresolved, or imposes some form of grief on them. It's frequently easier just to eliminate an entire feature than to chase out a single alignment issue.

I'm sorry, but that simply says to me that you don't understand the tools. First, in WF5 I understand that you can leave features 'hang' (like SW), although I haven't used it yet. In older versions, essentially the same functionality is available by suppressing the feature and all it's children. Second, there are a whole range of tools in resolve mode for repairing failed features. I won't go through them all now, but there are a lot of better ways to deal with a failed feature than deleting and recreating it. Are those tools simple and intuitive. Hardly, but they are robust and powerful and provide a wide variety of ways to repair broken features.

I do not use VSS, ISDX or analysis tools in Pro/E: I have no use for them, or they are too cumbersomoe compared to the simple, easy-to-use tools in SW.

If you do simple parts and don't use complex tools, how can you say that the complex tools in Pro/E are inferior to the complex tools in SW?

Rounds are much easier in SW than Pro/E.

To create initially? Perhaps, but what it you must redefine a round and change it's type? What if it needs to be a variable round instead of constant. In SW, you must delete it and start over (Hmm, sounds like a familiar complaint). Once created as a constant or variable, there's no changing back.


Look, SW is a good tool and has frankly pushed Pro/E to become better. It isn't a panacea and it isn't clearly superior to Pro/E in all areas. I'm all for having a lively debate about the merits of each, but don't present your opinions as fact, or speak beyond what you know.

 

[dgs]

But, I honestly believe that SW is superior for almost every CAD user. It's more intuitive to learn and easier to work with. it infers your actions better.

I hate that it is always guessing what I want to do. What it's right, it's awesome. It read my mind! When I want to do something different than its assumptions, I have to battle SW to do something different. I'm fighting some internal assumption that I don't have access to. With Pro/E, I find the assumptions it makes for me (like auto constraining a sketch) are obvious and editable.
I find that I spend a lot of time fighting those battles in SW. Maybe I don't understand how it is designed to work or maybe my years of Pro/E has me in a mode that simple runs counter to SW. But I keep hearing how intuitive and easy it is and I wonder why I am always fighting with it. The conclusion I've come to is it works great for a majritiy of people, but if you're in the minority that works in a different way, you're going to have a hard time of it.

 

[Mindripper]

Perhaps there are those who don't recognize that a planar curve feature and a sketch feature are basicallythe same thing - in Pro/E or SW. All that was done with Wildfire was to make the creation of a planar curve prior to the creation of a protrusion part of the recommended workflow (although it remains optional - except in sheet metal, where internal sketches are still required in most cases). Call a curve a sketch, automatically select it when creating the next feature: no real change, and hardly innovative. But just the kind of thing that PTC Marketing and Sales canbroadcat to their customer'smanagementwhen hawking their 'new' product as being different and better.


Wedon't do much surfacing here: I have made perhaps half a dozen in the last four years, and that's more than most of our users. I never change from a simple fillet to a variable fillet, much less a spline.I spend huge chunks of time making drawings and assemblies from basically simple parts.


As michaelpaul has suggested, everything seems to be just a right-click away or in a menu that pops up in SW. While PTC has been working hard to copy this simple functionality, it has a long way to go. I know of more than a few SW users who learned to use the software by simply following the tutorials in a book: I have never heard of a single Pro/E user attempting this, and I cannot imagine any user having success if they attempted it. But I recognize my knowledge base is limited: I know of just a few people still running Pro/E around here (most have been running it for over a decade), as almost everyone is using SW or Inventor - and SolidEdge has been gaining strength too.


And perhaps I am the only one on this board who has experienced British and Italian sports cars. Fortunately, I have never owned one: riding shotgun and helping others repair theirswas enough exposure for me. Hecka fun on the road, but you have to love one to own one. I'll stick to Hondas.

 

[SW]

You stick to your Honda and Saladworks, I'll leave this one to the pictures.

Edited by: SW

 

[dgs]

Call a curve a sketch, automatically select it when creating the next feature: no real change, and hardly innovative.

No, not really innovative since SW had it first, but definitely an enhancement. And, frankly, SW users criticised Pro/E for not having the external sketches (of limted value as far as I'm concerned) prior to WF and now you poo-poo it as not a big deal.

I
know of more than a few SW users who learned to use the software by
simply following the tutorials in a book: I have never heard of a single
Pro/E user attempting this, and I cannot imagine any user having
success if they attempted it..

Me, back on rev 16. I picked up the book "Inside Pro/E" and had learned everything they went through in training before I got there. I'm not sure if there are books that could do the same today (I understand that the Toogood books are very good), but we have interns, new engineers and industrial designers learning Pro/E as they go all the time.

I have never owned one: riding shotgun and helping others repair
theirswas enough exposure for me. Hecka fun on the road, but you have
to love one to own one. I'll stick to Hondas.

I've never had one either, but I have an old T'bird that needs similar TLC. Not much brings a bigger smile to my face than driving that car on a summer's evening witht eh top down. I've owned Hondas too and I love them both, for different reasons.

 

[SW]

Doug,

Stating the facts and arguing each point consicely, along with passion that can't really be explained for a bit of bent tin makes you sound a bit like an engineer. Quick, somebody throw in some overstated opinion and rumour to counter...

Sam

 

[GLEN20]

You guys are way too funny.......When you are in the
garage does it really matter what wrench you use? Pro -
Solidworks - Re-INVENTOR are all tools......You guys
really need to know what CONSTRAINTS mean. Instead of
PRO-Engineer, why not be a REAL ENGINEER first and not
make the tool be the constraint? At the end of the day -
as long as your assembly does not fail --- then you did
your job. At the end of the day, the dude in China
putting parts together will not give a sh*t what software
you used for his pictorial representation, will not care
if you used tables or individual instances, or if a CNC
made linear cuts rather than a radial cut.....these are
tools! Tools that did not get you through Physics,
Mechanics, Strength of Materials, Differential
equations...... Did you give a sh*t about which
calculator you used in college (HP, TI, Tandy.....). It
did not matter, right? As long as you got the right
answer.....

 

[moriarty]

WF3 was released 4 years ago - theres been quite some
progress since - for example Resolve mode is alone worth
the upgrade - gone in WF5. I cant imagine working in WF3 -
it explains a lot. You would be surprised how nice WF5 is
on a Win7 x64 Core i7 box.
Edited by: moriarty

 

[SW]

Glen,

No, it doesn't really matter what the tool is, but I would rather be using the best tool for the job: I made sure my calculator had the buttons that I needed.

As long as we separate the opinion from the fact, I think there is some merit in discussing the relative benefits of each system. I'm using Inventor at the moment, and for the job I am doing, it is perfectly fine. It would even go as far as saying it is quite good. However, for some of the other work I have done, the lack of features such as ISDX, datum graphs and table patterns would cause me big problems. It is useful to know the shortcomings.

Sam

 

[dr_gallup]

Yes, it makes a difference what tool you use. If you are tightening my lug nuts with an air gun I'm throwing you out of my garage.

And don't even try to get me to use one of those awful non-RPN calculators.

 

[Mindripper]

I never said that British and Italian sports cars weren't beautiful or didn't handle well: these cars are beautiful,handle great and many go like a bat out of h*ll. And of course, Ferrrais and the like are in a separate category. What I was suggesting is the chronic quality problems. Remember Lucas, The Prince of Darkness? This is not a term of endearment for a maker of electrical systems. I remember replacing the spider joints on my mother's Austin Cooper every 2000 miles. I remember Alfa Romeo owners telling me about the intricacies of setting valve clearances - which needed to be done with disturbing regularity. I remember Fiat owners telling me about monthly front end alignments. I too do not use a pneumatic impact wrench on lug nuts: I don't even own one. I too still insist on using an HP calculator - and laugh at my kids when they attempt to use it.


But I get paid to run MCAD tools. This is all about productivity and getting things done: I don't have enough hours in the day, and almost everyone in my neighborhhood is running something other than Pro/E. I want functionality that my peers and myself can use to complete a task as easily and quickly as possible thatI can deliver to my customers in their native format, and we can add staff trained in using this MCAD software. Our tasks aren't the same as those in other workgroups: we don't do much surfacing. Yeah, the guy in China doesn't care about any of this, but he's farther down the food chain: MCAD means nothing to him.