looking for info on CAE please...

oh, incidentally if any of you guys happen to work in the design and manufacture of domestic goods in particular, i would *really* like to hear from you.

---------------- Three 3D solid modeling MCAD softwares that have probably largest market share are Pro/E (PTC), SolidWorks (Dassault) and Inventor (AutoDesk). I said PROBABLY. Others may mention Catia (Dassault), Unigraphics (Unigraphics), I-DEAS (SDRC -- now bought out by Unigraphics) and Solid Edge (Unigraphics).
Pro/E, Unigraphics, I-DEAS and Catia are considered the "high end" softwares, although I-DEAS is in process of being absorbed into Unigraphics as one software package. SolidWorks, Inventor and Solid Edge are considered the "mid-range", although their capabilities are rapidly approaching those of the "high-end" products. Newcomer "Alibre" is likely to make a strong showing in the mid-range class as it approaches the capabilities of the other mid-range products and costs a 1/4 to 1/5 (or less) as much. It's less than $1000 USD for the "Professional" version, $700 USD for the standard version. There's also an "Expert" version that costs a little more than $1000 . . . Maybe $1300 or $1400 or so. Don't know all the differences.
Mark 'Sporky' Stapleton Watermark Design, LLC

appreciated. thanks very much man, that's all very helpful stuff.
appreciated.

"slow_graffiti" wrote in news:kgZwc.31218$ snipped-for-privacy@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Domestic vehicle industry here, we use 3 different packages, depending on what, who, and what customer. Pro/E & Catia are used by product design depending on what the customer requires. Inventor is used by most production engineering and machine building (we build our own machines for our own use in-house).

"slow_graffiti" wrote in news:kgZwc.31218$ snipped-for-privacy@front-1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
As for the second part of your question, the art and knowledge of programming machines, imho, is being degraded by the proliferation of cad/cam. Sure, it speeds things up and reduces set-up time, but unless your post is 100% reliable for the machine, you can run into problems and errors, same as with a person programming. But if you don't know how to write manually, you can't detect those errors prior to application, nor can you debug it after problems arise. Other than those items, cad/cam and reliable posts are the way to go for todays manufacturing climate. Product cost reduction is the #1 driving force for manufacturing these days, just to keep work on this side of the pond.

I have to take issue with the last statement. Inventor does not have market dominance of product or production engineering and machine design. SolidWorks overwhelmingly has that market in the mid-range category, although Inventor is catching up quickly . . . largely because of their aggressive marketing to firms which already own and use AutoCAD. Interestingly, though, Inventor doesn't handle 2D import of AutoCAD entities for use in conversion to 3D as well as does SolidWorks. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but Inventor is still trying to catch up to SolidWorks in functionality.
One supposed head-to-head test comparison of one to the other was sponsored by AutoDesk and came out showing Inventor as being significantly faster in most areas. But the Inventor "driver" was employed by an AutoDesk VAR and the SolidWorks "driver" sounded to me like he barely knew his way around the software. SolidWorks Corp was invited to participate, but declined . . . ostensibly because the content of the test was being determined by AutoDesk, and I think you can guess what that means. The results were to be expected, and if the AutoDesk VAR guy didn't know in advance what the particular challenges were (at least in general if not specifically) then I'd be terribly surprised.
There are some good reasons why Carol Bartz has been rated one of the least liked chief executives in high-tech industry.
Mark 'Sporky' Stapleton Watermark Design, LLC

Sporkman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@bigfootDOT.com:
I do believe you mis-interpreted what I said. To clarify: I was speaking of *my* company, not everyone in general. Although we are a somewhat large outfit (30,000+ employees in 60 locations worldwide), I would by no means consider that in the context you interpreted.