looking for info on CAE please...

hi, im currently doing a research project at uni in to computer aided engineering, and this seemed like a good place to come for info..
first, quite simple question to you guys would be to identify what you feel are the 4 most wiudely used computer aided design parametric solid modelling software packages used within industry today, and furthermore, to identify any 4 manufacturing companies which use any of these packages.
second is a much broader question to which any input would be appreciated. essentially im looking for any negative impact from the proliferation of CAD/CAM as opposed to the traditional approach.
any help/feedback at all is greatly appreciated guys. feel free to say as much as you want, cos its all useful to me...
thanks,
sg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

feel
modelling
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
slow_graffiti wrote:

---------------- 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 http://www.h2omarkdesign.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

feel
modelling
identify
appreciated.
as
thanks very much man, that's all very helpful stuff.
appreciated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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).
--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Anthony wrote:

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 http://www.h2omarkdesign.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.