A Must Read

I read it - very interesting as it appears to be compared and discussed among three people that don't carry an obvious overwhelming bias. Good points all around.

WT

my reply in the comments section for that article:

I'm not sure when this article was written or what version of SolidWorks PDT is on - but the comment from Steve about SW not carrying curves across parts is no longer a limitation since SW2008 . Starting in SW2008 you can insert absorbed and unabsorbed sketches when inserting a part. There right, this used to be a huge stumbling block with the CPD designers but not any longer.

I would argue that the master model concept is much more versatile in SW2009 since we not only best Pro's Publish Geom method but have several other methods (Split Part, Save Bodies etc.) Consider that in ProE when doing a Copy or Publish Geom, you cannot even copy solid geometry (only surface, curve, sketch, planes etc.) =96 In SW you could do this from day one.

Bjorn's comment about Pro's file management almost made me laugh - for instance, you still cannot use spaces or special characters in Pro file names and the non-windows open and save dialog is very clumsy.

With that said, I still have the greatest respect for the ProE kernel because I feel it is most robust (geometrically and parametrically)

BTW, I used Pro for 12 years starting with version 16 and ending with WF2 (my joining SW in fall of 2004)

Mark

That is - 2nd only to SolidWorks and Parasolid. :-)

Mark..

I'll defend Pro/e since nobody here seems to understand... or thinks the write up is interesting.

First,... Pro/e still kicks SolidWorks ass in top-down... speed and managment of data,.. period!

SolidWorks handling of top-down is still SLOW and has poor file management,... constant rebuilds,.. is a memory hog,... insert part still sucks... bodies are constantly added or misplaced.

Split part still is not that good,.. better,... YEAH... cuz it really sucked!

Copy, Merge, Inheritence, Publish are BY FAR SUPERIOR over what SolidWorks offers!

You're NOT limited with bodies,.. you can copy geom,.. rmb,.. select "solid surfaces"... or,.. select a body in Pro/e and solidify it.

Hmm,... did you not know how to do it after all of those years?

..

also,.. depending on what quilt (body) geometry is present,.. you can rmb and pick from a list.

..

Ah,... sure... AAX is extra. Yeah.. and anyone who knows how to use Pro/e should know how to share data.

Proof,... hmm.... another engineer....

I'm NOT making sweeping statements ... I use both of these tools and design REAL products,... really. I've been using Pro/e since R12 up to WF3 and SolidWorks from 1998plus till now and yes the 2009 beta.

You guys who NEVER use the TOOL's,... always want proof... and even then,... it would not matter,.. you'd find a way to justify the reason for SW being slow and not as feature rich!?

SW2009 FINALLY came out with sharing sketches!?!!? WOW... amazing...

How long did Pro/e have this............... anyone??????????

... (why do I feel like a atheist at a gop convention)

If it were me I wouldn't even mention Publish type functionality as it requires the Advanced Assembly Extension which is a sticker price jump over Solidworks to implement. And, yes, you can copy the closed brep 'solid' goemetry without AAX.

With respect to Mark, sweeping statements without some kind of 'real world' substantiation and perspective don't benefit the community or group. Leave that to Banquer and on the blogs.

I know you do and that Mark did.

The factual statement was in general (omit AAX to keep the playing field level, there's no way Solidworks can compare if it isn't, IMO, but have no interest in arguing or selling anything).

The subjective opinion / remark was addressing Mark.

As you can see from my original reply, I hold a very high regard for ProE because I spent so much time on it. I am specifically addressing, and making correction to, only a few areas of the PDT article. I do agree with Paul that Top's Down design does seem faster in ProE than in SW especially when complex surface CPD design is involved. You need to consider that it=92s not apples to apples thou when comparing ProE assemblies to SW assemblies because of the many differences (and benefits) of SW assemblies. I still hold to my belief that comparing WF4 and SW2009 master model techniques are pretty much on par. We have eliminate the known problems with Split and derive and have now given the user a lot of flexibility to "Push" or "Pull" changes from the derived part even reassigning the derive to a completely different the master (and in the case of split : completely different split feature/s). You can break references with the master (or mirrored part) and recreate them in the derived. Since 2008 you now have practically every referenced type of entity you need from the master. There is a white paper that has just been published comparing ProE, Inventor and SW2009 in terms of performance. I will try to get permission to publish it to the forum in the near future. Regards Mark

Seems faster... c'mon Mark... it is and let's simplify this or take surfaces out of this,.. let's say a 100% analytical assembly with 1k unique dumb brep parts (fairly complex,.. that is,.. lot's of edges/ rounds/holes/fasteners) and no asm constraints. Sure,.. please send, post, link.. the performance white paper,.. files.... yes, PLEASE! Oh... if this also includes making changes to the master and updates to a drawing with multiple views/pages... please let's see that performance comparison as well!?!?

I'd be happy to compare Apples to Apples here.

IMHO,.. there are only subtle differences with what SW does

The one thing which I feel the comparison mentions is with doing movement studies,.. it's easier in SW. As for asm constraints,... I'm very surprised these guys think SW is better,.. cuz,... it is SO much faster/easier to constraint in Pro/e. Where I think people get excited with asm in SW is with the multi window drag/drop... it SEEMS easier. What I'm still amazed by is why Pro/e has NOT capitalized on a easier interface when nearly ALL the functionality is there!??

The problem I see with many of todays interfaces are... that niceties are cute to have and demo,.. but it does not weigh in as a performance return in the REAL world.

IMHO,... gui changes are todays sales/marketing tools. (attach bait,.. cast,.. hook,.. reel in a new user)

..

SW Standard =3D ~4K SW Pro =3D ~6K SW Premium =3D ~8-9K

..

..since no SW user here wants to contribute information to compare (imagine that?!?!?!)....

SW Standard =3D ~$4K (+$1.3 annual) SW Pro =3D ~$6K ( (+$1.5 annual?) SW Premium =3D ~$8-9K (~$2K annual?)

.. (not sure about the annual maintenance fees?)

Good points.

You're NOT limited with bodies,.. you can copy geom,.. rmb,.. select "solid surfaces"... or,.. select a body in Pro/e and solidify it.

Hmm,... did you not know how to do it after all of those years?

Paul, I just read over your comments again. Yes, I DO remember that you can select "solid surface quilts" (did that all the time) but that doesn't mean that it was Solid geometry in the derived part - you had to "solidify it" in the derive after you imported it. That's what I meant by my comment - Am I correct in that?

Mark

That sounds about right.