Is there anyone else who thinks that SolidWorks is crap? I moved to a new job back in Jan.. During the interview my boss mentioned that they were going to start using Solidworks. I thought no problem, I am fairly proficient with I-deas Master Series and UG SolidWorks should be a breeze.
I signed up for all the basic and advanced classes that SW offered. When I would have a problem I would contact support (which is a joke in itself), and get "SW is not ment to do that", "you cant do that", etc..
I have used this software for 10 months now, and I hate it now as much as I hated it in March. The sales people and the training classes tell you how easy SW is to use. What they don't tell you is that for everything that is real easy to do, there are ten other things that are not usable because they just give you enough to get started.
Perhaps you could share some of the things you are having trouble with. This group might be able to help. Often times a new CAD system is simply one "whack-of-the-head-oh-now-I-get-it" revelation away.
No I don't think it's crap. What I do think is that thier original concept of being a just a history based solid only modeler was wrong and that this is still causing many problems with the product today.
IMO, SolidWorks Corp. relies much to heavily on third party components to do some of the work that SolidWorks Corp. should be doing themselves. For instance, SolidEdge does not use a third party software component to handle their new surfacing functionality. It's fine to use third party software components but it's not cool to require third party components to do the *entire* job especially when the needed functionality is not currently available in those third party software components and may not be for some time... if at all !!!
IMO, I don't think that SolidWorks spends nearly enough money on R&D.
SolidWorks Corp. also does not seem to understand the tools that someone working in a machine shop with non-native geometry needs in order to get the job done *quickly*. In a hard pressed machine shop the time is not there to only be able to use one tool (FeatureWorks) to get the job done. IMO this is unrealistic and many other companies (IronCAD, VX's Vision, think3 thinkdesign / thinkshape with Global Shape Modeling, etc.) provide far superior tools to get the job done in a more expedient manner.
Finally, when it comes to surfacing SolidWorks Corp. really seems very, very lost on how to make the modeling experience of using both surface and solid tools seamless and unified. It's more like a hack and whack experience. (hack and whack copyright J/K)
The above have been issues in SolidWorks for many, many years now and they continue to cause problems for lots of users, many of whom are forced to use other programs in order to get the job done.
The interesting part of some of this is that I believe that the latest head of SolidWorks R&D comes from Brown and Sharpe and should really know better about how users need to deal with non-native imported geometry. Perhaps he has not had enough time yet to leave his stamp on the product ??? I guess only SolidWorks 2005 will tell us how much weight he really has in getting the numerous issues that have plagued SolidWorks for many years straightened out.
Sadly SolidWorks 2004 is still very much an incomplete product in many ways.
Sometimes it is very hard to make the transition from one way of doing things to another. I haven't used I-deas since I test drove it when it came out, so I don't know how different the present software might be from SW.
That should have helped a lot in making the transition. If you hadn't said this, it would have been my first suggestion.
Sounds like you have a lousy VAR. Check into the VARs available in your area. See if one of them stands out. Talk your company into switching the Support to them when you renew.
What are some of the things you are having trouble with. Maybe some of us can help.
Sometimes. Are you doing a lot of complex geometry and surfacing? SW is still struggling in this area, where UG has a long history.
the point here is this: you are never going to feel any differently. you have given it an honest 10 months. who could ask for anything more? who in their right mind would honestly bang away at something they hated for 10 months and never give up? you have an iron will. you are a major assest to some company. have you thought about changing jobs? the really difficult thing is this: bob z. is being very civil. you see, you are mad at something he really likes. most people have a hard time seperating someone's opinion from an outright attack. bob z. doesn't have the ability to seperate fact from reality, fact from fiction, poetry from prose.
-- bob z. p.s. musta been a dream, don't believe where i am. come on! let's do it again. do you...
"Are you doing a lot of complex geometry and surfacing? SW is still struggling in this area, where UG has a long history."
UG started out with a CAM background as it's core. I think the Uni part is from University APT and the "Uni" remained when a graphic front end was built. Any idea what a tremendous benefit starting this way was and is to producing a real world CAD/CAM package ???
Forgetting complex geometry and surfacing for a moment how about just focusing on the FACT that Solidworks is very badly lacking in the needed tools that other CAD/CAM packages have for editing and modifying non-native prismatic solid geometry.
How about ease of use ??? Does SolidWorks have anywhere near the ease of use as say IronCAD ??? If not why, not ???
There is a lot more wrong with SolidWorks than just complex geometry and surfacing.
I don't think it is crap at all. It is full of good features, gets better every year and is reasonably priced. There's nothing I need to do that SW can't accomplish. I could say that about Master Series, too, which I bought in '94. But SW didn't cost $20000 (with another $20000 for the SGI workstation -- no I-DEAS for NT back then).
I'm an independent optomechanical designer, and I spend my own money on design tools. When I looked at the revenue and productivity vs. maintenance cost for both packages a couple of years ago, I dropped I-DEAS maintenance, haven't used it in nearly a year, and don't miss it that much.
I took both courses when I bought SW 4+ years ago, and even with 5-odd years of previous solid modeling background, learning the new software was a challenge. But not a challenge that couldn't be overcome. What, "specifically" can't SW do for you? Or put another way, what kind of design work do you do that SW can't cope with? Since support is from a VAR, you may have the bad luck to have a bad VAR, and that can make a huge difference. I'm fortunate to have one of the best SW VARs in the US.
Once again, what can't SW do for you? Is the software really lacking, are you having a problem learning to work a different way, or do you have some very unusual and demanding design task?
UG comes from a heritage of real engineers having to solve general engineering problems and it's cost reflects that approach. SW and the rest come from a heritage of stripping down software to get what most people want in an easy to use package. There is a certain amount of confidence that you can have with UG that you can't have with SW or the other mid range modelers.
Theoretically both can do what the other does since they share the same kernal, but in reality it doesn't work that way.
It is a shame that you hear the excuse that SW cannot do this or that in response to the problems you are having because those limitations are not evident in the documentation for the most part. In the limit, I suppose you could say that SW does just what you see in the demos and training manuals and not much more. That is a bit extreme but is sometimes not far from the truth.
On the other hand the UG parts that I have reverse engineered in SW have been completed far quicker than they were in UG even when including the reverse engineering time. But when it comes to dealing with imported geometry UG will still outshine SW when in the right hands.
We are not quite and I must say that we are a long way off from having any 1 program do everything. There are times that some programs do better than others., But and i do stress but......untill we find outconcept
from a NYT article, September 28, 2003: NYT: People position you as the nemesis to Bill Gates. He started Microsoft and you started Linux, the big competition to Microsoft's dominance of operating systems. Is that an unfair or inaccurate characterization?
LT: The thing is, at least to me personally, Microsoft just isn't relevant to what I do. That might sound strange, since they are clearly the dominant player in the market that Linux is in, but the thing is: I'm not in the ''market.'' I'm interested in Linux because of the technology, and Linux wasn't started as any kind of rebellion against the ''evil Microsoft empire.'' Quite the reverse, in fact: from a technology angle, Microsoft really has been one of the least interesting companies. So I've never seen it as a ''Linus versus Bill'' thing. I just can't see myself in the position of the nemesis, since I just don't care enough. To be a nemesis, you have to actively try to destroy something, don't you? Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
Feel free to grab a different quote. There's a few good ones there. :)
--nick e.
p.s. I love konqueror's ability to archive a web page for me. :) This is one of those pages I archived and plan on putting on my site. With proper credit given to the NYT, of course.
Idiot. At times most businesses have special needs or do repeat things needing calculations. That's exactly what API interfaces and programming are for.
Some firms have developed programs for niche markets to fill these specialized needs. I doubt many are getting rich.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.