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",
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.
Does anybody else feel this way?
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
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
Sometimes. Are you doing a lot of complex geometry and surfacing? SW is
still struggling in this area, where UG has a long history.
Tripod Data Systems
"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
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
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?
Art Woodbury quipped:
Perosnally, I can't wait for the day when people start griping about
something like "But SW didn't cost $20000 (with another $200 for the MSOS
-- no SW for Linux back then)."
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
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
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
bob zee quipped:
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
Feel free to grab a different quote. There's a few good ones there. :)
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.
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.
Has anyone mentioned morons lately?
All five are pretty good at CNC programming, right? At
least for the 2 1/2 axes work YOU *claim* to do WITH MANUAL
I don't think anyone sane would let him near the green button ....
No clues today ....