Re: ProE vs SW

something to bear in mind regarding ProE--it's MUCH more difficult to learn than SW, so as a relatively new user your opinions of its capabilities aren't necessarily fully informed. Some of what you're experiencing may be learning pains.

: "Michael" wrote in message news:ZMQKc.78970$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.nyroc.rr.com... : something to bear in mind regarding ProE--it's MUCH more difficult to learn : than SW, so as a relatively new user your opinions of its capabilities : aren't necessarily fully informed. Some of what you're experiencing may be : learning pains. : I agree about the difference familiarity makes. All you really need to do to feel like a novice in SW again is go from 2003 to 2005. Something I've noticed that contributes to the impression that SW is easier, faster is the workflow. It gets you into sketch mode quickly and easily. In Proe there's a more elaborate setup of the featue before you get to sketch mode. But, when you're done with the sketch, the feaures also done. In both cases it's a two step process and as to speed, possibly 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

As to Fred's original question, comparing the two, people are doing this all over. They're switching back and forth, PE to SW, SW to PE. When I took my SW course at San Diego City College, the SW guru was taking PE. He had two terminals fired up, one with SW, the other with Wildfire and was building parts, side by side, feature by feaure, running a comparison. I've subsequently tried it myself: familiarity is a big issue in how easily you can get the job done, how much backtracking and undoing and redoing. So, as opposed to just shutting up about it, I'd suggest a shoot out, a modelling challenge. One SW hotshot vs one WF hotshot where familiarity is no longer an issue and a part with about 2 hours worth of feature creation, nothing too fancy that one or the other can't handle without another $10 grand worth of addons. Half an hour to review the print, plan the job, then hit the tubes. I don't see, Fred, how you could get in too much trouble for suggesting an honest test. In fact, if I could get such a thing going, I'd have it touring the country, hitting county fairs over the summer, going to highschools and commun ity colleges and engineering departments, introduce the software, get some healty competition going, a Proe team from one school, SW from another, get people talking about design. I know it's a little sideshowy but it beats the crap out of the completely staged tradeshow vendor demos. What do people think?

David Janes

Obviously, SolidWorks is the better software. I can tell that without even looking at the type of work you are doing. This is a good thing, too, since you don't mention anything about the type of design work you do.

"David Janes" wrote... "..... I know it's a little sideshowy but it beats the crap out of the completely staged tradeshow vendor demos. What do people think?"

Doesn't even have to have a competitive aspect, just show the goods on a controlled group of design applications that exercise part modeling (Adesk can sit out the tough ones), data import / healing, assy (robust top down capability? large assy performance?), documentation (just how long does it take to generate that third tier partial section or regen a basketful of views after a change, apply annotations, build customized parts lists?) abilities. Leave it to the observer to decide what's software related, what's user related, just so the users are proficient enough to use an efficient workflow. Maybe someday multi platform user groups will become popular and local colleges would be ideal hosts (would afford the faculty a bit of, much needed in some cases, exposure as well). An annual lecture series? Work a trade with local user groups? There is a need.

As far as Fred goes; I'm baffled. Unless he is the "department", his new co-workers are the best source of what's good or bad about the software they use and opinions about it's suitability for intended purposes. If he can demonstrate the superiority of another software for the purpose; do it. If not, well .....

(does anyone smell marketing cologne?)

I think they manufacture Onions, so that is what he will be modeling :)

One line of David's response jumps out at me...the part about the extra $10k of add-ins. Swx doesn't require that, but to get decent functionality from ProE you have to invest that much more (counting maintenance) for "advanced assemblies", mechanism design, surfaces, etc. (they call it Flex 3C) to get you above the limp-along basic capabilities of "Foundation" or whatever they call it this year.

message

about the extra $10k

functionality from

maintenance) for "advanced

it Flex 3C) to get

"Foundation" or whatever they

Preferences, requirements lead where they may that simply is not true.

I use both. I use Solidworks 2004 at my day job, and pro/e2001 at various companies for side work. My bottom line is, that SW is very limited...especially for the kind of things we design. I learned pro/e first, then solidworks. All this talk about SW being easier to learn so it's better...what's that all about? Pro/e is not that difficult to learn. It makes you think like an engineer planning your steps and features somewhat in advance. What's wrong with that? I go by the rule, model it like you were actually fabricating it. Pro/e pretty much makes you do it this way. I also teach Solidworks and Pro/e at the local technical college. I am not an "expert" at either, but my knowledge of the 2 programs and my design capablities are very credible. When comparing the 2, solidworks is like a fisher price toy.

would you clarify your viewpoint for me in respect of a) what things you design b) what aspects of SW you think are limited thanks

capabilities

backtracking

I've use Pro/E and UG in support of industrial design in computers, motorcycle accessories, and consumer products. I currently use SW and have been for three years.

Pro/E "pros" ?Pro/E's sheet metal design package is far superior. ?SW has no ability to explicitly control curvature continuity for splines or surfaces. This is a biggie in I.D. IMHO, this is the biggest stumbling block in the path of SW becoming a true competitor to Pro/E. ?Just try making a variable pitch helix or variable diameter spring in SW. (I've done it, but it was tough). ?"Variable Section Sweeps" absolutely rock.

Pro/E "cons" ?Yes, Pro/E demands that you fully constrain EVERYTHING in a sketch. This is pointless. ?Pro/E is like a government bureaucrat when it comes to filling in blanks to make features. ?I despise PTC's business practices and hate the idea of giving them $$$. ?UG totally outperforms Pro/E. Pro/E let's you play doctor; UG lets you play God.

It's not about the CAD program. It's about the design. If your tool's lack of capability is causing you to compromise your designs, you have the wrong tool.

"TheTick" wrote ... "It's not about the CAD program. It's about the design. If your tool's lack of capability is causing you to compromise your designs, you have the wrong tool."

That's it in a nutshell.

"Rocko" wrote.... "I was going to stay out of this little debate till your fisher price ....."

Didn't need to be said that way, for sure.

"Pro-E let there advanced surfacing be sold in an inside job to some former managers at Pro-E."

Refering to ICEM? Regardless, I think it could be said that SW surfacing isn't up to par with what's available in Foundation at present. ???

"On top of that they have been slowly crippling the main package to compete price wise and like someone said earlier, you need the add ons to do any complicated industrial design."

That is definitely debatable.

"I think what people are trying to get across is dollar for dollar SW blows Pro-E out of the water."

I don't agree, but would like to hear more about why you think so.

=====================================

We all must be engineers.

"The glass is too large"

This is referencing the Wildfire Foundation Package only. Pro-E doesnt have any stress analysis out of the box like CosmosXpress in SW. Pro-E doesnt have and edge on SW in Surfacing in this version Pro-E doesnt have 2d associative process sheets in assembly mode Pro-E doesnt have configuration capabilities Pro-E Sheet metal capabilities are limited.

"Rocko" wrote... "This is referencing the Wildfire Foundation Package only."

Foundation is (currently) Foundation Advantage.

"Pro-E doesnt have any stress analysis out of the box like CosmosXpress in SW."

Does FEA come with basic SW? (Don't know; asking.) I believe that there is a new package "Flex Advantage" that will give you an option of going with Dynamic Analysis (MDO; MDX, or kinematic comes with the basic package) or Mechanica Stress. I don't know if that's part or assy (assume assy) and don't know what it costs.

"Pro-E doesnt have and edge on SW in Surfacing in this version"

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. To be honest I don't really know SW surfacing at all well, but I chose WF (Pro/Surface is stock) because it appeared that it did have an edge from the evals I did. I'm quite happy with it so far, though still use Rhino, which I've had, for some surface work.

"Pro-E doesnt have 2d associative process sheets in assembly mode"

Don't know.

"Pro-E doesnt have configuration capabilities"

Family tables, flexible components, simplified reps?

"Pro-E Sheet metal capabilities are limited."

I can't really say as the SM I do is aviation related so don't use the stock functions. Hearsay would lead me to investigate further, though.

Thanks. I'm not out to sell the package, just trying to become a little better informed.

-----------------------------------

"The glass is too large"

I like it. 8~)

unimpressed.