solidedge versus solidworks

As far as performance for the kind of work you want to do, you could probably flip a coin. As far as 3rd party solutions that can economically extend the functionality of the software and make its implementation easier you should choose SolidWorks, hands down. And the Visual Basic API makes it highly adaptable. As far as support, SolidWorks is good . . . can't speak about Solid Edge. This newsgroup, however, is free. Solid Edge's forum is for paying subscribers only.

I DO have issues with SolidWorks Corp continuing "strategy" of releasing software long before it's ready for prime time. Just recently, with the release of Service Pack 2.1 is there pretty universal justification to move to SolidWorks 2004 (I'm not saying there was no justification previously -- just not universal justification). And SW2004 was released WHEN? (They should be ashamed.)

Mark 'Sporky' Staplet>

We do consumer packaging (thermoforming) and we use solidworks. What specific questions do you have?

Solidworks support multiple configurations of parts and assemblies, SE does not! UG does have support, but it is an add-on package called "Fission" or "Fusion". If you may ever require this function in your solid modeler as is, then there is only one choice.

Keith

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Solid Edge DOES support configurations at least for assemblies. I don't know whether they take a similar approach to SolidWorks enabling assemblies and parts to be controlled by spreadsheet-type design tables, but at least I think your blanket statement is probably not entirely correct, if it's correct at all.

Mark 'Sporky' Staplet>

Sporkma is right, SE does support configurations. I (have) work(ed) with both and both have there strong points. Try to figure out what your suppliers or customers use. because exchange is still a big issue.

Bert

"Sporkman" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@bigfootDOT.com...

I am only replying what I was told via an UG salesman at the Machine and Design show one year ago in Chicago. They attempted to move me to UG with this add-on for that technology. If SE now has those tools in a newer release or if a value added support company has that functionality for sale, that is good for both SE and SW. When a competing software company does something better than your company, the better tools and functionality tend to become the norm.

Keith

A colleague of mine has a favourite saying that "The difference between a used-car salesman and a software salesman is that the used-car guy knows when he's bullshi++ing ..."

The point about data exchange is, however, a very valid one. Using the software your customer(s) use guarantees feature-level exchange of data (within compatible versions etc.) That said, there is always an argument for only sending them a 'dumb' file, to ensure that you keep control over the history!

BTW, Solid Edge is advancing rapidly in the complex surfacing arena, and has just announced its Mold Design extension at NDES in Chicago. We bought 2 licences of Think-3 a couple of years back for its free- form surfacing capabilities, but never got to use the damn' thing (just couldn't get started with it). The new RapidBlue surfacing tools intro- duced in SEv14 meet all our needs, and local toolrooms tell us that the data output is very 'clean' when input to CAM.

R.H. (Rick) Mason MASCO Design Services Pty Ltd Oyster Bay NSW Australia

Hi,

I am not clear of SolidEdge. I think SolidWorks 2004 is better than Pro/E in designing ability with surface enhancement and multi-solid ability.

For metal shi+, hehe, ability, SW is a little weak than Pro/E but it is enough for most most work.

I heard that EDS would like to sell UG and SolidEdge, and UG do not pay more attention to SolidEdge.

Regards,

Raymond