which should i purchase solidworks 2004 or solidedge 14


- Otherwise there would be one less competitor to show how bad SolidWorks approach to surfacing really is. ;>)
jon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A product that has a far superior approach to surfacing than SolidWorks.
http://www.solidedge.com/solutions/consumer_products/consumer_industry_solid_edge_brochure7.pdf
"Solid Edge shatters the barriers of traditional modeling systems, combining the flexibility of nonhistory based modelers that appeal to industrial designers with the engineering benefits of a history-based approach. While the history-based paradigm makes perfect sense for solid modeling, it creates unnecessary complications when it comes to complex shape design. In contrast, non-history-based modelers provide a more flexible modeling method, but at the expense of automating the update of related model elements - a key drawback in modeling stylized parts which often require a significant number of iterations. An industry first, Rapid Blue unites the advantages of each of these respective modeling technologies. Unique to Solid Edge, BlueDots provide a flexible system in which the order curves are created places no restrictions on editing, yet provides all the benefits of properly updating related geometry when changes are made."
"Unsurpassed flexibility Industrial design is, by nature, a creative process that involves a great deal of editing as designs evolve. Curves are the foundation for all shape modeling, and it is critically important that they are able to represent the desired shape and be highly flexible in their editing. Recognizing this, Rapid Blue provides unique "shape-preserving" curves, which encapsulate in their behavior the ability to preserve their general shape characteristics such that your original design intent is built into each curve. For example, if a curve is convex along its entire length (as many consumer product designs main faces are) it will remain convex through all but the most extreme edits. As a result, you save significant time when creating and editing designs using shape-preserving curves, and experience less fatigue and frustration as Solid Edge automates an otherwise highly tedious process. "
"Evaluate more ideas in less time Engineers and designers all design in an iterative manner, and this is truer in industrial design than anywhere else. Because the style of the part is a key component, you explore many more alternatives. And the subjective element of industrial design calls for the ability to make changes with continual feedback of the results. With the Dynamic Edit capabilities of Rapid Blue, you can edit your designs and see the results instantly as you drag your cursor on the screen. All design intent and history is preserved, and the graphics update on every mouse move. This unique Solid Edge feature means that more iterations can be tried in a shorter time, improving product quality and acceptance. For the first time, you can now interactively tweak highlight lines and see the effects on all downstream rounds, fillets and blends."
"Your designs typically evolve over time, particularly given input from the various players as they see the design progress. For example, after review, it may be decided that more flair is needed in one area of the product - a change that can only be achieved by swapping a simple arc for a more flexible curve. With traditional systems, this would require a significant amount of rework, including having to manually repair the history tree if the change is severe. In contrast, Rapid Blue presumes that change is necessary, and that starting simple and adding further control later is a valuable workflow."
"Convert to Curve and BlueSurf are two key technologies enabling a truly iterative workflow. Convert to Curve allows analytic elements, such as lines and arcs, to be converted to NURBS with a single click. With no loss of shape data, the elements become editable curves. Even more importantly, this conversion does not destroy the downstream work that has been completed. BlueSurf acknowledges and accommodates the inevitable increase in control required as designs progress. BlueSurf is the only technology in the industry to incorporate sweep, loft, and blend into a single simple- to-use command. So, when appropriate, that initial simple sweep can be made more elaborate without having to manually repair the feature tree."
jon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Adrian,
Based on what you said,..
IronCad or Inovate (cheaper version) http://ironcad.com
Pro/DESKTOP (free or pay for the $1K support) http://www.prodesktop.net /
Alibre http://www.alibre.com /
...either are very good, inexpensive and will mature.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Adrian,
"I'm looking for a cad system for my machine shop. Most of the parts are simple(involve tap,drill, facing, pocketing), occasionally we get some complicated parts). But not too difficult that we can't handle them."
You need to be more specific.
How much of your business is receiving solid models from other CAD/CAM systems ???
How much will you be drawing from scratch ???
"Basically what i'm looking for in a cad system is: 1.something that is easy to learn 2.will work on winxp"
That requirement can be met by almost all CAD/CAM systems at present.
"I'm not planning on getting the maintenance package for any potential cad system, that we do decided to purchase, since i'm only buying 1 license. And were a small machine shop."
This is typical of the approach that many small machining job shops take.
A question for you. Do you understand *why* IronCAD is being recommended vs. SolidEdge or SolidWorks ??? There are some very important concepts to be understood behind the recommendation for IronCAD and why IronCAD (and other CAD/CAM systems not mentioned yet.) have a *far superior approach* for a machine shop working with imported non-native geometry than SolidWorks or SolidEdge.
jon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hi everyone, thanks for all your replies. I'm definetly going to take a look at alibre.
To answer some of your questions.. Most of the drawings i get are 2d *.dwg autocad files, which i then import into mastercam. Mastercam is a great cam package but i think it lacks in the cad department especially when i have to create complex surfaces.
When the part shows some surfaces, i then take the 2d file and create a 3d part and the round surfaces that need to be machined.
Sometimes the customer will send me an iges file, which helps me alot, since i don't have to create the part of mastercam. all i have to do is the toolpaths.
Yeah so to answer your questions 90% of the files i recieve are *.dwg while the remaining 10% are iges files.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@fastmail.fm (adrian) writes:

Then why not get AutoCad and the IGES option?
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Perhaps because AutoCad is old, dull and expensive? And above all - it's Autodesk!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But for this need it might be the best answer ... and he may already have it but just lacks the IGES translator bit.
The data you are working with and where it comes from is important, as is your end result.
As he's machining things I doubt he needs a parametric modeler to try design iterations. ALL he probably needs is a way to work (well) with the data from his customers, who seem to use AutoCad .... and then transfer the data to MasterCam IIRC <shrug>.
Is AutoCad so much more expensive than SW?
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

....and if he does buy AutoCAD, he still does not get the surfacing he needs !!!
Once again... why would anyone want to deal with Autodesk if they did not have to. Based on what Adrian has posted, I see no reason that he has to.
jon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You again don't have a clue. Perhaps someone else here does.

No classes or support <snicker>?

You can never see much except what someone else posted you can later repeat and claim as your own words/ideas.
--
Cliff Huprich


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well recently i got a dwg for mold i had to machine, and mastercam was unable to create complex surfaces. So i think i need a good cad package that can let me create complex parts or molds easily.
Can autocad do this?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. Surfacing in base AutoCAD sucks. It's so bad that Rhino (www.rhino3d.com) originally was planned as an AutoCAD add-in.
jon

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AutoCad (specifically, Adesk in general) is at the bottom of the barrel for such things. Just a bit of speculation if you consider the software purchase a long term investment; Inventor's dwg support is so abysmal one would think Adesk is trying to kill the dwg legacy themselves. In a very few years ... who knows.
=====================

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you ask the people who gave you the dwg if they could give you the solid or surfaces? I would think that translating the surfaces would be much easier and higher quality than building them yourself.
Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ofcourse i did, i would rather do "the least amount of work" that i could possibly do. Unfortunately this specific client only has autocad. And also we get the most amount of work from him.
One of our other clients has Pro/E, so all his part files are iges 3d files, and much easier to work with since i just have to create the toolpaths in mastercam.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"One of our other clients has Pro/E, so all his part files are iges 3d files, and much easier to work with since i just have to create the toolpaths in mastercam."
If you go with IronCAD they license the PTC Granite One kernel so you don't have to go the IGES route. IGES is the least desirable way to import anything.
Further, IronCAD has the best integration with Rhino of *any* CAD/CAM package. Also from what I'm told IronCAD 7.0 will have major surfacing capabilities added to it. On top of all this, IronCAD offers far better editing of imported geometry and because of this IronCAD does not even bother with a FeatureWorks type of product.
jon

solid
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Except the fact that it's MasterCam that creates the toolpaths, not IronCad...
And the best alternative must be STEP, not a tiny format as Granite One...
/ Mr Atari

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Care to explain why you feel that CNC Software (MasterCAM) has licensed Granite One if STEP is really the best alternative ???
http://www.mastercam.com/camzone/newszone/GraniteOne.asp
jon

the
much
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Care to explain how IronCad OR Rhino create toolpaths <snicker>?
BTW, *I* don't care how you *feel* (or what).
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Because PTC won't share their native format... that's why...
STEP is standard, try to get that into your head... If MasterCam is bad at translating STEP, that's another story.

3d
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.