My Company has been using Autodesk for a number of years. A handful of us are using Mechanical Desktop 2005 and the rest use ACAD 2D 2005. Since MDT is fading away, we are undecided whether or/not to pursue training in Inventor or some other 3D Package (at a lower cost/seat). We have a large archive history of ACAD files that must be maintained as legacy data. Has anybody been down this path that could share some insight on the various software packages out there? Pros and Cons of each against Autodesk as a bench mark? Thanks for you Help!
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
3D CAD Packages 11
- Thread starter g1a1
- Start date
-
1
- #2
Almost any 3D CAD will be much better than 3D ACAD. This is not a slam against them, just that they have no need to invest in proper 3D because they are the defacto standard 2D, why should they bother.
I've worked three places undergoing change (two of which I was involved in the decision process) in one case we had so much 2D data in ME10 format that OneSpaceModeler made much more sense. Both the other cases went to Solidworks (one without my input.)
Solidworks is an excellent 3D feature-based modeler. It does have a slight learning curve, but this is mostly learning to deal with manipulating linked files (which you may already have experience with in Inventor...) Look into this first, then pursue more expensive modelers if you require more powerful 3D features. (I don't think you will if you are using ACAD files now...)
I've worked three places undergoing change (two of which I was involved in the decision process) in one case we had so much 2D data in ME10 format that OneSpaceModeler made much more sense. Both the other cases went to Solidworks (one without my input.)
Solidworks is an excellent 3D feature-based modeler. It does have a slight learning curve, but this is mostly learning to deal with manipulating linked files (which you may already have experience with in Inventor...) Look into this first, then pursue more expensive modelers if you require more powerful 3D features. (I don't think you will if you are using ACAD files now...)
-
2
- #3
Whatever you choose make sure you have computers or are willing to buy computers that can run the graphics. There is nothing more frustrating than waiting 5 minutes for a regen.
I was with a company that went with Unigraphics after a long legacy with AutoDesk. We did the new designs in Unigraphics with a small group of engineers and did all the legacy and mods with AutoCad. If I remember the Unigraphics computers ran about 20k. They tried to run it on standard computers but gave up because it was so slow once you got a few parts in the assembly.
Barry1961
I was with a company that went with Unigraphics after a long legacy with AutoDesk. We did the new designs in Unigraphics with a small group of engineers and did all the legacy and mods with AutoCad. If I remember the Unigraphics computers ran about 20k. They tried to run it on standard computers but gave up because it was so slow once you got a few parts in the assembly.
Barry1961
-
1
- #4
From what I have heard, Inventor is no better with dealing with AutoCAD legacy files than the next software option, so don't think just because Inventor is from AutoDesk, it will be a smoother transition.
Training in regards to using 3D solid modeling software instead of AutoCAD or MDT will be the biggest hurdle. Many people that make the same switch as you have a hard time in resisting the urge to make their new software have the same exact workflow as what they are accustomed to. Embrace your new software and get to know that it is more powerful than 2D, it just has a different method to get to the same result.
And as pointed out, also factor in the cost of upgrading your current computers; new video cards (professional grade) and more memory (1gb min) for starters. 3D programs are more resource intensive than 2D.
I don’t want to sound like a SolidWorks vendor either, but we made the jump from AutoCAD to SolidWorks (22 seats) in 1997 and have been very pleased with that decision.
[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Training in regards to using 3D solid modeling software instead of AutoCAD or MDT will be the biggest hurdle. Many people that make the same switch as you have a hard time in resisting the urge to make their new software have the same exact workflow as what they are accustomed to. Embrace your new software and get to know that it is more powerful than 2D, it just has a different method to get to the same result.
And as pointed out, also factor in the cost of upgrading your current computers; new video cards (professional grade) and more memory (1gb min) for starters. 3D programs are more resource intensive than 2D.
I don’t want to sound like a SolidWorks vendor either, but we made the jump from AutoCAD to SolidWorks (22 seats) in 1997 and have been very pleased with that decision.
[green]"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."[/green]
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
-
1
- #5
GregLocock
Automotive
Big warning: I've done the tutorials and very limited work on ProE, SW and Ideas. So my perspective is not that of a power user, more like basic training +20-40 hours of experience with each.
SW is the easiest to get productive on and the least frustrating to use for an AutoCAD user, but all 3 do require a different (manufacturing based) mindset. That is, you get the best results by imagining trying to machine the thing rather than by applying weird geometrical transformations to a 2d plan, which is sort of how Autocad thinks about things. If you are designing injection moulded parts you may find the Ideas 'tool' concept especially useful - the others probably have that, ie the ability to subtract one part from another, but I've only used it in Ideas.
My preference for SW may be shaded by the order I used them in, SW was the last therefore I may have been more familiar with the whole 3d modelling thing by then.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
SW is the easiest to get productive on and the least frustrating to use for an AutoCAD user, but all 3 do require a different (manufacturing based) mindset. That is, you get the best results by imagining trying to machine the thing rather than by applying weird geometrical transformations to a 2d plan, which is sort of how Autocad thinks about things. If you are designing injection moulded parts you may find the Ideas 'tool' concept especially useful - the others probably have that, ie the ability to subtract one part from another, but I've only used it in Ideas.
My preference for SW may be shaded by the order I used them in, SW was the last therefore I may have been more familiar with the whole 3d modelling thing by then.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
-
1
- #6
I do find it strange that people offer advise on what is the best package given the limited information you offer.
For example will you be working predominantly with solids, as has been described almost “machining” away from a solid shape or working mainly with something like body panels where most of the work is done with skins and wire frame? How complex are the parts you will need to model?
Are you working with data from a customer and if so what formats do you receive it in? For example catia will import into most/ all systems but none I know of bring everything in, does that matter to you? Others have said about upgrading PC’s personally I would not even consider going to the lowest recommended specs unless you do only very small and simple assemblies, do factor that into the cost.
Obviously from what you have said how a system handles DWG is important to you.
The only advice I would offer is get a demonstration on as many systems as possible and always make them do it on real life parts using the data you will use, do not let them do some slick presentation where all the faults have been ironed out, no one will show you what their system cannot do and once you have purchased it you have the problem. What a system cannot do is nearly always its downfall.
Good luck it is a minefield and a bad choice can cost the company dearly.
For example will you be working predominantly with solids, as has been described almost “machining” away from a solid shape or working mainly with something like body panels where most of the work is done with skins and wire frame? How complex are the parts you will need to model?
Are you working with data from a customer and if so what formats do you receive it in? For example catia will import into most/ all systems but none I know of bring everything in, does that matter to you? Others have said about upgrading PC’s personally I would not even consider going to the lowest recommended specs unless you do only very small and simple assemblies, do factor that into the cost.
Obviously from what you have said how a system handles DWG is important to you.
The only advice I would offer is get a demonstration on as many systems as possible and always make them do it on real life parts using the data you will use, do not let them do some slick presentation where all the faults have been ironed out, no one will show you what their system cannot do and once you have purchased it you have the problem. What a system cannot do is nearly always its downfall.
Good luck it is a minefield and a bad choice can cost the company dearly.
-
1
- #7
I agree with ajack1. To add to that, here is the list of software vendors that you should take a look at, in no particular order.
Solid Edge
Solidworks
Inventor
Alibre
Rhino
Unigraphics/Ideas
CATIA
IronCAD
--Scott
For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376
Solid Edge
Solidworks
Inventor
Alibre
Rhino
Unigraphics/Ideas
CATIA
IronCAD
--Scott
For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376
-
1
- #8
On the internet newsgroups for Inventor & "comp.cad.solidworks", some poor newbie posts the same question every few months or so. What erupts is a ferocious "mine is better than yours, you bleeping idiot" kind of discussion. You should check into those to help with your decision. No matter what, once you go solid you'll never go back to 2D except where 2D is the best choice (floorplans, etc.)
As mentioned above, you need to educate yourself as to what it is you really need (solids versus surfacing or a mixture of the two). Also it involves the quantity of parts in an assembly. Inventor, SW, etc are typically classified as "mid-range" solid modellers and I hear people complaining of performance problems when they get into the 1000-5000 part count regime. Then the bigger packages like CATIA and Unigraphics tend to be the ticket.
These packages are generally sold through resellers and the good ones will give you a 30-day demo for free. I have experience with ACAD, MDT, Inventor, & SolidWorks. I have migrated over to Alibre now because it's a pretty decent package for the price and because of company funding limits. Alibre is inexpensive enough where your company could purchase a seat to use for the 3D Solid Modelling education exercise. THEN use your knowledge you would gain from that experience to really evaluate the higher cost packages if it was necessary.
TygerDawg
As mentioned above, you need to educate yourself as to what it is you really need (solids versus surfacing or a mixture of the two). Also it involves the quantity of parts in an assembly. Inventor, SW, etc are typically classified as "mid-range" solid modellers and I hear people complaining of performance problems when they get into the 1000-5000 part count regime. Then the bigger packages like CATIA and Unigraphics tend to be the ticket.
These packages are generally sold through resellers and the good ones will give you a 30-day demo for free. I have experience with ACAD, MDT, Inventor, & SolidWorks. I have migrated over to Alibre now because it's a pretty decent package for the price and because of company funding limits. Alibre is inexpensive enough where your company could purchase a seat to use for the 3D Solid Modelling education exercise. THEN use your knowledge you would gain from that experience to really evaluate the higher cost packages if it was necessary.
TygerDawg
Another thing worth considering is what do you actually produce?
If it just pieces of paper then the system will only matter how well it does that. Do you produce models that are used either in house or by supplier to machine to?
Are castings or such like made from your models, is milling data gained from them, laser cutting wire cutting and the like?
If it is done in house how compatible is each system to your CNC programs, you could save or create many hours of work, if any goes to your suppliers what can they use, if your “new” system is not compatible, will you lose them or are you big enough to make them tow the line? Could you be creating more problems than you solve?
If it just pieces of paper then the system will only matter how well it does that. Do you produce models that are used either in house or by supplier to machine to?
Are castings or such like made from your models, is milling data gained from them, laser cutting wire cutting and the like?
If it is done in house how compatible is each system to your CNC programs, you could save or create many hours of work, if any goes to your suppliers what can they use, if your “new” system is not compatible, will you lose them or are you big enough to make them tow the line? Could you be creating more problems than you solve?
-
2
- #11
There is no amount of research or number of demos that will tell you how well a particular package will work for your own parts. I would suggest meeting with several different vendors, ask questions, watch demos, and narrow the field down to 2 or 3. Then send a different person to a 1 week basic training class for each of the software packages. Get a free trial for each of the software packages as tygerdawg suggested, and use them to model your own parts. Base you decision on how well each performs for you own requirements.
This may seem a little bit expensive and possibly a little extreme, but when you consider the investment you are going to make in software and hardware upgrades, and what it will cost to switch if you pick the wrong software package, it is a small price to pay.
This may seem a little bit expensive and possibly a little extreme, but when you consider the investment you are going to make in software and hardware upgrades, and what it will cost to switch if you pick the wrong software package, it is a small price to pay.
I've recently been through what you're going through, and what immediately come to mind is "Better you than me!" No, I'm only joking. Seriously, there are a lot of things to consider. How big is your company? How much can you afford? How many seats do you need? How heavily do you plan to use the software? What I did was get a 30 day trial from all of the big hitters listed above, and play around with them for a while. They are all just a little bit different, and they all have some bells and whistles that you can't believe you've gone this long without. They will all be an upgrade compared to your current 2D drawing program. They all have their nuances with importing and manipulating legacy designs. It all depends on how you're going to play with it. Talk to the shops and customers that you deal with the most and make sure whatever you choose will jive with their software.
Alibre is hard to beat for $500 and excellent customer service, but it isn't as idiot-proof as the rest. SolidWorks is fast becomming the industry standard for modelling.
However, all of the advice and anecdotes in the world aren't going to help you too much, since you'll have to do your own retun on investment calculations. But that's the fun part, isn't it?
Hope that helps.
Alibre is hard to beat for $500 and excellent customer service, but it isn't as idiot-proof as the rest. SolidWorks is fast becomming the industry standard for modelling.
However, all of the advice and anecdotes in the world aren't going to help you too much, since you'll have to do your own retun on investment calculations. But that's the fun part, isn't it?
Hope that helps.
geoffthehammer
Mechanical
Eltron says that:
'SolidWorks is fast becomming the industry standard for modelling'
I'm not disagreeing with Eltron but what defines the industry standard? Is it quality and performance or number of seats sold.
How can these - especially quality and performance - be quantified impartially?
'SolidWorks is fast becomming the industry standard for modelling'
I'm not disagreeing with Eltron but what defines the industry standard? Is it quality and performance or number of seats sold.
How can these - especially quality and performance - be quantified impartially?
-
1
- #14
StefanHamminga
Mechanical
We were in a similar situation, though we were a bit less dependend on our autocad drawings. We invited the 2 main CAD players over (Inventor & SolidWorks). We specifically asked them to send professionals.
At the demo we watched for a couple of hours and then started asking things, like "we want to model xxx and yyy, can you do that for us right now?"
As it turned out, the autodesk folks who had by far the most impressive demo (very nice looking models, etc), were really in trouble doing things we asked (moddeling stuff we manufactured).
The solidworks guys on the other hand had a bit of a simlistic demo, but they could model anything we requested...
Lesson learned for us:
Althoug both packages were very capable and the demo's indicated otherwise, the solidworks people were the only ones that could fully support us in moddeling our products.
The choice is not always which software is best...
Stefan Hamminga
Mesken BV
2005 Certified SolidWorks Professional
Mechanical designer/AI student
At the demo we watched for a couple of hours and then started asking things, like "we want to model xxx and yyy, can you do that for us right now?"
As it turned out, the autodesk folks who had by far the most impressive demo (very nice looking models, etc), were really in trouble doing things we asked (moddeling stuff we manufactured).
The solidworks guys on the other hand had a bit of a simlistic demo, but they could model anything we requested...
Lesson learned for us:
Althoug both packages were very capable and the demo's indicated otherwise, the solidworks people were the only ones that could fully support us in moddeling our products.
The choice is not always which software is best...
Stefan Hamminga
Mesken BV
2005 Certified SolidWorks Professional
Mechanical designer/AI student
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
swertel ... another one for your list ... CoCreates One Space (formerly Solid Designer).
![[cheers]](/data/assets/smilies/cheers.gif "[cheers] [cheers]")
Helpful SW websites every user should be aware of faq559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions faq559-1091
Helpful SW websites every user should be aware of faq559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions faq559-1091
triumph406
Aerospace
As a user of a few CAD systems I would recommend UG. A close second might be Cadkey, except that I wouldn't trust the new owners.
The advantage that UG has over most systems is that you
1)can have multiple parts in one file
2) you can work any way you want, want to create just wireframe,fine! Just want to work in surfaces,fine! Want to work in sloids,fine! Want to have wirefarme,solids,surfaces in the same file,fine!
3) parts can be started using a simple wireframe, or a sketch if preffered. You can start a solid using a 2D wireframe, or a surface, and then you can add details to that solid later using skecth based geometry
4)drafting package is excellent, I prefer drafting in Cadkey, but UG is a close second.
5)UG has ahuge range of options that can be added, FEA,NC etc
6) UG is ridiculously expensive, however with some arm twisting UG dealers have been known to drop the price of UG seats dramatically
7) UG has an annoying habit of supplying different builds. The system I use is the P1 design package, I can do drawings, but I can't export 2D drawings. Other peoples packages can.
I would get a dealer to come by and demo the different CAD packages. However make sure that when they demo the product that you make the dealer or demo'ing person deviate from the canned demonstartion. This will show how flexible the package is, also it will tell you how well the dealer knows the package
It doesn't really matter what package you use, once your upto speed and are familiar with the chosen package, they're all pretty good!
Good luck Dave
The advantage that UG has over most systems is that you
1)can have multiple parts in one file
2) you can work any way you want, want to create just wireframe,fine! Just want to work in surfaces,fine! Want to work in sloids,fine! Want to have wirefarme,solids,surfaces in the same file,fine!
3) parts can be started using a simple wireframe, or a sketch if preffered. You can start a solid using a 2D wireframe, or a surface, and then you can add details to that solid later using skecth based geometry
4)drafting package is excellent, I prefer drafting in Cadkey, but UG is a close second.
5)UG has ahuge range of options that can be added, FEA,NC etc
6) UG is ridiculously expensive, however with some arm twisting UG dealers have been known to drop the price of UG seats dramatically
7) UG has an annoying habit of supplying different builds. The system I use is the P1 design package, I can do drawings, but I can't export 2D drawings. Other peoples packages can.
I would get a dealer to come by and demo the different CAD packages. However make sure that when they demo the product that you make the dealer or demo'ing person deviate from the canned demonstartion. This will show how flexible the package is, also it will tell you how well the dealer knows the package
It doesn't really matter what package you use, once your upto speed and are familiar with the chosen package, they're all pretty good!
Good luck Dave
I must say I do find that last post amazing.
One of the things stated is that they are looking for a system at or around Inventor price; even with huge discounts does UG come close to that?
UG and cadkey, as first and second choice based on what? As far as I am aware UG is a top of the range product, up there with Ideas and Catia, and cadkey is a low/ middle end product, am I wrong? They cover two very different markets don’t they?
Without knowing what they will be used for how can you possibly comment on what is best?
I must say I do like the idea of a weeks training on different product, expensive but probably the best way to find out what suits.
It is like me saying I want to buy a new car, which is best? Without knowing if I have any children or how many and do I need to carry them, if I want to use it for offroading or on a race track if MPG is important or luggage space, how can anyone possibly tell me?
Even knowing all that you could still argue long and hard is Ford better than GM, or any other marquee for that matter.
One of the things stated is that they are looking for a system at or around Inventor price; even with huge discounts does UG come close to that?
UG and cadkey, as first and second choice based on what? As far as I am aware UG is a top of the range product, up there with Ideas and Catia, and cadkey is a low/ middle end product, am I wrong? They cover two very different markets don’t they?
Without knowing what they will be used for how can you possibly comment on what is best?
I must say I do like the idea of a weeks training on different product, expensive but probably the best way to find out what suits.
It is like me saying I want to buy a new car, which is best? Without knowing if I have any children or how many and do I need to carry them, if I want to use it for offroading or on a race track if MPG is important or luggage space, how can anyone possibly tell me?
Even knowing all that you could still argue long and hard is Ford better than GM, or any other marquee for that matter.
- Thread starter
- #18
g1a1
I believe you are going to find that SolidWorks is the most logical solution. The DWG editor will allow you to keep legacy DWG's etc. within SolidWorks. Also, it is a very user friendly program, thus, less training time. I taught myself.(with the exception of the 4 day basic training)
I don't work for them, or have any connection, other than I do Product Design and Engineering with SolidWorks. I have found the re-sellers to be a pleasure to deal with, and their tech. support is excellent. You might try to find a user group near you and attend a meeting.
I believe you are going to find that SolidWorks is the most logical solution. The DWG editor will allow you to keep legacy DWG's etc. within SolidWorks. Also, it is a very user friendly program, thus, less training time. I taught myself.(with the exception of the 4 day basic training)
I don't work for them, or have any connection, other than I do Product Design and Engineering with SolidWorks. I have found the re-sellers to be a pleasure to deal with, and their tech. support is excellent. You might try to find a user group near you and attend a meeting.
What kind of products do you design?
What industry do you serve?
Does your product require NC machining to fabricate?
Do you do your own fabrication?
Do you require FEA on your product?
What do your competitors use for CAD?
What do your customers/supplies use?
Get away from the marketing BS and internet biases and look at what the TOOL can do to make your company's product better/faster/cheaper/etc to be and remain competitive in the marketplace.
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
"Fixed in the next release" should replace "Product First" as the PTC slogan.
Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand
What industry do you serve?
Does your product require NC machining to fabricate?
Do you do your own fabrication?
Do you require FEA on your product?
What do your competitors use for CAD?
What do your customers/supplies use?
Get away from the marketing BS and internet biases and look at what the TOOL can do to make your company's product better/faster/cheaper/etc to be and remain competitive in the marketplace.
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
"Fixed in the next release" should replace "Product First" as the PTC slogan.
Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question