Change from 2d to 3D models 1

[trithis]

We are a aerospace sheet metal house that is using Microcadum 2d software to develope all of our flat pattern and lofting data. We want to go to solid modeling for the sheet metal, I use Catia V-5 for mechanical part modeling i.e. forgings, castings. How well does Catia aerospace sheet metal package work? We are looking at SolidWorks also but are not sure, SW does look much more intuitive to use and learn than Catia.

Any input is valuable

Thank you

 

[ferdo]

Hi,

First of all, I think is better to put your thread in CATIA products forum.

In my opinion, CATIA is the best choice for aerospace industry. Most of the companies involved in aircraft industry use this software for their designs (including 3D models).

You are right about SolidWorks but I think you should take in consideration what software is used in this industry.


Regards
Fernando

 

[trithis]

Hi Ferdo,

Thanks for the reply, I put the thread in the aerospace forum because I was wanting input from people in that sector and was trying to avoid to much Catia bias.

I agree on using the software most used in the industry but, we do not get cad files from our customers, we generate all of our own data from paper prints or from old mylars. We also design most of our forming tools in-house. This is a big change over for us and we need to look at all of our options, and again thanks for the input.

Larry

 

[ferdo]

Hi again,

TheTick gives you the right answer on the SW forum. I have the same opinion like him.

I can use both softwares and, in my opinion, CATIA is the best choice for the aerospace.

On the other hand, SW have a special module for molds which is very easy to use. As I remember CATIA have also a special module for molds (this is your primary concern?).

I can suggest to you to discuss with those companies (dealers?) who can make some demonstrations at your company headquarter with these two softwares, probably the best choices you can done.

Regards
Fernando

 

[swertel]

Solid Edge is a mainstream package comporable to Solid Works. It's big brother is UG (Unigraphics) and is interoperable between the two. Most automotive companies use UG, but I know that many aerospace companies are also. You need a high end package, UG or CATIA, to handle your surfaces. Other than that, a mainstream package should suffice.

If your customers are using CATIA, I would look into CATIA. CATIA translation is difficult and trying to be interoperable using a system other than CATIA may lead to communication problems and inefficiencies in your workflows.


--Scott

For some pleasure reading, the Round Table recommends FAQ731-376

 

[yuvraj]

I have used Flatpattren and Unfold tools in Catia 4 at Boeing. These tools are very flexible and easy to use. Since you are in aerospace industry, you might able to get help from Boeing,

 

[Airplaneandy]

CATIA V5 is not able to compete with V 4.2; Sales people may not agree....I have had excellent results using CATIA V4.2"FLAT PATTERN and FOLD UP" functions at BOEING Wichita. After creating the sheet metal 3D model I was able to create flat pattern drawings that were directly used to support a NC application that could manufacture my 3D part with tolerance quality in the range of 0.002 accuracy both in profile and angular dimensions. The problem with industry is they are enticed by a cheaper software acquisition to be cost completitive without a hands on knowlage of what really works from the drawing board to the final inspected product. Sheet metal products are not as simple as the simple minded smucks that are responsible for getting the end product out the door "ON SCHEDULE"Respectfully: Andrew Griifth (33,000 HR on CATIA)
<airplaneany@yahoo.com>

 

[JSlippy]

Don't be cheap and buy a tool that doesn't do the job (SW). We have been using SW for designing an aircraft, but are getting ready to move to CATIA or UG. Early leaders in our organization thought it would be good to save some money and use a cheaper CAD package. Then, when it wouldn't flatten lofted surfaces correctly (as well as other things it can't do), we got one seat of CATIA to flatten parts. Now we are deciding to upgrade to the proper tools. The moral of the story is: you can pay for it up front (known cost) or pay for it with schedule and engineering dollars (unknown cost) later. From what I know, probably you would be best served with CATIA, especially if your clients use it. It could be that then you could begin to use your clients' solid models and save yourself a truckload of time translating. (Yes, it's a big jump from 2d, paper and mylar, but probably would be worth it.)

 

[knobhead]

The big test is just give each of your shortlisted software companies one of your jobs to do, and have them come to your place and model it in front of you from cold, without having seen the job before.

It's amazing how many software houses will confidently make claims about what they can do, until you say 'off y'go then..'



Excessive accuaracy is a sign of poor breeding. -Socrates.

 

[trithis]

Thanks for all of the advice every one, so far SW has not been able to come thru on the test cad projects that we have sent them, but they are getting better as we work thru problems. We already have 2 seats of Catia V-5, the problem is the learning curve, Catia is not for every cad user. Finding Catia guys can be a difficult task also. Again thanks for the input on the subject, using this forum has been very helpful in our search process, the comments that we get from this forum get put directly to the sales people from the software houses.

Larry

 

[jackk]

Larry...

I know at least 5 people with good CATIA V5 skills and aerospace backgrounds. They're looking for jobs. Where are you located? Has your company posted jobs on the web?

.... Jack