Considering buying Solid Edge - some questions 9

[pkelecy]

My company is considering buying a seat of Solid Edge, and I have a couple of questions:

1. How stable is it (honestly)? I ask because I just attended an SE seminar where the guy demoing it bombed his laptop 3 times in 60 mins! He said it was a graphics driver issue. Perhaps. But if I were demoing software to prospective customers, I would make absolutely sure I was using qualified hardware. So I suspect a software problem (especially given it's a new release).

2. We have someone new coming on board who has prior experience with *SolidWorks* (not Solid Edge). How hard would it be for him to make that transition? I've heard they have similar interfaces, so perhaps not too bad. His experience is with an older version (he currently uses Inventor, which we're not considering) - so there with will be some transition for him even with SolidWorks. Just not as much, I expect.

We're also considering SolidWorks, so any feedback on how these two compare would be appreciated also. We design and build electric motors and actuators at our facility. So our needs are pretty basic (at least at this point) - part and small assembly models, prints for fabrication, revisions of existing designs to accommodate new applications or customer needs, etc. I'm sure either package will work. Ease of use, stability, good support when we need it -those are really the main factors. We tend to have more work than time so we're looking for a tool that will make us the most productive.

Thanks for any feedback on this. I appreciate it. -Pat

 

[swertel]

Bhaveshn,

1) If I interpret your definition of a full round, then yes it is possible in SE to do. I would need to see an example in order to compare directly, though.

2) This one is very specific and hard to comment on without knowledge of both packages. You are correct that you can't go into a drawing view and spin it around like a 3D window. That's because SE does not throw a viewport to the model in draft. SE actually projects the model onto the drawing view and creates lines/arcs/etc. This is a very powerful feature in SE because it allows for the draft file to be independent of the model so when I send a draft file to a customer or vendor, I don't need to send the model file along with it. The draft file will remain intact.

3) I can scale and mirror a part in SE. Not quite sure exactly what you're trying to do.

4) SE doesn't create reference axis like SW does every time I create a cylindrical object. That's very nice for clarity of the model. If you need the axis, just pick the cylindrical surface and the axis should be implied.

5) Because of the way models are projected onto the drawing per number 2 above, I can modify any linetype of any edge on the drawing however I want. I don't quite understand what you see as a limitation.

6) I don't know what you mean by image retrieval. Can you elaborate? Because in SE I can bring in shaded views, I can bring in image files, and I can bring in renderings.

7) SE has all the same assembly relationships as SW. I've connected edges to faces without issue. Do you have an example?

8) I still don't understand why SE does not have a helical curve feature. They have helical surfaces, and helical solids, but not a helical curve. Plenty of work-arounds to get the result I need, but a helical curve feature certainly would be nice.

9) Because SW displays a viewport into the model through the paper (like ACAD paperspace viewports), the dimensions are actually "linked" to the model. Thus, you can click on a dimension and drag it to a new viewport and the dimension will reattach if those edges are visible in the new viewport. Because of item 2 above, that "linking" to the model file does not exist in SE and therefore you can not just drag a dimension from one view to another and have it reattach. Personally, even with SW, I have always found it easier to delete the old and create the new.

10) Nope. Just ordinate dimensions and radial dimensions can be jogged. Thankfully, it is rare that I ever come across a design that requires me to jog a linear dimension. If I do, then most likely my drawing isn't going to be clear anyway so I find a better way to dimension the drawing.

11) SE rounds to the significant figures defined in your dimension style. You have the option of rounding up or down when a "5" is the last sig-fig. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like SW gives you the option to fake your dimensions by utilizing a rounding trick. Why would you want inaccurate dimensions?

12) When would you ever dimension to a dimension line? Shouldn't dimensions be placed to object lines? Personally, I have never in my entire career come across a situation where I had to dimension the location of a dimension. Perhaps an example is necessary because I don't see the reason behind such a feature.

13) I use construction geometry (solids and surfaces) in my parts all the time and have no trouble locating construction geometry relative to my design body. Give an example and we can step you through the process.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[Bhaveshn]

Scott,

Thanks for replying in detail. All 13 points are extracted from my previous threads for which I couldn't get solution. It would be better if we discuss this in same threads. Below is the thread reference numbers.


1. thread562-188496
2. thread562-187770
3. thread562-190577 & 189097
4. thread562-194819
5. thread562-204846
6. thread562-207060
7. thread562-220500
8. thread562-188017
9. thread562-187905
10. thread562-189462
11. thread562-190938
12. thread562-187765
13. thread562-188021

thanks again.

 

[KENAT]

I will back up what others say. Many of us 'fall in love' with our first CAD system, and compare any new system to it.

As such I'm not convinced that someone who's spent a lot of time on SW and then spends some time on SE will actually give an unbiased answer.

I've had users of other CAD systems transitioning to SE come up with all kinds of things it 'can't do' usually I can find a solution or different approach.

The important thing is to focus on the required end result and how to get there, not try to replicate the process of other CAD systems.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[swertel]

Bh, give me some time and I'll get to as many of those as I can within their respective threads.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

swertel,

Most of those threads have been inactive for over 6 months and consequently have been closed.

 

[Bhaveshn]

Hi Kenat,

Above stated threads are not based on any software, but I came across it when trying to achieve end result.

We should take one thread as an example instead of beating around bush.

thread562-188496
Full round blend

Try to achieve attached in any SE V20 or older.
Any method can be valid unless you have to write macro or use of third party add-in.

Thanks

 

[Bhaveshn]

Hi Swertel,

You can always continue on closed thread by adding reference to closed thread number.

Thanks

 

[KENAT]

Bhaveshn, without having the part to work with I can't necessarily answer the question.

One way I've got around similar problems is not to use a rad, but instead to create the protrusion (or swept/lofted protrusion) with the radius.

This may well be a case where SW has an advantage over SE, I don't have a problem contemplating that there may be things other packages do better.

Did you contact GTAC?

Anyway, this is off topic from the OP. Most of those threads are old an closed. If you are relying on this forum as your primary (only?) source of help that may be part of the problem - there are some very experienced users here but they may not have all the answers or have time to explain them to you. Have you contacted SE direct where applicable?

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[teebarr]

Maybe I am missing something but I don't seem to have a problem reproducing the PDF model and driving the rad by x width. SE w ST - trad.
Tony

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

teebarr,

What you are missing (I think) is the situation as described by beacombers post in thread562-188496.

 

[teebarr]

OK, I get it now. No, there is no option for variable radius in SE trad. Interestingly, the function has been added to the ST environment (along with blended fillets and blended surfaces). However, once applied, I can find no way to update it parametrically. eg if the wall width changes. Maybe someone knows better.

So I would say it is there but limited in functionality.
Tony

 

[beachcomber]

In addition to Swertel's reply -

1. The full round as described is a fillet tangential to 3 faces. The example I gave was a triangular rib on a casting. If the sides have a draft angle then the top face of the rib will taper in width. Thus the full rad fillet has to vary along the edges of the face, and the flat top face will be completely removed. This is not directly possible in SE, although it can be approximated by 2 varying rad fillets.

5. Edit the dimension style, or create a new dimension style called "Detail View", set the properties as described in the thread and use dimension style mapping. The idea of having dimension styles is to ensure consistent drafting standards. If your standard requires something different you can change it.

6. Sketches are displayable in drawing views, as are construction elements, co-ordinate systems, ref planes & centre lines. However, an image (bmp,jpg) pasted onto a sketch in a part will not display in a draft. The image can be pasted directly into draft.

7. Assembly 'Mates' may differ a bit in SE but I can't recall not being able to position anything. Using the term 'Mates' for all constraints is a SW thing. A MATE in SE is a face-to-face planar constraint.
One thing SW doesn't have is the ability to lock a cylindrical relationship. Another constraint has to be applied.
There may also be a performance issue in SW where it begins to slow down when there are about 300 constraints in an assembly.

11. Being able to round-off dimensions to the nearest 0.5 would be nice, but if you show a dim to 1dp then it should show the correctly rounded value.

12. Always dimension to model elements, not centre lines etc.
Sometimes this isn't possible so I create points etc in the view that are then constrained to the draft elements.

and......

14. REVISION MANAGER - As far as I know, SW has nothing out of the box to compare with it's power for copying, renaming and replacing files. You would probably need PDMWorks. Make sure you try Rev manager and understand it. get a good demo of it.

15. In SE, open drawings with drawing views 'inactive'. This method stops SE from checking back to the model when opening the drawing, thus draft file opening times are drastically reduced for complex assemblies. You can then add dims, notes, print etc.

16. 'Cosmetic threads' - I never did understand this term because SE just creates a threaded hole or you tell it a cylinder has a thread on it , but I always found SW gave problems depicting threads on drawings - sometimes they worked, sometimes not. I've had instances where some holes in a pattern showed the thread but others didn't. It took several attempts and feature re-creations to correct it.
SE just shows them - always.

17. In SE hiding a part in an assembly model, then saving the model, will not hide it in the drawing - that really bugged me when I used SW.

18. SE Capture Fit - save the constraints required to position a part permanently to the part file OR just for the current work session.

19. Transfer or Disperse parts - discrete commands so no danger of dragging and dropping one part into another assembly in the assembly tree.

20. In assembly, select some parts and "Show Only" - this was not available in SW when I used it.

I'm sure we could all go on comparing, but the fact is they are essentially the same, but differ in detail.
A few things you can do in one, but not in the other.



bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[beachcomber]

From the forum --------
"Is SW 09 the most unstable version yet, or is it me?"
thread559-228862

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

That question gets asked every year. There's just no pleasing some people.

 

[pkelecy]

Interesting responses to Bhaveshn's list.

swertel -I especially appreciate your point-by-point response, and beachcomber -your list of SE only features. Just shows they have different ways of doing things, and unique capabilities to support that.

I have no doubt SE (or SW) will work fine for our needs, despite any feature differences. I expect it will mainly come down to which seems easier to use when modeling *our* parts and assemblies (not the demos). ST may be the tie breaker if everything else is comparable.

I expect any stability differences will also come out. At least that's been my experience, as new users have this habit of clicking the wrong buttons and using the software in ways not intended. Some of these applications are amazingly easy to crash in the wrong hands. ;^)

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

beachcomber,

I'm honestly not trying to start a "mine's better than yours" war. No-one wins those. I agree 100% with your "they are essentially the same, but differ in detail" statement. So just an FYI for your additional points.

14) "SolidWorks Explorer" has been doing this for several versions.

15) SW drawings can be opened in "Lightweight" (only basic solid info loaded for performance boost, but edits affect the model) or "Detached" (big performance boost, edits are applied only when re-attached).

16) Agreed it's flakey visually, but usually comes down to user settings. Too many options affect it. The hole callout data is always(?) correct though.

17) Haven't experienced that.

18) Not sure, but the "Use for positioning only" option sounds about right. The mate is used to position the part but is not permanently applied.

19) SE method sounds better. SW uses visual move/copy/insert indicators controlled by key combination selection.

20) An "Isolate" function has been added to do that.

 

[beachcomber]

Thanks CBL, the version I used was 2006 so I expected these points may have been addressed.
Just shows that each is playing catch-up with the other - if only we could combine the two......

pkelecy..
"Some of these applications are amazingly easy to crash in the wrong hands" -------- how true.
One tip here though, there are things that require a double-click in SW but only a single click in SE (editing a dim in sketch springs to mind) - that does tend to drive you nuts if you change from one to the other.
By the way, any reason for not trying Inventor, or have I missed that somewhere?


bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

"- if only we could combine the two......"

... but then we'd have nothing to argue about discuss.

Oh right, Inventor.

 

[beachcomber]

I think this has been a really interesting thread.
It's certainly made me wrack my brains thinking of how things work in SE and trying to jog the memory back a couple of years to SW (not an easy task these days).
Let's hope it's also been useful to pkelecy, and given him some hints on what to look for.

I once took part in an evaluation exercise for a new CAD system for a very large, mulit-national company. Part way through we were told by the 'higher decision makers' that we could evaluate any system we liked, but that it was going to be Catia (V4) !!

And they still carried on with the evaluation.
........ but only evaluated Catia.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[PatCouture]

pkelecy

You seem to handle your search pretty well so far... In giving each software his own evaluation you will give yourself as much information as possible to take a good decision.

I don't know if you got demos from your VAR for each software, but it would be a good opportunity to test your VAR as well. Even with two comparable products you could be amazed how big a difference the user behind the keyboard can make, so send example of what kind of parts (Products) you are doing and ask each VAR to come back two or three days after that to show you how to model them. Not only will you see how well the software can work for you but you will also see which VAR will be able to help you the best in being as productive as possible. You can see that as an interview of your VAR because in the long term you may well need him and it's usefull to have a great service when you need to get the job done.

My 2 cents.

Patrick