From SolidWorks to SE 1

[metman]

Had 2.5 years experience with SolidWorks. About 18 months ago was transferred from engineering to machine shop. As machinist still use SW to 1) Bring up models that have no dwgs to measure the model and make parts/tooling. 2) Sometimes easier to make a quick and dirty dwg using SW. 3) Some tool design.

I enjoy machinist/toolmaking but main education/experience/desire is engineering. I have yet to work out a strategem for transfer back to engineering. It was not my choice to leave that discipline and now we have new engineering and upper management.

Now our company is switching from SW to SE and 1) I don't want to be left in the dust. 2) Need a personal copy for home to persue consulting work. Therefore I am seriously considering purchasing a copy of SE. An evaluation CD was mailed to me today and I will have a month (or two if needed) to evaluate it.

Our lead engineer said that he was told not to try to make it work like SW but just go thru the tutorials.

On a scale of 1-10, how difficult was it for you to acclimate to SE after having used SW for x years?

Please only respond if you are a previous SW user and now an SE user.

Any other comments/suggestions welcome from SW--->SE users.

 

[metman]

Maybe I should be more explicit about the scale of difficulty.

1 = simple as pie
10 = impossible

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

I have used SW for 4+ years and have been using SE over the last 6 months for contract work from home. I have a strong bias toward SW, but I found SE reasonably easy (but very frustrating) to learn & use. Using your scale, I would have to rate the experience a 6 or 7.
SE has some features I would like to se SW incorporate, but overall I find SW more flexible in it's approach to modelling parts.
BTW, SE does allow a "home" copy ... the company I do contract work for have loaned me a copy of SE, complete with dongle for license control. Your company could probably do the same for you.

Just curious, but what on earth possessed your company to switch to SE? I could understand if they were switching from 2D, Alibre, Inventor or similar, but overall there is very little difference between SW & SE in terms of capability or price.

& all the best.

 

[metman]

CorBlimeyLimey,
Our one product is an airplane with large sub-assemblies and of course thousands of parts. Our people have somehow become convinced that SE is a significantly more robust program so that it can handle large files without crashing etc.

Reason two is that SE is supposedly more compatible with other computer programs. for example; we currently use Surfcam to create CNC toolpaths from SW. This process has problems and although our people are sharp enough to overcome these problems it is at the expense of gross inefficiencies at times. UG has a CAM package (heard the name once) that is supposed to give us more seamless correlation from 3D CAD modeling to CAM.

Reason three is that along with multiple seats of SE, we have purchased one seat of UG for developing flat patterns from complex surfaces such as splined curves on airfoils. UG and SE supposedly communicate better than Catia and SW. With SW, we had to use a seat of Catia to develop flat patterns for anything except extremely simple sheet metal shapes with lots of finegleing(sp?) back and forth between SW and Catia.

Reason four is that we have not received the support that we need from SW. SE has promised us better support.

I am like you wr2 the intuitiveness of SW. I like using it very much but the limitations of developing flat patterns from anything but the simplist of shapes is frustrating. Is SE better at this?

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Neither SW nor SE (to my knowledge) can produce sheet metal parts which have "stretched" features. ie; all features have to be the same thickness.

When you say "the limitations of developing flat patterns from anything but the simplist of shapes", are you meaning that SW would not flatten simple bends, flanges, hems, etc.

I have not produced any "really fancy" shapes, but have never had a problem with flattening parts in either program. Also I have not dealt with really large assemblies in either program, so I only know what I have read in these forums ... that neither program is perfect ... both rely on correctly configured hardware & software ... especially when it comes to crashing.

I strongly suggest you get SE VAR/rep to give you and your company a real demonstration using your products (not a canned demo). Get them to step you through the conversion & "feature recognition" processes. Have them create your most complex SM part, create a flat pattern & then change the part & update the flat. Have them build as large an assy as time will permit. This should all be done on one of your companys existing networked computers to get a fair comparison. When all that is done, get a SW VAR to do the same.

BTW, what version & SP of SW does your company use, & on what OS & SP?

& all the best.

 

[metman]

CorBlimeyLimey ,

One example is that SW will not make a SM part from a loft, or if there is a radius on a corner flange, a simple circle (lightening hole) with a 45 degree flange. Will SE do it? What we have to do in SW to create many of our flat patterns is cut off all flanges, calculate the developed length, and then add this material to a pseudo-flat pattern.

You asked, “…are you meaning that SW would not flatten simple bends, flanges, hems, etc.” No. I’m saying that this is ALL it will do.

We cannot try your suggestion because SE has already been purchased. Implementation training will begin next week. I was not in-the-loop for any evaluation. On the other hand I could ask for a real demo before I purchase my own copy of SE. But this would not solve the problem of my personal CAD being incompatible with CAD at work.

Currently we are running SW 2004 (SP 03?). We have SW 2005 loaded on one workstation for evaluation . SW 04 is running on Windows 2000(SP?) and at least one seat is running on XP. We have all Dell computers but I don’t know how much RAM or what video card etc but can find out.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

You will need a "High End" CAD system to handle the plastic deformation of a flanged radius. Neither SW nor SE can handle that type of bend. The material has to remain a constant thickness. Physically creating a flanged radius involves stretching & "puckering" of the material.

Both SW & SE can flatten lofts, again providing no plastic deformation is involved. The sketch profiles used in the lofts cannot be closed. They have to have a small gap in them.

When placing a hole across a bend (whatever the angle) both SW & SE have a function which allows the bend to be unfolded before placing the hole. This is to simulate the "real life" method of hole placement. (ie; in the flat sheet prior to bending.) Using this method should allow the flat layout of a SM part to be created.

I have never had a problem with SW support through a local VAR. I have never had to use the SE support, but have been told that it is very good.

All in all, it sounds like the decision makers at your company have been hoodwinked by slick salesmanship.
I honestly believe that they will not experience any tangible benefit by changing CAD systems. For your sake, I hope I am wrong. Good Luck. Please post back later with how things work out. I would be very intersted to hear your findings.

BTW, I have some land for sale in Florida if "the decision makers" are interested.

& all the best.

 

[metman]

CorBlimeyLimey,

Thank you very much for your input. I did not really want to hear this but was concerned that this would possibly be the truth and that is the reason for the thread.

Maybe our folks could be persuaded to switch the funds from SE to Florida land so we can keep SW and I would not have to learn SE.

I will certainly post back later but doubt that anyone will want to own-up to making such a huge mistake and therefore will just suffer through the painful changeover process and remain mute about the similar problems.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Don't be too despondent ... this post is only two days old, a Saturday & Sunday to boot & you have only had my biased input.
The coming work-week might bring more favourable opinions/comments from people who have a life.

& all the best.

 

[metman]

Thanks for the encouragement but I have serious doubts.

BTW -- Now that you set-me-up (sorry jimbo) for this despondent mood, you did not really expect to relate to me in a logical approach while I am drunk?

Get a life? You mean there is something better than this!?

 

[swertel]

The transition from SE to SW really depends on how your mind works.

But, before I get into that, is SE only your second 3D MCAD tool you've learned, or do you know others? I ask this because the second CAD system is often harder than the first because you are trying to make it run like the previous software and only notice the differences. After your 3rd or 4th CAD package, you start seeing the similarities among them and can transition relatively quickly.

Now, back to my first point. For me, SE is easier because my mind thinks the same way as SE workflow. I want to build a protrusion, I click the protrusion button. The software then prompts me for all the steps I need to accomplish my goal. SW, on the other hand, starts with a sketch and then you tell it what to do with that sketch. Since the software didn't know what you want to do in the first place, you sketch may not be adequate to define the feature leading you to edit the sketch before being able to create the feature.

I stopped using SW about 3.5 years ago and started using SE and v10. I now use Alibre for home consulting use and they followed the SW workflow for building features. I still find it annoying, but am able to work through it as I get more proficient and can anticipate the needs of the software.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

swertel ... you are several versions behind the times with SWs method of creating features. Any feature can be created from a sketch or by clicking on a feature type icon (same as SE), so users now have a choice.

Since the software didn't know what you want to do in the first place, you sketch may not be adequate to define the feature leading you to edit the sketch before being able to create the feature.

I don't understand that statement. A sketch to define a feature is just that. Lines, arcs, etc which define the shape of the feature, regardless of what the feature might be.

I agree with you, that the worflow command structure in SE is good inasmuch as it guides the user through all the steps needed to create a feature ... very helpful for new users.
This is a personal preference, but after becoming familiar with SE, I find it too rigid & prefer SWs more flexible approach. Each to their own.

& all the best.

 

[metman]

Scott,
I have experience with Prime Medusa, TurboCAD, and a course in AutoCAD Rev 13 or 14 but no actual experience with AutoCAD. All of these were 2D except Turbo but I did not get very far with it. So SE will essentially by my second after SW. Thank you for your comments. This will help me to be more accepting of the differences.

Scale of 1-10?

CorBlimeyLimey,
OK I showed this thread to a trusted friend and fellow employee (MS in ME). He said that SE was put to the test using large subassemblies that come up in minutes in SE and dump onto dwg sheet with relative ease but take much longer in SW. He could not remember how much longer (maybe everyone fell asleep while waiting?). One of the examples has approximately 670 components.

While we were discussing this, another CAD user happened by. He has had a two year course in SW plus several years experience with it here and is one of the people promoting the change. He re-emphasized the compatability problem that we have between Catia & SW where we have to go back and forth several times to correlate models. Also he re-emphasized the lack of correlation between SW and SurfCAM. NX is apparently the name of the UGS program of which we have purchased one seat. This is touted (my choice of word) as seamless with the CAM program supplied by UGS. Maybe they are one in the same for example even though SurfCAM is obviously CAM strong, one can do 3D modeling and drafting with it. BTW Scott, I just remembered that I have about 175 hrs of self training during my own time on SurfCAM which was primarily modeling for presentation to potential customers for plastic injection molds and won us 5 contracts after a slow period during which I was layed off. Then shortly after that they replaced me with a younger dude who had MasterCAM experience even though I had to bring him up to speed on SurfCAM. This was wr2 a prior employer.

Also was re-emphasized without my prompting that the support we were supposed to be getting from our VAR was inadequate. We were paying in the neighborhood of $1,500/month per seat and much of the time their response to problems was that we needed morer training. With UGS we will have direct support from them not via a VAR.

Based on the comments so far and by personal experience, I am not promoting SE over SW but it "appears" and hopefully is the right decision for us at this juncture. We had prior leadership that would not have settled for anything less than top-end software. This is a compromise and hopefully a good one for us. I should at least qualify for mushroom-of-the-month under the circumstances.

 

[beachcomber]

This is a very interesting thread.
I have about 7 years experience on SE, but only a quick "play" on SW. I have also used Catia and 2D Microstation, but find SE to be really easy to learn and operate - my 9 year old son did the first tutorial (with just a little help from me).
As for creating features, SE allows you complete flexibility.
You have the option of creating a feature from a pre-defined plane and sketch, or constructing the sketch as the first step of the feature. The first option lets you use the same sketch (or parts of it) for more than one feature, the second option prevents the feature tree becoming littered with sketches and planes.
The workflow for SE is virtually the same for all commands.
The sheet metal features are pretty good - but as it has been pointed out it does not do "metal deformation", and some features will not flatten (eg. dimples, louvres)
Sub-assemblies of a few hundred parts will be no problem, but you will need top end hardware with 2-4GB RAM and a good graphics card if you put them all together - I am working on assemblies with a few thousand parts. We cope with assembly models OK but drawings are a struggle because we do not have that level of hardware
In V15 onwards you can turn down the accuracy of drawing output for faster processing of drawing views.
I can't comment on translation of UG to SE, but when you go to open a file, UG is one of the file types in the list.
I think UG will also open SE files
I find it amazing that Dassault have not got simliar functions in SW and Catia.
One last thing - make sure everyone gets proper training - it will save lots of time, effort and money later.
Good Luck with SE.

 

[swertel]

Since the software didn't know what you want to do in the first place, you sketch may not be adequate to define the feature leading you to edit the sketch before being able to create the feature.[\quote]

Let me elaborate on this. My statement here deals more with revolves and lofts & sweeps, since protrusions are pretty much benign. In my previous dealings with SW, circa 2000-2002, knowing what elements to include in the sketch, what had to be a separate sketch, and what had to be construction geometry was always confusing. In terms of a revolve, the profile was in a sketch, but an axis of revolution had to be defined separately. In terms of SE, the profile and axis are in the same sketch.

My workflow in SW, I created the sketch then went to "revolve" only to realize that not all the geometry existed in order to fully define the feature. This had as much to do with elements that SW felt were acceptable definitions as much as remembering to define it ahead of time. It just seemed to me that I was recreating a lot of geometry in SW, at the time.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[swertel]

SE to UG(NX) interoperability

At my current employer, one of the selling points of SE was the fact that UG, now NX, and SE are interoperable. Many of our customers use UG, so the less expensive yet fully functional SE package fit our business model better.

UG and SE models are all that are interoperable. UG and SE drawings are not. They still have to be translated into a neutral format. The UG and SE files are unique in that, not only can they be read by the other program natively, although they import as dumb solids... for now. But, they are still linked to the original geometry.

A quick example, a UG part is opened in SE. It exists as a featureless solid that can be used to create SE features against. The UG part is modified. The next time the SE file is opened, the changes made in the original UG part show up in SE. Needless to say, file management is a nightmare. And, this linking is not always beneficial depending on your revision control.

If you have more specific questions, I can try to answer them.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[FTIEngineer]

I had to jump in on this one with a bit of shameless self-promotion (at least for the company I work for).

Forming Technologies Inc. (

http://www.forming.com)

makes an add-on product for SolidWorks called BlankWorks that will develop very accurate flat patterns for complex shapes that would require stretch during forming. Stampings, aerospace parts, etc. It uses a simplified FEA approach to do this. Trial copies can be obtained from our web site. We also offer a standalone version called FASTBLANK that can use data from any CAD system (generally in IGES format).

This would most definitely be a lot cheaper than a seat of UG and also a heck of a lot easier to use.

Derek

 

[fredericmenage]

Hi,

Just to add to Derek's info, the same add-on exists for Solid Edge (from the same company : FTI). It is called FastBlank for Solid Edge.

I have tried it in combination with solid Edge files and it gave great results.

Fred

 

[cpatstone]

Hey Metman -
a) good luck in getting back into Engineering.
b) Sorry to hear that the company is moving backwards (SW->SE). Has anyone there tried calling SW corporate to get some support? perhaps kick the local VAR's butt?

I used SW for 2 yrs, then got a job at a company using SE. It was painful. So frustrating to give up useful features. We now have a seat of SW for translation and evaluation, and it's great. DWGS are way faster, display rotation is so much smoother (same computer), translation capabilities are like night-and-day, etc. My advice - be prepared for a lot of tonge-biting...

In other news, SE does have a reasonable API (not as great as SW). Embracing that might help your cause.

Good luck!

 

[fwc]

Sorry to hear that the company is moving backwards (SW->SE).

cpatstone, are you implying that SE is backwards compare to SW?


I tend to agree with CorBlimeyLimey's statement below;

but overall there is very little difference between SW & SE in terms of capability or price.

Check this link;

http://www.geocities.com/segurucool/sewindow.htm