Pro E versus Inventor 3

[anq]

Price is the same. Yearly subscription is the same. Training for Pro E is higher but it seems to have a lot more stuff in it. Interface for the 2 "looks" similar, but Inventor seems "cleaner" (probably because it has less features).
Pro-E is winning the race because it seems to have these extra features but does anyone have any comments?

 

[lucas1]

I have received training in University on Pro/E, but was able to learn Inventor quite easily at home. I find the two have pretty much the same capabilities. Inventor may have the advantage simply because it is part of the large family of Autodesk.

Just my .02

 

[peglor]

Being part of the AutoDesk family is probably not a good thing. I'm currently collaborating with Inventor users and we're finding that it's almost impossible to export files from ProE to Inventor. ProE will export and import reasonably reliably to over 20 different file formats while Inventor will work pretty well with AutoCAD, but not really export or import anything in 3D. We had reasonable success with STEP files exported from ProE as solids, but everything else we tried failed.

This attitude is very much something I've seen from AutoDesk products as the only way they seem to be able to hold onto their customers is by making it so difficult to transfer files from inventor to other packages that it isn't worth changing for most customers.

 

[anq]

We were on the point of deciding for Pro E wildfire, when Autodesk dropped their price even further. It is now substantially cheaper than Pro E, but we still haven't been able to prove if technically Pro-E is better. (that is after seeing a demo of each). Has anybody else had the luck to try both programs?
Thanks,
ANQ

 

[peglor]

Did the the demos you were shown include a section where they showed the 3D models being modified in significant ways after they had been drawn?

The ideal thing to do is to get both companies to build an assembly of the parts you plan to work with. Get them to firstly show you the CAD files of the parts so you can see how well they're represented on screen. Then give them a list of modifications to make to the assembly/parts (Things like changing the lengths of extrusions should be handled easily by any package, but if you have them modify a filleted edge so it will overlap itself you should see errors pop up in the programs - It's how these can be handled and fixed and even how useful the error information is that will decide whether the program will be productive quickly).

Features that depend on other features should be easy to identify. Geometric constraining (Centering features on eachother for example) should be available and behave predictably. If the program gives errors or doesn't modify the parts the way you expect, ask why - With ProE there's a good reason for most things it does once you understand how it builds features. See which program is quickest and most intuitive for modifying the parts you're working with. That's really the bottom line.

 

[Rocko]

You should look at Solidworks also

 

[asmenut]

In order for someone to decide the best way to go, Inventor,Pro-Engineer or Solidworks, You have to decide what you will use it for.

While Pro-E is more cumbersome to use, it blows all the competitors away with it's surfacing, mechanism, and Sweeping (variable section especially)capabilities.

Solidworks is a good package, but a major pain with the assemblies.

Inventor is by far the easiest to use (out of the box) and has the best sheetmetal module I have ever used. It also has the capability to do a sigma analysis (part or assembly).

As I said, you really have to look at what you will use it for.

There are many Cad packages out there and little by little, they are getting better and easier to use, but they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[anq]

Dear asmenut,
I don't understand why you say Pro-E is more cumbersome to use. From the demo, the interface of wildfire looked very similar to inventor and it required the same amount of "clicks" to build a part.

Is there something I am missing?

As for use, we will use it for designing machines (production) and new products (plastic) in R&D. So therefore quite a general application. (Maybe not so much sheetmetal though).
Thanks for your comments.

 

[peglor]

All the ProE versions until Wildfire had a UNIX type interface - Your model was shown in one window and a second window sat to the side fo the model window with your menu choices on it. Wildfire hasn't eliminated this side menu completely from the little I've seen of it, but they claim a vastly reduced number of mouseclicks compared to previous versions to generate features.

If you're designing mechanisms make sure you get the machanism module with your version of ProE. There are loads of extra modules available for the program, so if you're designing parts for CNC milling, making mould designs, building mechanisms etc. You may have to get extensions to the base program. These are really questions to ask your vendor, some of this will probably come as standard with the program.

Also, in my experience, while other packages are faster out of the box, a couple of months down the line you'll find that your speed with ProE will have increased dramatically, (If you make yourself a few custom mapkeys, you'll get faster again).

 

[G1DESIGN]

As an ex pro e user i would say stick to pro if you want the best tools money can buy

Ive been on solidworks since 2000 and am currently using 2003 and wildfire i disagree that pro e is cumbersome
its more to do with which interface you are used too sit on pro e for 5 years and its a simple as scratching your head likewise with solidworks

the point remains solidworks is still the little brother of pro e no matter how you dress it up and cover it with fluff to make it look pretty the end result is what your after and if thats proper engineering and engineering data then pro e is the engineers toolbox and solidworks the engineers aprrentice toolbox as for inventor it doesnt even come close

 

[asmenut]

Ang,

When I said Pro-E was cumbersome, I was talking more about the Unix-type interface. Even with the release of Wildfire, there are still a number of commands that use the old menu manager (many picks)( try clicking edit/setup). Also, the structure of pro-E is alot more in-depth than most of the other softwares. PTC has come along way and yes, the user interface is much easier than previous releases (heck I started on Ver 17), and it is getting better. But because of the capabilities of Pro-E (remember, its the benchmark software), there is a descent learning curve, but as Peglor stated, "a couple of months down the line you'll find that your speed with ProE will have increased dramatically".

I have been using Wildfire for about 1 month, and it is getting easier to use. Surfacing is too cool. and the MDX option (Mechanical Design eXtension) is unbeatable.

If you are doing machine design, you will need MDX, and the Behavioral Modeling modules.

Within the next releases, PTC is supposed to be integrating Mechanica into the MDX Module, which is pretty nice (I still prefer MSC Nastran).

Good Luck.

 

[Proximo]

I have been using Pro/Engineer for over 9 years. I can tell you for sure that it's the most powerful 3D modeling package out there. The new Wildfire version is their first attemt at making it user friendly and they have done a great job with it. When it comes to Parametric modeling, PTC invented it. Parametric Technology Corporation. The other packages out there are nice, but don't have the power of what Pro/Engineer can do. I suggest attend a free workshop on Wildfire and see it in action.

http://www.ptc.com

"Statues have never been raised to critics, only those criticized."

 

[Rocko]

I wouldn't say it is the most powerfull 3d modeling package out there, don't forget Catia and Unigraphics NX. They can do alot of things PRO-E cannot do. Pro-E is like a Porche it is high performance but is very expensive once you need to work under the hood. It is also difficult to get the max performance from it sometimes.