Pro/E WF v. SWx for college setting: anyone for Pro/E? 1

[dmalicky]

I got many responses to a similar post in the SWx forum. But since that forum might be biased, it would be great to hear from some Pro/E WF users, too.

We're evaluating which package to teach and use with undergraduate mechanical engineering students.

I know WF2/3 is easier to use and learn than the older Pro/E versions, but I don't know how WF2/3 compares to SWx today. It would be great to know some rough estimates of the differences in how long they take to learn and use (e.g., % differences, weeks, mouse clicks to accomplish a task, frequency of non-intuitive commands, etc.)

Speed of learning and using is one of our considerations. I'd value your perspectives on these other factors:
1. Acceptance in industry: ProE is probably a little better because a ProE user can more easily learn SW than v.v.
2. Integration with a good FEA program: ProMechanica is probably enough for most undergrads although non-linear capabilities would be desirable. We're considering Ansys, Abaqus, Marc, __Nastran... to augment ProM.
3. Integration with a good CAM program: ProE has ProNC modules in the education edition, although I haven't heard much about them in industry. How well does Pro/E interface with Surfcam?

Thanks,
David Malicky
University of San Diego

http://www.sandiego.edu/engineering

 

[jeff4136]

Stumbled across this while searching for tutorials ...

http://pergatory.mit.edu/2.007/resources/MIT/How to GADAM.pdf

If you're willing to go with the assumption a
lot can be learned about a program by simply
looking thru tutorials and instructional
materials ...

http://www.me.cmu.edu/academics/courses/NSF_Edu_Proj/Wildfire_short_course/tutorials.htm

... might prove helpful.

See also a post on comp.cad.pro-engineer titled
"Pro/e help, training, tutorials and other resources"
posted by David Janes 04-06-2006 for some additional resource links.

Good luck with the quest.

 

[cadcamguy]

How well does Pro/E interface with Surfcam?

Not sure if there is a native ProE file translator for SurfCam, so you will probably need to Iges or Step it out
where as ProMan will take it directly.

Translation really shouldn't be a big problem unless you are doing some really weird shapes.

ProMan isn't as user friendly as say SurfCam or MasterCam
when it comes to making cutter paths at least for the majority of parts, but for those 10%, highly complex parts it excels. I understand the WF3 is going to be much better.

Also you need to consider how many different machines your school uses, If it's just 1 or 2 then no big deal.Post processors can be quite a pain and $$.

You have a strong users group there Insane Diego check em out

 

[Recon1775]

I attended Cal State University, Northridge many years ago and I remember they were going through the exact same dilemma on which software to choose. They initially used Pro-E, but I believe they ultimately went with SW. You could call the mechanical engineering dept. and see if they had some rational on the choice of SW. I'm guessing it was probably a money and politics driven decision, but you never know.

 

[cadcamguy]

I notice on SurfCams website they include some sort of SolidWorks Lite. So not sure how it works out with you and SurfCam but in a sense you have Solidworks.Might check and see what Lite is.

ProE throws in a pretty nice package for the schools.

 

[shoelace]

I would suggest that SolidWorks would be a more appropriate software to teach in a high school or elementary school class while Pro/Engineer would be more appropriate for a mechanical engineering university level course. To me SolidWorks is to Pro/E as a standard calculator is to an RPN calculator. Or: SolidWorks is to Pro/E as an automatic car is to a manual car. A mechanical engineering student will want an interface that most closely reflects the fundamental logic of the software so that they will be able to understand how and why the software works. It's a much better learning experience that will appeal to the student and I would argue that an engineering type mind will find Pro/E easier to learn because he/she will actually be able to understand the logic behind the programming. This comes down to a matter of the history of these two softwares ... SolidWorks has marketed itself on its user-friendlyness. With a single click, the software will make assumptions about what you want to do ... similar to an automatic car. Remember, fewer clicks means less control and/or less choice. It means that options are hidden deeper in the menue structure. The reason SolidWorks users find Pro/E difficult is similar to why someone who drives an automatic car has trouble with a manual one ... because they have not really been in full control of the software and hence don't really understand how to control it. Pro/E, historically, has not compramised its interface to being userfriendly to the masses. So if the course is about learning CAD for the sake off it ... I would go with Pro/E.

On the other hand, if the course is about using a CAD platform to complete a small, one off design project, I might suggest solidworks. If you have never used a solid modelling package, are working solo, and need to get one off drawings out the door - sure, SolidWorks is a good bet. Pro/E gets its value when is set up and configured thoughtfully across a company or team ... or to suit a specific large scale product or project. And that may also make it good for a large class ... because it can be configured to suit the curriculum.

I know this responce is a bit "wafely" ... its quickly written. Hopefully it is sufficient to give you some sense of my feelings on the matter.

 

[mechbull]

I used to advicate that everyone switch to pro-e.
Now that im on the job the fewer operators the better in the world is my new thought (more money more jobs kinda thing) so teach them solidworks and they will get by fine and will stay out our little piece of the world. there is no doubt pro-e would beat up solidworks if we could set up a death cage match between the 2

 

[Heckler]

CADCAMGUY - I believe most CAM software companies did a major overhaul. We just got MasterCAM 10 which now looks and feels like most major MCAD packages. It imports solids and can create solids with much more ease then in past revs.

Best Regards,

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SW2005 SP 5.0 & Pro/E 2001
Dell Precision 370
P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
XP Pro SP2.0
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience every time.

 

[davidh729]

I learned Pro/E in college and I had no problem picking up SWx in about a day, but that was on 2000i2 and 2001. With Wildfire's new interface and more lax attitude toward fully constraining things, I think it's more importatnt that people get a good understanding of CAD best practices then learn a particular package.

Dave Hyman
Mechanical Engineer

 

[wes616]

DM,

You may also want to consider CATIA. I believe that Dessault (sp) had a program where they "give" the package to a college. It's also an excellent package.

I went to Cal State LA, and know that they teach all 3 packages(CATIA, SWx and ProE) there. You might want to contact their program (look into the industrial technology dept), as they run the "drafting and 3D design" part of the school, not ME).

Wes C.
------------------------------
When they broke open molecules, they found they were only stuffed with atoms. But when they broke open atoms, they found them stuffed with explosions...

 

[davidinindy]

If your students learn any solid modeling software, they'll most likely be able to pick up others when entering the workforce.
Some of the opinions here are biased also. I've used Solidworks, and Wildfire, for over a year each on some simple, and many complex projects. I have found no advantage of Pro/E Wildfire. It isn't as logically set-up as Solidworks, and the "help" is ussually no help. There is a lot that could be improved... especially when it comes to creating drawings. Soldiworks is much better in this area, so might be better for students.
And before the "Pro/E is king" people step in, I have used both for large assemblies, plastic part, and composite part design.
Anyway, I don't want to turn his into a "This softare is better" thread, so to answer your question, In my opinion, each them either, and they'll be fine. Just make sure they don't limit themselves to the one they learned in school when job-hunting after school.

David

 

[shoelace]

Gee, sounds to me like David has turned this into a “This software is better” thread. And that’s not such a bad thing … except that I don’t think that one should state a software preference without putting some effort into justification.

In contrast, I will explain why Pro/E is actually far superior to SolidWorks when it comes to creating drawings:

In Pro/E, you can change your views from section to non-section or vice versa whenever you like. In SolidWorks you can’t do this.

Let’s say you started by laying out a top view. Then you used it to project a front view and finally a bottom view. Then you merrily add all your dimensions, notes and whatnot to finish the drawing. The design changes and you realise that you need to make the top view (your parent view) a sectional view (or partial section). In Pro/E you just click on that view, hit modify, specify the section cutting plane on any other view, and presto, your drawing now shows a sectional top view. In SolidWorks, game over – you have to delete every single view and start again. That includes all the effort you put into dimensions, notes etc. WOW.

But usually you don’t want to do that so you start adding extra redundant views in order to get that section you need … you have to work around the software problem … and that can get very messy.

To me, this is the single biggest flaw of the SolidWorks software, and one that I find totally unacceptable. In Pro/E I just slap views down without having to worry … I know the software has the intelligence to allow me to change my mind later without penalty. I never worry about having to revisit a Pro/E drawing … I know that I can push things around. When having to modify a SolidWorks drawing I am always holding my breath wondering if I will either have to entirely delete and redo views or whether I will have to add redundant views and have to sign off a mess of a drawing.

 

[ProEDesigner00]

There is a school just east of Bemidji Mn. teaching many 2 yr tech programs (tool&die, emg tech, ect.)they opted to use Pro/E. I have worked with several companies who needed this experience in the new grads and went there and hired people directly because of it. The quality of the individuals comming out of this school is incredible. Like Davidh769 said, "I think it's more importatnt that people get a good understanding of CAD best practices then learn a particular package." Teaching the best practises therory is important in understanding how Pro/E's philosophy is to be used. It makes a difference of just using the software and actually making a robust design.

 

[davidinindy]

Shoelace... In regards to the original question, I see no reason why that would make it better for students.
I can see students getting frustrated by Pr/E's illogical help structure. It is very hard to find help on anything however simple.
Keep in mind, these students are possibly learning CAD from the ground up.
In my opinion, teach them Solidworks, then they'll be able to learn Pr/E if necessary, more easily.
It might also come down to which has the better student / school support. I know I had the Solidworks student addition, and was able to get help easily while learning it. Can't speak on Pro/E in that regard though.

David

 

[AboveRedline]

Shoelace,

I've never heard of a section being the parent view. Sections should project off the parent.

 

[shoelace]

AboveRedline,

In Pro/E, you can make any view you like a section view ... parent view or not ... the software does not descriminate.

Does SolidWorks not allow the parent view to be a section? ... Perhaps you have a good point there. Another limitation of the SolidWorks drawing module.

 

[davidinindy]

I'd want my students to learn poper drafting practices... which would include not using section views as parent views... regardless whether thew software will let you or not.

David

 

[natewebb]

this is just word of mouth, but many people say Pro/E users get paid more than Solidworks users statisticly.
If I was a student, I'd seek a university with Pro/E.

http://www.rmeng.com

 

[J-C]

I guess UG is not up to Pro/E's superiority either since you can't make a section view from a regular view in it either?

I think anyone from any particular cad program could pick out things one 3d program can do that others can't.

Natewebb, Pro/E users get paid more cause it takes more experience to master the program, plus the typical high costs involved with the "high end" programs. I think this a dying trend though as Pro has already mostly lowered it's priced.More

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[shoelace]

Not really certain what you fellows are on about. “Parent View” is a term that I use only when referring to laying out drawing views in solids modelling CAD packages. I have not heard this term used in any drafting standards. If one view is the projection of another … who’s to say which one is the parent? I will be very appreciative if you can quote one of these “parent view” standards in this thread.

Let’s take this example: Your drawing comprises only a top view and a front view. Which view is the parent? Either one could be the parent. In Pro/E, in rev A you might lay both those views down without needing either of them to be sections. Then you add a new feature and now must update the drawing to rev B to include a section on the top view. In Pro/E, it does not matter which view you placed first in your rev 0 drawing … you can place the section on either view. Is this not a good thing? Please explain. It would seem to be ridiculous to have to delete both these views and all the accompanying dimensions in the event that you were not lucky enough to have placed the front view first.