PTC (Pro-E) article truths.....10 ways Solidworks slows you down 1

[J-C]

Even 2004 shouldn't the times they indicate. Our largest assemblies(2000 parts) save in a few seconds. They open in lightweight in a few seconds as well. Fully loading for the drawing takes 1-2 minutes depnding on network speed and load. Drawing views take around10-20 seconds to update with the exception of cropped or section views.

Jason

 

[Theophilus]

Perhaps they left out the detail of opening assemblies on a 486?


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[cloche]

Do you want to know a funny thing? In the italian PTC site, this comparison looses any apparent reference to SolidWorks (SW becomes "traditional CAD package"), because in Italy comparative advertising is admitted by law only under very strict conditions, one of which is the complete description of comparison conditions... Ah ah !!! ;-)
Well, really, don't mind at all these kinds of "non-comparisons". The only point where perhaps PTC is true is on the size of the files, but with today's machines this is not a problem... I really had fun when I saw the fillets that were stated not to be possible in SW: I used to do these fillets since v.2003 if not from v.2001+...
Where PTC made a true "hole in the water" was when Wildfire broke the former philosophy per which new versions of Pro/E kept backward-compatibility with files generated back to 5 versions before: THIS point was EXTREMELY valuable, but is no longer true...

 

[sloth4z]

Strange. I use SW2001+ and no problem reproducing the fillets mentioned in that article. SW does have large file sizes. They took this fact and made 7 reasons that SW takes to long. They are all connected to that one fact. You can't really trust the first fact, because they don't go into detail. There are many ways in SW to make everything. It looks like they chose the most complicated way to make the parts they show. You can't really tell for sure, because they don't go into detail about it. The article as a whole looks like a ProE user tried out SolidWorks without any training. Of course it will take him longer to do things, he is trying to do them the same way he is used to. Of course he will have trouble using the fillet functions the same way. Like everyone is saying you can't do an unbiased side by side comparison.

 

[wes616]

Well, I wasn't going to stick my nose in here, but here goes. Actually I suppose that I am truely a CATIA user, so this is where I am comming from.

Work at an aero. consulting firm, and we have many CAD Packages, CATIA, SW, Pro/E, and Unigr. as well as several 2-d packages, bc we do our work in the native format of our clients. Since I use all of these on a regular basis, I do feel like I have something to contribute to this topic.

Each has it's own good and bad features.

Each has it's place in this world.

I like SW, because of the ease of part creation.

I like CATIA for doing anything with a large assembly.

I like Pro/E for it's mid range features, and data translation tools.

I must say that of all the packages, SW was the quickest to pick up, but that said, the more advanced I become as a SW user, the more problems that I seem to run into. I try and customize the tools I use as much as i can and SW is the most Difficult to do this (overriding all the assumtions the software makes for you is a pain in the A#$), followed by CATIA. Pro/E is by far the easiest. That said, I was using SW in about 2 days whereas it took me about 2 weeks to pro/e it.

We are here waiting for CATIA and SW to eventually integrate better.

regards,

 

[DeSimulacra]

I think wes616 has it pretty close. As a full time SW user and a part time Pro-e user I would say SW is easier to pick up but has more problems as the modeling/assembly gets more advanced.

Have a good day!

 

[SBaugh]

I have to disagree I have done some very complex modeling and have not had many problems at all with it. I think it comes down to skill with the application.

Been a full time user since SW95-96.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376