Which 3-D Cad Software is Best? 39

[DGP]

We are a packaging machine builder and are currently using AutoCad 14 (2D). We would like to move into a 3D software package and are looking at either "SolidWorks" or
"SolidEdge". However we have heard rumors that "SolidWorks" has problems with large part assemblies. Could this be a software issue or a hardware issue.
I would greaty appreciate any responses from software users who are familiar with both softwares. And why they would choose one over the other.

Thank You.....DGP [sig][/sig]

 

[zengineerboy]

Hello,

I have worked in 3D since AutoCAD 12 and I still think it is a joke. Why do I think this, well the main reason is because AutoCAD is not PARAMETRIC. Having used Pro-E since v18 and more recently Solid Edge Origin, anything is better than AutoCAD.
For example, suppose you subtract a hole from a solid and now you want to change the size of that hole. In a PARAMETRIC solid modeling program you would simply, click on the hole and type in the new value. You can't do that in AutoCAD. You either have to explode your solid, extrude the profile again, and subtract another hole with the new diameter or fill the hole you already made and subtract a new one from the base solid.
For the same price of plain old autocad, you could buy the part and assembly modules of Solid Edge. If you're going to design complex machinery, don't waste you're time with inefficient tools. Use Pro-E, Solidworks, Solid Edge, or even Inventor. I don't mention Mechanical Desktop because of the additional expense with little or no benefits.
BTW, I'm a mechanical engineer working for a packaging machine corporation as well. B-)

Steve

 

...revisited...
I totally agree that autocad is very weak on blends, no doubt about it. As far as not being parametric I agree there too, but there are many ways around that through simple customization by a resourceful user. I said by the way that I have made complex assemblies, not complex blends. Huge difference. My point was simply that Autocad IS DEFINITELY an effective and very useful tool for the able user on all but the most complex of parts.

Jay Andrews

 

[ricosta]

I keep used Auto-cad 2000, and solid edge.
These are the best software in 3D, complent together.
Thanks

 

[blueprint]

AutoCad took a big leap foreward in 3D capability with the release of 2000+. For complex modeling the programmes designed for it are the best to look at Solidworks, Pro/Eng, Inventor etc. but you can do 90% of this work in Acad200+. For structural modeling AC2000+ with a little help from add on's such as Steel Stubs is all you will ever need. The good thing for end users is that a lot of healthy competition is driving the 3D developers to produce better and better products. However when the auditors come in you may find that only 2 or 3 of these products are left standing in a couple of years.

Peter.

 

I think AutoCad 2000 does an excellent job in 3D modeling. For longtime designers like me, there is still no convincing argument to move to Solidworks. I did like Pro/Eng capability wise, but ACAD still rules!

goosebump.

 

[3DDon]

What kind of advancements have been made in AutoCAD 2000? Can constraints and releationships be made between parts? Can parts with similar features, such as a screw, be contained within a single file, so to change between the different screws, all one has to do is change to a different Configuration, in effect, creating a family of parts in one part file? Can this family of parts be driven from an Excel (or what ever) spreadsheet? Just for information sake, users of SoildWorks have had this functionality for as long as I've been using it, which happens to be when Acad 13 was released. Yea, I had/have an axe to grind as a result of that basket case CAD package.

So far all I've really heard about Acad2K is how good it is. How about some examples!?!? Hey, I know! Lets keep score. Lets take everyones knowlege of each CAD package and lay it all out side-by-side and we'll see who's is biggest, sort of speak (no ESPN pun intended).

We can start with the ones that I've just posted:

1. Mate releations between parts - (SW=Y)
2. Sketch/Profile/Feature Constraints between parts - (SW=Y)
3. Configurations/FOP's - (SW=Y)
4. External spreadsheet driven Configurations/FOP's - (SW=Y)

Obviously, this is a very short list. There was a spreadsheet comparison between different packages awhile ago. Does anyone remember ever seeing it, and where we might be able to get one now?

Don

 

[tbb]

This thread and the other "3D software for mechanical drawings" were past over by a friend of mine and here again are a few cents worth of opinion in term of CAD trend for the last 14 years.


I have used 2D AutoCAD back in 1987. Then MicroCADAM in 1991. I remmember back on those years I was just refering to a simple documentation to learn AutoCAD all by myself. And it take few days training for MicroCADAM.

Then come Pro/E ever since 1994 (Pro/E R14) where I struggle to learn 3D creation for 5 days. And continue struggling for years. And todays I must confess that Pro/E is the best 3D solution in term of rich of features/ functionality and stability. Back at the time of 1994 to around 1998, I would called Pro/E as the market leader with that kind of innovative 3D methodologies of modelling.

Intergraph with SolidEdge (and now UGS) was following Pro/E exactly for ages without much success until maybe recently. Solidwork is of no different except it is slightly easier to use with newer GUI. The same kind of marketing strategy with SE. But how true is this "easy to use" claim by the software vendors?

When I was evaluating softwares for my company in search for something to get my job done few months before, I came to know Inventor. I have handson with our company data for the three much "affordable" 3D solutions to see their ability to get my job done in the area of creating complex machinery.

Autodesk Inventor stand out to be the winner. There are many detail in the evaluation process but basically ease of use to get the job done is one of my criteria.

Inventor go into my nerve as an long timer in the industry for it innovative user interface. For one thing... Autodesk finally serious with 3D business and meet my 1st time good impression of my earlist experience with AutoCAD 2D back in 1987.
And since they own AutoCAD, it is natural that 100% compatibility to Inventor can be done by Autodesk. Inventor continue to inspire me with 3D modelling for its modern software design (I wouldn't said so for the next few years unless Autodesk continue with its innovation). I felt more
comfortable to invest with company that would be around the industry for ages instead of some that was bought over by others. Those 3D solutions that were bought over are not in full control of their software development. The owners of its higher end solution take control instead.

SO think about the above few facts before you invest.

 

[rodneyb]

Try IronCAD. I researched all of these packages about 8 months ago and nothing was even close.

 

[3DDon]

First, UGS and SDRC were both purchased by EDS. EDS, if you recall, was the 1980's brain child of H. Ross Perot and is very closely related to General Motors. As a side note, it'll be interesting to see how Ford Mo. Co. responds to this seeing how they are/were using SDRC. I say were, because I've heard that they have been having serious functionality and stability problems with SDRC, and rumor has it that they've gone back to using an older version of PDGS. But any who...

The one statement that really bothers me is that Solid Edge and SolidWorks are virtually the same. To that I'd have to say, on the surface maybe, but beyond that, not even close. And much of the same can be said for Inventor. But since I haven't seen Inventor before, I can't say for sure. On the surface, both Solid Edge and SolidWorks use the Parasolid kernel, they both use an OpenGL graphics format, they both have similar GUI's, you can create solid models, assemblies, drafts, and sheet metal. They'll both import and export a wide array of graphic formats. And there are a few less significant similarities. But that's where the similarities end. Once using it, those fortunate enough to have experience using a CAD package with a feature rich environment, Pro/E, and yes, even SolidWorks by comparison, will want to jump off of a building because of the lack of features, and the choppy flow of many of Solid Edges' commands. As for ease of use, you'll have to talk to someone that has Pro/E and SolidWorks (and even Solid Edge) experience. I know a few if you want their names. As for me, I greatly prefer SolidWorks of Solid Edge. There are a few functions that Solid Edge does very well, and SolidWorks could learn from them. However, in the majority of the cases, Solid Edge could learn a lot more from SolidWorks. How do I know? I use them both almost daily.

I'm sure that in every comparison and claim, you, me, and everyone out here, can find someone that can support their claims. Such as, Inventor is the best because, or SolidWorks is the best because, or AutoCAD has made some great improvements and therefore, it's the best. The only way anyone can make an unbiased decision for or against any one CAD package is to see, on paper or screen, the side-by-side differences of each packages. And there are very few documents out like that. Regardless of how biased you suspect the source may be, it isn't difficult to generate a list of the top 100 "things" that this package must be capable of performing (extrusions, revolves, parametric patterns, cavities, etc) and comparing that to your own companies experiences and function. Ease of use can be a major judgment call and everyone will have a different impression for each package. So that only leaves a features and functionality comparison.

All,

Solid Edge, SolidWorks, and Inventor (sorry if I missed a few) are all in what everyone has labeled the "midrange", mainly because of price, but for features and functionality, there are many differences. And I think most everyone here will agree that these 3 packages stand out above the rest in this midrange. However, some people think that there should be other packages grouped in here as well, namely AutoCAD (minus Mechanical Desktop). As KSUME has so clearly indicated to me (not that I needed it), AutoCAD is not a parametric package. True! And generally speaking, AutoCAD has been reserved for 2D. Having used AutoCAD myself since '88, I know that it is possible to do 3D, be it wireframe or solids. BUT... There is no way that AutoCAD should or even could be grouped into this "midrange" class with Solid Edge, SolidWorks, and Inventor, for many obvious reasons.

When someone asks, "what is the best 3D CAD package...", everyone assumes they mean "in the midrange". Very few people answer with Catia, or UG because of the cost and complexity. So when someone asks "...what is the best...", there needs to be some clarification. So we should ask, "what do you want to design?". And I'm sure someone here already has and I missed it. But if it was asked, you sure can't tell by the range of answers that have been received to that first simple question that started this mess. Here again, this is why a feature-for-feature list showing all of the CAD packages on the market would be a great tool. That way everyone that has that same question, "...which is the best...", can answer it themselves without any outside influences, such as this thread has done. Produce demos don't show enough. In fact, they can be very miss leading depending on how they were created. And that's true for every package out there. Demos are a marketing tool, don't base your decision on them.

So regardless of how many years of experience us "users" have, we are all biased to some degree. Fine. So lets come up with a black and white document that compares these packages, and is based on the real functionality of each package, via our experience with each package. I'd be more than willing to be the collection point for this information, and I'll even post it on my website for all to see. I for one would like to see this data for myself just to see if I've pick the best package or not. As it stands right now, I know I have, and that is SolidWorks. So unless I see some data proving otherwise, I'm going to continue down this path. I not looking to change my position away from SolidWorks, but if the data supports that SolidWorks isn't the best, then fine, I'll either adjust to fact that I'm not using the best or changes packages. But I want to see for sure, which is the best 3D CAD package!

3DDon

 

[sqrebiz]

I have been an engineer tech. professor at my local university for the past 25 years and have been teaching CAD/CAM for the last 18 years. I have seen the growth and demise of many CAD packages over the years. Back then there were not as many to choose from as there are today. The technology has always intrigued me. I have also been a training and implementation consultant for many large and small companies to establish their CAD/CAM environments. I have dealt and taught with low-cost, midrange, and high-end packages such as AutoCAD, HP ME10, CadKey, HP SolidDesigner, SolidWorks, SolidEdge, CATIA, CADra, Pro-E, UG, TopSolid, Ashler Vellum, Cimatron, MasterCam, SurfCam, TurboCAD and so on. When I taught my classes I knew which software needed more attention than others and I witnessed all the trials that my students had forgone to learn these packages.Anyway, I guess for lack of a better word some people would call me an expert. Each and every one of these packages offers great things and bad. If I had to choose for my own fictional company what would I choose? Well, if I were on a budget I would choose HP ME10 if all I wanted was 2D. Again, If I were on a small budget and wanted 3D I would choose SolidWorks for CAD and SurfCAM for CAM. If money were no object I would use for both CAD and CAM ...and I hate to burst everyone's bubble...but Unigraphics v17 is leap years beyond everyone else.

 

[toyguy]

In response to TBB's posting of June 26, where he states that he would rather go with an established company (Autodesk) that will be around forever:

Many expert market analysts do NOT feel that Autodesk will be around for the long haul. Things like "incompetent management" have been quoted. Even my company's Autodesk Training Center feels that Autodesk's "we won't fix it until it starts costing us customers" attitude will be their downfall. With regard to 3DDon's questions about ACAD 2k, NO, it does NOT have any of those features. The thing crashes everytime we try to run various "adders" they sold us, and when we call tech, their answer is always the same - re-install ACAD!!

 

[3DDon]

toyguy,

It sounds like AutoDesk is in the same general mode that Solid Edge is in. The difference is that Solid Edge support tries to place blame on everything else except their program, to include the operator, the network, your hardware, etc. I haven't been told to reload the software though. That's a new one.

Don

 

[Kenneth]

Unlike some of you who are apparently frustrated with this thread, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the various viewpoints.

However, back to (part of) the original question: "... we have heard rumors that "SolidWorks" has problems with large part assemblies. Could this be a software issue or a hardware issue."

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the "lightweight" (not fully “resolved”) component option capability available in SolidWorks assemblies. First introduced in 98Plus, it continues to be enhanced. Properly configured, it can significantly increase the speed (system response) when dealing with large assemblies. It has limitations (for example, a component that is in the feature scope of an assembly feature cannot be loaded “lightweight”), but it certainly deserves mention…

 

[midrangewebmaster]

Kenneth,

You're correct... We should stay on topic.

Solid Edge has "Inactive" and "Active" parts, which is the same as SolidWorks' "Lightweight" and "Resolved" parts. The Solid Edge version has not been around as long. I think it was introduced with V6 or V7, about the time SW99 was comming to an end.

As for large assemblies, for a PC based CAD package, SolidWorks does quite well. Solid Edge is getting better, but it still isn't to the same level that SolidWorks is. Obviously, unless someone makes the same exact assembly in both SolidWorks and Solid Edge, there really isn't a good way to judge which is best. However, having used both products with similar sized and complex assemblies in both, I can say without a doubt that SolidWorks handles assemblies better than Solid Edge. I didn't say "large", because everyones idea of "large" is different. In my case, both assemblies were of special machines with about 750 parts, which included all hardware, sheet metal, welded and machined parts. Not all that big I guess. But they were both on the same 500 Mhz P3 w/256 Meg RAM, using Solid Edge V9 and SolidWorks 2000.

Our company just received Solid Edge V10 this week, but we are waiting for the first couple of service packs to come out before we load it. Reason being, Solid Edge doesn't include the last service of the previous release in the new release of software. In other words, the first release of Solid Edge V10 is about 1-2 service packs behind Solid Edge V9 with the last service pack, which I think is SP9. Just for information sake, the last Solid Edge service pack was 93.3 Meg! And no, Solid Edge service packs do not add any functionality like SolidWorks service packs do. Solid Edge service pack are only bug fixes, no product enhancements of anyknid.

Don Jim Smithie, Webmaster

http://www.midrangecad.com

 

[SoledWorker]

Our design group just completed an evaluation of SW (2001) and Inventor (r5), using weighted categories such as "Productivity", "Standard Features", "Ease of use/learning curve", "Step Compatibility", etc...

The hands down winner was Inventor, although many categories were "ties". Some of the strengths of Inventor were:

-More intuitive user interface, with fewer dialog boxes and fewer mouse clicks. Gesture based sketching, glass box, "expert" and "learning" modes, more consistent interface with (far) less clutter.
-Ability to handle large assemblies (SW requires that parts be marked as "lite" to just load the graphics, but you can't work on them in that mode, INV handles this in the background: all parts load graphically, but as the cursor goes over a part, it (transparently) begins to load the geometry of the part)
-Built in support for concurrent engineering (several users can work on a model at once), this is a shortcoming of SW.
-Better STEP file import: the colors and part names of the imported component were preserved, and the geometry was immediately useable. SW required the use of "FeatureWorks" to "repair" the same model.
-Adaptivity: the SW guys had a contrived example showing how they could do the same things that Inventor does: this is true only to a very limited extent, explore this carefully in your own eval...

Everyone should do their own evaluation, as each product has particular strengths. Don't let past experience with Mechanical Desktop cloud your judgement, Inventor is a completely different product, not a derivative. The latest releases of Inventor have changed the Mid-Range Cad scene quite a bit, don't let comparisons of older versions (there is a website dedicated to comparing old versions) cloud your judgement either.

 

[zengineerboy]

Hello,

Has anyone here ever hear of the CAD program called Solid Concepts by Mecasoft? This thing is really pretty good for $1300! It does just about everything the big three do except sheetmetal but it has a 3D CAM program instead. This looks to be a very serious contender, but I what to find out more about this company. All I know is that they are based in France.
Its not the slickest program I've worked with, but for the price, it may be hard to beat. I would really appreciate some info on this program.

Thanks,

Steve

 

[MechanicalEng]

Hi DGP,
I'm currently using Solidworks2001 along with Windows2000.
As an electronic packaging designer I sometimes have
complicated assemblies.
Solidworks2001 is much more advanced and easy to use than
Solidworks2000 and surely better than AutoCAD.
I recommend this software. The problem you mentioned is
mostly due to hardware problem.

 

[fogleghorn]

We are a small to medium size company. Three Mechanical Engineers and two designer/draftsman. We have been using Cadkey since 1993 for designing analytical laboratory instruments. When we purchased Cadkey, it had the most bang for the buck, and I have really enjoyed it's 3D capabilities. Cadkey is also very easy to learn. However, Cadkey currently does not have associativity between a part model and and an assembly model so we are constantly having to update 3D models in multiple places. I understand that in the upcoming release of Cadkey 20 there is supposed to be an assembly modeling feature, but we have grown tired of being two or more steps behind everybody else. We have been given the go ahead to search for a new MCAD package. I am not interested in Parametric Technology, I don't want anything with an extended learning curve. From what I've read here, it appears that Solidworks is the front runner with SolidEdge coming in second, and Autodesk products a questionable third. Our boss also wants us to look at Ashlar Vellum (mainly because it runs on a Mac). Has anybody used Vellum for any design projects. Any Feedback would be appreciated.

 

[3DDon]

Fogleghorn,

If you are wanting to have associativity in your models, take Solid Edge off your selection list. Even though it can be done, it is difficult and requiers many steps to complete. I've talked with the head of software developement for Solid Edge before about this and he clearly stated that Solid Edge does not want to give people the tools to make this associativity, because they fear that it may confuse users (not my words). Solid Edge has never had any desire to increase their assembly and/or part-to-part associativity performance, and based on what I've been hearing, it doesn't look like they ever will. At least not in the near future, say 4 years or so.

And this is my biggest complaint with Solid Edge.
Don Shoebridge
Sr. Product Developement Engineer

http://www.geocities.com/donshoebridge

 

[quattro]

Very interesting thread. As one guy here who posted his response here rightfully stated, you should choose your tool to work best for you application. He was right, there is no "one size fits all" thing except for pantyhose. Our company manufactures electronic equipment so most of the time we design sheet metal enclosures. We needed the software to be the best in sheet metal design with ability to model existing electronic components to be used in assemblies. I should mention that we have three divisions in our company. One used SolidWorks and another SolidEdge. We had Autocad 14 prior to making decision to purchase solid modeling software. We compared both SW and SE along with Mechanical Desktop and Microstation. The real choice was between SolidWorks and SolidEdge, because other two were clearly not on the same level. We decided to purchase SolidEdge, it was v.7 back then. We are using version 10 now. Reason for going with SolidEdge was its clear superiority in sheet metal design.
We have it for two years now and have never been felt that we made a wrong choice. It works very well for us and does what we expected it to do. We don't have large assemblies so this was never an issue. It was very easy to learn and master. Very intuitive interface, it almost leads you by the hand from one step to another. You don't have to scroll through icons and commands to do the next step. When you go to the next logical step in design, the interface changes and you only have the commands you might want to execute.
Easy and very user friendly. I hired a new designer two weeks ago and she learned to use it in about two days, although truth must be told, she was a SolidWorks user before.
Hope this helps,
Efraim