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]

 

[etoister]

I have been using Solidworks for 2 years now with the best hardware available in the market and can safely say that while it is has a great interface and is quick to learn , it does have a serious problem with large assemblies - it tends to get very slow and unstable . If you have the time to learn the Pro/E I would choose it over SW .

 

I have been in this field for more than 2 years.. and i think Pro-E is the best software for 3D solid modelling.. Though the learning may take some time it is worth spending as Pro-E has much more options for certain modules like Mould..

 

[3DDon]

DJP,

With your 2 years of experience, how many CAD packages have you used, parametric or otherwise?
Don Shoebridge
Sr. Product Developement Engineer

http://www.geocities.com/donshoebridge

 

[RJM]

we are a heat exchanger manufacturing company manufacturing finned coil heat exchangers for the air conditioning and refrigeration market. at the moment we are deliberating whether to use solid works or autocad. most of the drawings we do are 2D with the occassional product development exercise. kindly advice on what to use.

 

[3DDon]

RJM,

From a product developement point of view, I would choose either SolidWorks, Pro/E or Catia. Keep in mind that I've never used Pro/E or Catia before, but I know that all three of them do share some functionality with each other, mainly the ability to do top-down assembly design, which is a must for product developement work.

Obviously, there must be some reason for wanting to move away from AutoCAD, other than just wanting to do 3D. I'm assuming that there is enough design complexity to warrent the change.
Don Shoebridge
Sr. Product Developement Engineer

http://www.geocities.com/donshoebridge

 

[Sirius]

Hi there, Ive used AutoCad on and off,Mechanical Desktop,had a dabble with Solid Edge, Unigraphics, Solidworks, Catia and Inventor. I cant say Im fully experienced in any of the above but I have found all of them except Mechanical Desktop a bit poor in detailing (2d dims etc)the 3d models.
Yeah you might be able to create a fancy model but the shop floor still needs 2d data to work from at the end of the day unless your a big automated outfit - you may do the complex model a bit quicker but you can spend more time arsing around with the drafting side of it if your not careful.
Im not saying Mechanical desktop is the 3d winner here,but seeing as you already use 2d AutoCad I found it the next logical step up. It depends ENTIRELY on what you do in your company etc. This program does seem to have a better 'drafting' base being built on vanilla Autocad and I have had a whole manner of basic problems with data excange in some of the other systems - especially Inventor(Stuff coming in 25.4 times to big/small, layers vanishing etc and iges inserts causing an unforseen shutdowns).
Some outfits use 2 (or more!) sytems to gain benifits where it suits them. Eg. Solidworks to do solid modelling and Autocad for drafting and other 2d work.
I wish there was an inbetween between the two competing AutoDesk packages (Inventor/Mechanical Desktop) meaning the functionality of Inventor with the Mech desktop interface or mentality (my opinion) so long term Autocad users are not left high and dry. I like MDT for its sufacing/solid capabilities but if you do sheet metal work then MDT is perhaps not the way to go, but I do currently like to be able to use 2d and 3d at the same time in the same window! - and not one part only,then another part only, then another all seperate, then an assembly along with tons of different file extensions for all the different modes(sheet metal/product/drafting/etc). At least MDT is just a DWG at the end of the day and is fully interchangeable with your existing data back and forth and can still handle all your existing Lisp and scripts etc.
I suppose if I could get into the 'seperated' frame of mind when conceptualising a 'general arrangement' my opinion may change, but currently I like working on multiple parts in the same window as I go along.
All of the above is just my limited experience and by no means should it influence your decision - you need to fully test drive the top 4 if you can do - poke around and make sure it does *your* specific requirements efficiently.
The scariest package in tems of learn factor is Pro/E and the easiest I found to be Solidworks.
Anyway this is getting far longer than expectred so I'll catch ya laterz.

 

[3DDon]

Sirius,

With regards to your comment which follows; "Some outfits use 2 (or more!) sytems to gain benifits where it suits them. Eg. Solidworks to do solid modelling and Autocad for drafting and other 2d work."

I have done this before, and believe me, there is no benefit at all. The whole idea is to have your drawings and your models linked in some way, so that changes made at the model level will be reflected at the drawing level.

By having two different CAD packages and having to translate 2D data from one to the other, would obviously break this link. If there were any changes made at the model level, the drawings would have to be created from scratch, unless it was a simple change, like a hole size or something. But even if this was the case, it would still take a doubling of effort to make even the simplist of changes - once at the model and then once at the drawing.

I'm sure that it's no secret here or abroad that I'm a SolidWorks fan, and have been for about 4 years or so. And I will admit that SolidWorks doesn't have the greatest drafting environment. But by the same token, it's not nearly the worst either. With SolidWorks or any other parametric modeling package where models are linked with drawings, what is gained at the model and assembly end greatly out weighs any short commings there may be at the drawing end.
Don Shoebridge
Sr. Product Developement Engineer

http://www.geocities.com/donshoebridge

 

[Sirius]

Yeah, thanks for that. You are absolutely right. I was sort of meaning situations where there is no real need for a solid model - but I fully appreciate what you are saying. I expected a response to tell me Im talking out of my rear end(!)on some of the things I rambled on about. Our company is still in the dark ages a bit with an attrocious and obscure 2D only cad system and Ive been assessing/learning new methods and packages in my own time to keep me employable in the future. You see I've only pottered about on many systems (demo's etc)and cant claim to be a master of any *yet* . Its good to get the misconceptions poeple like me have out in the open and then we can take heed and learn from poeple who have been there like youself.

Thanks and see you around,

Sirius (England)

 

[ablack]

I like HP ME30 or HP Solid Designer. Powerful, fast, intuitive, nice to look at. It blows
away Pro-E, which I am now on. I don't know why it is not more popular. It is expensive, but so is Pro-E. The Pro-E sketch feature is pitiful compared to
the HP construction line method. And Pro-E has too many pop-up menus, too much
clutter. Too many clicks to do what you need to do.
HP 3D is easy. They don't need user how- to forums, because its easy to figure stuff out for yourself.

 

[3DDon]

Sirius,

I hope you didn't get the impression that I was beating you up over anything. It's just that as you were discribing your situation, I had a Vietnam style flashback and terror flooded my body. Scary!
Don Shoebridge
Sr. Product Developement Engineer

http://www.geocities.com/donshoebridge

 

[Sirius]

Hi there 3dDon, dont stress man . I know I should probably start a new thread for this, but, I think the originator would have got sorted out by now and I was wondering if any of the posters here could help me justify the transfer to 3d for a small (family run) engineering company employing a total of 50 or so people with mostly conventional machinery and three relatively basic 'Bridgeport Universal' style cnc millers and a CMM.
The thing is - all these packages seem aimed at "product design" with Excell linked variations etc - but what about a company who mostly do 1 offs or adaptions of jobs done in the past. We do Jigs and fixtures and press tooling which calls for the occasional 3d (surface built on wireframe)job for cnc-ing complex forms onto blocks of steel such as aerofoil shapes for locations etc. Our current 2d/3d CadCam package is WAY behind in technology and cant even do associative dimensioning hatching or stretching etc.
When we do surfacing, it means drawing *all* lines seperately eg. 12 lines to make a cube! then applying a skin on it 1 at a time with no means of getting views into 2d etc. Im trying to encourage the company to adapt to 3d design - I know it makes sense but its hard to convince poeple who have little or no knowledge of CAD and what is actually happening outside our cosy little office. What suggestions do you folks have?. Does anyone use 3d cad in this sector much yet? and if so, what were the justifications which swung the management?. Any comments welcome - even if its copy & paste this to another thread!!!!.

Thanks for your time.

Sirius.

 

[Rentapen]

Hi Guy, guess i'll jump in. Know what ya mean about little shop 2D-3D. I've been receiving dxf and translated cad files for years. Most are product designers strip downs from delphi and vist. people using ug and ideas because they do their assemblies that way. They don't even put in qualifing points to fixture off of. I guess most of these people will be layed off doing autocad in a few years so I don't bitch much. They use their solid models because they can see in their heads the part they are designing. I have been using using 3D since AutoCad 10 because it does help for drill motor layout of complex piece parts but other then that its not cost effective. same as my structual work, might be good for architect, but when they try to give me 3D layout without cleaning it up its trouble expecially when the arch. dosn't know drafting standards. Well I could go on but I'll probally get flamed for this . Peace. The rentapen

 

[Rentapen]

Hi Guy, guess i'll jump in. Know what ya mean about little shop 2D-3D. I've been receiving dxf and translated cad files for years. Most are product designers strip downs from delphi and vist. people using ug and ideas because they do their assemblies that way. They don't even put in qualifing points to fixture off of. I guess most of these people will be layed off doing autocad in a few years so I don't complain much. They use their solid models because they can see in their heads the part they are designing. I have been using using 3D since AutoCad 10 because it does help for drill motor layout of complex piece parts but other then that its not cost effective. same as my structual work, might be good for architect, but when they try to give me 3D layout without cleaning it up its trouble expecially when the arch. dosn't know drafting standards. Well I could go on but I'll probally get flamed for this . Peace. The rentapen

 

[3DDon]

Sirius,

I have 4 years of SolidWorks experience as of last week. Except for the past 2 months, all of my time has been spent doing one off's - special machines and test fixtures mostly. If you are receiving or sending CAD data to/from outside, find a CAD package that has the highest number of file types that it can talk to (ie, IGES, STEP, DXF, etc.).

As for CNC machining, I have sent SolidWorks (98-2001) generated IGES files with and without surface information to some of the worst CAM packages ever made, and these files popped right in. In the case where I sent surfaces, the generation of tool paths (by the operater) started as soon as the file came in. With just wireframe, obviously surfaces had to be created. The CAM packages that I've sent IGES files to were older versions EdgeCAM, MasterCAM and SurfCAM (old and new).

The newer verions of SurfCAM can be installed as an add-in to SolidWorks and all of the tools paths and code can be generated within the SolidWorks environment. I have a machine shop owner friend in Michigan that I've done work with for some time and he is using SurfCAM within SolidWorks. All I have to do is send him is the finished SolidWorks assemblies and cut the PO, and he's off and running! Great stuff.
Don Shoebridge
Sr. Product Developement Engineer

http://www.geocities.com/donshoebridge

 

[Sirius]

So, bearing in mind the situation I posted earlier, would anyone recommend the use of a proper 3D package when designing Progression Tools (multi stage press tools) and Checking/Workholding Fixtures such as bracket hole positions on a car exhaust system or Electrode machining holes in tip ends of Turbine blades to within 0.01mm of true position?.
We currently recieve mostly paper or 2d generated dxfs etc from UG and Catia models and what a nightmare it can be - hours of editing and rads spiraling out into infinity or fragmented into thousands of little blips etc etc making a normally small basic drawing upto 5MB in size or in the case of paper drawings a total redraw from scratch and you never get the views you need anyway! - with a model however, any view you want can be generated and it sounds like bliss.
I think it would be an advantage to us to draw the fixture in 3d around an imported 3d model from the source - perhaps even performing boolean operations to get location nests/forms etc along with other benifits like not drawing 3 views seperatly which often allows unforseen clashes between things - and have you ever tried to redraw a complex aerofoil shape from paper casting drawings?? nothing is ever in a true orientation! and to be confident your jobs going to work you have to do a lot of double checking to make sure things function in '3d real space' it can take hours and hours of what could be 'unecessary' time.
With standard parts like toggle clamps, air cylinders,motors,screws, press tool parts all available in 3d solids now, surely its possible build up a fixture or press tool more quickly than 2d draughting from scratch out of catalogs and reap all the other benifits 3d has to offer.
We were once sent some drawings of a press tool undertaken by another company, it was obvious to me it had been done in 3d because there were exploded isometric views and telltale lines on blends etc, the other guys in our office just thought it was a 2d drawn isometric as they couldnt even comprehend drawing something like that in 3d! and even mocked me a bit for even thinking it! - they said it must of taken months to draw and laughed at the mugs who had paid for it thinking our cumbersome way was soooo much better - but little did they know - if that company wanted another similar press tool drawing up they could just change the model slightly and the rest will virtually automatic update which would have taken us weeks of sifting through and altering/redimensioning all the different plates, punches, dies detail views etc! aswell as they being able to use it for rendered visualisations for the customer and FEA of the punches/formers and finished article etc.
With automatic feature recognition becoming available, we could even recieve a 'bent up' sheet metal pressing and then flatten it out for blanking etc rather than spending hours redrawing what you think the flat development will look like and figuring out all the bend calcs etc. So it does go on - Ive seen it... but to what extent?.
Our customers seem to forge on ahead with thier software and its getting more and more of a problem recieving information on our antiquated 2d system and things can only get worse.
Somebody somewhere must have been in the exact same position and I would like to innovate/bring things more upto date rather than wash my hands of it all. But the final decision will only be made by the ever cost conscious (often foolhardy)bosses and Im just a lowly designer so what do I know??.
Anyway, Ill leave it there before it turns into my work autobiography!! . Sorry to bore you all - but somebody must know this situation/type of work and be able to offer further advice.
PS Thanks to the posters above, Ive logged them into my head for the future. And if any guys from my works are reading this somehow - you know who I am!.

Sirius (The longest 'Limey' moan in the world).

 

[3DDon]

Sirius,

The short answer to your long question is, yes! It is well worth going to 3D from 2d and for all of the reasons and assumptions that you just mentioned. Building a 3D vitural fixture around the parts is exactly the way to do it. And yes, it eliminates countless hours of guess work. And yes, it eliminates mistakes.

You mentioned something about feature recognition and the ability to flaten sheet parts. I'm not trying to plug SolidWorks again but... If I were sent a dumb sheet metal solid, as long as it didn't have any embosses and it's not coined, I could flaten that dumb solid with SolidWorks in one step! I haven't had the need to use it, but I have done it playing around.

You really need to get into 3D solid modeling. You seem to know most, if not all of the benefits of 3D. Now you just have to get a seat and try it. Find a handfull of resalers in your area and see if they can perform some of the tasks that you are currently doing.
Don Shoebridge
Sr. Product Developement Engineer

http://www.geocities.com/donshoebridge

 

[MadMango]

I'll support Don here.

I've worked at companies that had no prototype capabilities, and we had to rely on outside shops to do our work. Having SolidWorks was a huge benefit. We didn't have to worry about some drafter changing a dim without changing the object lines, or we didn't have to worry about the drawing not being to scale. SolidWorks ties all that together (i.e. associativity).

Now I am working at a company that has a laser & 2 Amadas for sheet metal, 8 breaks, 8 Fadal 4-axis CNC stations, plus a bevy of other related machinery. Having SolidWorks here is great for what we do. We don't do much in the way of surface models, mostly sheet metal and simple, but complex, machining.

I send the SWX created flatpatterns as DFX to the sheet metal shop, and I send IGES files to the CNC mills. Sometimes if there is a gap in production, I can even get my prototype parts back the same week. "Happy the Hare at morning for she is ignorant to the Hunter's waking thoughts."

 

[k111er]

A lot of posts have stated that "we have ***, and it works for us". If this is all that you need, there is no reason to switch packages, right? In fact, with the right operator, even 'substandard' packages can perform admirably. However, if you are in a position to purchase new CAD software, you will likely go with a full solid modelling package, and by far, I would have to say that UG comes out on top. Jason Stranak
Eng. Director

http://www.tkti.biz

 

[Paulax]

To add to this ancient thread - I have designed many complex industrial machines over 7 years using AutoCAD 10 thru 13 and will have to say it works well for assemblies of 200+ simple, orthogonal parts (such as would be made in a normal machine shop.) Version 13+ has the solids which is useful to make shapes that can't be made with just thick polylines. Despite the "2-1/2 D" nature of the older versions, it's an efficient way to accurately record a design. Files are "stable" and can be relied on to open properly years later. Version 13c3 software in particular was dead stable.

Having used Solidworks 97 thru 2000 for similar machines, it really slows down once the parts add up and requires more care to divide the design up into useable chunks. It is easier to use initially but the downside is the more complex inter-relation between part, assembly, and drawing files. We had daily crashes - especially when the files get large. In some cases files did not open properly a year later. Drawings in particular were vulnerable to loss of data or general flakeyness.

 

[cncprogramming]

Hi, I think the Solid Edge is very friendly for human brains!

I am using Solid Edge for four years and strongly reccomend to get this software. Especialy in sheet metal aplication.
They upgraded the math core. Easy to migrate between Modelling and Drafting mode. Solide Edge has a bunch of file
translators. This software is stable.It has beatyful Tutorial, which allows You to get in a few days.
When I worked with Solid Works I had couple of times crashed files; I think Solid Works overloading computer Buffers.
Inventor still has bugs, may be in the future...it will be
beter.
Pro E has strong math core, stable but not friendly to users.
I-DEAS is good like Pro-E but more friendly.
So I would go for Solid Edge!