Yay! One more "which is best" debate. Beats the heck out of doing any research, I suppose. OP doesn't even care enough to tell what sort of design he's doing. GIGO.
Allow me to further explain....
Our company builds military trailers, enclosures, tool / storage boxes, etc. I have used PRO-E 3.0 Wildfire (novice user and Solid Edge (Advanced-to-expert user). I dislike Pro-E because it was difficult to learn and use. I love Solid Edge because it is user friendly and I have little-to-no issues with this despite the size of the assemblies / use. I use the welding, piping, sheetmetal, etc. modules on a regular basis along with normal extrusions and assemblies. One of our customers asked us to use Solid Works or Inventor for an upcoming project. We would need to purchase new and self-learn the new software. From the research I conducted Solid Works appears to be similar to Solid Edge in both function, performance, and price. Inventor is less expensive, but I have no expeierence with it and typically cheaper is not better. I have not used AutoCad since college 12 years ago. With that said, anyone whom has used both softwares, please give your opinion. Thank you.
If the customer wants a specific program to be used... use it. They all have subtle differences and areas where they are better than the competition... but for 90% of the tasks, they will all do the job.
-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Pretty good with SolidWorks
Experience:
2 years using, 4 years as application engineer for Intergraph/EMS (anybody remember that one?) - sold to UG
4 years using Pro/E
2 years using and selling SolidEdge
7 years using SolidWorks
2 years superficial experience with Catia
I cannot address Inventor but I can tell you that one of the prime architects of SolidEdge left several years ago and started with Inventor when it was pretty "green"
Generalizations:
Here is my "generalizations" that anyone and everyone will be more than willing to debate, but are how I make judgements from my experience.
Very large projects (trains, airplanes, buses, cars) - Catia, UG/NX, or Pro/E. Each has its merits/problems. Medium projects (manufacturing equipment design, consumer products) - SolidEdge, Pro/E, Solidworks. If cost is main consideration - SolidEdge or SolidWorks, if functionality trumps, then Pro/E or SolidWorks. All three are about the same. Small projects (single parts or small assemblies) - SolidWorks or SolidEdge. Complex surfacing (consumer products, mold design) - SolidWorks, Catia, or UG
But - keep in mind - there is hardly any difference between any of them. You are splitting hairs.
Particular strengths:
Some tools just do some things better than others. Again - my opinions.
All "high-end" packages load/unload/manage large assemblies well, but for the "mid-range" tools I found SolidEdge particularly good at this.
All "high-end" packages have a more complex, less "discoverable" user interface, but I have found SolidWorks to be complex due to the large feature set. The SolidEdge user interface is a different paradigm than others, but once you learn the technique it seems very efficient.
If you use part/assembly configurations - Pro/E and SolidWorks seem pretty equal, SolidEdge is deficient here as far as my last experience is concerned.
I always found SolidEdge drafting better than anybody else.
For file size, nobody wins - they are all pigs.
For hardware required - they are all the same in most regards.
For file management (not using PDM/PLM/Document management) they all have problems/quirks with maintaining links. Experience is necessary.
Things that nobody has:
Here is a list of things missing from all of them that I have wanted at some point.
1) "Featureless" patterns - Every system requires you to place a feature, then add a pattern feature to duplicate it in a rectangular, circular, or other type of pattern. Wouldn't it be nice if the feature had the pattern built in so you can turn on/off the patterning? This is a particular problem for configured parts where you can go from 0 to N features. To do this in any CAD system you have to place 1 feature, 1 pattern, then in the configuration you have to have each of those two supressed or unsupressed and the count provide to the pattern. Why not just set the count parameter to 0 to suppress the pattern and feature?
2) Mass/Volume iteration - sometimes you need to vary a dimension and iterate to a particular volume or mass. I am told you can do this in some packages (UG/Catia) but I have not used it, but have to write scripts/code in practically all others.
3) Import/Export Neutral File feature definition - this is more a problem of the file-neutral standards, but most systems do not export/import things like tolerance and surface finish if you go through a neutral file such as IGES/STEP/Parasolid. You are forced to have a drawing to understand the model.
4) Feature Level of Detail (LOD) - it would be nice to place a thread callout on a boss or in a hole then be able to toggle the display detail of seeing no thread, a "cosmetic" thread, or the full thread detail.
I could go on a lot about this, but that's all for now.
a bit surprised a customer is prompting you to use one s/ware or another ... these days most will export results that are readily readable (not like the old IGES days).
IMHO, there is no best, as most have replied; each does some things "better" than others and each is "worse" than others (and everyone has different things in either camp). I think you can get a trail license from your local vendor (or online) and see how it goes.
sorry but i had to LOL at your line "self-learn" ... i have a dilbert up "there's no budget for training, so we'll be relying on guessing more than usual".
While you can "usually" get a good export/import of a solid part or assembly, that still makes it far more difficult to work collaboratively with a customer or supplier. Dumb lumps of geometry lack all the features, tolerances, parametrics, etc. Things go much smoother and are less painful if you are both on the same system. This is particularly true if you want to share drawings. Typically, the only drawing interchange is a dfx/dwg file which not only looses all the things a step files looses but also is no longer associative with the solid model.
Never the less, we constantly exchange STEP files back & forth even though we have 3 different CAD packages.
I would not overlook the fact that there are advantages to using a neutral format, be it IGES/STEP/DXF/DWG/JT/PS, when working with suppliers and clients as this can also be a means by which you protect your IP (Intellectual Property). Sometimes it's best to only supply the absolute minimum needed when dealing with suppliers and vendors, and even your customers. Often this will also protect your ability to continue to 'add value' during a future dealing.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
There are companies out there that offer "smart" CAD-CAD translation using a combination of neutral exchange and imbedded plug-ins in each of the CAD tools. I understand for some environments they can approach 100% intelligent exchange.
I have used most of them butIi personally love Inventor - being from old school AutoCad 2D things just seem to make more sense and are easier to use. But its always a personnal opnion.
Also I have always steered clear of the smaller programs as with inventor moving forward your gaining skills which would be useful for your whole career, alot of companies use the main two.
The only option I can see is inventor or solidworks.
I just had to do an evaluation of switching from Solid Edge that we've been using for 10+ years and have tens of thousands of files in, to Solid Works. Justification being basically SW is more common'.
Once you really start to look at it, the effort in switching, at least for the way our products evolve, is massive. Each new product typically uses components from previous products - sometimes more than others. We've just released 3 major new platforms on SE in the last couple of years, and we'll probably be selling and developing these for 5-10 years.
Maybe the way your products are set up you can make a cleaner break.
However, you still have the hit to productivity while picking up the new system & the cost of implementing the new software, training up staff, developing best practices...
If you do have to maintain old designs, do you recreate/translate to SW, or maintain some SE (which means the licensing/maintenance, keeping users up to date...).
Plus, the future of SW is a little unclear right now between going to the 'cloud' and probably switching kernels to the Catia one from the same Parasolid one as Edge. Now, it may be that concerns over this have been exaggerated, but at the same time Catia kernel transitions in the past haven't exactly been smooth as I understand it. At least SE has already had it's big change for the decade with the introduction of synchronous - as awkward as it may have been combined with the UI change.
Now if you didn't already have 3D CAD, then SW would probably be my preference over SE just because of market share, subject to it doing everything you need it to etc.
However, if you already have a 3D CAD system doing what you need, there needs to be a big justification for incurring the costs (both direct and indirect) of switching, or even just introducing another package.
Do the cost benefit analysis as best you can, and see how much extra business you'd have to get from this customer to warrant it.
Similar threads have been had before, one of the latest thread559-302457
