Why has the Automotive Industry avoiding Pro/E as a design tool? 4

[texaspete]

I am a small business that uses 90% or Pro/E software. I have several customers that use CATIA. I have asked them can I design tail lamps in Pro/E but they say it must be done in CATIA. My reply is I can design much faster in Pro/E and I can give them design variation quicker. Why is CATIA got such a strong hold on the Automotive Industry. Looking for replys - thanks Texaspete

 

[TheTick]

A couple reasons:

Automotive tier 1's and OEM's are sticklers about working in their favored CAD (CATIA for Chrysler, UG for GM, etc.) Since they're slingin' the big bucks, they can mandate that their work be done in their CAD format.

We do our designs in SolidWorks. When necessary, we translate to CATIA using a service (mathdata.com). Our customers don't care if the models are parametric, just accurate and in in-car position. Perhaps if you offer to take their dataas-is in their CAD and convert your models to their CAD for delivery you could get in the game.

Pro/E is not really suitable for automotive styling (not chassis or drivetrain or suspension). Its surfacing capability does not match that of UG or CATIA. Pro/E just doesn't give designers the kind of access to mainpulate surface definitions that UG and CATIA do. The differences are subtle and deep, but they are enough to matter.

...Is that you standing behind me, Mr. Loew?

Due to illness, the part of The Tick will be played by... The Tick.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[looslib]

TheTick covers it really well.

When I worked for an airbag supplier, our CAD system of choice was UG but we supplied Saturn with CATIA data and Ford with PDGS data, when required. The funny thing was that we had UG and PDGS, but we used PDGS to do Chrysler work and then converted it to CATIA for delivery.

There are a lot of automotive companies and suppliers that use Pro/E for the mechanical aspects of the car. The surface routines, and ability to get a class A surface, required for body work just aren't in Pro/E. UG was the primary supplier to GM but it took 5 versions before they were officially 'blessed' with that title because of enhancements that GM required UG to make in order to meet their surfacing requirements.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand

 

[mloew]

All,

Although this topic has been covered many times before (recently in thread554-96838), I agree with TheTick and Ben on the surfacing items. I do think that it should be noted that in powertrain and chassis systems Pro/ENINGEER has a strong following in the automotive industry. A recent example is Toyota signed a major deal with PTC to standardize their global powertrain development with Pro/ENGINEER: PTC Announces New Strategic Product Lifecycle Management and Process Improvement Solutions Deployment for Toyota’s Powertrain

Many major Heavy Truck and military vehicle manufactures are standard on Pro/ENINGEER. Several major tier 1 automotive suppliers use Pro/E as their core tool as well.

I maintain that for the vehicle manufacturers and suppliers that do adopt Pro/ENGINEER strategically, there is enormous benefit for them. It seems Pro/E will not ever displace the other tools for Class A, but there is a lot of engineering happening under the skin.


Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew
"Organizations cannot make a genius out of an incompetent. On the other hand, disorganization can scarcely fail to result in efficiency." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[nblylyddy]

I worked as a contract designer for Peterbilt Motor Company. We used Pro/e to design their new, aerodynamic, cab. It turned out beautiful (IMO). I did a lot of surface work because our 3 man team designed the dashboard, including instrument panels. I did a lot of work with the woodgrain trim strips, instrument panels, glove box, air brake controls. The initial surfaces were created in CDRS (I think that's a PTC product). Then the surfaces were imported into Pro and we thickened them and tweeked them for the design.
Try to get some work with Peterbilt or Kenworth (sister companies). They use Pro/E

Highest Regards,
NbLYLYDdy

 

[mloew]

NbLYLYDdy,

CDRS was a Ford proprietary code, right? I did not think PTC was involved with that code.

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew
"Organizations cannot make a genius out of an incompetent. On the other hand, disorganization can scarcely fail to result in efficiency." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[looslib]

NO CDRS was bought by Pro/E, the main code stripped and put inro ISDX and then sold back to the founder.

PDGS was Ford's proprietary CAD system. Development was by Prime (Prime Design Graphics System) which was bought by CV which was bought by PTC.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand

 

[TheTick]

Kenworth and Peterbilt are not automotive, in the sense that they are not part of the consumer automotive market ("Big 3"). Their infrastrucure and markets are much smaller. They do not have the same type of requirements (quality, design, process control) for their supply chain that auto manufacturers have.

 

[mloew]

Ben,

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew
"Organizations cannot make a genius out of an incompetent. On the other hand, disorganization can scarcely fail to result in efficiency." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[RSth]

Because they use high-end tools like CATIA or UG or IDEAS.... Pro/e is "only" mid-range

 

[mloew]

RSth,

Right, that would explain why many automakers do indeed use it in critical chassis and powertrain applications and Ferrari (production vehicle and Formula 1) Mitsubishi (WRC) use it for full vehicle engineering. Pro/ENGINEER is hardly a mid-range tool for solid modeling and engineering.

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew
"Organizations cannot make a genius out of an incompetent. On the other hand, disorganization can scarcely fail to result in efficiency." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[TheTick]

I am going to tread carefully here, so do please read carefully...

We can only speculate on the exact reasons why the auto industry does not use Pro/E more for automotive styling. The fact remains that the Big 3 are heavily vested in their current positions and will remain so for a long time. There is little to zero incentive to switch.

Pro/E is a great tool, and I enjoyed working with it. A fair portion of that work was styling work for motorcycle OEM's and truck tier-1's. When used alone, PTC's product line is a good surface modelling solution. Decent, but not truly great.

However, Pro/E has some shortcomings when it comes to interchange with other CAD and CAID programs used in automotive styling. This is a big problem if "A" surface data needs to be interchanged with other programs like Alias. I have had the opportunity to verify firsthand that Pro/E alters (corrupts?... that's a bit too strong) "A" surface data in such a way that makes it unsuitable for "A" surface design when data is exchanged with other applications.

For example, take a single trimmed B-surface generated in a CAID program like Alias. That surface has an underlying B-surface definition which is defined by a set of defining points and polynomial degrees in the "u" and "v" directions. When translated into UG (or even SolidWorks!) via STEP, IGES, or parasolid, the entire B-surface definition is included in the trimmed surface definition, not matter how small the trimmed portion is. When the surface is untrimmed, the full B-surface is revealed.

In Pro/E, the same surface is brought in with only enough of the B-surface definition to produce the trimmed portion of the imported trimmed surface. When the trimmed surface is untrimmed, only part of the original defining surface is there. What's more, Pro/E sometimes changes the polynomial degree of the B-surface (Alias often produces surfaces that are 5th degree in one direction). This is enough of an alteration to cause problems.

"When everyone is thinking alike, no one is thinking very much. --Eckhard Schwarz (1930--2004)

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[mloew]

Tick,

I don’t think there is much universal disagreement with you on the surfacing issue. Why don’t you write a FAQ on this topic so we will not have to continually address this in the future?


Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew
"Organizations cannot make a genius out of an incompetent. On the other hand, disorganization can scarcely fail to result in efficiency." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[looslib]

Maybe it has to do withn this story I heard a long time ago about Computervision. Lets not forget that PTC came from people who couldn't get the CV management to fund the parametric modeling paradigm that Pro/E spawned.

When it came to an industry meeting on IGES and surface exchange information, the IGES spec called for U and V grids across the surface. When another company's CAD system read in the data produced by CV, it came in as short line, arc or spline data that when completed was what we see as the UV grid of a surface. When the CV programmers were asked why they did their data that way, they replied that nothing in the spec said the data had to be useful.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand

 

[texaspete]

On the question(s) about IGES or Step translations. I was told some years back that IGES (not sure about STEP) only supported 3rd or 5th degree curves and or surfaces. That would cause minor surface variations. Which means that it may not be visible to the naked eye. I believe the surface variation are smaller than microns. When we used CATIA V4 and "IGES out" the receiving company 90 plus percent of the time complains of missing surfaces or curves some where on the 3D part. Example reflector surfaces for Tail Lamps. CATIA will not IGES in an ASSEMBLY file from say UG. We have that problem now. We take solidworks ASSEMBLY file which come from our tool shops and "IGES IN" to UG which creates individual files. Finally IGES OUT of UG each individual file ".prt" file to CATIA. WOW whatda mess wouldn't you say. We are experimenting with CATIA V5 before we buy. 3 out of 3 CATIA v4 projects have severe data translations errors going from V4 to CATIA V5. I will concluded my statement with "I want my Pro back!"
Thanks to all Texaspete.

 

[HDS]

Too bad PTC didn't do anything with ICEM. It is hard to believe they allmost let that product die.

 

[mgnt8]

Maybe the correct question posed should have been why has the automotive industry avoided using Pro/E for automotive interiors. I've heard a lot about how Pro/E doesn't work well with Alias (so I guess that means that its really Alias that rules the roost in automotive design). I can't speak definitively about the Big Three, but I've worked in design groups for heavy equipment companies building automotive-sytle cabs, and Alias and Pro/E worked fine together. Now PTC is saying there is now Granite interopability for Studio Tools.

 

[onyx01]

No doubt the Pro/E is a good system, many companies in my area use Pro/E, most (90%) are not automotive related. Now as for automotive, most tier 1's and OEM's have had many years working with the software mfg's to specialize software for content and functionality. And with intellectual investment they wanted a return on the product so they "forced" you to use their software.

Until recently, if you dealt with an automotive OEM, you had to use their software. Now some Tier 1 & 2 Suppliers are selling that it cost less to use one software across the board. You do not need to manage three (or more) CAD systems, less IT, one computer platform, one software company to deal with, the list grows and in the end it all adds up to less money. And with automotive companies pounding fist to reduce cost, but keep quality, they are accepting non-native CAD data.

Try again, you may be supprised to see that the so called rules have changed.


Brandon Jacobsen
Product Design Engineer - Catia

 

[cehall]

Parametric Tech bought CDRS. Changed the name to ProDesigner and lost all recognition. Then they named it back to CDRS. Now that style is around they don't offer CDRS anymore. But, what they stripped out of CDRS and put in Style (2001, WF1/2) is poor at best. Loss of export cleanness, rendering is slow and poor, file management is lacking.

We are simply going away from ProE for surfaces. The surfaces coming out have to be rechecked back it to verify proper export file. I have brought the same surface file (mating surface) into two parts and had diff results.

Give me back ICEM, or give me up grades to CDRS, and take back Style. Oh, well that is their "slippery sand" platform now, so guess I will do Alias.