ProE vs SW

I am a Solidworks user but I just joined a company who is using ProE and I'm
not impressed one bit by ProE. We are in the process of evaluating our
software and I'd like propose going to Solidworks. Can someone explain to
me what is so great about ProE because it seems to take an average 3 more
steps to do what I can accomplish with Solidworks.

TIA,
Fred

 

Careful, Fred. You may be treading in a mine field. In fact, you
almost certainly are. You may be right that it sometimes takes more
mouse clicks to do something in Pro/E than in SolidWorks. In fact, I've
seen that criticism more than once. But that's not to say that it's not
capable software. If you propose SolidWorks and you're successful,
guess who is going to be blamed when all the Pro/E guys criticize
SolidWorks for its limitations. And if you propose SolidWorks and lose
you're likely to be looked down upon if you whine even a little bit
about Pro/E. As callous as it may sound, allow me to suggest that you
made your bed -- now lie in it. If they ask you about SolidWorks, give
them your opinion. Otherwise I strongly recommend that you keep your
opinions to yourself. It doesn't help to be right if you're unemployed.

'Sporky'

 

something to bear in mind regarding ProE--it's MUCH more difficult to learn
than SW, so as a relatively new user your opinions of its capabilities
aren't necessarily fully informed. Some of what you're experiencing may be
learning pains.

 

: something to bear in mind regarding ProE--it's MUCH more difficult to learn
: than SW, so as a relatively new user your opinions of its capabilities
: aren't necessarily fully informed. Some of what you're experiencing may be
: learning pains.
:
I agree about the difference familiarity makes. All you really need to do to feel
like a novice in SW again is go from 2003 to 2005. Something I've noticed that
contributes to the impression that SW is easier, faster is the workflow. It gets
you into sketch mode quickly and easily. In Proe there's a more elaborate setup of
the featue before you get to sketch mode. But, when you're done with the sketch,
the feaures also done. In both cases it's a two step process and as to speed,
possibly 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

As to Fred's original question, comparing the two, people are doing this all over.
They're switching back and forth, PE to SW, SW to PE. When I took my SW course at
San Diego City College, the SW guru was taking PE. He had two terminals fired up,
one with SW, the other with Wildfire and was building parts, side by side, feature
by feaure, running a comparison. I've subsequently tried it myself: familiarity is
a big issue in how easily you can get the job done, how much backtracking and
undoing and redoing. So, as opposed to just shutting up about it, I'd suggest a
shoot out, a modelling challenge. One SW hotshot vs one WF hotshot where
familiarity is no longer an issue and a part with about 2 hours worth of feature
creation, nothing too fancy that one or the other can't handle without another $10
grand worth of addons. Half an hour to review the print, plan the job, then hit
the tubes. I don't see, Fred, how you could get in too much trouble for suggesting
an honest test. In fact, if I could get such a thing going, I'd have it touring
the country, hitting county fairs over the summer, going to highschools and commun
ity colleges and engineering departments, introduce the software, get some healty
competition going, a Proe team from one school, SW from another, get people
talking about design. I know it's a little sideshowy but it beats the crap out of
the completely staged tradeshow vendor demos. What do people think?

David Janes

 

Obviously, SolidWorks is the better software. I can tell that without
even looking at the type of work you are doing. This is a good thing,
too, since you don't mention anything about the type of design work
you do.

 

Tick , you always make me laugh.

 

...
"..... I know it's a little sideshowy but it beats
the crap out of the completely staged tradeshow
vendor demos. What do people think?"

Doesn't even have to have a competitive aspect, just show
the goods on a controlled group of design applications that
exercise part modeling (Adesk can sit out the tough ones),
data import / healing, assy (robust top down capability?
large assy performance?), documentation (just how long does
it take to generate that third tier partial section or regen
a basketful of views after a change, apply annotations,
build customized parts lists?) abilities. Leave it to the
observer to decide what's software related, what's user
related, just so the users are proficient enough to use an
efficient workflow. Maybe someday multi platform user
groups will become popular and local colleges would be ideal
hosts (would afford the faculty a bit of, much needed in
some cases, exposure as well). An annual lecture series?
Work a trade with local user groups? There is a need.

As far as Fred goes; I'm baffled. Unless he is the
"department", his new co-workers are the best source of
what's good or bad about the software they use and opinions
about it's suitability for intended purposes. If he can
demonstrate the superiority of another software for the
purpose; do it. If not, well .....

(does anyone smell marketing cologne?)

 

I think they manufacture Onions, so that is what he will be modeling

Ken

 

One line of David's response jumps out at me...the part about the extra $10k
of add-ins. Swx doesn't require that, but to get decent functionality from
ProE you have to invest that much more (counting maintenance) for "advanced
assemblies", mechanism design, surfaces, etc. (they call it Flex 3C) to get
you above the limp-along basic capabilities of "Foundation" or whatever they
call it this year.

 

Preferences, requirements lead where they may that simply is
not true.

 

I use both. I use Solidworks 2004 at my day job, and pro/e2001 at
various companies for side work. My bottom line is, that SW is very
limited...especially for the kind of things we design. I learned
pro/e first, then solidworks. All this talk about SW being easier to
learn so it's better...what's that all about? Pro/e is not that
difficult to learn. It makes you think like an engineer planning your
steps and features somewhat in advance. What's wrong with that? I go
by the rule, model it like you were actually fabricating it. Pro/e
pretty much makes you do it this way. I also teach Solidworks and
Pro/e at the local technical college. I am not an "expert" at either,
but my knowledge of the 2 programs and my design capablities are very
credible. When comparing the 2, solidworks is like a fisher price
toy.

 

would you clarify your viewpoint for me in respect of
a) what things you design
b) what aspects of SW you think are limited
thanks

 

Dan, dan, dan,
I was going to stay out of this little debate till your fisher price
comparison for SW. We deal with over 130 companies with various CAD packages
and you want to hear the biggest one they complain about besides ACAD, it is
Pro-E. Pro-E let there advanced surfacing be sold in an inside job to some
former managers at Pro-E. How smart was that?. On top of that they have been
slowly crippling the main package to compete price wise and like someone
said earlier, you need the add ons to do any complicated industrial design.
Now before you blow a gasket, Pro-E is a above average package that is
behind in user interface and customer service. They also have made many dumb
moves in the past 5 years that further puts them at a disadvantage. I think
what people are trying to get across is dollar for dollar SW blows Pro-E out
of the water. Until you start adding the modules at extreme increases in
cost. Then you have to let Pro-E take on the big guys Catia and UG where
they get trounced.

 

would you clarify your viewpoint for me in respect of

I've use Pro/E and UG in support of industrial design in computers,
motorcycle accessories, and consumer products. I currently use SW and
have been for three years.

Pro/E "pros"
•Pro/E's sheet metal design package is far superior.
•SW has no ability to explicitly control curvature continuity for
splines or surfaces. This is a biggie in I.D. IMHO, this is the
biggest stumbling block in the path of SW becoming a true competitor
to Pro/E.
•Just try making a variable pitch helix or variable diameter spring in
SW. (I've done it, but it was tough).
•"Variable Section Sweeps" absolutely rock.

Pro/E "cons"
•Yes, Pro/E demands that you fully constrain EVERYTHING in a sketch.
This is pointless.
•Pro/E is like a government bureaucrat when it comes to filling in
blanks to make features.
•I despise PTC's business practices and hate the idea of giving them
$$$.
•UG totally outperforms Pro/E. Pro/E let's you play doctor; UG lets
you play God.

It's not about the CAD program. It's about the design. If your
tool's lack of capability is causing you to compromise your designs,
you have the wrong tool.

 

...
"It's not about the CAD program. It's about the design. If
your tool's lack of capability is causing you to compromise
your designs, you have the wrong tool."

That's it in a nutshell.

 

....
"I was going to stay out of this little debate till
your fisher price ....."

Didn't need to be said that way, for sure.

"Pro-E let there advanced surfacing be sold in an inside job
to some former managers at Pro-E."

Refering to ICEM? Regardless, I think it could be said that
SW surfacing isn't up to par with what's available in
Foundation at present. ???

"On top of that they have been slowly crippling the main
package to compete price wise and like someone said earlier,
you need the add ons to do any complicated industrial
design."

That is definitely debatable.

"I think what people are trying to get across is dollar for
dollar SW blows Pro-E out of the water."

I don't agree, but would like to hear more about why you
think so.

=====================================

 

This is referencing the Wildfire Foundation Package only.
Pro-E doesnt have any stress analysis out of the box like CosmosXpress in
SW.
Pro-E doesnt have and edge on SW in Surfacing in this version
Pro-E doesnt have 2d associative process sheets in assembly mode
Pro-E doesnt have configuration capabilities
Pro-E Sheet metal capabilities are limited.

 

...
"This is referencing the Wildfire Foundation Package only."

Foundation is (currently) Foundation Advantage.

"Pro-E doesnt have any stress analysis out of the box like
CosmosXpress in SW."

Does FEA come with basic SW? (Don't know; asking.) I
believe that there is a new package "Flex Advantage" that
will give you an option of going with Dynamic Analysis (MDO;
MDX, or kinematic comes with the basic package) or Mechanica
Stress. I don't know if that's part or assy (assume assy)
and don't know what it costs.

"Pro-E doesnt have and edge on SW in Surfacing in this
version"

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. To be honest I
don't really know SW surfacing at all well, but I chose WF
(Pro/Surface is stock) because it appeared that it did have
an edge from the evals I did. I'm quite happy with it so
far, though still use Rhino, which I've had, for some
surface work.

"Pro-E doesnt have 2d associative process sheets in
assembly mode"

Don't know.

"Pro-E doesnt have configuration capabilities"

Family tables, flexible components, simplified reps?

"Pro-E Sheet metal capabilities are limited."

I can't really say as the SM I do is aviation related so
don't use the stock functions. Hearsay would lead me to
investigate further, though.

Thanks. I'm not out to sell the package, just trying to
become a little better informed.
-----------------------------------

 

"The glass is too large"

I like it. 8~)

 

Would you be interested in expanding on this? We're looking at other CAD
packages since SW has such a hard time making good parts with swoopy
surfaces. We went to the local UG VAR for a demo and were very unimpressed.
The fellow doing the demonstrating was a local UG user, not a salesman.
Perhaps he wasn't very good at using the software but it seemed like the
user interface required a lot of extra picks and we didn't see anything that
SW couldn't do (although SW might be very flaky about it). UG has a very
good reputation, but we didn't see anything to support it.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"