pros and cons in SolidWorks

Sorry Paul but that is not correct. You forgot to put the answer in the
form of a question (jeopardy). The correct answer would be
"What is a DEMO?"

 

Hi;

Here is a question I would like to ask. Who has actualy change from Inventor
to SolidWorks, what was your reason for that and what do you think about it
now? I use Inventor 9 right now.

Thank you,

Igor.

To reply please use address


That package could be SolidWorks, ProE, Solid Edge, or even

 

Some CAD packages do the network effect better than others. For
example, AutoCAD is very good at it. ProE used to be good at it. UG is
good at it in that UG and SolidEdge talk to each other. SolidWorks is
not, even within SolidWorks, much less with CATIA.

SolidWorks has trouble with round trip dumb solid transfer, esp. IGES,
sometimes with STEP and ACIS and least of all with parasolid.
SolidWorks has trouble with round trip transfer to earlier versions...
it can't.
SolidWorks has trouble with transfer to and from CATIA.
SolidWorks has trouble with transfer to eDrawings.
SolidWorks has trouble with transfer to ACAD formats.
SolidWorks has performance problems with importing 2D drawings with
lots of lines.
SolidWorks may even have trouble with networking with the same version
if two different companies use divergent modeling practices or system
setup.
and last but not least:
DWGEditor has trouble with the most recent ACAD formats.
DWGEditor has trouble with foreign language fonts.

These are all areas which may have workarounds and may not. But
workarounds consume time.

 

You might checkout the Solidworks forums...I've seen a couple of
ex-Inventor users there. Probably a managment decision.

 

"I think what Jon is so eloquently and professionaly trying to say..."

I tailor what I write to the audience and forum.

"Thank God he's not out promoting my CAD package of choice."

See above... pussy.


Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

Bo,

Most engineers and posters to this forum are hardly professional and
that certainly includes you.

This post of yours is typical and has nothing to do with the FACTS I
presented. Just for you here are those FACTS again. Enjoy!

SaladWorks sucks donkey when you have to work with non-native geometry
and modify or fix it quickly.

http://www.kubotekusa.com/news/in_the_news/CPD_Mining Intelligence.pdf



SaladWorks sucks donkey for high-end surfacing. Good luck finding a
SaladWorks tutorial to do this kind of high-end surfaced model.


http://www.hydraulicdesign.net/fvs3-sample/concept-a-sample.htm


Why does SaladWorks suck at high-end surfacing?


http://cadinsider.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/dassault_and_so.html#...



"Dassault and SolidWorks are talking... Dassault/Catia is making sure
they keep the Solidworks team in check so that they do not start to
expand their reach into Catia's strengths. For example, one has to
wonder why Solidworks, with all the bright brains behind their product,

has never made any attempt to address complex surface modeling. Instead

users must rely on add-ons or other surface modelers, such as Rhino or
Alias/Autodesk StudioTools. Don't tell me they have no clue on how to
handle curvature continuity...As for data translation, it fits into the

same strategy: keep both products as separate as possible, and nobody
has to learn french."


Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

I reckon that you can model that sports car in Solidworks as well,
using the techniques shown there. The only thing not possible yet is
the change in surface degree, but I am not sure that this is necessary.
I agree that think3 is a good program though. Why the chip on the
shoulder bro?

 

Banqueer has a chip on his shoulder because he is an idiot.

 

Thank you, Jason;

There is a forum on Solidworks website. However, it seems to be a problem to
download the messages for off-line reading. Can you suggest anything?

Igor.

 

http://www.thecapras.org/mcapra/muppets/images/statwald_crop.gif
You had a 2X4 <G>.

But he's funny.

 

Jon, I challenge you to go out and start a 3D Solids CAD product that
"does it all & does it well" and make a product people will buy in
droves.

You have made your point about SolidWorks over and over. Everyone
knows your viewpoint.

Now do something.

Talk is cheap; work is hard, & pundits don't get paid, versus what the
creators of SWks got as a payout. So create the next NeuWorks 3D.

Bo

 

Has banquercadcam (written entirely in Windows Native
banquerbabble) been forgotten already?
Or the XML kernel? Or the 5 axes demo of machining developable
surfaces at long, long last? Or DUCT as the latest & greatest?
Fame is so fleeting <g>.

 

This is a frequently asked question. Following, is a slightly
different perspective on selecting CAD Software.

What I have seen over the years is that what ever the latest CAD
technology is, that in the early versions that there are lots of bugs.
And as the software matures, the bugs, file bloat, speed, and generally
the effectiveness of the software improves. Not only do they improve
but the competing packages general approach the capabilities of each
other.

As a conclusion to all of this, the first point is not to purchase a
software package that is less then 10 major versions into their
development. SW and Inventor have both passed this mile stone. With
SW being a couple of years ahead of Inventor. Not that either of them
are perfect but the usability of them are both fairly reasonable now.
I don't know about the version level of ProE. But, just by shipping a
new version does not constitute a "major version", (in my perspective).
I was surprised to hear that one fellow thought so highly about ProE.
Of all the folks that I know from our user group that have had
experience with both ProE and SW I have never heard any feel so
positively about ProE and what little that I have seen from ProE, it
seemed to be still fairly immature, (the latest version).

If you accept that it is true that the functionality of the software
between different packages tends to merge as each package becomes
mature then there are a few things to consider: 1) compatability of
vendors, shops and other resources. 2) Total investment which
includes the purchase cost, the equipment required cost and the
engineering cost to learn the software, (probably the biggest expense).
3) Availability of support and help is also fairly important. If you
have a freind or two that can answer quick questions this can be quite
valuable, reguardless of the package. In my case SW is the winner for
each of these categories. I believe that SW is at least twice as easy
to learn as Inventor and I have never heard anyone brag about how easy
it is to learn ProE, even ProE users.

But, of all of the issues mentioned there is one other that I place
above all the rest. And this is the company behind the product. If
the company does not have an attitude of becomming successful by first
making thier clients successful then over the years it is going to cost
you nothing but time and money and trouble. One of the reasons why I
switched from Invenor to SW was because Autodesk fairly consistently
demonstrated that their bottom line was important and what the users
thougth was not. On the other hand, I have been fairly pleased with
SW's response the their user base. Not that they have listened to
every suggestion but they have been fairly responsive to the user base.
As far as the other cad developer companies, such as ProE it really
makes me nervous that they were selling their software for $40,000 when
SW and Autodesk were in the $5,000 range. ProE has come down
considerably but it took them several years to see the light. I'm not
sure that they see that both the company and the user base must both be
successful for all of us to stay in business.

I can't answer therse questions for others, especially when it comes to
how some company will respect their users but so far I have found SW to
be fairly consistent.

BTW, there are probably three important reasons why some people have
troulbe with SW locking up and not handling very big assemblies: 1)
The wrong drivers, especially the video driver. 2) Operating over a
network which has not been set up properly. 3) Developing models with
bad practices, (one of these being the mixing of mates between parts,
assemblies and sub-assemblies).

Hope this helps.

EdT

 

Don't think you can.....the forum program they use is not very
good.....though I think it's be replaced in the next few weeks.

 

"I reckon that you can model that sports car in Solidworks as well,..."

So *easy* to say. So *hard* to produce *factual proof* and I'm not
talking about some pretty picture.

James Carruthers offers the *proof*.

http://www.hydraulicdesign.net/rhinores.htm

You got *proof* of the same kind of extensive tutorial offered in
SaladWorks?

How about *value*?

Does it makes sense to attend SaladWorks World to learn elaborate
workarounds for SaladWorks because SaladWorks sucks donkey at high-end
surfacing or does it make more sense to purchase an affordable training
CD from James Carruthers and use a program with better thought out
NURBS surfacing?

"I agree that think3 is a good program though."

Please...

ThinkID is more than just a "good program".

http://www.think3.com/en/news/release_detail.asp?id=4228

"think3 was selected because of its innovative technology such as
Global-Shaped Modeling, and the skillful performance of its advanced
research and development team led by Alain Massabo, according to Honda
R&D. "Working side by side with the design 'scientists' at Honda R&D
is the one of the most challenging and exciting periods of my career in
computer aided industrial design," said Alain Massabo, vice president
of advanced R&D at think3 and a 35-year veteran to the computer-aided
design industry. think3's advanced Research and Development Group,
based in Aix-en-Provence, France, is comprised of 10 experts who focus
exclusively on developing next generation ID technology with leading
university and industrial development partners as part of ongoing
European-Union funded projects. This includes Fiores II and most
recently, Touch N' Design, both focused on creating revolutionary ways
for designers to approach product development. In addition, the
results of these projects are implemented into think3 software
products, such as DesignXpressions, which directly benefit users."

"Why the chip on the shoulder bro?"

It's more than appropriate in this forum. It's not in other forums I
have helped start and that I post to.

Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

Nope. A pretty picture.
But I can see how such things always confuse you so ... you need
clues.

 

More like a lump of clay, eh? And you have a hammer ...

 

Speaking of clues, why are you crossposting CAD drivel into a CNC
newsgroup?

8 crossposts and not one is on topic or interesting.

 

Dan,

Cliff's favorite game for the past few years, cyberstalking Jon and
cross-posting Cliff-ism dribble all over the net. Makes him feel big,
what a pitiful life Cliff must lead.

Tom

 

Thanks, I will wait. It would be good to get something similar to
autodesk.inventor discussion forum.

Igor.