SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by antik stani » Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:00:00



I'm PRO/E and UG italian user.
have also seen SW, SE and SOLIDESIGNER (COCREATE).
SW and SE are similar windows native cads with the good parasolid engine but
they are mid range.
The software that have impressioned me is SOLIDESIGNER (I've seen a demo).
I think it's the new generation of cad, not feature based but more easy,
faster to use and very powerfull in modellatin (solids, free-form surfaces).
I think is comming the end of a generation cads, based on features (all
other cads) and only parametric (pro/e).
I think in future we will see mani cads like solidesigner.
I thik also that cads softwarehouse are looking interest to Cocreate becouse
they must fast copy it now.

CIAO.

--

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Richard Wagenaa » Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:00:00


I agree with you but you should not need to look at a package
that pushes one way, whether it is parametric only or
hybrid modeling only. Soliddesigner doesn't really have a good
userinterface I think but it has some very efficient tools for
conceptual design which can be much faster than parametric approaches.
There is already a CAD program that is very similar to
Soliddesigner and it even can do feature based design with history.
It is Ironcad and it has all the common direct manipulation
commands that Soliddesigner has and it is much more user friendly.
It also has standard holes and standard parts integrated.
If you are an Italian user I guess you need proper ISO drawings
and this is still hard with Ironcad, at least in the last version (1.4) I saw.
But things might have improved.
There also is another German package called Hicad and it has
also both parametric and hybrid modeling but it is extremely expensive,
about $15000 for the most normal modules, even macros is a separate
module costing $2000. You might consider CATIA 5, I think they still
support hybrid modelling next to feature based modeling.
If you need associative product states which is often very important,
for example machined parts and the base material for cutting then you
will need history and then SW is one of the best ways to go currently.
SW has product states both for parts and assemblies. Assembly states
can drive the individual part states. These things are impossible in
Soliddesigner, Ironcad and Hicad and can cause a lot of additional
work and errors.

Good luck
Richard


> I'm PRO/E and UG italian user.
> have also seen SW, SE and SOLIDESIGNER (COCREATE).
> SW and SE are similar windows native cads with the good parasolid engine but
> they are mid range.
> The software that have impressioned me is SOLIDESIGNER (I've seen a demo).
> I think it's the new generation of cad, not feature based but more easy,
> faster to use and very powerfull in modellatin (solids, free-form surfaces).
> I think is comming the end of a generation cads, based on features (all
> other cads) and only parametric (pro/e).
> I think in future we will see mani cads like solidesigner.
> I thik also that cads softwarehouse are looking interest to Cocreate becouse
> they must fast copy it now.

> CIAO.

> --


 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Eduar » Wed, 16 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Do you know which are the most important things that Solidworks cannot do
compared to the programs with both parametrics and hybrid modeling?
If a program like Ironcad has both parametric and hybrid modeling, shouldn't
it  have associativity between assemblies and parts?

Eduard


Quote:>If you need associative product states which is often very important,
>for example machined parts and the base material for cutting then you
>will need history and then SW is one of the best ways to go currently.
>SW has product states both for parts and assemblies. Assembly states
>can drive the individual part states. These things are impossible in
>Soliddesigner, Ironcad and Hicad and can cause a lot of additional
>work and errors.

>Good luck
>Richard

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Robert Berge » Thu, 17 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Eduard,

Quote:> Do you know which are the most important things that Solidworks cannot do
> compared to the programs with both parametrics and hybrid modeling?
> If a program like Ironcad has both parametric and hybrid modeling, shouldn't
> it  have associativity between assemblies and parts?

I think that you maybe a bit confused.  IronCAD is not a hybrid modeler.  It is
a b-rep (boundary representation) solid modeler, just like Solidworks and Solid
Edge.  IronCAD is different from Solidworks in that it is feature based (like
SW) and also has explicit face modeling capabilities. Explicit modeling
operations are useful for making unanticipated design changes that were not
foreseen when you created your model.

Hybrid modelers refer to modeling applications that have surface
modeling/editing (non-manifold) and b-rep solids (manifold) together in a
unified design environment. Hybrid modelers don't differentiate between the two.
Programs like Varimetrix - VX Vision, Think3 - thinkdesign/thinkshape and Ashlar
- Vellum Solids are hybrid modelers.

What Richard is talking about has to do with assembly configuration management
and part to part external referencing in assemblies.

:-)

Robert Berger

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Barr » Tue, 22 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Robert,

I think "hybrid modeling" must mean different things to different
people.  I have always heard it to describe a system that does both
parametric and explicit modeling.  I'm sure it has been used for what
you describe also.

Barry


> Eduard,

>> Do you know which are the most important things that Solidworks
>> cannot do
>> compared to the programs with both parametrics and hybrid modeling?
>> If a program like Ironcad has both parametric and hybrid modeling,
>> shouldn't
>> it  have associativity between assemblies and parts?

> I think that you maybe a bit confused.  IronCAD is not a hybrid
> modeler.  It is a b-rep (boundary representation) solid modeler, just
> like Solidworks and Solid Edge.  IronCAD is different from Solidworks
> in that it is feature based (like SW) and also has explicit face
> modeling capabilities. Explicit modeling operations are useful for
> making unanticipated design changes that were not foreseen when you
> created your model.

> Hybrid modelers refer to modeling applications that have surface
> modeling/editing (non-manifold) and b-rep solids (manifold) together
> in a unified design environment. Hybrid modelers don't differentiate
> between the two. Programs like Varimetrix - VX Vision, Think3 -
> thinkdesign/thinkshape and Ashlar - Vellum Solids are hybrid modelers.

> What Richard is talking about has to do with assembly configuration
> management and part to part external referencing in assemblies.

> :-)

> Robert Berger

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Robert Berge » Sat, 26 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Johnathen,

Quote:> I don't understand something.  When you bring in a file to a Hybrid modeler,
> you just get the lump (no history) solid.

Yes, but you have so many more editing options...You can turn a solid into
surfaces and edit them to create a very different set of geometry.  You can also
repair inaccuracies in the data.

Quote:> Then from there you perform operations such as cutting away material or adding
> material from the imported solid.
> You are confusing explicit modelers with hybrid modelers.  Cutting and adding
> material can be done by any history based solid modeler such as Solidworks.
> Face manipulation can only be done by explicit modelers.
> Please explain to me what else your doing to it that is not possible with a
> history based modeler?  Is it draft, I've never added draft to a lump solid
> so I don't know if a history based modeler can, but there would be other
> factors than to just add draft.

How about moving a boss position, adding draft,adding new parting line features,
changing a fillet size, cahanging a boss height,  resizing ribs to eliminate
sink marks, dimensionally changing a "steel safe" condition in a molded part?
Sound familiar?

Quote:> This is not meant as a bashing, as I am truely interested in knowing...

Hope this helped :-)

Robert Berger

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Robert Heining » Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:00:00



>Robert,

>I think "hybrid modeling" must mean different things to different
>people.  I have always heard it to describe a system that does both
>parametric and explicit modeling.  I'm sure it has been used for what
>you describe also.

>Barry


>> Eduard,

>>> Do you know which are the most important things that Solidworks
>>> cannot do
>>> compared to the programs with both parametrics and hybrid modeling?
>>> If a program like Ironcad has both parametric and hybrid modeling,
>>> shouldn't
>>> it  have associativity between assemblies and parts?

>> I think that you maybe a bit confused.  IronCAD is not a hybrid
>> modeler.  It is a b-rep (boundary representation) solid modeler, just
>> like Solidworks and Solid Edge.  IronCAD is different from Solidworks
>> in that it is feature based (like SW) and also has explicit face
>> modeling capabilities. Explicit modeling operations are useful for
>> making unanticipated design changes that were not foreseen when you
>> created your model.

>> Hybrid modelers refer to modeling applications that have surface
>> modeling/editing (non-manifold) and b-rep solids (manifold) together
>> in a unified design environment. Hybrid modelers don't differentiate
>> between the two. Programs like Varimetrix - VX Vision, Think3 -
>> thinkdesign/thinkshape and Ashlar - Vellum Solids are hybrid modelers.

>> What Richard is talking about has to do with assembly configuration
>> management and part to part external referencing in assemblies.

>> :-)

>> Robert Berger

Barry,

Hybrid modeling refers to the integrated use of Solids and Surfaces as
single database (model), and can be either history based or explicit.

Examples:

Pro/E is a high end, history based, parametric, hybrid modeler.

Solid Designer is a high end, explicit, hybrid modeler, with
parametric capabilities.

History  vs. Explicit based modeling have distinct advantages over
each other depending on the applications they are being used for, and
mine is Injection Mouldmaking.

The biggest difference I have found  and the reason I prefer explicit
over history is that when working  with imported legacy data, history
based applications are going to continue to be terrible until there is
a translator (STEP is capable, but competition will continue to thwart
its developement and implimentation) that can carry a parts history
through data translation. If that issue is ever solved, history
ordering hassles and huge databases will still have to be contended
with, so explicit is still the winner.

An explicit modeler does not need any history what-so-ever to be able
to work with an imported  model, and working with imported data is key
in Mould manufacturing.

The way I see it is that:

1.) History based applications are better for part and product design.

2.) Explicit applications are better for manufacuring design.

3.) Hybrid Modeling is the Ultimate Solution for both #1 and #2.

Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
Robert Heininger

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Johnathen Liebe » Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:00:00


I don't understand something.  When you bring in a file to a Hybrid modeler,
you just get the lump (no history) solid.  Then from there you perform
operations such as cutting away material or adding material from the
imported solid.

Please explain to me what else your doing to it that is not possible with a
history based modeler?  Is it draft, I've never added draft to a lump solid
so I don't know if a history based modeler can, but there would be other
factors than to just add draft.

This is not meant as a bashing, as I am truely interested in knowing...

Johnathen



> >Robert,

> >I think "hybrid modeling" must mean different things to different
> >people.  I have always heard it to describe a system that does both
> >parametric and explicit modeling.  I'm sure it has been used for what
> >you describe also.

> >Barry


> >> Eduard,

> >>> Do you know which are the most important things that Solidworks
> >>> cannot do
> >>> compared to the programs with both parametrics and hybrid modeling?
> >>> If a program like Ironcad has both parametric and hybrid modeling,
> >>> shouldn't
> >>> it  have associativity between assemblies and parts?

> >> I think that you maybe a bit confused.  IronCAD is not a hybrid
> >> modeler.  It is a b-rep (boundary representation) solid modeler, just
> >> like Solidworks and Solid Edge.  IronCAD is different from Solidworks
> >> in that it is feature based (like SW) and also has explicit face
> >> modeling capabilities. Explicit modeling operations are useful for
> >> making unanticipated design changes that were not foreseen when you
> >> created your model.

> >> Hybrid modelers refer to modeling applications that have surface
> >> modeling/editing (non-manifold) and b-rep solids (manifold) together
> >> in a unified design environment. Hybrid modelers don't differentiate
> >> between the two. Programs like Varimetrix - VX Vision, Think3 -
> >> thinkdesign/thinkshape and Ashlar - Vellum Solids are hybrid modelers.

> >> What Richard is talking about has to do with assembly configuration
> >> management and part to part external referencing in assemblies.

> >> :-)

> >> Robert Berger

> Barry,

> Hybrid modeling refers to the integrated use of Solids and Surfaces as
> single database (model), and can be either history based or explicit.

> Examples:

> Pro/E is a high end, history based, parametric, hybrid modeler.

> Solid Designer is a high end, explicit, hybrid modeler, with
> parametric capabilities.

> History  vs. Explicit based modeling have distinct advantages over
> each other depending on the applications they are being used for, and
> mine is Injection Mouldmaking.

> The biggest difference I have found  and the reason I prefer explicit
> over history is that when working  with imported legacy data, history
> based applications are going to continue to be terrible until there is
> a translator (STEP is capable, but competition will continue to thwart
> its developement and implimentation) that can carry a parts history
> through data translation. If that issue is ever solved, history
> ordering hassles and huge databases will still have to be contended
> with, so explicit is still the winner.

> An explicit modeler does not need any history what-so-ever to be able
> to work with an imported  model, and working with imported data is key
> in Mould manufacturing.

> The way I see it is that:

> 1.) History based applications are better for part and product design.

> 2.) Explicit applications are better for manufacuring design.

> 3.) Hybrid Modeling is the Ultimate Solution for both #1 and #2.

> Your mileage may vary.

> Regards,
> Robert Heininger

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Robert Heining » Mon, 28 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Robert Berger,

Quote:>> You are confusing explicit modelers with hybrid modelers.  

Getting a grip on this terminology is making me freaking insane!

If I am wrong, PLEASE correct me:

History Based Modelers = self explanitory
Explicit Modelers = direct face modeling with no history
Parametrics = the ability to constrain
Hybrid Modeling = both solids and surfcaes as one

TIA
Robert Heininger

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Robert Berge » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Johnathen,

Quote:> Sorry it took so long to reply,

No problem, we're all busy!

Quote:> Okay, I kinda understand the face manipulation thing, but I don't get how
> you can 'change' the posistion of a boss.   Say I create a box with a single
> circular boss in SW, IGES it out and email it to you.

Send me a zipped SAT or IGES file and I'll show you and explain how I did it..

Please explain how you move it, my mind is stuck on either having to open a
sketch and move the circle to another location.  Or you can just 'grab' the boss
and move it?

As a solid, I probably will be able to do either method.

Quote:> know it's a little simple minded, but I look back at other programs I've
> used (MasterCam/Cadkey/Autocad) and just don't understand the steps.....what
> would the step(s) be?

:-)

Robert Berger



>   How about moving a boss position, adding draft,adding new parting line
> features, changing a fillet size, cahanging a boss height,  resizing ribs to
> eliminate sink marks, dimensionally changing a "steel safe" condition in a
> molded part?  Sound familiar? Hope this helped :-)
> Robert Berger

 
 
 

SW and SE vs SD vs PRO/e vs UG

Post by Johnathen Liebe » Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:00:00


Sorry it took so long to reply,

Okay, I kinda understand the face manipulation thing, but I don't get how
you can 'change' the posistion of a boss.   Say I create a box with a single
circular boss in SW, IGES it out and email it to you.  Please explain how
you move it, my mind is stuck on either having to open a sketch and move the
circle to another location.  Or you can just 'grab' the boss and move it?  I
know it's a little simple minded, but I look back at other programs I've
used (MasterCam/Cadkey/Autocad) and just don't understand the steps.....what
would the step(s) be?


  How about moving a boss position, adding draft,adding new parting line
features, changing a fillet size, cahanging a boss height,  resizing ribs to
eliminate sink marks, dimensionally changing a "steel safe" condition in a
molded part?  Sound familiar? Hope this helped :-)
Robert Berger

 
 
 

1. Pro/engineer vs. SolidWorks vs. Solid Designer vs. Unigraphics

Hi All !

We are looking for a 3D solid modeller program and have allready checked
ProE and Solid Designer.
The main diferences between these are the price and the presence of a
history in P/E.

We had some contacts with Unigraphics and Solidworks... and SolidWorks
seems a very good modeller. Also the price is very atractive. The bad thing
is that it is only 1 year old. The salesman can make this a good point in
mentionning that therefor "it is technically really Up To Date" !

We are a little restrictive to it... can anybody tell us their experience ?

Thanx !

--
##############
++  Flatman ++

##############

2. Connecting Commodore Monitor

3. Barmenus vs Macros vs sidebars vs settings manager

4. Poll

5. Mod GeForce vs. Elsa Gloria II vs. Wildcat 4210/4110 vs. ...

6. Move RAS to AD

7. PT Modeler vs. SDRC Artisan vs. Solidworks vs. Solid Edge

8. latest upgrade for courier (us/canada)

9. NT vs. Win95/98 & MicroStation 95 vs. SE

10. Pro/E vs Solid Edge vs AMD

11. Quadro Comparisons: 4-550XGL vs. 4-750XGL vs. 2-Pro?

12. Autodesk Mechanical Desktop VS SolidWorks VS Pro/Engineer