I think it is not really important to discuss what is better in
Solidworks or SDRC or PTC. They indeed all have pros and cons.
They are all parametric and/or variational, feature and
This technology is designed more than 10 years ago by PTC.
I think PTC is still miles ahead in this functionality.
Those parametric feature and historical based programs
perform very well if you already know what to design.
Right at the start you need to think about design intents
and translate these in mathematic relations in your model.
I think this is not really flexible
There are some other (even older) technologies which make designing much
more flexible than working in this parametric feature historical way.
For example CATIA, Hicad(German) and Soliddesigner.
They also have pros and cons but these programs allow
you to design more flexible and "add" the design intent
when you finally know how the design would look like.
Some allow you to make the assembly just by grouping
and selecting parts. Parts can be moved to another assembly simply by
removing and adding to another subassembly with 4 mouseclick without
worrying about assembly relations (which still stay exist).
I think this flexible assembly design.
I think that it would be great if CAD programs allows you
to work more flexible and add design intents when you
really need them.
I sometimes ask myself whether this parametric feature historical based
technology which is designed more than 10 years ago will
never be completely revised to allow a more flexible way to design.
Though you can't tell that B-Rep which is used by Soliddesigner is
revolutionair but for the design of Plotter/printes they do
a great job and I just heared a large company choose 93 seats of this
HP Soliddesigner after two years of testing together with Pro/E.
HP Soliddesigner is not historical based and does not allow to
parametrize the part you design but they just have added 3D relations
for parts in an assembly recently.
If they are able to parametrize the parts after designing it this would
really allow you to take advantage of every technic and I think
this could be one of the best ways to design.
However, their strategy currently is not to use parameters for parts
design which I don't think is good. However, when they change
I am not using HP-Soliddesigner and I am not telling that the one
I use is better. I just mentioned this as an example to visualize
I did not find the theoretical perfect program allowing to
design flexible/user friendly and add the design intent once when you
finished the design. I think Pro/E is still the best but it does
not really allow flexible design.
I just wonder how design programs will look like about 5 years.
I recently red an article about some marketing analysts at PTC who
were considering modern flexible design Cad programs as one of the most
competitive dangers for PTC.
I wonder if Pro/E will ever be completely revised to allow
a better way to make designing more flexible and therefore faster.
Any comment would be appreciated.
> Yes, I read news about the CAD/CAM industry to keep in touch with the
> industry development. I used SolidWorks software and read about Pro/E,
> SDRC, Solid Designer etc.
> Every software have their pros and cons. I did not mention anything
> about SolidWorks vs Pro/E. What I did is just to hightlight to you that
> SolidWorks is spell this way because you only read Pro/E newsgroup and
> not others.
> People who only read news about the software they use are ignorant and
> self-centred. It's time you read about news other than that of the Pro/E
> else you will be left behind. Remember the Hare and the Tortise story.
> Do you know what is the m*behind this story ?
> Albert Seah
> A SolidWorks software user