The difference between Pro/E2001 and Solidworks2001
Bert
some good points. The complete thread is on the comp.cad.pro-engineer
NG:
Thanks, Bert
"Alex Sh." <remove.a...@gte.net> wrote in message news:<qrts8.19032$Sa2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> "Bert" <rsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:191823e4.02040...@posting.google.com...
> ... Regarding your comments on Pro being better, your are partially
> > correct, but at the end of the day one must spend approximately $14k
> > total with Pro and add-ons to get the same functionality level of
> > Solidworks 2001+.
>
> Not even close.
> Bert, from your posts I've gathered that you are in a management position.
> Being a mechanical design engineer/consultant (ProE from Release 18 to 2001,
> SW from 95 to 2001), I have already lost count of managers and business
> owners who told me their choice of SW over ProE was based on: a) SW being
> 'more intuitive' and 'faster to learn' and b) ProE being 'more expensive'.
>
> When properly analyzed, however, both statements are simply not true.
>
> Let's start with the cost (not the price). Yes, you can purchase SW for
> $3,995. But, if you go to the ProE VARS, not PTC itself, look around and
> haggle, you can buy ProE 2001 Foundation II for $3,000 instead of MSRP of
> $5,000. Yes, SW maintenance is on the order of $1,200 a year, while PTC
> sells maintenance contracts for ProE Foundation for $1,500 a year. Again, go
> to VARs and you will get a price comparable or identical to that of SW. So,
> even purely pricewise, you can have ProE for same or less money than SW. And
> that does not include the performance and productivity advantages of ProE. I
> have not met ONE engineer truly proficient in both ProE and SW who was not
> much faster in ProE than in SW. That tilts the cost of ownership comparison
> in favor of ProE.
>
> Now to the functionality comparison. ProE 2001 Foundation II includes:
> a solid modeling module;
> a drafting/detailing module;
> an assembly module;
> basic surfacing;
> photorendering module;
> mechanism simulation module.
>
> ProE solid modeling module is superior in capabilities and more stable than
> SW. Same applies to the drafting/detailing module. ProE Foundation basic
> assembly module does not have some (very few) of the features of the SW
> assembly, but assemblies of comparable size and complexity (up to at least
> 500-600 parts - I checked myself) are handled faster and in more robust and
> stable manner by the basic ProE Foundation assembly module than by SW with
> all its advanced assembly handling features. As a matter of fact, the
> advanced features SW has included that ProE does not have in its basic
> assembly module, are simply necessary for SW to be able to handle anything
> above 50-60 parts (sometimes even less). Admittedly, if you want to design
> an excavator, or something of similar comlexity (20,000 - 50,000 parts or
> more) you will have to purchase ProE's advanced assembly module. But, on the
> other hand, nobody in his right mind will even consider using out-of-the-box
> SW for that kind of task. So, for all practical intents and purposes I don't
> see how SW's more advanced (theoretically), but much more slow and much less
> stable (practically) assembly module can compare favorably even to ProE's
> basic assembly. The only area where SW really has some functionality that
> ProE Foundation does not, is advanced surfacing. Since I have no experience
> with SW surfacing, I cannot compare the two. But if other SW and ProE
> modules are any indication, I'd expect the SW's nominally higher-level
> functionality to be much less robust and useful than the ProE's nominally
> basic one. Having not used SW's mechanism simulation and photorendering, I
> will not try to compare these to ProE. However, the heart of any 3D CAD
> package, in my opinion, is its solid modeling, assembly, surfacing, and
> drafting modules. With an arguable exception of the surfacing you get all
> the functionality you have in SW with the ProE Foundation. The approximately
> $14,000 you are talking about (Foundation plus Advanced Assembly plus
> Advanced Surfacing) will give you assembly and surfacing functionality in
> ProE that SW does not even come close to matching.
>
> Now to the ease of learning/use. True, you will learn to build a model of a
> brick faster in SW than in ProE. True, a casual user (which most of
> management personnel usually are, if they use the CAD software at all) finds
> it easier to get around in SW than in ProE. Casual user will also find it
> much easier to drive a go-cart than a 16-wheeler tractor-trailer. That
> doesn't mean, however, that we should switch to go-carts for all our
> cargo-hauling needs for the sake of driving ease. We simply need to
> hire/train skilled professionals to drive the 16-wheelers. OK, I am
> exaggerating, the difference between ProE and SW is not THAT great. But it
> is there nonetheless. What casual users fail to understand (a
> misunderstanding that SW capitalizes upon) is that to do real-life
> engineering tasks like machine design you need to do about the same amount
> of learning in SW as in ProE. Those who think SW will save them the learning
> curve are either being naive, or worse, are simply too lazy to learn the
> tools of their own trade. The worst design nightmares I've seen were
> produced by the folks from this latter category in SW (nothing to do with
> the software; in my opinion this is where the SW sales hype caught up with
> SW by attracting the bottom of the barrel, the lazy bums hoping to escape
> learning and get something for nothing).
>
> Just about the only point you made where I am in total agreement with you is
> the quality of support. I have met a couple of PTC employees that were doing
> their job well. The others (the vast majority) I don't even want to think
> about. On the other hand, I've met several quite helpful SW sales/support
> people and have heard of more. Too bad the software they are
> selling/supporting is really NOT up to the same standard.
>
> Alex Shishkin
Robin
isn't good for assembly beyond 60 parts??? I am at 400 parts without any
problem!
SW drawing capabilities are tough to beat...
However, as a general designer, I prefer to use SW for on esimple reason,
there is much more SW seat in the industrie than Pro-e.
I thought than SW was a faster modeler than Pro-e?
Which ine is the funniest to use?
Robin
"Bert" <rsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:191823e4.02040...@posting.google.com...
Dave D
> some good points. The complete thread is on the comp.cad.pro-engineer
> NG:
What about sheetmetal. More$$$
What about explode lines. Pro-Process More$$$
Yeah he makes very good points. And in the BIG picture pro is better.
We have 2 seats of it and one of SWX, I have the luxury of choosing
which I want to work in everyday (don't ask, it's a weird situation).
I choose SWX because it IS easier to use. I can just flat out scream
through machine design iterations and modifications. I always feel
restricted when I use pro. And not having to touch the keyboard in
SWX (except for entering numbers) rocks...!!!
Just my .02
Pmwh
> > $3,995. But, if you go to the ProE VARS, not PTC itself, look around and
> > haggle, you can buy ProE 2001 Foundation II for $3,000 instead of MSRP of
> > $5,000. Yes, SW maintenance is on the order of $1,200 a year, while PTC
> > sells maintenance contracts for ProE Foundation for $1,500 a year. Again, go
> > to VARs and you will get a price comparable or identical to that of SW. So,
> > even purely pricewise, you can have ProE for same or less money than SW. And
> > that does not include the performance and productivity advantages of ProE. I
> > have not met ONE engineer truly proficient in both ProE and SW who was not
> > much faster in ProE than in SW. That tilts the cost of ownership comparison
> > in favor of ProE.
> >
I ran Pro/E several years ago, but I am not an expert on the software.
Never even looked at purchasing it. But as far as price goes, Alex
shows that if you do some homework, you may possibly find a better
deal. Why doesn't Pro/E just publish their best deal? Why do you
have to haggle? But the other point you have to consider is your
operating system and hardware. I have always understood that it takes
a lot more PC to run Pro/E. Then you have to start looking at other
ways to run your Windows programs, or find something compatible for
your new system.
> > Just about the only point you made where I am in total agreement with you is
> > the quality of support. I have met a couple of PTC employees that were doing
> > their job well. The others (the vast majority) I don't even want to think
> > about. On the other hand, I've met several quite helpful SW sales/support
> > people and have heard of more. Too bad the software they are
> > selling/supporting is really NOT up to the same standard.
> >
> > Alex Shishkin
If support is this bad for Pro/E, and SolidWorks has the capabilites I
need, you can pretty well guess I'll take the better support. I have
already had to spend a lot of time getting a good price for Pro/E, and
now I am going to have to fight for support! So I spend a lot of my
time calling my Pro/E VAR, and getting no where? Would you buy a car
that was $1000 cheaper, then you find out that gas for this car was
$1.00 more per gallon, and it is hard to find someone who can service
your car right? Pro/E is probably be the right choice for some, but
the common guy is going to go to SolidWorks in my opion.
Paul Salvador
> Why do you have to haggle?
Because their sales are based on commissions and competition is high so
they lower their expectations = deals. PTC and Rand are based on a
vertical markets so buyer beware. The reality of this is most of you
users will buy or be sold more than you will ever need = suckers.
> I have always understood that it takes a lot more PC to run Pro/E.
This is totally False. Actually SW demands more system memory and
hardware.
> Pro/E is probably be the right choice for some, but
> the common guy is going to go to SolidWorks in my opion.
Based on the above answers you gave it impacts that decision and based
on a few other responses here that other modules are needed is not true
in most cases.
Sadly, even though Pro/e is the better tool, PTC/Rand and the foundation
of their sales engine is not very friendly or lower cost sensitive to
suit bargin hunting engineers/designers = you get what you pay for.
Don't be a sucker, be smart, buy the basics and trial or rent module(s)
if you need them. Also, for training, there are lower cost alternatives
to the higher cost class rooms or just have the rep come in and show you
a thing or two. BTW, as for using the 1-800# for getting answers to
questions, it is actually just as fast or faster than using SW
support/vars and if there are problems they assign a log/spr to the
issue, then and there, you do not have to wait and wait and they will
usually fix the problem in the next build as well as send you a new CD
with the new build.
Anyhow, enough of defending tools and people who actually believe in
what salespeople say.
Brian Dunham
search old posts, lots of comments. I run both-probably 75% ProE/25%
Solidworks lately. 2 years ago, the choice was fairly straight
forward-SW worked fine for parts of moderate complexity, but was very
limited in surfacing tools. You could do a lot of features with
native solids, but some shapes just need a decent surfacing package to
handle. IMHO, Solidworks is at least competative with Pro here,
better in some areas, and much more intuitive to use. Pro's command
set to do a simple extend on a surface edge (as just one example) is a
mess of screen and menu picks and unclear prompts. In SW, click on
the edge and hit the surf-extend icon. I don't think Pro has anything
to compete with Solidworks "fill surface" command. Boundry surfs do
not offer the same power in many situations. They useful for geometry
patching. Other areas where I prefer SW is that you use the same
sketch tools in a drawing that you do in creating features. For
example, dimensioning to a siloutette (sp) edge is limited in both
systems. At least in SW you can constrain a point to the edge and dim
to that, in Pro I often have to create features (points or sketches)
in the part file to have something to dimension to.
As to speed, Pro does seem to regenerate large parts somewhat faster.
As to drawings, I find that I can create a dimensioned drawing much
faster in SWX. It slows down somewhat with cropped views, but IMO
handles hidden line removal more quickly. Also far less menu picks (1)
to add 3 views to a drawing.
Another tool that SWX offers that in my opinion is very powerful as
well as intuitive is Solidworks Explorer. We do not use a PDM (yeah,
I know, shame on us), maintaining up to date drawing sets in Pro is a
nightmare. You can not search for all places a part is used, and if
you happen to rename a part or assembly without all the places it is
used in session, you are hosed. Explorer automates that to a great
extent.
Pattern creation is also very well done in SWX-sketch driven patterns
rock! On the other hand, I have had problems with simple extrusions
"uo to next" failing with a sketch driven pattern, when they really
shouldn't. Matter of learning the workarounds, on both systems.
Anyway, just my observations and opinions, YMMV.
Bri
Brian Dunham
licenses we never had Mechanica-at that time trying to do any kind of
mechanism with movable components was a major nightmare in Pro. A
bunch of playing with construction sketchs to simulate what you get
with SWX in the core assy package. Anyway, we now have the Flexible
Engineering Package from ProE(have had for a year or so), which
include a mechanism's module. I have not had the time to play around
and learn how to use it. Have you, and if so does this allow Pro to
accomplish what you can do in SWX for dynamic motion? Also, does it
offer the dynamic collision detection of SWX? I have never been very
impressed with Pro'e interference check routine.
Thanks for any input.
Bri
Jerry Steiger
news:slrnab87sq.1...@localhost.localdomain...
Snip
> You forgot a couple of extremely important Solidworks /features/.
>
> 1) Solidworks corrupts your data rather easily, Pro/E doesn't.
> 2) Solidworks crashes to desktop frequently, often un-provoked, Pro/E
> doesn't.
>
> Is pretty difficult to complete a project on time when half your days
> are spent recovering from crashes and re-doing lost work.
Much as I dislike Pro/E (and hate PTC salesmen), I'm afraid Mr. Dragon made
a very good point here.
Jerry Steiger
At Work Computers
Steve Fye
against the keyboard and typed...
Funny, I would much rather *avoid* the one that forced you to use mouse-
clicks for command selection. Start using that keyboard and find out
just how fast you can really get! You'll be amazed at how much time you
are wasting pecking around the screen all day long.
--
Steve Fye
Rhapsody Design Solutions
www.rhapsodydesignsolutions.com