Ironcad Mechanical

[Chanelle Kirksey]

Ievaluated IronCAD (version 1) when I was shopping for a CAD tool. Despite

its strengths I ended up purchasing SolidWorks. IronCAD has some very appealing virtues. Because of its user-interface

design it is by far the best tool I have yet seen for putting geometry

together QUICKLY. Unlike every other solid modeller I have tried

(SolidWorks, ProE, AutoCAD/Mechanical Desktop, DesignWave, Solid Edge,

DesignCAD), in IronCAD it is SIMPLE TO MAKE SIMPLE PARTS. Vellum tries

pretty hard to afford that simplicity, but IronCAD does a substantially

better job.That said, IronCAD is not yet a true parametric solid modeller (by my

definition). You cannot, for instance, relate part parameters via equations,

and this makes it fall well short of my needs. It is really more suitable at

present for design visualization than for engineering (though it is

certainly priced like an engineering tool!). SolidWorks, with all its

problems, is a true engineering tool, and provides more bang for the buck

than any CAD tool I evaluated. I expect that IronCAD is about 2 years of

development away from being a true CAD tool. When/if it finally does become

a true parametric solid modeller and engineering tool, I believe its user

interface to be so strong that it will be head and shoulders above the other

CAD tools in its price range (assuming everyone else continues to sit on

their butts rather than improve their user interfaces). Unfortunately I

couldn't wait 2 years.I wish that Dessault would buy IronCAD's geometry creation features and

incorporate them into SolidWorks.-Neil

Barry Toppings wrote in message ...

Everyone will give you a somwhat bias answer. Demo them both. In short,

Solidworks is a more mture product and is hence more feature rich.

IronCAD offers a unique drag and drop approach to modeling that many

people find extremely intuitive. Both companies will be introducing new

versions in less than a month.My $.02....Robert Berger

I'm doing the same thing as you with the inclusion of SolidEdge and SDRC's

Artisan. I've had a pretty good look at IronCAD 1.4 and I agree with Neil's

comments. IronCAD's got a slick interface, but the current version comes up a

little short for my needs. I think the most powerful feature of IronCAD is

"Direct Face Modeling" that lets you modify individual surfaces on-the-fly

without having to be concerned about the history tree.I haven't had time to build a big, complex model in IronCAD and I would be

concerned that the nice dynamic tools that they give you would bog when you

manipulate a big model. You should definitely try a part with the maximum

complexity for your company and see how it performs.My IronCAD reseller showed me the list of 2.0 improvements and it looks like VDS

is heading in the right direction. Robert Berger's comments seem to confirm

that the 2.0 improvements are good ones.To echo the advice that a lot of people give in response to these product

comparison postings, make sure that you understand your company's solid modeling

requirements before you begin your evaluation. Try the products out with

examples of your company's parts and assemblies.--Terry Shimabukuro

Structural Solutions

Aiea, HINeil Getz wrote:

> That said, IronCAD is not yet a true parametric solid modeller (by my

> definition). You cannot, for instance, relate part parameters via equations,

> and this makes it fall well short of my needs. It is really more suitable at

> present for design visualization than for engineering (though it is

> a true parametric solid modeller and engineering tool, I believe its user

> interface to be so strong that it will be head and shoulders above the other

> CAD tools in its price range (assuming everyone else continues to sit on

> their butts rather than improve their user interfaces). Unfortunately I

> couldn't wait 2 years.

>

Another gut feeling I have about IronCAD (sorry I'm kite flying onthis one)

is that the main growth feature since the days of Trispectives (whichI do

have some experience with) is the price Does anyone withoutan axe to grind say different?

Kudos...Robert Berger"Michael D. Miles, PE" wrote:> Like many who saw Trispectives (and I own its slightly younger brother

> SolidTools but never use it), I try to be circumspect about the promises of any

> CAD package but a little time and the promise of profits can cause tremendous

> things to happen.

>

> I can't help notice the irony of S/W users commenting about IronCAD (or any

> other upstart CAD vendor) in *EXACTLY* the same way Pro/E users did and still do

> comment on S/W. Not much changes, just the names and faces...

>

> If it helps them get the job done, it will find a following.

> If it finds a following, they will try to convert others.

> If they try to convert others, they will encounter resistance.

> If they encounter resistance, they will become forceful.

> If they become forceful, they will become rejected.

> If they become rejected, they will become belligerant.

> If they become belligerant, they will become blinded.

> If they become blinded, they will not get the job done.

>

> A long winded way of quoting Pogo - "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

Another gut feeling I have about IronCAD (sorry I'm kite flying on this one)

is that the main growth feature since the days of Trispectives (which I do

have some experience with)

is the price

What makes you think I haven't used Solidworks? I have demoedit, I also work closely with one client and one injection molderwho have both used it for over 2 years. I think that Solidworks isan excellent product. I do not understand how thetwo products can really be compared. V1.4 lacks fundamental feature basedrelationships, such as associatively copying edges, faces, surfaces fromthe workpiece to build the next feature. This should be a basic requirementof any modern design tool. As a result, in IronCad, like in the old explicitsolid modeling days of CADDS 4x or ACAD AME or Solid Designer (you namethe 80s solid modeler), it is up to the user to update every minor detailof the model any time a change is made.What you are stating is not true. In IronCAD you can copy and link features. It is by no means just a explicit modeler. It is an explicitmodeler when you need it to be and a history based modeler when you needit to be that.Maybe this is addressed in V 2.0? If and whenthey add real feature relationships, what then happens to these relationshipsusing the standard destructive methods it currently uses such as the directface manipulation? These are programing shorts cuts that strip out intelligence.Me thinks you protest a bit too much...Don't worry about VDS. Their product is no good and Solidworks has absolutely nothing to worryabout. People would just be foolish to consider looking at any othertool other than Solidworks. Keep focusing on MDT and Pro/E. They are truly the sources of innovation over the last to years. Don'tget me wrong. IronCad has a good UI. And everybody can learn some thingsfrom it. But fundamentally IronCad takes the exact the same history basedapproach that all the other products use (this should be a good thing).As a result things like the direct face manipulation tools are historydependent.Whatever you say Joe...I'm sure that you are an IronCAD power user andcan speak forcefully on the subject. I bow to your supperior knowledge.And in V1.4 they either destructively destroy portionsof the "intelligence" that the user purposely placed in the model, or theyinadvertently manipulate it behind the scenes, either way greatly reducingthe predictability and value of a feature based modeler. The future ofMechanical design should be more intelligence in the parts which translatesinto less work for the user.Joe, here is a hint. Try using your "shift" key and You'll geta different result. You'll see v2.0 soon enough. Letme put it simply, SolidWorks offers far more product capabilities to completeengineering tasks. SolidWorks offers many aspects of the things you likein IronCad such as drag and drop, and drag handles So this is not a uniqueability. Yet SolidWorks goes far beyond this. I look at SolidWorks as theonly product that has successfully combined the best aspects of all themethods out there, the power of Pro/E relationships, the flexibility ofunderconstrained methods (SDRC), drag and drop manipulation, etc... It'sthe only mechanical design product that brings all these things together,and then adds much more. So that is my totally unbiased response. :-)Sounds like you've got the situation well under control. You havean excellent product that combines the best aspects of all products thathave ever existed. People would be foolish to consider looking atany other products. One small point to consider:- Modeling kernels are for sale

- Parametric constraint managers are for sale

- Translators and Healers are for sale

- Ray Traced Visualization is for sale90% of all patents established by MCAD companies over the last 5 yearsare in the area of user interface. What does that tell you? How areusers to differentiate between products?Its not what you can do..its how you go about doing it.Enjoy your bubble while it lasts :)Robert Berger

If there is a user out there who has both SolidWorks and IronCAD, and

prefers the latter for modelling, then I for one would love to hear why.

That's because (I think) I'm open-minded enough to try it if I hear good

things about it from another genuine user.Sure, the best thing to do is try it one-self and make up one's own mind.

But I did that when it was called Tri-spectives, and it sounds like it

hasn't changed much. Can someone add to this thread some major improvement

which would justify trying it out again?As far as the this statement goes....

3a8082e126