gee, i can get ya pro/e alot cheaper
I hope that doesn't mean what I think it means - and if it does, you are a fool for posting it here. As a software reseller, and a designer who has, and continues to pay my dues for my software, I would be greatly insulted to see you suggesting that someone buy illegal copies.
Hate Pro/E works like crap harder to use and makes easy things hard. Solidworks is much much better. Though solidworks 05 seems to do a good job of converting pro/e wildfire 2 files and imports then without too many mistakes.
I've heard the word "crap" more than once in the same sentence as "Pro/E". I rarely hear any criticism of any system so much as I do with Pro/E. That's unfortunate, because they've been in business a good long time.
Well now I offically feel like I'm going to waste part of my life learning Pro/E at this point.
What would you recommend that would let me use the skills I learn in Pro/E to use in a similar software ??
Don't despair, and don't give up - keep learning with Pro/E, but don't tie yourself to it. With any CAD pacakage, you basically learn the same things. Logic is step one, and when you switch, learning the translation (i.e. - how to do the same thing in a different system) is step 2. All CAD packages basically do the same thing. Some are better than others at certain things, but once you have the basics, you just need to learn how to "get it done" elsewhere.
Pro/E, as someone else said, makes things unusually hard. But if you can use that, you'll love the level of freedom that you gain when you switch to something else.
Pro/E was the first real CAD system that I used and I found it easy to use. It does require that you define things properly. Solidworks is easier to use but allows you to be sloppy. You sketch things that are underdefined and it will let you get away with it.
The fact that you just mentioned that Pro/E was one of your first CAD packages, and that you hint that it is your expertise, indicates that you may have a bias. While your input is valuable, any bias needs to be weighed carefully.
Remember who the target audience is supposed to be - back in its heyday, Pro/E was designed for engineers. SolidWorks is more of an "all around" software. You can make it as easy or hard as it needs to be to get the job done. That's a beautiful thing.
There are several things that Pro/E can do that Solidworks STILL cannot do. Features that are in CATIA and they want you to upgrade.
If you learn Pro/E first Solidworks is a slam dunk.
At the rate that both companies are going, I would look at the bigger picture. I see SolidWorks waxing, and Pro/E, waning. Where will each package be in 5 years? What does the market share, and level of innovation for each respective package say? What do the developing business partner networks indicate? For me, it's pretty simple - Pro/E, by comparison, is on its way out...
The part about "wanting you to upgrade to Catia" is pure garbage. Catia and SolidWorks operate completely independent of one another, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if SolidWorks was the more profitable division. Why would you want someone to upgrade to fewer seats of Catia, when you could have more seats of SolidWorks? That doesn't make good sense. Nobody leaves features out of SolidWorks, as a ploy to get users to move to Catia. Catia and SolidWorks are each in their own price class, and are marketed accordingly.
The COST of developing SolidWorks to put it on par with Catia, would WARRANT the purchase of Catia, so I find that to be a rather dim view. It's like saying that AutoCAD should be equal to UG, and at the same price as AutoCAD. The cost of programmers, and development is extremely high, and you can't just take SolidWorks code, and plug it into Catia. It doesn't work that way, sorry to tell you...
Forgot, Solidworks doesn't keep changing the file name for different revisions so you cannot tell what model is what. It saves over itself so it can be very difficult to recover old versions. Very difficult when you are working with other people.
That has its disadvantages, too. Most designers like being in control over what their file names do. It does require discipline, but it's easy enough to read file headers and see when the last mod took place. I don't even see this as an issue. If anything, I'd say it's an undue constraint. (the only people who ever really bring this point up are Pro/E users)
Assembly modelling and redefinition is awful because the mates are all jumbled together. Also for some daft (probably patent) reason it will not allow you to enter negative or zero numbers in several places where Pro/E is quite happy.
SolidWorks does assemblies just fine. I love their approach. I seem to remember being able to reverse the values. Can't remember if it was with negative numbers, or with a reverse direction feature. I use Catia mainly, and the Assembly modelling is very similar.
Also I have seen several cases of Solidworks models having "holes" in them where you can see thorugh where it should be solid. NEVER saw that with Pro/E.
I've seen plenty of cases where Pro/E couldn't resolve simple geometry with functions like fillets - that everyone else could handle just fine. (Pro/E is particularly bad with fillets) I wouldn't touch Pro/E as a surfacing package. And what's this thing about going from Pro/E with a version number, to "Wildfire", and "Wildfire 2"? Each of these versions seem to be night and day different. Pro/E has this constant need to reinvent itself. SolidWorks, on the other hand, is making consistent strides in the right direction. (even if they are not perfect)
Don't try the sheetmetal package of Solidworks with large bend radii as I did for flex circuits - the algorithm completely blows up. I tried seven different ways to model it and none worked completely. Solidworks and their rep never did come up with a solution.
I have a business associate who did a large scale experiment with many different CAD sheetmetal packages. He had one part, and did a sheetmetal development in all of the systems that he had available. Pro/E, SolidWorks, UG, etc. (did not have Catia, so I can't speak for it) What he found was:
A) none of them unfolded the part correctly (based on an actual part)
B) none of the output matched any other system
My point - there are better benchmarks than a sheetmetal workbench. The very best sheetmetal packages are probably in UG (automotive) and Catia. (sheetmetal for aerospace) These packages are basically unaffordable for anyone but a mid-size to large company.
Several times patterning features in complicated mold tools fails and so you have to model the feature over and over - not cool.
Sounds like you might possibly not know how to use SolidWorks, or gave up easily. I've never known patterning to be a problem.
The solid models do work though because I have done many part designs.
Solidworks isn't perfect though.
Chris P
No CAD package is perfect. If they were, there would be no need for service packs. Life would be so fair.
My summary of Pro/E, at a glance:
A) unnecessarily difficult to use (only a software called Euclid did I ever find more backwards and hard to use)
B) hard to share data
C) too many vastly different major releases (part of the data interoperability problem)
D) too many constraints
E) BAD product support
F) Failure to stay on top of a market that was theirs to lose (enter SolidWorks)
G) learning curve TOO FLAT! (SolidWorks learning curve dwarfs that of Pro/E)
SolidWorks has won more awards than any CAD package in history. That's noteworthy.
I'm not a primary SolidWorks user, nor am I a reseller - but it's a wonderful platform, and I'd pick it over Pro/E anyday. I would never choose it over Catia or UG, though...
