GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: Misky on 22 July 2011, 12:08
-
As above, I have just had a meeting bout its uses and capabilities. It looks sh1t hot, and drive works is crazy clever.
We currently use Rhino 3d and they look worlds apart.
Sales guys can always make the software seem easy etc but has anyone got any personal experience?!
-
As above, I have just had a meeting bout its uses and capabilities. It looks sh1t hot, and drive works is crazy clever.
We currently use Rhino 3d and they look worlds apart.
Sales guys can always make the software seem easy etc but has anyone got any personal experience?!
it's really good package - I've used that and Catia V5
-
All our design team use solid works.I have Solidworks 2011 on my machine.But I use it for the CAM package...solidcam..Done a couple of basic drawings on solidworks,great stuff but I'm an AutoCad man myself.
-
yeh I moved from autocad to rhino, and now it looks like I am sold on solid works/drive works. :laugh:
Just wondered how easy it is to get to grips with its functions?.
It seems so easy to produce technical drawings!!
-
I use solidworks daily - its pretty awesome but the compatibilty issues really piss me off. Anyone using Catia has next to no chance opening files made in solidworks.
Catia is obviously more of a large business design sftware but it is thousands more...Solidworks does the job just fine and is so simple to use :smiley:
-
Used it quite a lot and it "can" be very good. In terms of what its capable of its very well featured (package dependant of course) and by adding a few libraries yourself (tube sizes for instance) it can be a very usefull tool. Its very easy to get into if you have ever done 3d modelling before (I came from Autocad 2d and 3d and Inventor and picked it up in my spare time once I worked the workflow out) and has loads of little tricks along the way to make drawing production easier or to incorporate some form of PLM.
However, I would also say its the single most annoying program I have ever used (shouldnt really say that as we got sponsored by them for a Uni project :P). The main problem surrounds its complete lack of intelligence concerning the relations it uses and the way that it is soooo easy to make a model completely useless by making simple changes to either the part concerned or a related part in an assembly and the way that you can happily be drawing up sketches to base your parts/assemblies on only for one relation to either send the whole sketch mental (extending arcs is a favourite for this). Not so bad you might say but it can be VERY selective as to just how far you can undo things and normally picks this point to decide you cannot undo what sent the drawing/model mental in the first place. You do sort of learn to get around it (mainly by fixing points) but its a major problem that never goes away. The other main problem is how it deals with big assemblies, especially legacy assemblies from previous versions of the package. This is somethng I have never managed to sort out (though admittedly I have never had any backup from solidworks/a supplier and have never done any PLM courses) and they can be extremely unstable/prone to not rebuilding/updating unless you are extremely disciplined with file structures (I try to stay away from using standalone libraries of standard parts due to this, its just easier to save the same part again to reduce problems and fallovers), not to mention incredibly heavy on the hardware you are using (you REALLY do need to follow their specs or preferably improve on them if you intend on running large assemblies). The biggest problem in this area that I have found though is large legacy assemblies which appear to need you to open EVERY single part and save it in the latest version file format if you want to ensure you can reliably open and save any changes on such an assembly (I had a very large race car assembly to use for a project recently and it just plain fell over every single time I tried to save the sub and main assemblies unless I opened every part, saved it and then went and rebuilt the assemblies as half of the relations would dissapear although admittedly the filing system was bloody aweful!). The final problems I have with the package is the way it is so unhelpful when an error occurs (you can literally spend half an hour finding a relation that hasnt updated properly or has inadvertently (read hasnt actually but the program doesnt like it!) over defined the sketch as you just cant find it some times) and the way that some of the commands work which positively slow your workflow (the convert entities function is particularly irritating in this respect). Oh, one final point that I would make thats based purely on the fact that I learned to do drawings on Autocad is that its quite stifling what you can actually do with production drawings and various issues surround the parametrics system that it uses for BOM's etc but from my experience thats something common to all 3d packages. And a final point while I think of it, the way the standard parts system works (fasteners etc) is crap, plain and simple as it saves these in a single folder and then gets awkward if you want to use the same fastener in a different assembly. Not a major problem as you can save it in a folder local to the project assembly but it never gives you the option to do that so you have to go round the houses opening the part and saving it elsewhere. Either that or Im doing something severely wrong.
So, sounds like a pap program and it really is the beign of my life when I use it but I must admit, the number of features it has and its capabilities over Autocad are pretty amazing and growing and as much as I hate it, I would be lost without a copy of it (though I always have Autocad handy for some work as its just the daddy lol). Add in the way that it seems to have matured into quite a stable product compared to its previously terrible stability problems (I still save EVERY TIME I do something interesting with a model though just in case :P) and its actually an incredibly usefull product thats relatively cheap. Wether its better than Rhino, I cant tell you but I would struggle to justify any package other than Solidworks at the price point unless Inventor has moved on a lot since I last used it (5 years ago so it probably has!). One point that I do have to make in its favour though is the fact that quite a lot of Uni's seem to be using it so its probably easier to find people who have it come recruiting time although my recent experience with Uni students is that they are bloody hopeless at CAD and the methods used to make sure parts are modelled properly and file structures are maintained full stop so maybe not the be all and end all, just something to consider. HTH.
OOh, since someone mentioned it, there seem to be a lot of compatibility problems with it concerning importing parts from other packages and even standard compatibility file types like step, sat and iges. Basically it will frequently throw up errors within the parts you import that, without knowing what the base parts should be like in great detail can be incredibly hard to remove/fix despite the programs inbuilt repair function. Its not a major problem if you dont mind putting up with the odd error in an assembly (I hate errors with a passion so this really riles me lol) but it can be very frustrating if the part in question goes completely tits up.
-
I used to use Solid edge which is a Siemens package and in the same market as solid works but not as mainstream. Still good though..
-
Good allround package, I use it daily.
There are better packages around for industry specific applications.
Pro Engineer is good also.
I use it for injection mould and component design :smiley:
-
Used it quite a lot and it "can" be very good. In terms of what its capable of its very well featured (package dependant of course) and by adding a few libraries yourself (tube sizes for instance) it can be a very usefull tool. Its very easy to get into if you have ever done 3d modelling before (I came from Autocad 2d and 3d and Inventor and picked it up in my spare time once I worked the workflow out) and has loads of little tricks along the way to make drawing production easier or to incorporate some form of PLM.
However, I would also say its the single most annoying program I have ever used (shouldnt really say that as we got sponsored by them for a Uni project :P). The main problem surrounds its complete lack of intelligence concerning the relations it uses and the way that it is soooo easy to make a model completely useless by making simple changes to either the part concerned or a related part in an assembly and the way that you can happily be drawing up sketches to base your parts/assemblies on only for one relation to either send the whole sketch mental (extending arcs is a favourite for this). Not so bad you might say but it can be VERY selective as to just how far you can undo things and normally picks this point to decide you cannot undo what sent the drawing/model mental in the first place. You do sort of learn to get around it (mainly by fixing points) but its a major problem that never goes away. The other main problem is how it deals with big assemblies, especially legacy assemblies from previous versions of the package. This is somethng I have never managed to sort out (though admittedly I have never had any backup from solidworks/a supplier and have never done any PLM courses) and they can be extremely unstable/prone to not rebuilding/updating unless you are extremely disciplined with file structures (I try to stay away from using standalone libraries of standard parts due to this, its just easier to save the same part again to reduce problems and fallovers), not to mention incredibly heavy on the hardware you are using (you REALLY do need to follow their specs or preferably improve on them if you intend on running large assemblies). The biggest problem in this area that I have found though is large legacy assemblies which appear to need you to open EVERY single part and save it in the latest version file format if you want to ensure you can reliably open and save any changes on such an assembly (I had a very large race car assembly to use for a project recently and it just plain fell over every single time I tried to save the sub and main assemblies unless I opened every part, saved it and then went and rebuilt the assemblies as half of the relations would dissapear although admittedly the filing system was bloody aweful!). The final problems I have with the package is the way it is so unhelpful when an error occurs (you can literally spend half an hour finding a relation that hasnt updated properly or has inadvertently (read hasnt actually but the program doesnt like it!) over defined the sketch as you just cant find it some times) and the way that some of the commands work which positively slow your workflow (the convert entities function is particularly irritating in this respect). Oh, one final point that I would make thats based purely on the fact that I learned to do drawings on Autocad is that its quite stifling what you can actually do with production drawings and various issues surround the parametrics system that it uses for BOM's etc but from my experience thats something common to all 3d packages. And a final point while I think of it, the way the standard parts system works (fasteners etc) is crap, plain and simple as it saves these in a single folder and then gets awkward if you want to use the same fastener in a different assembly. Not a major problem as you can save it in a folder local to the project assembly but it never gives you the option to do that so you have to go round the houses opening the part and saving it elsewhere. Either that or Im doing something severely wrong.
So, sounds like a pap program and it really is the beign of my life when I use it but I must admit, the number of features it has and its capabilities over Autocad are pretty amazing and growing and as much as I hate it, I would be lost without a copy of it (though I always have Autocad handy for some work as its just the daddy lol). Add in the way that it seems to have matured into quite a stable product compared to its previously terrible stability problems (I still save EVERY TIME I do something interesting with a model though just in case :P) and its actually an incredibly usefull product thats relatively cheap. Wether its better than Rhino, I cant tell you but I would struggle to justify any package other than Solidworks at the price point unless Inventor has moved on a lot since I last used it (5 years ago so it probably has!). One point that I do have to make in its favour though is the fact that quite a lot of Uni's seem to be using it so its probably easier to find people who have it come recruiting time although my recent experience with Uni students is that they are bloody hopeless at CAD and the methods used to make sure parts are modelled properly and file structures are maintained full stop so maybe not the be all and end all, just something to consider. HTH.
OOh, since someone mentioned it, there seem to be a lot of compatibility problems with it concerning importing parts from other packages and even standard compatibility file types like step, sat and iges. Basically it will frequently throw up errors within the parts you import that, without knowing what the base parts should be like in great detail can be incredibly hard to remove/fix despite the programs inbuilt repair function. Its not a major problem if you dont mind putting up with the odd error in an assembly (I hate errors with a passion so this really riles me lol) but it can be very frustrating if the part in question goes completely tits up.
some great reading there! just what i was after! Pro's & Con's. :cool:
-
If used for simple things, all 3D CAD packages are largely the same. I was a big Solidworks fanboy, but for the past 2 years I've been using Inventor and I've grown like it. If anything it's edged past Solidworks in my opinion, especially with large assemblies and incorporating sub assemblies.
The issues DOA was talking about can be largely solved by being very methodical and meticulous with everything. When it works, it works very well. When moving assemblies go wrong, it's almost easier to scrap the lot and rebuild an assembly from scratch.
My last experience with SW was 2007 Pro. Inventor is 2011.
I moan like hell when someone inflicts AutoCAD on me.
-
If used for simple things, all 3D CAD packages are largely the same. I was a big Solidworks fanboy, but for the past 2 years I've been using Inventor and I've grown like it. If anything it's edged past Solidworks in my opinion, especially with large assemblies and incorporating sub assemblies.
Interesting that, I really liked Inventor when I used to use it and didnt enjoy the transition to Solidworks at first but its nice to know its still good. Might have to get hold of a copy again (if the licensing system isnt as tight as it used to be :P). How does it compare with Solidworks in terms of features nowadays?
I moan like hell when someone inflicts AutoCAD on me.
NOOOOOOOO! Embrace the simplicity and the ridiculous ease with which you can do layouts once you have altered your right click preferences from bringing up menus. If Carlsberg made CAD packages, they would make Autocad (and make the 3d usable lol).
-
DOA, you are doing motorsport engineering right? don't get too into solidworks as noone uses it :grin: seems to be catia and nxt are the popular ones.
-
DOA, you are doing motorsport engineering right? don't get too into solidworks as noone uses it :grin: seems to be catia and nxt are the popular ones.
Just finished yeah (what a horrid final year though :sick:). Im quite aware of the whole Catia etc thing in high end motorsport which is why I have a copy handy should I need to learn the basics :smiley: :wink:. I used to use V4 for aerospace parts modelling though which is nice on the CV and was a LOT harder to use than modern packages, didnt stop me learning it in my spare time at work to get to do the good work though :grin:. What I have seen of the latest versions it shouldnt be too difficult to get to grips with it in some limited fashion, if not I will just bite the bullet and pay for a training course in it assuming the job requires it. I am not really aiming at the higher echelons of the sport hough other than through graduate packages as I think most roles would be a bit limiting for me as Im an all rounder really rather than just a CAD monkey. As for no-one using it, thats not quite true as most small places dont have the cash to throw at Catia and most job descriptions I have seen for most things dont really stipulate Catia as a pre-requisite, just that you are familiar with one or more of the major players packages. I do know what your saying though and I am by no means a Solidworks fanboi :smiley:.
-
Parametric experience is parametric experience. If you can 3D model well, then picking up a different package is easy enough.
Where did you do motorsports engineering?
-
Where did you do motorsports engineering?
I did the course at Uclan in Preston. Did you do a similar course?
-
I have used NX5 Unigraphix became a pro at it at Uni, we then changed to Solid works and I hate it. Apparently Nx was too expensive. Solid works is used mostly in industry.
-
DOA, you are doing motorsport engineering right? don't get too into solidworks as noone uses it :grin: seems to be catia and nxt are the popular ones.
Just finished yeah (what a horrid final year though :sick:). Im quite aware of the whole Catia etc thing in high end motorsport which is why I have a copy handy should I need to learn the basics :smiley: :wink:. I used to use V4 for aerospace parts modelling though which is nice on the CV and was a LOT harder to use than modern packages, didnt stop me learning it in my spare time at work to get to do the good work though :grin:. What I have seen of the latest versions it shouldnt be too difficult to get to grips with it in some limited fashion, if not I will just bite the bullet and pay for a training course in it assuming the job requires it. I am not really aiming at the higher echelons of the sport hough other than through graduate packages as I think most roles would be a bit limiting for me as Im an all rounder really rather than just a CAD monkey. As for no-one using it, thats not quite true as most small places dont have the cash to throw at Catia and most job descriptions I have seen for most things dont really stipulate Catia as a pre-requisite, just that you are familiar with one or more of the major players packages. I do know what your saying though and I am by no means a Solidworks fanboi :smiley:.
i used V4 for 10 years - wierd system but very good in my eyes.
-
I did the course at Uclan in Preston. Did you do a similar course?
Yeah, I did motorsports engineering at Sheffield.