Does anybody out there use both SW and CATIA V5? If so, how does the surfacing functionality of SW compare against CATIA V5R19 surfacing functionality in your opinion?
Well, what I'm finding is that SW 2014 isn't as powerful as a 5-yr old outdated version of Pro/E (creo elements / pro 5.0), and from what I've seen CATIA is a more powerful surfacing tool that Pro/E. We're evaluating SW, and i asked if files were compatible back and forth from CATIA to SW, and they're not. so, that's a real bummer.
Pro/E at least has ICEM surf, and some other in-house surfacing and/or freeform modeling tools that it's compatible with.
We are also looking at and evaluating PTC's CREO along with SW and even though CREO is more powerful, I still find the U/I better in SW vs CREO. I wonder if possibly SW 2015 or maybe 2016 has enhanced these surfacing capabilities?
Well, me, as a superuser, I'd rather have the power over a fancy GUI. I write mapkeys for speed, which makes it fasted than using any fancy GUI.
You can always work around a GUI, but you either have capabilities, or you don't. Pro/E has C2 continuous radii, SW does not.
But, it depends on what you're going to do. But, if you're asking about CATIA, and surfacing, it leads me to believe you want advanced surfacing tools.
Yes, I will need the ability to manipulate surface data using advanced surfacing tools much like those in CATIA V5. Do you know if SW will ever get there or is this going to be the extent of their surfacing functions?
Correction - SW DOES have C2 filleting along with asymmetric filleting.
It depends which module you purchase from Dassault (my last count of them is there are 132.) If budget is unlimited (in the $20-50K range) then yes, CATIA has more powerful and versatile advanced modeling capabilities - all the way to Automotive C3 and ICEM Surf.
I am currently the only one running CATIA V5 along with the Generative Shape Design module. My company is looking at going to SW or CREO because CATIA is just too expensive. If we go with either SW or CREO, then my seat of CATIA will be used simply as a means of converting the data to and from SW/CREO, which personally doesn't make sense to me, but I don't make the decisions around here when it comes to CAD. My 30 years of experience doesn't mean a thing.
Tread carefully with CATIA. There are a host of other support-related issues you will have to contend with. It is the least cross-compatible of all the major CAD packages. It also seems the hardest to find qualified operators for, outside of automotive.
If you need the surfacing power of CATIA, then you should also carefully consider NX. SW lets you play; Creo lets you play doctor; NX lets you play god.
Why not just go with NX?? Oops..we'll see how long this posting stays here.
SW 2016 has C2 edge fillets in addition to the older C2 face fillets.
2014 does not, vs the 5+ yr old version of creo that DOES.
We don't have 2015 or 2016 either.
Me, I'd LOVE to get the ICEM surf module for creo, or their freeform modeler.
I'm not sure, but UG-NX might also be in the running.
Frank Schiavone wrote: 2014 does not, vs the 5+ yr old version of creo that DOES. We don't have 2015 or 2016 either. Me, I'd LOVE to get the ICEM surf module for creo, or their freeform modeler.
Frank Schiavone wrote:
If Richard decides to purchase SOLIDWORKS, he will have access to the latest release. That is why I mentioned the capabilities found in the current version of the software.
It's not that have an issue with SW filleting capabilities, but with it's less than capable surfacing functions as compared to CATIA V5.
I did a blend in my ancient version of creo, and asked the local guy to recreate the models. On several of them, he got somewhat close....ish, but that's not good enough for me. Some were way off. I can honsetly say he was not able to reproduce a single model the way I had it, and needed it. Here's an example of part where I joined 3 different diameter tubes at different angles. In creo, we have an "n-sided Patch", which, while the interface is a little cumbersome when setting up the C2 edge constraints, actually did a great job, in 1 feature. Nice smooth patch. In SW, it appears he had to do a bunch of patches (more features, more complexity, more time spent, more fragile), and still couldn't get the smoothness, and even had a pretty bad curvature reversal.....NOT something you want in a mold. The SW quilt is on the left, the creo part on the right ("zebra" and section curve analysis).
Frank, would you mind posting the 2 models?
Richard Postak wrote: Alin, It's not that have an issue with SW filleting capabilities, but with it's less than capable surfacing functions as compared to CATIA V5. Regards, Richard
Richard Postak wrote:
Understood. That being said, the fillets of today are great tools for creating advanced and complex blends.
I can post the SW 2015 version if you like, and the creo version and a STEP version of the creo file.
I have done a number of these type of transitions in SW (Trek frames come to mind.) There is a caveat to using the Fill feature in that you sometimes have to create reference surfaces features to more accurately define it. I can try to dig up an example that is very simliar to what you show. Fill also optional allows cinstrain curves or point within the patch.
SW is no on par to Catia, proE or NX.
If you are doing this kind of complex surfacing and have to handle SW is too risky IMHO, the software can kill your productivity in a lot of ways.
You need reliability, productivity and complete control over the model.
Surfacing in the basic package is a joke compared to ProE (I can speak for and old wildfire 2 I used years ago), let alone NX
(even without advanced surfacing you have tons of surfacing tools and plain of ways to control G1, G2 and G3 continuity).
As you noticed with a lot of workaround you can get similar results, but when the model gets bigger you can have a lot of unpleasant surprises,
let alone when you need to import 3rd parties geometries and merge them with your part.
At less than 20k Euro (moldwizard MACH) per seat you can get NX without special packages IIRC,
probably something in the 13k + 10% of maintenance per year. Multibody parasolid engine.
SW is using a lot of Siemens technology under license, but the performance is nothing comparable.
A a side note it would be nice if the VAR that comment on this forum would put a signature or something that makes them immediately recognizable,
at least new users can understand that the comment is not coming from a cad user like me.
In response to your original question comparing SolidWorks and Catia's surfacing. As @Mark Biasotti said Catia is broken up into many modules and SolidWorks into 3 tiers. For surfacing base Catia and base SolidWorks are relatively close. Once you add in GSD to Catia there is no compare. While at Bausch + Lomb this was the driving factor for changing future product design from SolidWorks to Catia.
I now own a VAR (Catia, Simulia, Enovia) and when pitching Catia against entrenched SolidWorks I simply say SolidWorks is great and the most enjoyable program to use in all of Windows. However, when you find a problem that it can't solve then you should look to Catia. For your case going the opposite way leaving Catia and standardizing on SolidWorks is going to cause many headaches if it can't do everything that you need it to. Multiple CAD packages is no fun at all.
I hope this helps.
Optimal Device LLC | Integrated Design Solutions
Thanks for the insight with answering my original question. Trying to get management around here to understand that going from CATIA to SW as our company standard CAD package is illogical to say the least, but the only thing they're looking at is cost. We're a billion dollar company and we cannot afford 5 to 6 seats of CATIA....this confuses me. Also, 90% of our customers are using CATIA, but to management it makes more sense to create translation files and then purchase another software to "validate" the translation files, create the design in another CAD package then translate it again (while validating that translation) and read it back into CATIA only to then send the data to the customer. And there is only two words to describe our configuration management....."A JOKE", but hey what the hell do I know...I've only been doing CAD for 30 years and 20 of those 30 years has been dealing with configuration management and parametric part modeling.
P.S. - Two questions...which state are you located in and do you need another senior designer?
I feel your pain Richard...... those are similar reasons why a particular manager her is looking into SW. I have the same "seat time" as you, yet the people who are pushing SW are novice, very much part-time users with only a couple years experience.
The VAR here has been unable to recreate a single model I sent. Period. And didn't even attempt several of the more difficult ones I just did on our last Industrial Design project.
I plan on becoming an expert SW user because we buy other companies, and some are SW, so it's to our and my advantage, but from what I'm seeing, especially after seeing creo's amazing Flexible Modeling Extension (Wow!), and creo 3's ability to manipulate SW native files, I see absolutely no reason to do new design in SW.
Ask to see their ROI calculation. It should include calculations for software purchase prices and maintenance. Estimated hours lost during the transition, training costs and ongoing translation time. The hourly rate of employees should be fully loaded as well.
I am located in NY however we are a virtual company. Currently we aren't hiring however using the 2 LinkedIn links below will keep you posted when this changes.
Optimal Device's LinkedIn page
Looks like my personal LinkedIn page got stripped. Luckily my name is unique enough to have no issues finding it! I'll try again below anyway.
Rob's LinkedIn page
Retrieving data ...