What Do You Think of SolidWorks?

Solid works is a great tool for structural analysis of connections & solid body mechanics. It has many other calculation modules (heat transfer etc). As far as simple drafting goes if you are proficient w/ ACAD you propably won't find it worth the cost. I have used it to design aircraft brackets and found the results to be questionable. It is a great design tool, but the results must be looked at with some scepticism and independent varification is recommended.

I work for an engineering design firm. None of the mechanical designers or engineers will work in a 2D environment.

It is significantly faster to model parts in 3D and then create a drawing.

SolidWorks is easier to learn than Inventor, ProE or Unigraphics.

AutoCad is used more in the Architectural field.

We use AutoCAD and Solidworks were I work.

I work with the engineers and do the outsourcing for our manufactured parts that we can't do in house or to relieve back log.

I also review and correct the engineers' projects.

When outsourcing I prefer the Solidworks files over the AutoCAD files simply because when converting the DXF,s from Solidworks are much smaller and easier to send in email then AutoCAD.

It's the difference of an AUTOCAD DXF that's 12mb in size that when the drawing was created under Solidworks is ony 52k in size. Which is also the difference of sending the email now or having to wait 15min. for OUTLOOK to upload and send the larger file.

"I spent 3+ months just drawing all my parts, and bringing them into my assembly in ACAD. A nearly identical project later using Solidworks was completed in ~2 weeks."

LOL!! Obviously a salesman for solidworks! Anyone with even a basic understanding of autocad knows that you do not draw parts and then bring them into an assembly in acad. Unless of course you are not designing, just converting old paper to cad or something, in which case 3 months is really excessive...

Not a salesman for anything, just a design engineer. Anyone with any real assembly design experience should know that you need to draw your parts, one at a time, and save each part. Once you have your parts you insert them into your assembly (yes even in ACAD) If you do any solid modeling in ACAD (which is not recomended) You would know that attempting to draw a complete assembly in one chunk is a very bad idea.

My projects I referenced, are ~100+ part Industrial hydraulic power units and machines.

I will say that i was able to use some of the parts i had drawn in ACAD, and convert them over to SW(such as fittings). I am constantly expanding my part library, so each consecutive project takes less time than the previous. (this is why you draw all your parts seperately.)

Hi RVZ717,

I have been designing relatively complex machines for roughly 12-13 years and I have never (in acad) drawn the parts then inserted them into the assembly, nor do I know of any designers who do. I did however start off on the path of bottom up design when I first started working with solidworks and inventor (and sometimes still do). However, I've since then learned that it is not necessary either. Acad is generally all top down or even "middle out" design in the mechanical field.

We do however use libraries of fittings and so on, so I can see your perspective if you are creating a library. Or perhaps your field is substantially different from machine design. With machines however, (in acad) it is by far more effecient to create your assembly and copy-paste or wblock your parts out when finsihed. Acad allows you to modify multiple parts with a single stretch command, change a 100 holes spanning multiple parts based on diameter layer, etc., with filters and properties. You cannot do this in either solidworks or inventor or any 3d package I am aware of.

Please do not think I am completely opposed to solidworks, I am not. I use it when a customer requests it or when I need static FEA (which I prefer over acadm's 2d FEA). Solidworks and Inventor both now have a decent 2d drawing environment that can keep up with acad, (except for layer controls which are lacking in both). But in the arena of large assembly design, acad out-matches the 3d modelers to such an extent that the general overall tally is about a 30% increase in time to do a job in 3d. That's from several of our customers tracking systems and it's conservative.

I too am biased in my preferences, but I think 3 months to 2 weeks is skewed way out of proportion, at least in mechanical machinery design. I could have just as easily said it took 2 to 3 times longer to do something in 3d, but in reality it does not. We show about a 30% increase, which isn't really that bad if it causes fewer errors on the floor. Not every engineer is equal...

I Design all my "machines" in 3D, This is a new practice in my company, and it started with me. before i was hired on, all of our "assembly" drawings were painstakingly done in 2D where the draftsperson, had to for example: Get the cad drawing for an electric motor (from the manufacturer) with all its perspective views, insert each of those views into each corresponding view of his/her "assembly", and trim every line that needed trimmed, for each view. This process is not efficient time-wise and allows for many errors. the draftsman can easily be confused when working on a particular view, and cause many problems down the road. This is basically the same as paper and pencil drafting.

Moving from this painstaking 2D design, we started using ACAD mechanical to generate those 2D parts into 3D solid models, creating a library of parts. we then could grab our part out of the library, bring it into our drawing, orient it and place it in its proper location (somewhat time consuming in comparison to the "mate" command in SW or comparable). Once the assembly was complete, we would copy the "assembly" and "rotate3d" to create the desired views. Then we "Soldraw" those 3D views to create a 2D multi-view drawing for print. This worked well to avoid mistakes while rendering the views, sense all the views were created from one "assembly". This process still takes extra time to place rotate/move/place parts, generate the 2D's, and physically create the part models themselves. And heaven forbid if you need to quickly modify or replace a part, and push out a quick print of the revision, for someone standing over your shoulder, they'll need to come back in an hour or more.

Today, we utilize all the parts that we created with ACAD, but make all new parts in a true 3D environment (SW). Part generation is only slightly faster with SW over ACAD, maybe 30%, and some parts i actually may be able to create faster in ACAD using keyboard commands as if i was a court recorder... But, when it comes to taking all those parts and bringing them all together in an "assembly" Time is reduced to "seconds on the minute" in SW VS ACAD. Simply click on the surface/edge etc of each part you want mated, and presto! No need to move the part, rotate it, move it again into place only to find you clicked the wrong point, and have to undo.

Once the assembly is complete, and you think you want to make a print, one click begins the conversion from a 3D model to your multiple 2D views. simply choose which views you want and the software generates them all for you, no more 3D rotate/soldraw manual view generation. If a revision needs to be made, simply open the model replace/move your part, and by the time you open the 2D drawing, everything is already completely updated. Also, if you named all your parts correctly to begin with, SW will automatically fill out your BOM and Bubble all your parts.

If file size is an issue, here is a real scenario: ~160MB in ACAD, ~90MB in SW for the same project.

I did head to head comparisons of CAD packages (ACAD Mechanical 2008, Solidworks 2008, inventor 2008, proE) to determine what cad package would work best for our company for years to come, I chose SW, and am VERY glad i did. the comparisons were done by working through every aspect of (nearly identical) jobs from start to finish with each cad package. All the packages have their strong and weak points. (SW also wins user friendliness) We will always keep ACAD for drawing our Schematics, I firmly believe (with exceptions for specialty programs such as automation studio) ACAD performs the best for the 2D CAD environment.

I digress. After rereading your first post, I now understand the miscommunication. I was under the impression that you were comparing creating assemblies in 2d acad with creating assemblies insolidworks, but you did say "creating a solid model in acad".

When acad is mentioned, I generally assume it means 2d since the boolean solids in acad are just a carry over and have not been used for significant design in well over a decade. Back in the early 90's autodesk rolled out mechanical desktop, which became their 3d flagship; full parametrics with geometric constraints, etc. Since then it has been replaced with Inventor, but MDT was retained in the package up until recently.

So your comparison was based on boolean solids vs. a parametric modeler, basically like comparing solidworks to the boolean solids in dwg editor. I can see how that would take substantially longer, even with the align command.

All in all, I prefer inventor because of what I percieve as a cleaner environment, dual monitor support, etc., but I work with whatever is in front of me. Both softwares have pros and cons, I think both solidworks and inventor could learn something about manueverability from alibre. I believe it was Right button to pan and both right and left buttons to rotate, no 3d mouse of key press needed.

I think eventually everything will probably go 3d, but I also think that the same guys who cobbled up drawings in 2d, exploded dimensions and type over them instead of using associative dimensioning and so on, will take short cuts in 3d as well. I already see it now and then.

agreed 100%

I've gone to work at a company where the designers had a legacy of CAD drawings, and everything but the kitchen sink would be found in multiple configurations within one drawing, and there were hundreds of drawings. It was compleeetly insane.. how could you possibly know what the final version of the drawing was (bad naming conventions too) and what symbols were to be found where (they were all over the place).

So the principles as outlined demonstrate a bit of drawing DISCIPLINE than I think should be adhered to.

1. One drawing = one design = one file = one revision + properly named.

2. Symbols as libraries/block libraries, in an organized place and system. also properly named, with legends. Its a great idea to have ALL your symbols as external files! You can even print out a library grid, and use the grid matrix rows and columns to name the blocks.. so you can quickly insert a block by typing in its grid coordinates (eg M3) and get the symbol you want.. (have the grid printed and posted on the board next to your workstation for quick reference)

3. all views within a drawing get a view title.

4. titleblocks and borders are a single file if possible, but can also be contained within the paper space. as a minimum. (not model space) that way you can move and scale the model without affecting the borders, which should be set up to print properly on your chosen printer/plotter.

5. conventions should be documented, written down, and be able to be taught to new team members.

etc.

You forgot number 6. :)

ALL GEOMETRY SHOULD BE DRAWN FULL SCALE.

That's the one that bugs me the most.

I like paperspace with acad mechanical, but unfortunately, I know of only one company in this area using it (becasue they were bought out by a german company now mandating it). Everyone else still wants the titleblocks in modelspace. the advantages of paperspace with vanilla acad aren't seductive enough yet.

I too get an invitation almost weekly to attend some show or webinar, I inquired about a single station license about two years ago, and I have been receiving invites ever since.

I am at a bit of a disadvantage because of their pricing, no way I can afford the product, and the offer of a student edition really isn't on.

I like the product and a lot of my clients wish I could provide them 3D renderings of the designs. Chicken and egg thing I guess. Having started in the paper and ink world of design I am a bit old school, I even have a slide rule around here some place.

Being a former contractor for AutoDesk I must agree, it is best for 2D even with all the add on functions. They tend to gobble up small companies and acquire software depending on the current 'hot' trends, in the case of well designed 3D software they must have been sleeping at the switch.

I've always wondered why Autodesk went the way they did, when as a user, I was obsessed with 3D, even in the ver 10 days, when I first learned autocad.. (actually, even as a manual drafter, I loved 3D).. "asleep at the switch" thats hilarious...more so because its partly true.. although they spun off other companies that have done 3d the best (3d Studio Max is related to Autodesk isn't it?)

Chris.

Frankly, I do not need it it since I'm using Acad but they claim it is easier to use and the price is more flexible than I know...£5,200.

At work we have AutoCad, AutoSketch, NX and Solidworks so I can use the one I need but for simple 2D drawings or markups I just use AutoSketch at my desk instead of working around other people on the CAD stations. For more advanced 2D drawings AutoCad is and will always be my tool of choice. Hey, if your already comfortable working with AutoCad I'd say stick with it ....but if basic to intermediate level detailed models are currently needed or you forsee the future need then I'd recommend Solidworks, it's a great product. Note that for "high level" 3D modeling a product like Pro-E, NX or Catia are required put are usually difficult to cost justify. Don't forget about free 2D packages ............but again I prefer AutoCad.

I have a copy of Acad from when I worked for them, a bit old but it does the job. I am in the creative side of things, and i do most of my work via a digitizer into a drawing package better suited for publication work, but it works. Again free from a buddy who was upgrading his licenses to a newer version. For the heavy number crunching my clients are on their own, I am just a designer, they make it work, or will once the economy gets back on it's feet.

If you are a full time user, designing a lot of complex interacting mechanical parts, then solidworks is absolutely the software of choice. The ease of use of the software, not just in original desing, but in managing relationships. Secondly, the drawings are pretty fabulous, and third, the infrastructure and support provided by those nagging exhibitions is the best of all.

However, its expensive, so your work MUST justify the cost. its a professional system.. not just software, but the whole paradigm. To use it effectively you have to be at the Lifecycle level of thinking, and using the other integrated applications like PDM works, etc. If you are collaborating with vendors and gold partners, so much the better. top level stuff. but the training, exhibitions, and software upgrades will cost you.

It isn't just an expensive piece of software,(like Autocad ) Its a lifestyle. Don't buy it unless you are seriously hurting with your current design software.. and to me, sounds like you are just curious. You can do an evaluation with your Solidworks reseller, and that won't cost much.. just to check. They are pretty good at the presentations. I had the reseller come to visit, to give a presentation on the PDMworks Enterprise (because the Interactive Work Flow Diagramming is unbelievable!) and the guy from Solidworks did a remote presentation that was great (I used a 42" monitor so everyone could see)

but keep it simple. Its like, if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. The training is expensive too. but you need it. You can do a lot with CAD.. it just depends on your application. There are things I can do in Visio that are better, faster, and more reusable than either one. (schematics for example)

Chris

My son is a 15 year mechanical engineer with around 7000 hours of Pro-E and most recently 2000 of Solidworks. He is used to working on very large models, things like complete semiconductor equipment tools and currently a complete production line for solar panel manufacture. He complains bitterly about the problems that Solidworks has handling large models that were never a problem with Pro-E. Case in point, his present employer had to get him a laptop with a $4000 video card to get his work done.

Bottom line is that if you're working for someone who makes big complex systems Pro-E, like Catia, is better suited as an enterprise CAE solution.

For me, retired and doing pretty small projects, I would probably go with Solidworks if I had to start 3d work and could afford it. Seems the best bet if you like working for small companies.

Ed Weldon

yep.. have to agree on the large assembly issue. but it is geometry dependent. That is one of the important things that I didn't know until after I modelled 750 parts and 350 assemblies.. You have to have simplified geometry in each part. I made them as intense as possible. ooops.. the solution is to create configurations within each model, one for simple, one for complex. Then when you make large assemblies, you put them together with the simple geometry, and the assembly only loads the simple geometry, so it is much lighter weight.. very similar to the way Autocad will make a circle into an octagon shape, but it is user controlled... (not requiring regen)

Chris

This thread is a good read top to bottom demonstrating that not only CAD software but all CAE software packages are like all the different tools in a tool box that all have a specific purpose.

That mig welder that I keep looking at would be "neat" to have but I don't need it ...so it's not justified....although it could pay for itself in 1 day in the hands of someone who actually needed it.

I wanted to know what you have to say about Solidworks.

One of you guessed it right, I am just more curious these days because I do not have enough work come in to make it a worthwhile effort to invest in, which is why I did not even bother to go along to their exhibitions either.

Thanks guys.

I prefer SolidWorks. I spent many years on Unigraphics, a little time on Catia and some awful years on AutoCAD. I really don't like AutoCAD. It's too cumbersome.

SolidWorks is easy to learn and great to work with. In fact I taught my son (11yrs old) to model and build an assembly just this past weekend. We designed a concept track drive system for his robotics project.

Unless you are planning to do some high end surfacing SolidWorks is the choice over Unigraphics or Catia. If you are only going to do simple 2D work you can use AutoCad, but I wouldn't. I would still use SolidWorks.

As far as analysis, I would use Cosmos in SolidWorks to ballpark a design before it goes to a real analysis suit.

SIR,

IS UNIGRAPHICS SUITABLE FOR VALVE MANUFACTURING FIELD