sostituzione cad

[Bobo75]

Good morning, everyone. The question I'm about to ask I didn't find it in the various discussions about which I'm going to expose it.
I worked for almost 15 years in a company that when I arrived I used autocad to design. based on my then knowledge I "spinto" to switch to solid edge that was in fact the only 3d cad that I "know" use as with the various tutorials present then to system you could become operational in not long time. by self-taught then I started using it more and more and though they never made me do any course, in the end I think I have acquired some familiarity in its use. the synchronous technology sincerely I did not use it for nothing as for the kind of purely mechanical product that we realized I found it more problematic than valid.
a year ago I changed my job and in the company where I am now catia v5. the company where I am making a product very similar to what I did before. I come to my questions.
first of all on what base is it said that catia is better than solid edge? I'm really struggling to get used to, especially to the mentality of work. conceptually making mechanical pieces I was always used to working the piece on the 3d a little as if you really worked it for which (I think I understand why no one explained it before, in single body ) while catia works in correct multi body?
what would be the advantage of this type of approach to design compared to single?
There are then a number of things that in my opinion make it really long to learn and difficult to manage as well as (personal opinion) really Moroccan.
creating a bound sketch is an absurd operation. does not take the average points of the sketches, does not take the lines of machining of the holes as reference, if you project a line from the 3d as referment is not strictly bound. to have the final point you must project the sketch because the final points are not considered and many other things.
in a set you cannot remove from the view the reference plans that break the boxes visually speaking. It is not possible to work on the individual component of the axieme, leaving the others in transparency so that a change can be seen immediately what it entails in the axieme, the system of constraints is to say little absurd not giving visually the idea of when an element is totally bound and not eliminating the constraints of an element when it is erased from the axieme.
I let the draft environment stand out that he's pretty sluggish too.. .
So why is it so much valued?
in front of the above you would make sense to switch to another 3d software faster in the realization of the components.
Luckily I bought myself a space mouse so at least some things speeded up.
I stress that there is no controversy only if I have to learn a similar pachiderma I would like the certainty that this bears real benefits and not because there is boing or other, considering that not air project

 

[cacciatorino]

Are you the only designer in that company? If you are one of the many and the company has standardized catia, you catia must make it pleasure, willing or oily.

 

[ale47p]

a former colleague of mine, a person to whom I taught everything I knew about powershape, when he changed the company (it went into a great national reality that also makes a lot of export) he found himself catia.
He thinks they have it almost at all, they probably took it who knows how many years ago, and they do not exploit it at all.
he also argues that catia is "too macchinoso" to do some things that are simple to do with other cads, even if perhaps much less blasoned.
[cit.] it's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife [cit.]p.s. now works in the shopping office

 

[Bobo75]

I add, since he hasn't read anyone yet:
the version they have here doesn't even care about the stp because they tell me it's a form apart for a fee... aside??? a program like that with what costs should open the pdf and turn it into 3d (exaggerated of course, but I am really exasperated )
they send me the files to stp I have to convert them to igs ( changing the extension from iges to igs because if not manco read them ) and I lose the solid and part of the surfaces that I should rebuild...I think it is madness...

 

[Bobo75]

hunter we are in two and my colleague needs to tell you anyway of an update course done as you must...
I'm trying but to make a car example is how to have vettel hardware to rally.
But I would like to know what makes it so extraordinary in the eyes of the most, because I see a lot of gaps, and just graphics, that being a 3d design program seems quite illogical. . .

 

[stevie]

I think you've got the point, these high-end cads, they're gonna scare me.
in summary they are (they would be the case of saying) they are thought to do a little everything, but they do it with macchinos and the term user-experience is something unknown. . .
for 90% of companies I think are much more productive the cad defined mid-range (if, solidworks, inventor, etc.).
we say that historically catia was one of the first cads to be developed, and in part still suffers from the macchinosity (some would dare to call it rigourousness) in the approach.
Of course it is that unless you exploit all the caty environments is highly wasted.
now the cases are two, indeed 3 to want to be lazy:

1 - You like it and you beat it on top, maybe even some classes
2 - push for change and transition to more user friendly software
3- change company and find one where they use if

 

[stevie]

hunter we are in two and my colleague needs to tell you anyway of an update course done as you must...
I'm trying but to make a car example is how to have vettel hardware to rally.
But I would like to know what makes it so extraordinary in the eyes of the most, because I see a lot of gaps, and just graphics, that being a 3d design program seems quite illogical. . .

has nothing extraordinary except the fact that it was one of the first developed cads, and was developed by an aerospace company.
for this reason it has had a great diffusion in the aerospace industry and the major manufacturers of the industry use it.
This does not mean that it is ideal for small-medium mechanical enterprise, and in fact it is not!

 

[meccanicamg]

catia is a high-end cad and is super-referenced to work with surfaces and for specialized jobs that concern simulation of various nature. are suitable for molds, automotive, design etc.
it is certainly very slender compared to solidworks and solidedge that are simpler and logical.

 

[Bobo75]

I think you've got the point, these high-end cads, they're gonna scare me.
in summary they are (they would be the case of saying) they are thought to do a little everything, but they do it with macchinos and the term user-experience is something unknown. . .
for 90% of companies I think are much more productive the cad defined mid-range (if, solidworks, inventor, etc.).
we say that historically catia was one of the first cads to be developed, and in part still suffers from the macchinosity (some would dare to call it rigourousness) in the approach.
Of course it is that unless you exploit all the caty environments is highly wasted.
now the cases are two, indeed 3 to want to be lazy:

1 - You like it and you beat it on top, maybe even some classes
2 - push for change and transition to more user friendly software
3- change company and find one where they use if

Let us say that the main idea is to push for the possible change and passage to a more immediate and in my opinion productive software, it is not my intention to change firm because I am still very well here apart from this thing that is still in the phase of "examination". the rigor can also stand in a parametric design, but here is excessive.
I was interested mainly to understand if there were real reasons why one should opt for this type of cad apart from bragging with its competitors to have "the top". At the moment I am making it pleasure for force, and cad muose + space mouse have helped me to adapt a little. of the change scares me the management of the archive drawings

 

[cacciatorino]

Let us say that the main idea is to push for the possible change and passage to a more immediate and in my opinion productive software, it is not my intention to change firm because I am still very well here apart from this thing that is still in the phase of "examination". the rigor can also stand in a parametric design, but here is excessive.
I was interested mainly to understand if there were real reasons why one should opt for this type of cad apart from bragging with its competitors to have "the top". At the moment I am making it pleasure for force, and cad muose + space mouse have helped me to adapt a little. of the change scares me the management of the archive drawings

What kind of products do you make? Do you interface with customers/suppliers at 3d model level?

 

[Stefano5]

Sometimes the choice of a cad within a company is also subordinate to those you need to interface, if for example your company produces automotive components and/or large industrial groups that use catia, it is a compulsory choice to be able to charge maybe higher-level assemblies in native form, and also provide the model of your product always in the same format. then I fully agree with you on the choice of solid edge to design mechanical products even with a high number of components, perhaps without need to realize complex surfaces.

 

[Bobo75]

we are in the mechanical sector, in the specific rubies, we say that we have to deal with the surfaces but in my opinion nothing that requires such impossible processing. many components the surface processing does not even see it with the binoculars. particulars are made that must be printed, but nowadays with a stp you can collaborate with any moulder without problems (to have the possibility of exporting to stp ), it is not that by force you have to give it a file in native format. the greatest concern of course is given by the management of the existing archive.
However, the current licence must be renewed as it expires (i.e. adding minimum stp ) so that the investment is likely to be quite high, in view of a value that may not be necessary.

 

[Stefano5]

I share your opinion, and I know different realities in the same conditions, but facing a cad change within a ut, with perhaps a copious historical archive, is not a walk. for previous experiences, if there are no particular problems with the management of the current cad, it is difficult to implement a migration only to make the design leaner. Do you still have my moral support? ?
other thing, sometimes the choice of cad for the modeling of complex surfaces, comes from the need to process the aesthetic maquettes of the “creatives”, which do not have the pallidest idea of what the rest of the project entails.

 

[stevie]

we are in the mechanical sector, in the specific rubies, we say that we have to deal with the surfaces but in my opinion nothing that requires such impossible processing. many components the surface processing does not even see it with the binoculars. particulars are made that must be printed, but nowadays with a stp you can collaborate with any moulder without problems (to have the possibility of exporting to stp ), it is not that by force you have to give it a file in native format. the greatest concern of course is given by the management of the existing archive.
However, the current licence must be renewed as it expires (i.e. adding minimum stp ) so that the investment is likely to be quite high, in view of a value that may not be necessary.

At this point I would evaluate perhaps the transition to swx, which we say is roughly similar to if, and is produced by the same catia software house.
talk to the owner and maybe ask for a demonstration of the particular products from you.

 

[mamobono]

the problem is here "solid edge that was in fact the only 3d cad that "knowing" use as with the various tutorials present then to system you could become operational "to use cad you need to do the appropriate courses organized by the software house .
I assure you that I surrendered from autocad and thinldesign and passing to proe at the time wf1 I thought like you on proe ( alone there was nothing about how to do, Moroccan, etc.) , then made the courses and a little evening commitment now I would never change it.
You are lucky to have a very high level cad (if you have all the modules you need) , take advantage of it.

Hi.

 

[Bobo75]

while not knowing the software I was also watching solid works because of the same house of catia. there are solid edge things that I regret how to work on a part directly in the axieme leaving the other components in transparency or always in the axieme to have the management of the component constraints directly linked to the component itself. But there are more. of solid works I have seen that it has a sort of native file importer also of catia and could be an interesting solution. sure after the salon we will make a presentation made as you must and will make the evaluations of the case. learn to learn maybe better a cad a little easier.
is there someone who used both solid edge and solid works and can compare them seriously, without entering fanaticism?

 

[Bobo75]

the problem is here "solid edge that was in fact the only 3d cad that "knowing" use as with the various tutorials present then to system you could become operational "to use cad you need to do the appropriate courses organized by the software house .
I assure you that I surrendered from autocad and thinldesign and passing to proe at the time wf1 I thought like you on proe ( alone there was nothing about how to do, Moroccan, etc.) , then made the courses and a little evening commitment now I would never change it.
You are lucky to have a very high level cad (if you have all the modules you need) , take advantage of it.

Hi.

I know that catia is at high levels and I absolutely do not disdain the fact of learning it, but objectively to the company at the present state it is advisable to reinvest in a cad of this level with the costs it has included? calculating that each module is something separate and paid?
I will keep you updated if you are interested in the evolution of this...

 

[alexfunk]

look how life is: I use both catia and solid edge and if I can (with solid edge) I try not to make even a line

 

[Bobo75]

look how life is: I use both catia and solid edge and if I can (with solid edge) I try not to make even a line

Can you motivate me? Why wouldn't you pull a line? Why if you use it if it's not among the programs you use but there's only catia and nx?

 

[Bobo75]

alex, could you motivate me what has solid edge you don't like?
I opened this thread just to have a comparison between those who use different cads that can give me motivations as a direct user of which can be the real advantages of using one thing compared to another. especially by those who might have used different cads. I went from a user friendly cad to a colossus as a catia I was rather in trouble for the machinacy in the execution of very trivial things like mirroring a workmanship (sometimes it does not) or to quote a design managing the views dynamically (the catia is decidedly Moroccan) or to the continuous loss of the constraints every time you make a change to a component, having then the difficulty to understand what are the constraints lost.
Careful! It is not that solid edge is perfect indeed! In my opinion, for those who model mechanics, for example, the so-called synchronous technology is practically useless being tied to fatigue. there is the fact that it does not make the dynamic pan with the wheel if not activating the command by pressing together the ctrl.
so every cad definitely has its pros and its cons. My research is mainly aimed at understanding why a cad as a cat costs so much more than the mid range, and what are the strong points of one compared to another. For example, in my opinion, how to set up tables and customization of solid edge cartiglio is much more immediate and functional. . .
I hope someone wants to try to answer.
Good day to all