choice technical office boot program

[tmp_fra]

I would also turn myself on swx or proe: each with advantages and disadvantages, also depends on the possibility that customers ask you for a delivery in native format (in this case you have to adapt to their standards).

proe is more suitable to manage (magari together with mathcad or matlab) the whirlwind speech (you also do it with swx but less automated), swx gives you greater openness to the cfd world (though the module for the cfd is very expensive and is a fem code, less "flexible" than other software, for example, to finite volumes).

I had to deal with a program called own cfd and he was based on solid edge for 3d pieces drawings if I don't remember bad.... used it in the development of the thesis a few years ago....and yes...so aime that is definitely expensive!

 

[re_solidworks]

You don't have to worry about that.

I have been working fulltime with inventor for three years now... now I have just taken 2011 ....

more than anything else I think it is more userfriendly and maybe it can be less violent as a passage.. . .

proe I don't know it.. I saw some tutorials to make me some ideas but to skin it seems more complex.....

is a cad to learn like all others, has its interface different from the ribbons of windows w therefore different from solidworks and inventor.

solid edge or solidworks as setting for sketches seemed much more similar to the 2d autocad... .

I don't know solidedge, but the swx sketches don't look like autocad, you can use it similarly by activating 2d emulator but at the first minute of course they say "forget what you did with autocad until now and learn to work with the mindset of swx", the sketch approcio is just opposite to the philosophy of acad.


If I can give you advice I would opt for proe or solidworks for two different reasons. proe as parametric is more performing and more "sectable" to the comma, it is difficult to explain you just have to try it to understand. has a much more mathematical approach to modeling, which could prove very useful in the modeling of turbines, which instead would serve little in the carpentry or modeling of industrial machinery.
Solidworks is very similar to inventor as an interface, so you won't be struggling to learn it, but you will have better performance with surfaces (compared to inventor) that are adequate to the market band. there are also external applications for "complete" surfaces for swx, so you will have a minimum of scalability.
keep in mind that for against no autodesk competitors you get a dwg manager up to mechanical, included in inventor.

 

[tmp_fra]

I don't know solidedge, but the swx sketches don't look like autocad, you can use it similarly by activating 2d emulator but at the first minute of course they say "forget what you did with autocad until now and learn to work with the mindset of swx", the sketch approcio is just opposite to the philosophy of acad.

You see, I've had the setting made at university by people who probably learned it in their turn alone... and several versions ago by now... so I should remake a real course.

If I can give you advice I would opt for proe or solidworks for two different reasons. proe as parametric is more performing and more "sectable" to the comma, it is difficult to explain you just have to try it to understand. has a much more mathematical approach to modeling, which could prove very useful in the modeling of turbines, which instead would serve little in the carpentry or modeling of industrial machinery.
Solidworks is very similar to inventor as an interface, so you won't be struggling to learn it, but you will have better performance with surfaces (compared to inventor) that are adequate to the market band. there are also external applications for "complete" surfaces for swx, so you will have a minimum of scalability. .

I also saw swx in operation but I never tried to use it. I enjoyed it more than I appreciate inventor... .

keep in mind that for against no autodesk competitors you get a dwg manager up to mechanical, included in inventor.

And that scares me... but I don't want to wrap my head before you bang her!. ..this will be the first thing I will estimate entrnado in the company; I will try to understand well the actual exchange of drawings between company and suppliers to understand if it is enough to pass pdf or if the actual drawings are passed....and according to that I will decide what to choose to leave. . I think it's the base to choose. . . .

thanks as always for the pretion observations to all.

 

[cacciatorino]

And that scares me... but I don't want to wrap my head before you bang her!. ..this will be the first thing I will estimate entrnado in the company;

I by trade exchange files with customers, and I just wanted to tell you that actually compatibility with the dwg format is a false problem, in the sense that all modern cads have a proper import/export quality in most cases.
In summary, I would not put it among the important factors of decision, it is only a matter of losing a half hour to make a good calibration of the translator dwg. This is obviously true if we talk about 2d, but if the speech is to manage the dwg-3d then things get pretty complicated.

 

[tmp_fra]

Good! Here you see this I just ignored it!!!good to know!fatsie! !

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

the fact that pro/e is more ostic and less user friendly now is a thing that can no longer be said, with all the best graphics introduced in the years and the complete disappearance of the curtain menus replaced also by these blessed ribbons.

If anything as I say is ever wider because of all the vertical modules that can be integrated inside it and therefore for this reason if you want to push it deep it takes time, but this is not synonymous with difficulty, indeed flexibility to every environment that you want to approach.

As for the export speech, the hunting quoto, in fact this is the last of the problems, I know customers who work on third parties who have 20 different mappings depending on the customer, so it is always customizable in every aspect.

inventor also here from my side is very used and diffused but only because they teach it to schools and because there has always been "ignorance" in thinking that there was only that as cad3d, propose courses of 20 hours in the hope that one knows how to use it professionally and personally this always makes me smile, because then the question on surfaces or other things a little more complex these users answer:
a but we do not design.. as if the surfaces served only in that environment. .. these are the limits not only of the software but precisely in the basis of the teaching that they give you.

greetings

 

[re_solidworks]

I by trade exchange files with customers, and I just wanted to tell you that actually compatibility with the dwg format is a false problem, in the sense that all modern cads have a proper import/export quality in most cases.
In summary, I would not put it among the important factors of decision, it is only a matter of losing a half hour to make a good calibration of the translator dwg. This is obviously true if we talk about 2d, but if the speech is to manage the dwg-3d then things get pretty complicated.

attention exporting is one thing, but working (even little) is another. I happen to do some work in 2d, maybe even too complex boards to manage with swx I carry out and end up in acad.
in this case dwgeditor is a fetecchia, draftsight is too acerbo, intellicad a ball like dwgeditor... at the end the best remains autocad that you have in homage to inventor, while with others you have questionable quality products.
It is not said that you need a 2d as a mechanic and can give yourself that the complexity of your product allows you to work entirely in 3d, and in this case it is a factor that you can neglect.
Also for so long mappings are ok often a hand adjustment is necessary.. .
I started with swx and autocad lt 4 years ago, I integrated proes and the top application for acad 2 years ago and now I am going to buy autocad mechanical (or inventor, depends on the final commercial conditions).
the future is far from predictable......

 

[cacciatorino]

attention exporting is one thing, but working (even little) is another. I happen to do some work in 2d, maybe even too complex boards to manage with swx I carry out and end up in acad.

We probably have very different workflows, I can do everything in the solid edge draft, but it's true that I don't usually have to make layouts or similar. personally I try to avoid as accurately as possible from leaving
Draft of solid edge to finish my boards, in order not to lose the association between model and table that I think is essential to avoid disasters.

 

[maxopus]

Yeah, I never use the 2d, too.
I've completely abandoned it for several years.
It only happened once I had to put down a couple of electrical schematics... and I lost a few hours behind it, rearranged with pro/e.
It's not the best but, once you take your hand you do quietly. also this and it is not worth taking another cad if the use of the 2d is so sporadic.

 

[tmp_fra]

believe me you have no idea how many observations have come out in just two pages of discussion...and I already have several notes from your experiences that are really helpful to me. I did not trust in so many comments.
I hope more will come.

Thank you so much!

I also share with the idea of putting as little hand as possible on 2d.


..in the sense...if I make a 3d, for how we are accustomed until now.. I do it to verify that you return everything.. first development that and then I carry out the puts in the table to send in production... and the maximum of the intervention that I do on the 2d are add notes.. or to the maximum correct of the sections that inventor hovers clamorosamente to level of rules (see the sections of the trees an example on all).... !

..I want my 2d to be exact with 3d and vice versa, otherwise even if only in view of a change of staff...if the new person does not know of this not match between 2d and 3d maybe in making an update updates the table playing "the adjustment" you had done on the previous version (what happens where you do not have a proper archive of drawings) ...I see it too risky as what..... .

 

[re_solidworks]

I also share with the idea of putting as little hand as possible on 2d.


..in the sense...if I make a 3d, for how we are accustomed until now.. I do it to verify that you return everything.. first development that and then I carry out the puts in the table to send in production... and the maximum of the intervention that I do on the 2d are add notes.. or to the maximum correct of the sections that inventor hovers clamorosamente to level of rules (see the sections of the trees an example on all).... !

..I want my 2d to be exact with 3d and vice versa, otherwise even if only in view of a change of staff...if the new person does not know of this not match between 2d and 3d maybe in making an update updates the table playing "the adjustment" you had done on the previous version (what happens where you do not have a proper archive of drawings) ...I see it too risky as what..... .

see cases can be many and very different. It is essential to use the 3d and table of this and to avoid the use of the 2d as much as possible.
If you draw a large plant the 2d becomes fundamental if you do not want to retire with the first job waiting for the pc to finish regenerating.
I had to carry out some work in which I put my hands on existing models already made by ignoring every rule of performance optimization in view of great assemblies and the model was about 180,000 solid bodies including piping, notoriously ostic in regeneration.
the main boards were practically unmanageable with the swx draft and I had to switch to more blazing methods to deliver well-made designs in reasonable times and compatible with the preventive costs.
with the models I produce from me where everything is weighed and optimized to the bone in view of large assemblies I no longer have these problems.

But now I want to put a flea in my ear to colleagues. exporting a pdf and a dwg can also be useful. think if you complete a set of drawings and provide it to your customer, a colleague makes a change in a model (or even worse in a skeleton) and the whole parametric model changes according to this change.
Everything updates, but where do you fish what you sent to the customer? having a copy in dwg is not entirely wrong, at least for the main drawings of a project.

another thing: swx has a plugin (which I have never tried) that allows you to create views and update them directly in dwg editor. this plugin should also work with acad.
in my opinion having a parametric table in the autocad environment would be the maximum, because you can say everything you want but in order to jam a table (at drawing views), autocad is the fastest and most practical tool you hesitate.
if this tool in the future will be pushed a little further than the simple existence could be excellent especially in the case of mega assemblies.

 

[Strumpf]

pro/engineer does all these things, I use it for 4 years after being passed by different parametric programs and are increasingly satisfied with it.
It's a high-level program, the latest versions are absolutely user-friendly and is accessible at all prices similar to much lower level design programs.

if you have to address the speech turbine blades and a little complex surfaces,
pro/e mating to mathcad and bmx is ideal, not to mention the product development aspect and other countless benefits.

if you need more detailed info about this please contact me in mp.
I have a presentation of a typical case on not indifferent turbine blades that can make you understand how much a job of this kind can be pushed.

greetings

I move occasionally, very rarely, I read these posts and... Perhaps for nostalgia or too much beer I spontaneously tell you that I love you
even if you use that.... :
I'm sorry. !

 

[Matteo]

I move occasionally, very rarely, I read these posts and... Perhaps for nostalgia or too much beer I spontaneously tell you that I love you
even if you use that.... :
I'm sorry. !

you should spend more often:smile:

 

[cacciatorino]

you should spend more often:smile:

I agree... .

 

[Er Presidente]

you should spend more often:smile:

quoto!! ! ! ! !

 

[The_Matrix]

create in a small company a technical office starting from scratch.

the company has existed for some ten years but has remained at rather rough levels.

- possibility to carry out also "rapid" fem analysis; (in a future it will also be thought of a fluiddynamic analysis program)
- possibility to manage even not simple surfaces such as turbine blades;

but what exactly does your company do?
turbines?
What kind?
other than with its suppliers must relate as a supplier with other larger companies?

the most important thing when choosing a plm is knowing with whom you must relate to "the top".

 

[tmp_fra]

but what exactly does your company do?
turbines?
What kind?
other than with its suppliers must relate as a supplier with other larger companies?

the most important thing when choosing a plm is knowing with whom you must relate to "the top".

to this I will know to answer you more accurately between a month or two.

for now I only saw the job from outside.... because between notice etc. I have not yet entered the new place!

But I wanted to start making myself a top idea about the various programs (besides inventor that I already use) so as to re-stringe a bit the circle of programs to choose from.

 

[maxopus]

but what exactly does your company do?
turbines?
What kind?
other than with its suppliers must relate as a supplier with other larger companies?

the most important thing when choosing a plm is knowing with whom you must relate to "the top".

would you like to answer that they relate to those of genova:biggrin:

 

[The_Matrix]

would you like to answer that they relate to those of genova:biggrin:

but also with those of rivals who make engines for aircraft

 

[tmp_fra]

Get me back!
finally in the new company and with the possibility to give more information in order to help me with the choice.

then the question is as follows:
we are at zero of everything! Total zero!

everything is done based on experience and estimates..part from sketches made in years past....

putting aside for a moment the speech of the absence of design... and resigning momentarily to simply want to bring back everything that is prodoxed in a digital format. ...

mainly the product is about fans, and you do everything yourself.. .
from sheet metal cutting to embutitura, rather than molding, to next drilling, various bendings, welding, paints etc etc.

the need is to have dxf files to be able to send to the oxytaglio machine...you have your own program but I was wondering if there was a possibility to use only one program to draw and then eventually transfer these files to what manages the oxytaglio, so you don't have to remake the drawings a thousand times!

I create the flanks of the "chicciola" and on these two sides I echo the band that unites them. .it would be nice to get these bands for "derivation" from the shapes of the two sides and then to get the development to send to the oxytaglio machine.
are there programs that do this?

I need something to handle sheeting for the most part, the more you ok weld bolts etc....

the future perspective is to use the same program to be able to also develop new products and therefore possible structural analysis rather than fluid dynamics.. but this is a point of arrival... so. .possibly for that you will take another product when you can...now the urgency is to codify the products to digitalize them start the management of db etc etc...

I know it will sound surreal as a situation.... but you have to wake up because there is really so much work and they can no longer keep up....

suggestions?
I welcome also suggestions regarding the management of the whole, they are always welcome.

thanking you as always for the collaboration
soon

between