inventor vs creo vs solidworks

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Hi, patrick.

What you say is correct. It is undeniable that there are fields in which it shows merits compared to all midranges. if you have to make proe molds is the best tool among the cads mentioned in this thread, if you have to reverse inv. or swx are already cut, if you have to create complex fusions between 3 the only and proe.
If you have to do carpentry I do not know, I find proe less productive of swx, not only by personal experience, but also by comparing me with other colleagues I have not yet seen any productive as we with swx+r2w at equal documentation provided to the customer.
for this, to make the best choice, the greatest possible culture of all tools is necessary.
they must weigh foreplay and defects and see what fits best in their reality.

hi enrico,
We've already talked about it in person, among other things you know that I'm drawing you first of all as a person and also for your way of working but unfortunately as I told you you you've been "feeled" too early in the discovery of pro/e, especially for your field of use, you've been using swx for more than 10 years you know it by heart, you know all the workarounds of the case, for me is the same thing in pro/e you know it.
but with this I absolutely do not want to say that you have wrong, I understand perfectly your reasons and sincerely support them also, I think I would do just as if I were in your situation, "losing" time to learn more thoroughly pro/e and all its facets takes time, sacrifice and aim is also costs and today with customers who beat the door every minute it is difficult to cut out this space and you go rightly with the tool.
I am firmly convinced that even your colleagues speak so purely for a lack of knowledge of the system or because simple people want to work with a method used for many years and working but that maybe for another system is not good, or it requires another way.

Unfortunately I cannot post documents and case studies made by customers who are colossi in these fields having signed clauses of non-disclosure, but speed and quality of documentation are guaranteed, clearly after a little time of asismlation of the instrument, this requires working daily for sure more than a full-time year to make a truly objective comparison.

to tell you all I have not recommended to a customer the sale of efx, recommending another way much more performing using tools based on a licensed base not known but that fall to brush for this kind of activity, so basically against my licensing interests, the result however was a customer satisfaction to double, one because it has spent less and second because it manages to do things practically at the same speed that using an advanced module is not said.

To conclude, I think there's too much but too many people talking just to hear, actually when you have the instrument in your hand you pity him to do what you always want, but you have to know it thoroughly! ! !

greetings patrick

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I point out that I don't have to sell you swx, I point out that my advice is to touch as many cads as possible, then you will assess the effectiveness of the test of retailers.
dwg swx directly cares them, there is no need to pass the dxf in models or in the table. that abandons the hopes of reusing the dwg with any cad 3d you decide to work, the reuse of the dwg is talk of commercials far from the actual effectiveness of the work with the cad.
the distinct ones fit into axiemi with a click, once the model is done and I find it can not be easier than that.
the properties must be compiled in advance, the same is in creo where you fill the parameters, the same is in all other cad. the info not if you invent the cad but you have to insert them.
If you have a pdm this job should be extremely facilitated.

 

[The_Matrix]

if the needs are these I feel I do not recommend you inventor as I could see an exaggerated management heaviness of large assemblies compared to creo or solidworks.
maxopus is right, you don’t have to be in a hurry and I recommend you make more than one demo for each product and it could be:

phase 1: demo guided by the seller in which shows you the potential of the cadphase 2: demo of the cad on your needs, the demonstrator will try to shape something of yours until you reach a presentable table. expect to see all workflows to avoid surprises.
phase 3: demo of additional modules that can serve you (specific packages for carpentry, piping, etc...)
phase 4 demo of pdm

I can already tell you that since I heard the piping of proe is better than that of swx, but it is an external package that has an additional cost both purchase and maintenance. idem for solidworks welded structures slot integrates the functions in the base, in proe you have to take an additional package with purchase and maintenance costs that follow it.

you have to see them at work and my conclusions are these: if swx you just have an extremely productive tool with a more than reasonable cost, if you do not just pass to proes but with higher costs in terms of purchase and maintenance.

an eye that for maintenance with swx you can stop and resume after a few years with an attack of 500 €/place, the ptc requires maintenance and to return after a few years you should pay a decent figure (in theory all the years jumped) less than promo (which however there are almost every year).

That's cool.
There is no nx in the middle, so I can peacefully say my...

on what I have highlighted, I gather particular attention: in that way you also evaluate the demonstrator...
If those who show you the product have a past similar to that of the products that those who see the demo produce... eh... the product will be better than what really looks like as someone who shows you knows what your problems are and will show you the product in its best form. . while perhaps a better product proved by a person not of the "your field" will certainly make a worse figure. . .

and you will choose a product not suitable for you only because those who demonstrated it "to speak your language". .

 

[cacciatorino]

and you will choose a product not suitable for you only because those who demonstrated it "to speak your language". .

If a var sends you a demonstrator who doesn't know your job, it's probably just as difficult to help you, and be unable to tell you the solution to the problem, that maybe the cad could fix but he doesn't know how.

 

[cacciatorino]

to hear the pro version of solid edge is equivalent to the sw standard... but I'm not sure

He's trying my partner and he doesn't seem very satisfied, maybe I ask him and I can tell you better later:

Standard solidworks is equivalent to solid edge foundation (price target). with standard swx you have the integrated mini-fem that with if you do not have, in addition to a minimal mechanical library (which seems to me that still with if you do not have).
with if you have synctechnlogy so you're favored to work with the imported, on the other hand swx usually beat him more.

 

[re_solidworks]

That's cool.
There is no nx in the middle, so I can peacefully say my...

on what I have highlighted, I gather particular attention: in that way you also evaluate the demonstrator...
If those who show you the product have a past similar to that of the products that those who see the demo produce... eh... the product will be better than what really looks like as someone who shows you knows what your problems are and will show you the product in its best form. . while perhaps a better product proved by a person not of the "your field" will certainly make a worse figure. . .

and you will choose a product not suitable for you only because those who demonstrated it "to speak your language". .

hi beppe,

you are right and as I had already written we rejected solidedge just because the demonstrator knew how to do just two fittings and did not know how to make an act of what we asked him.
therefore the risk of discarding a valid product exists, however there is no risk of taking a product not able to do as it is seen at work.
Now we all know that a commercial moves to sell and that if it says 99% of the commercials try to double a program even if it does not for you to make budgets.
That is why I say that it is not the case of asking and contenting promises. returning to my first choice surely the swx demonstrators were the most hulls, but to today we did not regret the choice and we always managed to design our products, therefore completely wrong was not.
this should serve to understand exactly the potential of the products related to the packages offered and the costs at stake.

 

[re_solidworks]

hi enrico,
We've already talked about it in person, among other things you know that I'm drawing you first of all as a person and also for your way of working but unfortunately as I told you you you've been "feeled" too early in the discovery of pro/e, especially for your field of use, you've been using swx for more than 10 years you know it by heart, you know all the workarounds of the case, for me is the same thing in pro/e you know it.
but with this I absolutely do not want to say that you have wrong, I understand perfectly your reasons and sincerely support them also, I think I would do just as if I were in your situation, "losing" time to learn more thoroughly pro/e and all its facets takes time, sacrifice and aim is also costs and today with customers who beat the door every minute it is difficult to cut out this space and you go rightly with the tool.
I am firmly convinced that even your colleagues speak so purely for a lack of knowledge of the system or because simple people want to work with a method used for many years and working but that maybe for another system is not good, or it requires another way.

Unfortunately I cannot post documents and case studies made by customers who are colossi in these fields having signed clauses of non-disclosure, but speed and quality of documentation are guaranteed, clearly after a little time of asismlation of the instrument, this requires working daily for sure more than a full-time year to make a truly objective comparison.

to tell you all I have not recommended to a customer the sale of efx, recommending another way much more performing using tools based on a licensed base not known but that fall to brush for this kind of activity, so basically against my licensing interests, the result however was a customer satisfaction to double, one because it has spent less and second because it manages to do things practically at the same speed that using an advanced module is not said.

To conclude, I think there's too much but too many people talking just to hear, actually when you have the instrument in your hand you pity him to do what you always want, but you have to know it thoroughly! ! !

greetings patrick

Hi, patrick.

You know I don't doubt your seriousness, and even if you sell business, I don't think you're a commercial.
your analysis of my situation is correct and balanced, but it is not said for the future.
My structure is getting bigger and bigger, this year, for the first time, the proe license has worked 7 continuous months and I think it can be a start.
certainly the ideal would be to find a job to carry out obligatoryly with proes, but I do not close every chance, in a future not too far I planned to jump on this cad and menarlo as you must (if not mena lui!).
said this, I would like to make an example of a stupidity that, unfortunately, weighs on productivity: the care of the interface.
In the proe section I read a discussion that deals with the opening of the table from the model. possible that in ptc nobody thought about it? so much to say in swx you make dx key on the name of the axieme or the part on the fm and you open drawing.
of these things there are many and if you want they are trivial, but at the end of the day they make time.
I didn't try to create because as you know, I'm still at wf 5, I hope they made some improvements. I think they've added a lot of things and I think I'll update next year to see them.

now I greet everyone and wish joyjoy a good choice.

 

[calacc]

then that to hear the pro version of if it is like that standard of swx you do not understand, as the licenses of if there is nothing that has the written "pro". there are the d&d (design and draft), the foundation, the classic and the premium, starting from the first that costs little but is limited to the last that is full optional and costs more. same thing swx also has basic licenses up to premium (precise names don't know) and prices vary.

Here, right! I think I read that fundation if it is equivalent to the sw standard or something like that

your partner who is trying to, can he use it? or downloaded it and installed it and trying to play? ?

Let's say the second...:4445:
However we are still in the initial phase of study and to get closer to the choice we have to make the way!

 

[tartufon80]

dwg swx directly cares them, there is no need to pass the dxf in models or in the table. that abandons the hopes of reusing the dwg with any cad 3d you decide to work, the reuse of the dwg is talk of commercials far from the actual effectiveness of the work with the cad.
the distinct ones fit into axiemi with a click, once the model is done and I find it can not be easier than that.

as you wanted to prove.... :smile:

the properties must be compiled in advance, the same is in creo where you fill the parameters, the same is in all other cad. the info not if you invent the cad but you have to insert them.

This is another aspect on which you could write an encyclopedia (actually happened obviously)!

 

[calacc]

What does "cree is too much for us" mean?
and another question is: are you really convinced that the so-called midrange packages have the same features as creo modules?

sheet-metal (lamiera) is included in the basic configuration, the efx module (carpenteria) is apart but, you need to see if you need it.
the peculiarity of this module is to have bookcases prepared for joints, for profile types and allows to trace a 3d model on the basis of sketches (a little like piping).
but if one does not have to design structures in a massive way, it can also do without.

there is too much talk around and often those who "proga" do not have a proper independent and detached attitude.

I simply say that for what we do, we need a management like the one in the inventor suite, maybe... but I repeat that my gossip and that I still do not know the potential of one and neither of the other. the fact is that I believe to us it serves besides the cad also a management for the technical office (not to lose the designs) and I do not believe that the company can afford to pay a managerial like a cad. with inventor give us the vault free, with solid top is integrated in the cad etc...
We still have to meet with the owners to do the situation.
personally as designer I would choose creo (as I have already told you here http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=28926) because I'm sure I'm not wrong and find everything I need with egregie solutions, paying him his right obviously.
but since I do not have to pay, as they say from us "it is all fnoccc with the cul to whom altar" (trad: "son all fennels with the ass of others)

 

[re_solidworks]

I simply say that for what we do, we need a management like the one in the inventor suite, maybe... but I repeat that my gossip and that I still do not know the potential of one and neither of the other. the fact is that I believe to us it serves besides the cad also a management for the technical office (not to lose the designs) and I do not believe that the company can afford to pay a managerial like a cad. with inventor give us the vault free, with solid top is integrated in the cad etc...
We still have to meet with the owners to do the situation.
personally as designer I would choose creo (as I have already told you here http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=28926) because I'm sure I'm not wrong and find everything I need with egregie solutions, paying him his right obviously.
but since I do not have to pay, as they say from us "it is all fnoccc with the cul to whom altar" (trad: "son all fennels with the ass of others)

is a saying that it is also used in my parts, data that the exile is at one step. an eye that a well integrated and well set pdm raises the yield of cad stations in an incredible way.
against if it is set badly and with workflow count the yield lowers. a fine vaulting software to itself is not comparable to a pdm.

 

[maxopus]

the problem of the bosses is that they generally do not understand a patch.
save 5,000 euros today without wondering what system productivity is.
just to understand that if the system is not done well, those 5000 euros you will spend them in a few months in man hours.

 

[calacc]

an eye that a well integrated and well set pdm raises the yield of cad stations in an incredible way.
against if it is set badly and with workflow count the yield lowers. a fine vaulting software to itself is not comparable to a pdm.

I suspected... since autodesk vault give it in the product design suite! It can be nothing but a bowl. but to be precise what changes between that and an integrated pdm (like that of top solid or sw to understand us)?
Thanks

 

[re_solidworks]

pdm integrated in solidworks makes vaulting and check in - check out to work in team.
a pdm or even better a plm handle more information. to explain to you I should write a poem repeating what is already written in the pdm section. Try reading something in that section and you should get an idea.

 

[Enzolog]

the problem of the bosses is that they generally do not understand a patch.
save 5,000 euros today without wondering what system productivity is.

mxousus saint subito! :wink:

 

[BIMchecker]

the problem of the bosses is that they generally do not understand a patch.
save 5,000 euros today without wondering what system productivity is.
just to understand that if the system is not done well, those 5000 euros you will spend them in a few months in man hours.

investment in efficient and up-to-date tools is always the best expense

 

[The_Matrix]

I suspected... since autodesk vault give it in the product design suite! It can be nothing but a bowl. but to be precise what changes between that and an integrated pdm (like that of top solid or sw to understand us)?
Thanks

I resume the response of kings (unfortunately on this forum when "quotes" only hold the last topic), to explain a little more.
I do the example of nx/teamcenter because I know them... I think you can extend the concept to other plm

the vault included in nx (it is called nx/manager) what does it do?
- check in
- check out
- safety of data
- management of work cad in team
- basic access management
- separate management
- features cad management (weld for example)
... without spending virtually anything in implementations.
If, on the same product you spend a little bit, you can extend the data model and manage for example coding.

What does teamcenter do, besides what was said before?
... so, by chance... we should define it as an end-to-end plm:
- classification
- product and process lifecycle management (workflow... applicable to product, process x producing it I am product, documents, etc.)
- management of requirements
- system engineering
- Mechatronics
- distinct management "non cad" (technical distinction... mfg distinct)
- interview with erp (sap or jde or oracle mfg etc)
- project management (project management, linked with items in design)
- document management (both documents and content)
- suppliers management
- manufacturing management (distinct... cycles... resources... etc.
- management of simulation data and their correlation with physical tests
- mro
- report & analytics of data present in teamcenter
- ... the only real limit is your imagination and your desire to evolve and have a company in step or over time
... clear that a "extended" implementation of the concept of plm presupposes a company that:
... has very clear ideas of his strategy.. .
... money to implement. . .
... internal resources available. . .
...will to change their processes.. .

I hope you're a little clearer.