AutoCAD is a great tool for 2D drafting work. It certainly has 3D capability (especially in conjunction with Mechanical Desktop), but at best that capability is cumbersome and limited when compared with SolidWorks. By contrast, SolidWorks is not a good *purely* 2D drafting tool, although making drawings of 3D parts and assemblies is very easy and powerful. For instance, I would not want to try to *draw* a 2D label or overlay with the SolidWorks drafting tool -- I would use AutoCAD or a program such as CorelDraw or Adobe Illustrator, or any number of other CAD/drawing softwares such as Microsoft's Visio (which can import SolidWorks' Drawings and which can be had for free with SolidWorks 2001). Intellicad is one FREEware CAD equivalent to AutoCAD, and so in my opinion one does not even need to spend any money at all to do good quality 2D design.
SolidWorks 3D geometry creation is very powerful and relatively easy. Naturally, the more complex geometry you must handle the more one has to know about using the software. SolidWorks' ASSEMBLY capabilities really put AutoCAD/MDT to shame. AutoDesk Inventor is somewhat similar to SolidWorks, but it is not yet as mature as SolidWorks (Inventor is getting closer, I hear).
In SolidWorks there are three different modes of creation corresponding with three different types of files created. Those are Part files, Assembly files, and Drawing files. The user interface for all three are similar, but with significant differences and requiring some different understanding for effective usage.
Working in Part creation mode, one has tools to sketch closed profiles on "sketch planes" (which can be default X, Y or Z-axis Planes, or user-defined Planes, or surfaces of earlier defined solid "Features") and then a variety of different ways to make solid "Features" from the sketched profiles. To create "Features" one can either Extrude or Cut in several ways, including simply projecting a profile at 90 degrees to its "sketch plane" (with or without angular "draft"), revolving a profile around a centerline, sweeping a profile along a path or guide curve (either sketched like profiles in 2D or sketched in 3D in free space), lofting through multiple profiles (basically like morphing from one profile to another), etc.. One can then add additional Features like fillets, chamfers, and even domes, etc., with a lot of different options for creating complexity. One can also use "Surfaces" (zero-thickness Features essentially the same as "Surfaces" in AutoCAD) -- one can trim and knit them together, then make SOLID Features out of spaces entirely enclosed by those Surfaces or use the Surfaces as boundaries to which one can Extrude or Cut a sketched profile. Additionally SolidWorks has very good capabilities to create "sheet metal" Parts, which means the Parts can be bent up and unbent in various combinations. The bends can be created on a flat pattern, or a flat pattern can be created from a set of uniform-thickness Features that are already in a bent-up geometry. The calculations used to do the bending and unbending include variables for bend radius, angle of bend, relief features that are sometimes necessary at the edges of bends, and for taking into account the stretch and compression of the metal in the bend area.
In creating "Features" while in Part creation mode, the "Features" themselves and any sketches used to create them end up in a "Feature Tree" on the left side of the graphical user interface (GUI). This is a "history" of the creation process, and within it the Features and sketches can be edited in later stages of design and even re-ordered within limits, thus changing the geometry of the Part. This creation history and the capability to redefine that history are the reasons why SolidWorks and a number of other CAD programs are called "parametric". The completeness and accuracy of these parametric methods of creating geometry can result in data on which a sheet-metal shop, or a millwork shop, or an injection-molding shop, or a foundry (etc.) can rely to very accurately and/or more quickly manufacture your parts and create tooling for that purpose. The 3D data can be much more useful than the mere two-dimensional representation of parts and assemblies that drawings provide, or it can extend the usefulness of drawings greatly.
Working in Assembly creation mode, one has tools to mate Parts together and also create combinations of those various Parts for different Assembly "Configurations". One can also drop into Part creation mode while in Assembly creation mode and work on geometry for specific Parts in the Assembly. In Assembly creation mode one can even create new Parts in relation to other Parts in the Assembly. This is called doing "top-down design" and it can be used as a powerful aid to ensure that Parts in an Assembly will fit together properly.
The third mode of creation is Drawing mode. In that mode one can basically "drag and drop" views (including Isometric views) of the 3D Assembly or Part model into a drawing format. Projections of views can also be created with a single command (one can choose 1st angle or 3rd angle projection). Dimensioning can be manual or semi-automated, which is to say any dimensions one uses to create the geometry itself can be dropped right into the drawing view just with one command. Such dimensions are FULLY associative (you know what "associative" dimensions are in AutoCAD), which is to say they are bi-directionally associative with the model -- changing one will change the other. Additional dimensions can be easily created in similar fashion to AutoCAD just by clicking on edges, vertices, midpoints, etc., and those dimensions become PARTIALLY associative, which is to say that the associativity is uni-directional (flows from the model to the drawing, but not from drawing to model). One can type in one's own non-associative text instead of the dimension value, just as one can do in AutoCAD and of course one can add notes and other text easily. There are tools to create welding symbols as well as ANSI/ASME geometric tolerancing (for North America) or ISO geometric tolerancing (for the rest of the world) and other symbology. In addtion, in the title block of the drawing one can use "Custom Properties" (fields with values put into them while in Part or Assembly mode) to fill in the proper text. This is for things like drawing title, drafter name, date of completion, drawing number, etc.. This is analogous to using Attributes in AutoCAD, but is quite a bit different and more flexible. In a Drawing of an assembly a Bill of Material (BOM) can be easily generated from the views and inserted onto the Drawing. One can then "bubble out" each part semi-automatedly just by pointing to the part edge with your cursor -- the resulting item numbers in the bubbles automatically correspond with the numbers in the BOM. I would say the Drawing capability of SolidWorks is excellent and more powerful than AutoCAD, but can not quite equal AutoCAD in variety and style for presentation of the Drawings. And as I indicated, SolidWork's Drawing mode is not well suited to creating one's own 2D sketches -- its linework comes almost exclusively from the 3D model. On the other hand, the capability of SolidWorks to create impressive 3D presentation is truly awesome, especially in conjunction with such "Add-Ons" as PhotoWorks and SolidWorks Animator.
In addition to all the other capabilities, one can create Configurations of Parts using Design Tables, which are spreadsheets with columns corresponding to dimensions. In this fashion a single Part file can contain (for instance) all of your machine screws, or all of your nuts or all of your flat washers. One simply chooses which Part configuration one wants to insert in your Assemblies. The columnar values in the Design Table can also be used like "Custom Properties" (see above) to fill in values or text in a Bill of Material or drawing title block.
I hope that gives you some "feel" for how SolidWorks works, and some contrast to AutoCAD. Basically AutoCAD (and/or MDT) is very fine tool for drafting and a RATHER limited tool for design, but SolidWorks is a very fine tool for design and a SLIGHTLY limited tool for drafting. It has its limitations and its bugs and quirks (which do make me angry and frustrated at times), but it is a better, more powerful, and more flexible tool for design than anything AutoDesk sells. And I think SolidWorks is a better company than AutoDesk, although I have some issues there as well. They have me and many other people truly pissed off with their premature release of new versions and also their lapsing bug-patching for the last version even while new versions are buggy as hell -- this has happened with SolidWorks 2000 and now 2001. But regardless of that, with SolidWorks I feel like I can be truly creative. It opens up worlds of possibilities that I could scarcely have imagined while only using AutoCAD. However, let me not mislead you into thinking SolidWorks is easy or quick to master, unless one has extraordinary talent for such things. It takes a fair bit of experience to be able to use it as a really effective tool, but it's probably as easy to learn as anything else with reasonably equivalent capability existing right now. One doesn't have to be a genius to use it well .. one just has to be persistent.
Best regards,
Mark Stapleton (aka, "Sporkman")
Owner, WaterMark Design, LLC
Mechanical and Electromechanical Design/Consulting
(SolidWorks specialists)
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
How many times are we going to hear the excuse that the real reason a user is having problems getting SolidWorks to do the job is because the user does not have enough training ?? This excuse is made repeatedly in this newsgroup by one poster, who just happens to work for a SolidWorks reseller, and handles training. (Must be some lucky coincidence :) )
Note, I don't have this problem with my SolidWorks VAR as he is ethical and happens to agree with me on what SolidWorks problems are.
Lets looks at the facts:
When you import a surface model created with another modeler into SolidWorks you can't do a dam thing with it. Your locked out. You can't edit the surface in ANY way !! The only current answer to gaining editing control is to REBUILD the model in SolidWorks. Is this practical... NO !!!
In a recent post, this SolidWorks VAR trainer suggests, among other things, ..training, the use of FeatureWorks, etc. The fact is that SolidWorks does not presently have ANY tools to solve this problem. The solution certainly won't be coming from GSSL, who developed FeatureWorks, because the technology to recognize surfaces so they can be edited inside of SolidWorks, does not exist. Why does this problem occur ??? Simple... SolidWorks is based on Parasolid. Until recently (a few months ago) Parasolid did not have ANY tools for direct surface face manipulation. You can take all the training you want, without these tools, the job can't be done.
An similar example of how silly this training recomendation is would be like showing up for the Indy 500 with your Chevy. If you could bring Ayrton Senna back from the dead as your trainer you still would not qualify for the race. You could put Ayrton in the Chevy and you would have the same non qualifying result.
Without the proper tools in SolidWorks, users will continue to have the massive problems they currently have...no matter how much training they get.
This kind of unethical trainer prays on SolidWorks users who don't have a basic understanding of the components that make up SolidWorks and that SolidWorks relies upon. Examples would be D-Cubed's constraint manager, Parasolid, GSSL FeatureWorks, etc.
Jon
I have been a SolidWorks enthusiast ever since I've started using SolidWorks 97+ over Autocad. I must say, while I still greatly enjoy using SolidWorks as a Cad tool, the more I use it the more I take for granted what it "CAN" do and get frustrated about what it is lacking. This is why (already being an expert user) I feel the need to be like everyone else and discuss what I feel SolidWorks needs to work on.
Now, I don't want to go of on a rant here.
I have been working on a particularly large assembly. I understand perfectly well that this a very sensitive area and primarily relates to the speed of the computer hardware to drive it. However, even after all the lightweight loads and clever ways to hide, suppress, and "WORK AROUND" this problem while designing an assembly,I still have to make a DRAWING. Now, does lightweight, suppression, or even rapid draft do me any good when I have to lay not just 1 view, but up to 8 views and add to that, some section views of a huge assembly? And after I have created these views I can simply convert the drawing to rapid draft and my time waiting for models to load and regenerate the drawing is over? Yeah, I wish I were that good to never have to change a single part or sub-assembly later in the design phase without a rebuild. The reality of this is that everyone will be still designing, changing, and even updating parts, which requires the models to always be loaded when working with a drawing. These so-called time saving tools are virtually no good here! Please speed this process up tremendously so we don't have to wait for AMD's 10 GHZ chip, Nvidia's Gforce 5+ Ultra Mx, 1.5GHZ FSB w/ 10 Gigabytes of memory, and a SCSI drive that can read at least 200mbs (Sorry Intel, your P4 is losing dominance, especially with CAD) to be as "FAST AS A LIGHT SWITCH"... I'm still waiting...
While I'm discussing drawings, I want to talk about the way SolidWorks handles the B.O.M. (especially with assemblies with more than 10 parts). The SolidWorks B.O.M. is CLUMSY, AWKWARD, SLOW, TEDIOUS, and just plain BROKEN. Did I already mention SLOW and AWKWARD!!! I don't care if we have to re-invent the wheel to generate a BOM. The wheel has a flat and is about send us speeding out of control. Yes, Excel is great, but I am not waiting for OLE to activate and fill every time. And that stupid OLE window when editing!! I just got done generating a huge B.O.M. in AutoDesk's inventor (I'm not saying that Inventor is superior by any means) and it was displayed as "FAST AS A LIGHTSWITCH" because they fixed the flat and did it themselves!! And editing it to customize it is just as fast.
Re-invent the wheel?? Where would SolidWorks be if they didn't re-invent CAD? That excuse is lame! The CAD industry is in business because we re-invent the wheel sort-of-speak every day. I'm tired of hearing it.
Also in Inventor, you can easily manage large assembly's projects with a handy organizational wizard and tools. Don't try to sell me a PDM package to help me keep SolidWorks files organized through a design process. The design process & organization should be a very important part of SolidWorks core without any help from 3rd party vendors.
Also in Inventor, they decided again to re-invent the wheel even in a subtle way. They made a better "file open" dialog box that stores project folders or "favorites" if you will. Now this isn't much, but it certainly saves many, many clicks throughout one day. WOW, you mean I don't have to constantly switch from folder to folder to folder to folder. I've seen how slow some people are with their mouse too. Scary how much time could be saved just with that improvement alone.
Inventor also re-invented the file-properties dialog to accomodate standard engineering properties along with customizing. Where's our's? We already wrote a custom properties program anyway but it's the point that it's already there.
Also in Inventor, you can have more than one leader line folding out to a balloon or note so it's jagged. Simple yet Cool!
Last but not least, since there has been many posts about the new interface, is that while I understand that you can't please all the people all of the time, you can't just try to design it so it ends up looking like SolidWorks for Dummies. Put an advance user option (Like Inventor again, hate to do this but it's the only way to get my point across) where the interface will change the way it looks and reacts based on long-time expert users who already know what most functions do.
I will probably get flack posts for mentioning Inventor here but even thought they basically "re-invented' SolidWorks" wheel (I understand this), they are doing "SOME" things much better.
Come on SolidWorks, don't make me feel like the next few versions of Inventor are going to pass us up. Let's keep making things easier and better and start re-inventing some things to make it the far superior cost effective CAD package without question.
Now every CAD package has it's strengths and weaknesses, but these are the fundamentals! I have to make a drawing still. I need a B.O.M. for my large assembly. Isn't there any other clever way to go about speeding this process up in the software? I'll have to send in some more enhancements!
I know I sound very critical of SolidWorks right now but I think I'm just venting my frustration on the amount of time it takes to work with large assembly drawings. In my opinion, after using SolidWorks, Inventor, and SolidEdge alike, SolidWorks is still the best CAD tool.
Let's make it better.
Well, I've just spent 10 minutes writing this, and my drawing just got done regenerating! Better get back to waiting er .. working.
Bless everyone who only works with small assemblies.
Don Van Zile
Norgren Automotive
We have found that SolidWorks is not the most efficient software for creating some types of documentation. Because of this, we are still using AutoCAD for the following types of documentation :
Note: We make serious text in Word and bring into drawing ..too much hassle trying to take drawings intoWord.
Lenny
VISIO does electrical and pnuematic and then some.
CONCLUSION: SolidWorks (without an add-on) stinks for schematics. Works well with VISIO assuming you "Insert, Schematic" from a SWX drawing (to get the right scale for the drawing).
Scott Wertel
Works with Visio
Perhaps the most astounding (to me) new feature in SolidWorks 2001 is its Visio compatibility. I recall, from the days of the Phoenix, John Forbes laying out the map: Visio at the bottom; IntelliCAD in the middle; SolidWorks at the top. Mr Forbes is no longer with Visio, and nothing became of the connection to SolidWorks -- or so I thought. The guys at SolidWorks hadn't forgotten, and knew they needed a 2D component for creating P&ID and electrical diagrams. IntelliCAD wasn't compatible enough, and preliminary talks with TurboCAD never went anywhere.
The connection with Visio is more than just OLE, although it looks and acts similarly. The SolidWorks file format is Visio-aware; you'll have to purchase Visio separately, however. "Visio will be alright?" Mr Dunne asks. Visio will be very alright, I assure him. SolidWorks' revamped DWG import is similar to how Visio 2000 handles AutoCAD drawings: (1) the initial import is 100% visually accurate, but cannot be edited; then (2) as individual elements are selected for editing, they are converted to SolidWorks format on-the-fly.
(A champion for AutoCad chimes in -aj)
AutoCAD 2000+ with the ACIS4 3d modeling engine is excellent for creating 3D models. It is a vast improvement over R14 in this area. I am surprised that Autodesk is not using this as a selling point more forcefully. We use AutoCad 2000 for our 2d and 3d structural drawings and it is excellent.
We use a small in-house add-on package that makes life with AutoCad2000 in a 3D environment very simple. I agree that prior to A2000 the 3D capabilities of AutoCad were quite limited.
Peter
ACIS 3D Toolkit (ACIS) is an object-oriented geometric modeler, composed of libraries of C++ classes and functions, on top of which 3D modeling applications are built. The ACIS product line consists of the ACIS 3D Toolkit modeling engine and a variety of optional husks that may be purchased separately to add specialized or advanced functionality.
(from Google search ..note the term "geometric" which means it is still the twenty year old technology being tweaked .. the new (truely?) parametric engines use the term "positional" because they record positions rather than geometry. Note also that some competitors criticise AutoCad for using the term "parametric modeling" for mechanical desktop which they contend brings "true" pararametic modelling into disrepute and sneer at AutoCad's marketing people referring to "object orientated technology" -aj)
End