[Recuperato] SolidWorks vs Catia5


Moderatore Solidworks
Staff Forum
Professione: Progettista
Software: Solidworks, Cimatron IT, Cimatron E, Rhino, AutoCAD, Logopress, Solidcam
Regione: Emilia Romagna
-Discussione recuperata dalla cache di Google.
-I rispettivi moderatori sono autorizzati a cancellare o modificare la presente discussione dal proprio forum.
Grazie per la collaborazione.

04-09-2002, 15.18.26

A favore di tutti coloro che non sono abbonati a "CAD-CAM Publishing", la rivista di Steven Wolf, molto attiva nell'analisi dei vari prodotti CAD, Vorrei mandarvi un documento, da me estratto dal sito, con la comparazione fra Catia5 e SWX... visto che entrambi sono prodotti da Dassault...

Come faccio per allegarlo ad un post?????

04-09-2002, 15.27.49


le soluzioni sono due... o fai un bel copia incolla oppure me lo inseriamo nell'area download e qui mettiamo il link diretto. Altra alternativa lo metti nelle news. Scegli tu. A qua disposizione per chiarimenti... non vedo l'ora di leggere l'articolo...


04-09-2002, 16.37.17

Ti ho mandato una mail con il file allegato.
Contiene ovvieta' ma e' interessante per il dibattito CAD High-End vs Mid-Range.
Chiaro che l'americano e' un File-SolidX.... quindi occorre leggerlo con spirito critico.

04-09-2002, 17.25.45

Scusate la pignoleria: SWX e Catia non sono entrambi "prodotti" da Dassault.

SWX è "di proprietà Dassault", e per quanto ci siano poche features del software che sembrano sviluppate congiuntamente, l'impressione è che sia lo sviluppo sia l'azione commerciale siano molto separate.
La politica direi che sia "non pestiamoci i piedi".

04-09-2002, 21.54.01

OK, va bene, non sono prodotti da DS entrambi...
Come UG e SE non sono prodotti da EDS...
In effetti per entrambi (DS/Catia e EDS/UG) la concorrenza interna mi pare forte...

... aspettiamo che m.sambo metta il file da qualche parte, diamo una lettura poi discutiamo apertamente sui MID e HIGH!

Ultima modifica da un moderatore:


Moderatore Solidworks
Staff Forum
Professione: Progettista
Software: Solidworks, Cimatron IT, Cimatron E, Rhino, AutoCAD, Logopress, Solidcam
Regione: Emilia Romagna
16-09-2002, 14.09.03

Inserisco qui sotto l'articolo che CatiaWillDie mi aveva spedito (è presente anche nell'archivio degli articoli):

CATIA versus SolidWorks

August 22, 2002 -- Superficially, Dassault Systèmes’ SolidWorks and CATIA version five appear similar. Both products run on Intel Pentium systems with Windows NT operating systems (including Windows 2000 and XP). Both employ the Windows look and feel in the design of menus, button bars, and graphical feature and assembly trees. Both products employ the feature-based, dimension-driven solid modeling style pioneered by Parametric Technology Corporation’s Pro/Engineer.
However, there are important distinctions between the two products both in their functional capabilities and in the way they are sold and supported. Unfortunately, both Dassault Systèmes and IBM do a poor job of explaining the differences. Dassault Systèmes absurdly characterizes the SolidWorks software as “design centric” while calling CATIA “process centric.” But since the Dassault marketing people (most of whom are French) don’t define what it means to be process centric, the distinction hasn’t impressed English-speaking customers.
More recently, IBM and Dassault have taken to positioning CATIA as the product for “lifecycle management,” as if engineers who use SolidWorks have no lives. All three-D CAD systems are handicapped when it comes to managing engineering data throughout a product’s lifetime. (See “Why CAD isn’t up to PLM and what you can do about it” for reasons why.) But SolidWorks is as capable of executing product upgrades and design changes as CATIA.

The real difference

The real difference between CATIA version five and SolidWorks is the level of engineering sophistication available with the two products. More than 70 percent of CATIA customers make vehicles, including aircraft, automobiles, trucks, and ships. These manufacturers employ advanced analytical tools to simulate and test product performance and assure safety and reliability. The software used by these firms includes:
· non-linear finite element analysis (for forming and crash simulation)
· computational fluid dynamics
· acoustic simulation
· software for simulating noise, vibration, and harshness
· optical simulation
· flexible-body dynamic analysis
· dynamic test analysis
· fatigue simulation and failure prediction
· unsteady heat transfer
Besides analytical software, CATIA also incorporates specialized design software for disciplines such as wiring, sheet metal, and composite materials for aircraft. CATIA incorporates four separate products for designing electrical raceways, conduits, and wave guides. In the field of car design, CATIA has a specialized application for so-called class A surfaces that enables workers to start with points digitized from clay models and produce smooth mathematical surfaces for production of tools and inspection of finished parts.
Dassault Systèmes provides some of this software itself. CATIA version five release nine incorporates 129 separate products. Additional applications are provided by third parties, such as MSC Software, LMS International, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., and Forming Technologies.

Sophisticated shape modeling

SolidWorks is a capable system for industrial design that includes sophisticated features such as lofts, variable-radius fillets, shells, and draft angles. CATIA’s mechanical part-design workbench has these tools too, and they are no better than those of SolidWorks.
But CATIA also offers shape-modeling capabilities beyond those of SolidWorks. CATIA also has two independent sets of surface-modeling software that are distinct from its solid-modeling functions. CATIA’s Generative Surface Design product enables designers to sweep, revolve, and loft surfaces as can be done with solid models. It also enables designers to do things that can’t be done with parametric solids alone. For example, a designer can draw lines or curves in space and fit surfaces between them. Surfaces created in this way can be intersected, trimmed to the intersection curve, and blended with fillets. GSD also enables engineers to add surfaces that blend between non-intersecting surfaces.
Another CATIA surface-modeling product called the FreeStyle Shaper enables designers to create surfaces bounded by curves and change their shape by dragging their control points to new positions. CAD programs that use surface modeling are less automated than solids-modeling systems. Where solids programs trim surfaces automatically, users of surface-modeling software must do the job manually. However, with surfaces, designers may be able to create models that solid-modeling systems can’t.

The CATIA V5 FreeStyle Shaper lets designers shape surface models by manipulating control points as shown above. (Click image for a larger view.)
CATIA is supposed to enable designers to incorporate surface models into solid objects, sewing the shapes to make a unified product model. Such tasks are easier said than done, but when combined surface- and solid-modeling techniques are needed, they can be very useful.
Ultima modifica da un moderatore:


Moderatore Solidworks
Staff Forum
Professione: Progettista
Software: Solidworks, Cimatron IT, Cimatron E, Rhino, AutoCAD, Logopress, Solidcam
Regione: Emilia Romagna
Designed for large teams

CATIA is organized to fit the needs of large design teams. Automobile and aircraft makers have legions of specialists. Some work only on class A surfaces, for example, while others simulate crash tests or vehicle dynamics. CATIA enables customers to set up what Dassault calls “workbenches” that contain all the tools, translators, and pointers to directories that are needed to perform a specific task. Some of the standard workbenches include mechanical design, shape design, digital mockup, and ergonomics design and analysis. With some programming, customers can create their own workbenches tailored to job descriptions of their companies.

CATIA version five groups software products into workbenches. Selecting a tool from a workbench brings up the button bars needed to operate the tool. (Click image for a larger view.)
Few individuals could master all the arbitrary rules and procedures of every CATIA application. IBM representatives won’t even demonstrate a CATIA product unless they have been trained to use it and have rehearsed a canned demonstration. The CATIA software is attractive looking with stylish colors that make U.S.-made CAD systems appear drab by comparison. However, CATIA’s functions are not intuitive to learn or use. For example, to zoom in and out with the mouse, one must first press the second of three mouse buttons, then the first, then release the first mouse button while keeping the second pressed.
With proper training and practice, CAD users have demonstrated the ability to master even the most arcane procedures. Dividing the work among specialists limits the amount of rote memorization needed to do a job by reducing the number of functions that each operator must master.
The way CATIA is sold also is best suited to large organizations that purchase a smorgasbord of the 129 available products. IBM has no price list for CATIA software, and large deals are the subject of negotiations involving hardware, software, and service contracts.
IBM says it has simplified sales to small enterprises by combining products into packages sold for a discount. There are three CATIA V5 packages that sell for less than $5,000: Sheetmetal Production, Drawing Production, and Machinist Review. As Pro/Engineer customers have learned from experience, the trouble with this approach is that it’s hard for CAD suppliers to know which products to put in a package. Customers may find after buying a package that functions they need are not included unless they pay extra. Complete CATIA V5 systems comparable with what SolidWorks offers are much more than $5,000. The average selling price for a seat of CATIA in 2001 was $16,500, according to Dassault Systèmes’ annual report. This average reflects discounts given to IBM’s largest customers. Smaller firms can expect to pay even more.
The CATIA development organization writes application software that SolidWorks customers must buy from third parties. For example, the CATIA team writes its own software for designing injection molds and wire harnesses, while SolidWorks relies on third parties such as Manusoft Plastic, R&B Ltd., and Linius Technologies. The one-stop shopping offered by CATIA appeals to large companies that find it inefficient to deal with multiple suppliers.
As noted previously, CATIA’s user manuals and training aids are not good. (See “How to learn CATIA V5” for details.) This shortcoming may be acceptable to large corporations that often design custom training classes to match their own procedures. It is less than ideal for small organizations that need to work with off-the-shelf training aids.

SolidWorks' user interface employs subdued colors consistent with Microsoft Office applications. (Click image for a larger view.)

The few, the proud…

In contrast to CATIA, SolidWorks provides fewer functions and makes them easier to use. Engineers in small teams need to be generalists. They need to be able to design their products with solids, produce drawings and prototypes, and deliver their design data in forms useful to their manufacturing partners. SolidWorks is better suited than CATIA to these smaller organizations.
SolidWorks Office is sold in a single $4,995 package that provides everything an engineer needs to make models, drawings, realistic renderings, and prototypes. Tools for applications such as mechanical simulation, numerically controlled tool programming, robots, etc. are extra, but every SolidWorks user doesn’t need them. SolidWorks doesn’t include data-management aids in its standard product, but a variety of third parties supply them. Recently, SolidWorks dealers began offering two brands of data-management software: PDMWorks for small groups and SmarTeam Works, based on the same SmarTeam software that IBM sells with CATIA. (See “SolidWorks enters the PDM business” for details.)
SolidWorks dealers offer training classes using texts and presentation materials designed by SolidWorks. In addition, SolidWorks training can be had from numerous schools and colleges or from self-study books sold by book dealers.
SolidWorks is less costly than CATIA because it is a simpler product. It contains fewer lines of code, and installation is simpler, reducing the need for on-site application engineers.
SolidWorks has a rich variety of third-party applications that include finite-element analysis, NC milling, robotics, dynamics, mold design, tolerance analysis, and much more. The analytical applications available with SolidWorks are not as sophisticated as those that can be integrated with CATIA. However, most SolidWorks users don’t need the capabilities, cost, and complexity of such tools.
SolidWorks should not necessarily be limited to small companies. Large electronics firms, such as Hewlett-Packard or Lucent, could use SolidWorks for mechanical engineering because their products aren’t intended to orbit the earth or carry passengers. The most sophisticated engineering in an electronics system generally goes into the IC and circuit-board design, not mechanical packaging.
In similar fashion, companies that make industrial machinery don’t need sophisticated analytical tools either. Production machinery is generally designed with large factors of safety because saving every ounce of weight is not critical. As EDS’s Bill McClure puts it succinctly, “steel is cheaper than brains.” CAD systems such as SolidWorks, Solid Edge, Think Design, or Autodesk’s Inventor series are capable of designing most industrial equipment.
Suppliers to firms that make cars and airplanes may or may not need CATIA. Firms that are engaged in close design collaboration with their customers should probably use the same CAD software. Translating data back and forth between systems loses information. Some suppliers are engaged only in manufacturing parts, and one-way translations from their customers are adequate for them. Such firms might do better with less complicated CAD software for designing products such as castings, sheet metal, tools, or flat patterns.

Better integration needed

Dassault Systèmes ought to do a better job of integrating CATIA version five with medium-priced CAD systems such as SolidWorks, Solid Edge, and Inventor. In a recent test of CATIA version five release eight, service pack two, we were unable to save CATPart models either in IGES or STEP (ISO 10303) formats. We have routinely exchanged files between SolidWorks and Pro/Engineer using IGES and between SolidWorks and Inventor and Solid Edge using STEP. If these low-end products can master CAD standards, CATIA should too. CATIA also neither reads nor writes SolidWorks data.
In summary the decision to use CATIA version five should not rest on whether a company is large or small but on the demands of its mechanical engineers. Complex products that need to be optimized for weight and performance can benefit from the advanced engineering software integrated with CATIA. But customers who choose CATIA will pay a price in software, labor, and overhead support. Firms with less demanding engineering requirements can probably get their work done with SolidWorks or one of the other mid-range systems.
For additional details about CATIA version five products and configurations, visit IBM’s Web site http://www.ibm.com and search for CATIA. Review the IBM product letter for the most recent release (V5R9 at this writing). For information about SolidWorks, see the Web site http://www.solidworks.com.