Easiest to use solid modeler/3D CAD?

[pkelecy]

Easiest to use solid modeler/3D CAD?

I'm new to solid modeling and am looking for an easy to use solid modeler for 3D CAD. I recently started using Alibre Design (Xpress version just to try it), and am impressed with it. It seems pretty easy to use and very capable for a good price. However, since this is the first 3D CAD package I've tried I have nothing to compare it to. So I am curious as to how it compares to other CAD packages, particularly with regard to ease of use (cost notwithstanding).

I know most of the poeple in this forum have used other packages, and so was hoping to get some opinions on this. If cost were not an issue, what would you use/recommend? I'd like to try one other just for comparison, which is why I ask.

Thanks for any feedback.

Pat

 

[Tazman3]

If cost were not an issue, what would you use/recommend?

Well, ok, if cost were not an issue I would say either ProE or Inventor. But I'm a little biased, I used Inventor for 5 years before switching to Alibre. You need to consider how much you need a 2D cad package as well as Alibre's and Inventor's are weak, unless you are keeping AutoCAD 2D to work along with it.

IMHO,
Taz

EDIT: Suppose I should add this though, for the cost, Alibre is a very nice alternative to Inventor. Even does a couple of things better than Inventor. But then, there are some things Inventor does better than Alibre' too....but that's all of them I guess.

 

[cclark440]

If cost where not an issue, I would most likely be using SolidEdge. Then again I am a little biased as that is what I used before switching to Alibre.

As for the ease of use, I personally think that Alibre is just about as easy as any other package I have tried.

But now to the real world were money is always an issue. Alibre just can’t be beat. For me personally the only thing that Alibre needs to really work on is the 2D functionalities.

 

[swertel]

If money were no object, I really miss working on UG. Of course, working on a UNIX system with plenty of stability, horsepower, and no Windows BS also weighs into that opinion. Now that UG/NX has gone Windows, it is still fun to use. Given the choice of master model or not is the main benefit. Having the drawing and the model in one file was so easy to manage.

Second place, if I'm not counting Alibre, is Solid Edge. I prefer that workflow and the Ribbon Bar much more than SWX, Inventor, Pro/E (haven't ever used Wildfire). To me, telling the computer I want to make a protrusion and stepping through the process makes more sense than creating a sketch then telling the software what to do with that sketch - especially since I need all the geometry created before hand and I always miss a axis of revolution or a guide curve or something.

Very close to 2nd is CATIA. I last used v4.X; I haven't used v5. It wasn't all that fun, I much prefer today's parametric modelers, but there was that hint of elitism in the fact that I could run it well.

--Scott

 

[leeave96]

Hey Scott,

I'm an old UG user too! Haven't used it since V16, a few years ago!

For ease, SolidWorks. For unmatched power, UG.

For powerful, small business enabling CAD, Alibre!

Bill

 

[pkelecy]

Thanks for all the replies.

Although there is always some trade-off between power and ease of use, my main interest was in the ease of use side of things. Solidworks is the name I hear the most in that regard, but given how many SW users there are I guess that's not surprising.

How do products like Rhino or TrueSpace or Vectorworks compare to Alibre Design? I've heard good things about all of those as well, and I don't think they're that expense.

Thanks again.

Pat

 

[CGN]

There is no comparison these are completely different type of software's and they are used for different areas Rhino is more into Freesurfacing and lacks of 2D features, and has no parametric or a robust solid engine, Truespace has some surfaces capabilities but is more graphics and 3D game design and has nothing to do Alibre or even Rhino, Vectorworks is a good mechanical software and has overall good tools for 2D and 3D but IMO is more good on the 2D side, Alibre has no 2D tools like AutoCAD for example because is not a CAD, Alibre is on it's own because is parametric and is different than the others, is more on the line of solidworks or PTC etc., now the question is what are you looking to model just overall 3D? use parametrics?, one sofwtare that has everything but it does not means is the best is Concepts Unlimited, good surfacing , regular solid modeling, complete 2D tools.

Cheers!

 

[macinc]

Pat
Rhino is a surface modeler, not a solid modeler. Truespace looks like a surface modeler too. The two types are used for different things. Vectorworks Mechanical looks like a hybrid (has both), but looks to be more along the line of TurboCad or SketchUp. Alibre is much more like SW or ProE (but doesn't cost $4k).
Here is a good simple explaination of solid modeling:

http://www.xmlcreate.com/NCGuide/Workshop/solids.html

Alibre has an interface for Rhino which allows you to insert Alibre solids into Rhino files, and the instances will be updated if edited in Alibre. Look here:

https://www.alibre.com/promos/rhino-webinar.aspx

 

[pkelecy]

Thanks for the explanations and links. I'm obviously new to all of this, but am starting to understand the differences between these products (as well as why there seems to be so many on the market).

I work in the area of motor design (engineering), but my main application for this (currently) is putting together conceptual drawings for proposals and reports. So having a nice figure that clearly illustrates an idea or design concept and looks good is important. However, I would eventually like to use the information generated in my design models (which are physics models that calcuate optimal component dimensions) to generate accurate solid models of motor components. So having a tool that could serve both purposes would be nice (which I think means a parametric solid modeler). Currently I have another engineer who uses ProE who does this.

The reason I was emphasizing the ease of use aspect, regardless of cost (which I admit is not realistic) is that I have found that tools that make you more productive will often pay for themselves. At fully burdened engineering rates it doesn't take many hours of time savings to make up the difference between a low end and mid range system.

One other question. Why would someone use a surface modeler over a solid modeler? Easier to use? Less expensive to buy?

Thanks again. -Pat

 

[CGN]

It's all on the needs of the user, I use rhino for hulls modeling and design, so far is easier for me to use Rhino for the hull modeling than any MCAD, other example is Industrial designers, almost every firm has besides a MCAD a Freesurface modeler, Rhino, Alias, Unigraphics and PTC have a plug in for freesurface modeling to create shapes like cars body, bumpers, plastic devices with funny shapes, planes etc...

For me I need a surface modeler but also need a MCAD and a CAD software, so my choices where Rhino, Alibre, and Intellicad, so I model my hull in Rhino and I use sections to create parts for the hull on the MCAD, or import the surfaces form rhino into the MCAD and use it as a reference.

 

[macinc]

In simple terms, surface modelers are used for complex freeform shapes and organic objects (swoopy, flowing shapes) as they draw shapes by "stitching" 2d polygons together in a coordinate system. It's like making a shape out of a piece of plastic wrap and having an infinite number of places to form and hold the plastic wrap into the shape you are modeling. It is quick precise and can make very complex shapes, but it is like a "skin".
Parametric modelers use "parameters" to define shapes and create a feature history -- "block A that is 2 units x 3 units x 5 units", "hole in block A that is 1 unit in diameter and is 2 units away from edge 12 and 3 units away from edge 6, 3 units deep in direction Z". Because of all the parameters needed, it is harder to create complex, freeform shapes. But because of the feature history it is much easier to make a change to a part. An example would be drawing a bolt. You can draw one bolt, and by changing one parameter, you can change the length. A different parameter and you can change the diameter. Soon you can have a whole family of bolts, or drive the sizes from a spread sheet. This is why it is so useful in manufacturing. With surface modeling you need to redraw the bolt each time (but could create a very fancy bolt). I may be missing some stuff, but I hope it gives you the general idea.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, here's my 2 cents....Pro/e for power, Solidworks for ease of use, Alibre for best value, I-DEAS for confusion!!!! For most modeling Alibre is the easiest and cheapest to use. The support is the best in the industry. Solidworks has some features that make a few tasks faster, but basic modeling is about the same. Pro/e is hands down the best for everything, but it is expensive, the customer support isn't the best, and it is not as intuitive. Once you get good at it it's the best. I-DEAS can do everything and then some, but is a pain in the rear to use. Alibre has a really low maintenance fee and they are very quickly adding features and abilities to catch them up to all the others. Here's a good option: Alibre Pro, Rhino, and Autocad LT. You can do just about everything with that combo for half the price of all the others.

 

[pkelecy]

Thanks for the further explanations and feedback. I think I understand now the differences between the various types of drawing products and their intent.

One other question though. I have noticed that the 2D drawing capabilities in Alibre seem a little weak (hence the recommendations for a more full featured 2D package such as AutoCAD LT). Is the intent for using a separate 2D product just to make it easier to develop stand-alone 2D drawings, or for use in conjunction with Alibre to develop 3D models? I ask because it seems like the standard procedure for developing a 3D solid is to extrude it from a 2D shape (which I assume could be imported). So it seems like having good 2D drawing tools is important for 3D work as well. Is that correct?


Thanks again,

Pat

 

[CGN]

Yes, is almost true that you need a CAD, no matter what you are using (MCAD or Freesurface modeler), for me what CAD does at the beginning of any design is to sketch the idea, then I move to the freesurface modeler and then MCAD and at the end I use CAD again to prepare final drawings.

 

[Anonymous]

Autocad is almost a requirement to have when doing business in the real world. Almost everybody has it and they use the .dwg and .dxf formats to exchange drawings. A lot of big companies require drawings be provided to them in .dwg format and it is so much easier to detail a drawing in Autocad. Alibre's capabilities are adequate in the 2d department, but it's strength is really 3d. I have created plenty of drawings in Alibre don't get me wrong, it's just been my experience that everybody uses autocad. A cool feature of Alibre's repository is that it will track changes in autocad and MS office files that are deposited there so you can rollback to previous versions and create check in/check out rules, etc. Also, I've created some really nice drawing formats for my Alibre drawings in Autocad and then imported them in. Works great.

 

[pkelecy]

Re:

Autocad is almost a requirement to have when doing business in the real world. Almost everybody has it and they use the .dwg and .dxf formats to exchange drawings. A lot of big companies require drawings be provided to them in .dwg format and it is so much easier to detail a drawing in Autocad.

I think most CAD packages now offer the option of saving in a .dwg or .dxf format. So unless something is lost when saving in a non-native format, I assume that means there are quite a few packages that could be used. I tried Autocad (a long time ago) but didn't find it that intuitive. I'm sure it has improved though.

But the main message I'm getting from all the responses to this post is that I'll probably want to keep several different CAD packages around for different drawing needs.

Thanks for the input. -Pat

 

[moyesboy]

You will find that everyone finds the 3D package they used most the most easy to use, but it is a good sign that most poeple rate Alibre pretty close to that. ie its no suprise that you got lots of answers naming one of Solidedge, SW, inventor, pro/E, UG etc as preferred!

The solid parts:
All the major 3D cad packages work by sketching a shape or shapes in 2D and extrude, revolve, sweep or lofting it to add or remove material.
You sketch the approximate 2D shape and then add constraints to the sketch to make it the exact shape you want.
At any point you can go back and edit these constraints and the properties of the features they drive to improve the part design.
By fitting the parts together in the assembly you can edit the parts together and develop the overall assembly.

You don't want to be creating 2D sketches in an external package and importing them, its best to draw the 2D sketch in alibre so that you have all the constraints if you want to edit them later.

The 2D drawings
Similarly the 2D drawings of the parts (or assemblies) call on the component files and update automatically to follow any edits - so you want to be creating the 2D drawings in alibre too. however you might want to export the finished Alibre 2D drawing into another package if you are finding Alibre's drawing capabilities lacking to make your drawing meet the exact requirements of your customer. A lot of alibre users have years of AutoCAD behind them and want to make their drawings exactly like their previous autocad ones - but thats a lot of functionality for Alibre to develop. The alibre 2D drawings started from scratch not that long ago so it's not suprising that they didn't get all the flexibilty of dimensioning etc that exists in AutoCAD. A solid package has to pick up on the 3D model properties with things like centrlines and dimensions so dimensioning to virtual intersections and the horizon of curved faces is actually quite complex.

Once the drawing is in Autocad (or far cheaper intellicad clone) then it is just like an electronic drawing board copy. A way of making an exact drawing with no ink or pencil smudges! If you have to change a part then the alibre 2D drawing will update to follow it and you will have to re-export and repeat any work you did in autocad so you want to do the absolute minimum outside alibre.

complex surfaces
If you have a lot of curved features with interacting fillets or you are designing moulded consumer products with sexy shapes then you really need surface modelling features which you can't do in Alibre. You could use Rhino together with Aibre like design the outside of your food mixer in Rhino and the motor fixing and drive train inside it in alibre. If you want to do the whole thing in one package then you need a mid to high range package. Solidworks might just do it but pro/E will definitely do it, then you are onto things like UGnx and Catia at many thousands of dollars.

However Alibre's sweep and loft functions can create some impressive shapes as can be seen in the entries of the alibre xpress contest (my unfinished entry was all sweeps and lofts, the winner is particularly impressive) http://www.alibre.com/xpress/forum/
http://www.alibre.com/xpress/events/contest-winners.asp

Free solid modelling
You might get a time limited demo of other 3D cad systems but with Alibre you can get a very good idea of how it works from running the free Alibre Xpress with no time limit, install it wherever you like, and be able to use any work you did in that should you purchase the full product.
They will also do a demo of the full product to test for at least 30 days.

Forgive this verbose post - just adding my take on the replies you already got.

 

[macinc]

The demo for regular Alibre is now only 3 days, they extend it to 30 days after you take part in one of their online colaborative demos (which are really neat). If you can't take part in one (they're about 1 hour) you can call them and they usually will extend your demo to 30 days anyways.

 

[pkelecy]

moyesboy - thanks so much for your very detailed reply (and sorry for the delay in responding! - things at work have been busy). It definitely clarified a lot for me, and I must say the more I learn about these CAD packages, the more impressed I am with what they do. To keep track of part histories and such, and the ability that provides to easily make changes to a model is pretty amazing.

Based on what I've heard, it sounds like any ease of use advantages other packages may have over AD is pretty minor (at least for basic CAD work). So I think I'll just spend more time digging into it and becoming more familar with how to use it.


macinc - thanks for the info on the demo. What I have now is the xpress version which I got during the "first 100,000 sign up" promotion they had last July. I'm not entirely sure how this compares to the full version, but it seems pretty capable. If I end up using it a lot, I'll probably upgrade at some point.

Thanks again for all the help! This is a great forum, and definitely a plus for AD.

Pat

 

[moyesboy]

In general if you come from a 2D package then you won't see the shortcomings of alibre compared to the other 3D cad packages like inventor/sldwx etc.
If you are already familiar with another 3D package then you will find things that alibre doesn't do - but similarly if you moved from SW to inventor you will find that too. There are usually other ways to achieve the same thing.
In general quite a few operations take a few more steps in alibre while more expensive systems might have a dedicated or more automatic tool.
whatever they say alibre is not yet everything the more expensive systems are - and won't be for a while. However it probably is everything a lot of people need.