Geomagic or Solidworks

[GDBranch]

I originally purchased Alibre Pro at Rev. 9. A deal was offered
at roughly $1,500 (they actually financed it for me). It came with
a form of everything offered today like Motion, rendering etc.. Best
part was that they thru in a training video DVD and off I went learning
3D.
In my field of expertise, designing and building electronic test
fixtures, it has worked pretty near flawlessly. The number of times
I've called for support could be counted on one hand. The Alibre forums
have been ideal at learning from all of you and for the most part that
circumvented the need for Alibre's support.
Lately I've read a lot of negative posts in the forum and I found myself
questioning whether I should move to Solidworks. I really dislike the
name Geomagic and I'm quite honestly very concerned with the direction
3D Systems wants to take this software. But...
I asked, and received, a quote from a Solidworks distributor today and
their Solidworks Professional Package came in at $7,091 for the first
year. Subscription service included in that price for the first year,
$1,495 each year there after.
I've done a lot of thinking about all this since the name change to Geomagic
(geez I really hate that name). But here are the reasons I'm not going
anywhere right now.
1. I accomplish all of my design work with Alibre.
2. I have no software issues like others are reporting here in the fourm.
3. Nothing I've seen or read about Solidworks would improve my design cycle time.
4. I'll keep the $7k in the bank and add roughly another $1k of saved
subscription fees next year.
Bang for the buck by my analysis remains with Alibre. I would be very
interested in what others here on the forum think, especially those that
have Solidworks experience. What have I not taken in to account???
By the way, as to where 3D systems is taking Alibre, where is
Dassault Systemes taking Solidworks? Is Alibre gaining ground or is Solidworks
forever going to be somehow superior?

 

[wildwood58]

They are very close, with GM beating them hands down on price.
My only issue has been with the issue I have had with the latest release.
AD2012 worked flawlessly on my laptop as did SW201 professional.

What ever changed in the software with 2013/2014
Is the only problem I have.

Eventually GM should solve the death loop issue and I will be a happy camper again

 

[Lew_Merrick]

GDBranch,

First of all, there is always somebody claiming to be the 800 lb gorilla. A few years ago, ProEngineer claimed that spot. Then it was SolidWorks. Today, most of this noise is coming from and about Autodesk Inventor. This is pretty much marketing hype.

I go back and forth among ProEngineer/CREO, SolidWorks, SolidEdge, Catia, and Alibre/Geomagic with fair regularity. You can't do work on Boeing projects without their modifications to Catia. Otherwise, the only thing that I can say is that each package has its own strengths and weaknesses. Were price no object (yeah, sure, you betcha), then I would be a SolidEdge booster of major proportion. However, migrating my 4+ decades worth a supporting components and parts libraries to SolidEdge is one of its more obnoxious defects. (OK, I am a prima-donna in this regard, right?) Other than price (and more solid and direct Boolean access in Alibre/Geomagic), I don't see that much difference between the two. SolidWorks edges out Alibre/Geomagic only in that nearly half of my clients have bought into the marketing hype of SolidWorks. I figure that I am getting a 5%-8% "premium" when working in SW because of the ways (at least in those areas of industry I work) the added steps I have to go through to make SolidWorks do what I do for less effort with Alibre/Geomagic.

I was working on a project earlier this year for which the top installation model ran something more than 17 GB in Alibre (V2012) and more than 23 GB in SolidWorks. Merely inserting a part into the assembly at that level of memory usage gave me a significant time advantage with Alibre when compared to making the "addition" in SolidWorks. Both were quite a bit slower at that level of memory usage, but the overall process of setting constraints was significantly faster with Alibre.

However, to be fair, there are things that SolidWorks does more efficiently or better than Alibre/Geomagic. Collecting design information and providing it as something that can be directly incorporated into a drawing leaps immediately to mind.

That is the nature of the beast. If I have my way (and I probably will not), I will avoid working with Autodesk Inventor as it is a cumbersome, slow, and not all that well thought out (at least from my perspective) system. I am working with a company that uses it right now. They take at least 3X as long reconstruction my designs and I do to create them with Alibre/Geomagic from scratch.

 

[mshideler]

My experience is pretty biased at this point. I am one of the users with the seemingly random death loops with the GM solution. I paid for subscription in March and I have yet to make any parts in it due to the fact that I have no idea if it will work the next time I start the software.

Just for chuckles I started it right now and, naturally the splash screen is still set to 'on-top of' in code so the installer windows that are also open cannot be clicked on to continue. This is ironic because I ran it two days ago. Then I ran it again and it death looped. They still do not have a solution and after using SolidWorks for 10 years I never had any issues like this. Seriously - what is with GM / GD constantly thinking that it needs to update or install stuff?!?!

SW is much stronger when it comes to surfacing and I have found that it is strong with drawings. Alibre / GM seems to be a great tool if you are more geometric shapes and Boolean operations in order to make your shapes. When sexy or organic come in AD seemed to be hit or miss.

Regarding the amount of clicks to do something - that depends on the operation and most functions can be assigned to hot-keys or floating menus so I wouldn't really say that SW or GM takes more or less clicks as it would depend on what you are doing at the time.

Due to almost 5 months now of no real use of GM after paying the subscription fee I would clearly say that SW should have been the direction that I should have taken. While the cost is higher, I know plenty of people that I can meet with face to face or on Skype with any SW questions. I can also drive to the sales and support office and get any help that I need. With GM / AD - months later and nothing. No help. Constantly uninstalling and reinstalling, Motion is still hanging out there. Much of the STEP import testing that I have done with GM did not end well - which is an issue due to MoI being part of the organic modeling pack (I turned in a ticket and sent files to support).

At this point with all the problems for me, specifically, if I had it to do over - I would pony up for SW. Unless Jesus walks on water (or if GM gets their act together), when my sub expires I will end up moving on I think. I have seven months left to see if I can actually use the tool that I paid for.

 

[dammerel]

GDBranch, If you are looking around at different CAD's, have a look at Spaceclaim
I will be surprised at what it can do. And it is integrated with the GM offer of SimWise motion/FEA

Andrew

 

[bigseb]

I have no issues with Geomagic Design. It does absolutely everything I need for my line of work which is predominantly injection mould and blow mould design. I have yet to find something that Solidworks can do that GD can't. And somehow GD seems to work quicker thanks, in my opinion, to the ribbon interface.

As far as the so-called 'death loop' goes the majority of users here don't have that problem. Naturally you won't find them writing threads about how well the software works. You already said that you don't have any problems of that nature but then you don't state which version you are running. Give it a trial run if unsure.

As far as the name goes there's no need to hate it. You should take the time to find out exactly how huge the Geomagic brand really is. What they offer is way beyond anything from Solidworks. The name will not affect your output either. Someone else pointed out that there are lots of software packages with odd names (Rhino, Flamingo, Moment Of Inspiration, Blender, Creo, etc) that are very highly respected. Again, find out exactly what the Geomagic brand stands for, you will be amazed. I suggest a visit to their website.

1. I accomplish all of my design work with Alibre.

Good. And hardly unusual.

2. I have no software issues like others are reporting here in the fourm.

Also good. But which version are you running?

3. Nothing I've seen or read about Solidworks would improve my design cycle time..

True for just about everyone.

4. I'll keep the $7k in the bank and add roughly another $1k of saved subscription fees next year.

Speaks for itself really.

As Lew mentioned every software package has strengths and weaknesses. The SW reseller here Cape Town has already made me an offer of 40% off the purchase price but I see no reason to leave GD. 2014 is a huge improvement on previous versions. The new add-ons are the bomb. On top of that the GD team have always given me fantastic support. I feel 100% looked after and at home with GD.

 

[Tom_B]

I've decided that there is perfect way to deal with the silly new name. Never upgrade. My current Alibre works fine, it has shortcomings related to rope/chain constraints, but Geomagic is not fixing any of that. So I'll just keep using the existing SW. At one point the SW did a download of the new Geomagic thing but it did not complete the upgrade and after I though about how stupid it would look to have that logo popping up on my computer I decided it would be better to forgo the upgrade and then continue to see the Alibre logo.

Tom

 

[GDBranch]

Bigseb I am currently running GD 14.
My complaint with the name Geomagic is that my customers don't hear Geo they hear the MAGIC. I deal exclusively with
the electronics industry designing test fixtures and related equipment. Typically I work with electrical engineers who haven't a
clue about 3D CAD. But they know the name Solidworks. Telling someone that I'm going to use MAGIC software to design and
document their test process for a new pacemaker doesn't go over well. Been there done that. Alibre has been an uphill battle
because of it's obscurity in this industry but at least it doesn't have the word MAGIC in it.
I've been involved in this niche market for 40 years and every year it's harder to find new customers as the electronics industry
withers here in the U.S.. So yes, the name GeoMAGIC sucks if it potentially costs me money.
At my age I don't see myself switching to an industry that sings the praises of anyone using Geomagic . Starting all over again
is not an option.
Gary

 

[bigseb]

Seriously don't worry about the name. Your work is what is should matter, not the software you do it on. Why would anyone stop accepting your work because of the software's name? It would help perhaps to educate your clients on the Geomagic brand. My trick is to make them feel like they are missing out on something (which they are). And it's not magic software, it's Geomagic.

An analogy of what they are doing is to say that since VW (for example) is the only car manufacturer they know of then it must be the only brand worth bothering with. That's plain ignorance.

 

[aptivaboy]

As a low to intermediate hobby user, Alibre PE/Geomagic wins over Solidworks and even Rhino, which is supposed to be easy to use, hands down on issues of cost and ease of use. Where it falls down for me concerns issues of file import and export. That's the only real thing which may push me towards Rhino sometime next year, as its a super "bridge" program between different file formats and its import/export options (things like PDFs, JPGs that many home modelers like myself use) are superb. I watched a demo of a someone using a PDF import in Rhino to sketch a hull and then extrude and shell it and it was, so say the least fast, simple, and VERY impressive. Alibre/Geomagic could take a hint from that. Other than that and the recent bug issues, Alibre is a very good program that I'm generally very happy with.

 

[indesign]

Just tell the customer you are using the solid modeling program from 3D Systems. They probably will not even ask for the specific name.

 

[GDBranch]

Lew_Merrick thank you for the comparison of Solidworks to GM. That was the kind of info I was looking for.

indesign excellent suggestion.

Thank you both.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Lew_Merrick

I date to the days when leaving a space (" ") in a string could cause serious problems in Unix string parsing -- especially when moving from BSD to AT&T and back. My reflexes with respect to using an underscore ("_") are still quite strong. To give you an idea what I mean, I had the same e-mail address from 1975 through 1999 (when the ADIN mail server was shut down). Now you will understand why I refer to playing with my pet dinosaur...

 

[bigseb]

Lew_Merrick

I date to the days when leaving a space (" ") in a string could cause serious problems in Unix string parsing -- especially when moving from BSD to AT&T and back. My reflexes with respect to using an underscore ("_") are still quite strong. To give you an idea what I mean, I had the same e-mail address from 1975 through 1999 (when the ADIN mail server was shut down). Now you will understand why I refer to playing with my pet dinosaur...

Off topic but I still have to do that when writing CNC programs. Siemens 810 hates spaces... :roll:

 

[robbieknobbie]

Having used both, I can say, without hesitation, If you can afford Solidworks, get it. Period.

With Alibre, I find I spend far too much time and effort trying to figure out 'workarounds' for the software's inconsistencies and bugs. That detracts from the effort I can put into solving my customer's problems.

Alibre forces you to work it's way (to the letter) and lacks the rich flexibility that Solidworks has. i.e. information has to be entered into various dialogue boxes *IN THE UNDOCUMENTED ORDER THAT ALIBRE WANTS IT* or it will revert your entries to default values without warning... or simply not let you complete the operation. In the worst cases, if you enter data fields in the incorrect order (and NEVER top to botom!) the dialogue box locks up without explanation and you must cancel it out and start over. A frustrating time waster. This arbitrary inflexibility detracts severely from the user experience... and that means money out of my pocket. I looked over some of my records recently and I actually spend almost 3 times longer PER DRAWING using Alibre than I did when I was using Solidworks. That's less time developing new business, less time running the shop, less time doing the myriad other tasks needed to keep a business running, and ultimately less time with my family.

The software lacks the common sense approach that is Solidworks' hallmark. Insane limitations like the inability to mirror Nodes, use cylinders for rotation axes and on and on waste the designer's time and raise frustration. I have waited through two releases now and nothing was done to correct these 8000 pound gorillas. Quite frankly, Geomagic/Alibre/3DSystems seems more interested in updating the corporate masthead than making desperately needed improvements to their product. The last revision... taking the product up a full rev from 2013 to 2014 DID VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE SOFTWARE - IT ONLY CHANGED THE ICON AND THE SPLASH SCREEN TO THE NEW CORPORATE OWNERS. This tells me that neither Geomagic nor 3DS take this software seriously. Not nice to say... but true.

To the question of Alibre 'catching up' to solidworks... it is not. With each new update Solidworks FIXES BUGS, MAKES USABILITY ENHANCEMENTS, AND IMPROVES FLEXIBILITY. Alibre, with its understandably smaller programming staff focuses on logos and ignores well documented problems. Alibre is falling farther and farther behind with every day that passes.

Lastly, yes, there are significant problems with the new name. A few weeks ago I was meeting with a potential new client and they inevitably asked what design software I use. My answer 'Geomagic Design' was met with frowns and raised eyebrows. One of their engineers even asked if that was the same as SketchUp. I have not heard back from them, and with how well the rest of the meeting went, I cannot help but think the name 'Geomagic' had a lot to do with it. I can only imagine that telling them that they're being ignorant as one poster suggested would have gotten me thrown out of the building! Does the name matter to me? Not at all - but the first impression it creates with clients is a massive problem. Catastrophic.

Alibre has potential, and it's at the right price point, but the parent company needs to refocus it's efforts from dumbing down the software's identity to smartening up its functionality.

(That's a challenge, Max. Please take it.)

 

[bigseb]

information has to be entered into various dialogue boxes *IN THE UNDOCUMENTED ORDER THAT ALIBRE WANTS IT* or it will revert your entries to default values without warning... or simply not let you complete the operation. In the worst cases, if you enter data fields in the incorrect order (and NEVER top to botom!) the dialogue box locks up without explanation and you must cancel it out and start over

Can you give an example of this?

I looked over some of my records recently and I actually spend almost 3 times longer PER DRAWING using Alibre than I did when I was using Solidworks.

Why? Did your records say what made it take longer?

... use cylinders for rotation axes and on and on waste the designer's time and raise frustration.

Actually you can do this.

. I can only imagine that telling them that they're being ignorant as one poster suggested would have gotten me thrown out of the building! )

Actually if you read carefully that's not what I suggested.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Having used both, I can say, without hesitation, If you can afford Solidworks, get it. Period.
<Big Snip>

Have you actually taken the time to learn Alibre/Geomagic? While I will agree that Alibre's drafting module was in very poor shape, Geomagic's module is much better -- so long as you take the time to set things up in your drawing sheet format. I spent a lot of time working with the (then) Alibre folks getting drafting tools up to snuff -- and snuff in my universe is getting a drawing past U.S. Navy final design review. (I wrote truly ANSI/MIL-SPEC compliant hatch patters as part of that effort.)

Have you gone through SolidWork's rigamarole to revise or add a screwthread call-out for FED-STD-H28 compliance? How about revising or adding a material property to be MIL-HDBK-5 complaint? Inserting drawing notes is much faster in Alibre/Geomagic than it is in SolidWorks.

I will (and do) happily descry Alibre/Geomagic's shortcomings. Read my posts here if you do not believe me. My e-mail and telephone exchanges with Max and Ryan would be considered to be a vicious argument by many. (Hey, if you can't jump up & down, scream & yell, and foam at the mouth with your friends, who can you scream & yell, jump up & down, and foam at the mouth with?) The worst shortcoming at Alibre->3DS/Geomagic is not thinking through something thoroughly! -- something not limited to Alibre/Geomagic.

One example of my last contention: alibre_unicode_custom.thd definitions. Prior to V2012 the alibre_unicode.thd file could be edited to provide all the thread information that would be presented to you during the design process. At the V2012 revision, much of that information was hard coded into the program which requires me to scroll past all the "common definition" (i.e. 1/4-20UNC type) designations to get to the "formal definition" (i.e. .2500-20UNC-xB/A) designations! If I am going to use a "common definition" thread call-out, I could, prior to V2012, swap out my alibre_unicode.thd file. My contention is that this shows a lack of design consideration. My suggestion was (and still is) that something like a version number identity be added to the data control file (say -- alibre_unicode.thd.1, alibre_unicode.thd.2, etc.) such that multiple designation definitions could be used on an as required basis. That way the program would arrive with a simple set of designation definitions but (and assuming a user file database were created here) users could create and share more detailed (and, often, obscure) designation definitions without intervention by Alibre->3DS/Geomagic.

As the contra-example, about 40% of my overall design work is performed using SolidWorks. It is not possible to override a thread's designation definition when in SolidWork's drafting module except to manually erase and overwrite the supplied designation definition. Just count up the time such things add to a (say) 315 part assembly being submitted to USMC (part of the U.S. Navy, in case you forgot) review!

As the supra-example, consider this: What about true representations of tapered (pipe) threads or designation and automation of Acme (trapezoidal) threads, square threads, or even buttress threads? What about Left Hand threads? Neither system handles them without a lot of pain and frustration! Should there not be a thread focal point person working out such things?

 

[MikeHenry]

Lastly, yes, there are significant problems with the new name. A few weeks ago I was meeting with a potential new client and they inevitably asked what design software I use. My answer 'Geomagic Design' was met with frowns and raised eyebrows. One of their engineers even asked if that was the same as SketchUp. I have not heard back from them, and with how well the rest of the meeting went, I cannot help but think the name 'Geomagic' had a lot to do with it.

Forgive my quirky sense of humor today, but it strikes me that anyone named "Robbie Knobbie" would have a difficult time selling professional services, no matter which CAD program they used.

Mike

 

[aeromorrison]

I used Alibre extensively from about 2007 until 2011. I still use it occasionally, but I've mostly moved to Creo and I'm much happier overall. You can get a full license of Creo for about $4500 with maintenance at about $1500 per year. The price difference seems to be getting less and less compared with GM. My main reason for the move was stability in features between releases, documentation of features and changes between releases, and the constant runaround of features/modules being taken away or moved up the chain of Alibre products. With Creo, PTC publishes extensive lists of release notes and 3-5 maintenance releases per year that fix real problems--sometimes even ones I have submitted tickets about! Alibre always seemed to file tickets but never actually fixed anything while releasing all kinds of new features only once per year--a long time to wait and hope.

There were too many times when I upgraded Alibre only to find that 60% of my old models no longer worked correctly because of a feature change. Or if I opened a drawing in the new version, I had to pretty much redo it because it would try to update itself and mess up everything. I've not once had this issue with Creo or Pro/Engineer over several releases. When I call them for tech support, I get somebody right away who actually knows what they are doing and usually sets up a screen share and fixes the problem on the spot with a total time usually under 1 hour from the initial call. My money for maintenance results in action on my existing product and not just access to the newest version.

I think Alibre/GM is actually a pretty decent solid modeler--very capable for the money. However, when it comes to managing downstream data and the finer details (drawings, files for use in making manual illustrations, exploded views, drawing formats, GD&T, etc.) the highest-end release of Alibre/Geomagic doesn't even come close to entry-level Creo package. It is far less powerful.

I'm not trying to downplay Alibre/GM. They clearly have a market and a direction and that is great. They know what and who their market is. It was a great launching CAD system for my business. It just was not able to meet my needs which rely heavily on stability and consistent performance and predictable behavior over the course of several years. For my usage, Creo is a better overall value (based on hard data on time and results) even when considering the price difference.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Aeromorrison,

Interesting. From August of 2004 through February of 2007 I was working for a quasi-private R&D lab that used ProE. I was sitting in front of more than $90,000 worth of CAD, CAE, and CAM software (all under the PTC logo) that was running in excess of $28,000/year for maintenance and (pretend) support. Mind you, as somebody who was part of the Natick/MIT test team for the program that became ProEngineer, I have a pretty good background in it.

Yes, there are a number of very good features in ProE/CREO. Surfacing is quite good. The fact that a cosmetic thread actually shows up in the model is one of the things I miss most about it (when not working with it). The ability to match patterns when relating fastener holes at the assembly level is wonderful.

However, the PTC design intent manager wipes out every other "advantage" of the program. Whenever a model is moved from seat to seat it is subjected to a "review" by the design intent manager that will decide that there is a "better way" to assemble the model! I honestly cannot say how many hours of my time the taxpayers of America paid for in reconstructing models that were from seat to another seat during the design/review process. The one I remember most vividly was the final design review for a guidance tail unit for a cargo system. I loaded the it worked perfectly on my computer model on the one being used for the major dog & pony show senior officer review at 5:30 AM -- and worked like mad to re-constrain more than 1400 detail parts for the 1:00 PM meeting because everything using a tangency constraint was reversed in orientation by the design intent manager!