Solidworks / Alibre Observations

[wfpelletier]

Re:

Yep...but for the cost you would think SW would have a whole lot more positives. :shock:

One reason SW cost so much and requires high mantaince fees is to support the local resellers and all the beer and pizza party's they use to intice customer employees to attendend and be duped into thinking they are getting a bargain on the only show in town.

After reading this comment, I am strongly moved to say that this has not even remotely resembled by own dealings with SolidWorks or our SolidWorks vendor. I recently visited the SolidWorks headquarters in Concord, Massachusetts for a 'hands-on' demonstration of their FEA software, and I can honestly say that they did not throw us a 'beer and pizza party' to 'encourage' us to buy the software. (They did provide us with lunch, however.) I was very pleased that the demonstration that I attended was a simple presentation of the capabilities of their FEA software, and was devoid of 'salesmanship'.

I think that the reason that SolidWorks (and other softwares, for that matter) are more expensive than Alibre is that SolidWorks has devoted more resources to developing their software, and frankly, it does show. From having used even my 'older' version of SolidWorks, I can tell you that it is a more advanced software than Alibre. As I have said in other postings, I do like Alibre very much, but in my opinion Alibre does have some ways to go to catch up to SolidWorks. But I would also like to say again that I have always found that our SolidWorks vendor and those that I have dealt with at SolidWorks to be very professional and 'above-board' in their behavior and business dealings.

wfpelletier

 

[Mibe]

Could be interesting to hear about some of the advantages in the area of Design (not analysis, rendering etc).

I think that SW is a very good product as well, but considering that it has turned into the new "PTC" (from the dinosaur days) I feel quite embarrased for them, it's against all what they believed in 1997. Alibre's position today against Autodesk and SW is what SW was in 1997 against PTC and Autodesk - funny how the world turns around

Wonder how much money of the license/maintenance that really goes into development? Let's see...

SolidWorks, 7 steps from customer to development
Customer > Reseller > Country Office > Region Office > Headquarters > Dassault > Share Holders

Alibre Worldwide, 3 steps
Customer > Distributor > Alibre Inc.

Alibre US, 2 steps
Customer > Alibre Inc.

On top of that, extremely expensive fair boots (at least here in sweden) and a lot of marketing mumbo jumbo with "customer parties" and so on. No problem with that - if it was the 90' !

No wonder CAD (except Alibre of course) is expensive...

 

[MilesH]

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/solid ... _adesk.htm

 

[indesign]

Did you clcik the link on that page to this one?

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/solid ... _sww06.htm

 

[MilesH]

:lol:

 

[mtauer]

When I started using SW in 97, PRO-E and SDRC were the bad guys. Particularly PRO-E's iron fisted sales approach. Funny how now SW is the "bad guy". I remember when 5K was a steal compared to the 20-25K.

I have never had a problem with SW sales and I too have spent a few days in Concord, MA as well (CosmosWorks training) and I suppose if you consider a $10/day food ticket
a "beer and pizza"party, then yes they entice people. But then again my company already owns the software, and are totally sold on it. So why would they continue to entice me.

Has anybody ever attended one of these "beer and pizza" parties? I wish my VAR would throw one :lol:

Perhaps, someone share an example of these horrible sales techniques?

I get hounded by a particular CAD company with emails and phone calls (especially on a Saturday Sale day). Can anyone guess who it is? It is not SW but rather one that I purchased on my own. You know, the best CAD software out there (for the money).

I know I said this before but,
how about a show of hands of people that currently use SW on a regular basis?
How many of those people think they could perform their daily tasks as easily on AD?

There is absolutely no way I could perform my work at my day job with AD. (medical devices)

Just my observations.....

Mark

 

[indesign]

:lol: :lol:

OK. I do not own the full SW but I have had the sales pitch and I have the free cut down version.

SW suckered me into the free autocad plugins on their web sight (money to do that plugin for free). Then they emailed, called, and then came by -----twice. There was no beer and there was no party. Just a whole lot of long distance calls and traveling. (money)

Mind you this was a little high pressure sales pitch and the sales pitch included the pressure of all the major companies are going to switch to SW. Well lets just say they could out do me in speed (barely) and they had some really nice 3rd party plugins that made a few things much easier. Their strong point over Alibre here (hopefully not for long).

So if you are saying you can't do the work with Alibre then I would say take some time to learn Alibre. If you are saying they have tools you have to pay extra for that makes the job faster then I would say you are correct and you need to contact those companies and ask them to make a plug for Alibre.

 

[mtauer]

First off, I do not think you are qualified to tell me that I should learn AD. :?
Secondly, I am not talking about add-ins. I am talking about just simple modeling operations. The fact that a SW VAR barely beat you seems hard to believe, but I was not there nor do I know your capabilities, so I don’t consider myself qualified to judge.
As far as the benchmark, was this a fully constrained part/assembly?
Below are just a few of my "off the cuff" thoughts (about 30 seconds worth) on basic model short comings, maybe someone can add to this list that has the time and also the experience with both SW and AD.

Parametrically offsetting sketch geometry ( I do not consider AD a full parametric modeler) With AD you can offset figures but they are not parametric. This is similar to AutoCAD. After figures are offset you must then go back and constrain the figure through a buried constraint box . Do not attempt to move any end points of the offset figure, frustration quickly sets in.

silohuettes,need I say more.

With SW, on the fly constraints(select one or more sketch figures and a constraints box appears giving you valid constraint options)

With SW, you can change to reference figures while constraining the figure all in one step on the fly. without having to go looking for the little icon, then right-click convert to reference figure.

Not to mention simple surface offsets

How about a cursor that you can actually see.

It is Saturday morning and I do not have the time to commit to continue to go on. I could easily spend a at least a full day on this list. But this would be for nothing.

I could also go back through this entire thread and make corrections to the “observations” listed. But why, to just get piled on by everyone.

I would also rather pay to get fully functional add-ins rather than get feature/time limited add-ins, or get nickeled and dimed for fully functional add-ins.
I will continue to use AD for the price.(which I beleive is the case for alot of people) I also believe that AD needs to go back and clean up basic parametric modeling shortcomings without charging people to get these features.

As far as the sales approach goes:

When I started looking at AD I got phone calls on a regular basis from sales telling me, “you only have until the end of the month to get this offer” only to have the offer continue to the next month. When a seminar was coming to my area AD sales called my more than a few times to try and get me to go offering special incentives if I were to sign up for the seminar. Also, I would have to pay extra to actually get a computer to use at this seminar. Does this make sense?

Just my observations.

Mark

 

[fitzbond]

Ok guys we are getting close to the line of just noting difference and making observation and personal attacks, lets keep it professional this is one of the few forum where you can discuss these differences and not get piled on.

 

[mtauer]

I agree totally fitzbond, I think you will find I have never made any personal attacks on anybody in this forum. I have always tried to make my posts factual and professional.

Mark

 

[caduser1]

Here is my 2 cents for what it is worth...
The last time I used SW was a few years ago, it was SW 2001 +.
So I'm sure that there are many changes and improvements.

Fact: SW is better than AD even though I hate to admit it.

However, I chose AD for my company because it does everything
we need it to do at a price were we could afford to buy it for
our entire engineering group. We design automated machinery, and
in our business keeping things simple is key. So we do not design
very elaborate parts / assemblies.

Now, to compare Alibre and SW is not totally realistic in my opinion
because they have a slightly different nitch to fill. To me, Alibre is
filling a need for folks like us who don't need all the features that you
get with SW. For this I am very grateful to Alibre. I am glad that they
have kept it simple and affordable. If they decide to try and incorporate
every feature and add-on then they will have to charge what SW charges.

Where Alibre and SW can be compared is in ease-of-use. Where Alibre
and SW have similar functions I would say that SW does have a slight
advantage (more like head-start). I think that we need to continue to
give Alibre the feedback to improve it's useability with specific suggestions
and comments. That's how we get things like curser-centric zooming.
Ideally I would like to see user-friendly operation without any price
increase.

If Alibre continues to listen to it's users and quickly incorporate the
improvements suggested then I am confident that we have the right
software solution for our needs.

 

[fitzbond]

I totally agree and looking at 9.1 they are listening

 

[wfpelletier]

Re:

Could be interesting to hear about some of the advantages in the area of Design (not analysis, rendering etc).

I think that SW is a very good product as well, but considering that it has turned into the new "PTC" (from the dinosaur days) I feel quite embarrased for them, it's against all what they believed in 1997.

If you are interested in hearing about some of the advantages I feel SolidWorks has over Alibre, I made a list of functions I felt were important that can be done in SolidWorks but can only be done with difficulty in Alibre, if at all. These comments are on page 3 of this thread. I also commented on what I felt Alibre did better than SolidWorks (with low price being what I feel is Alibre's greatest advantage.)

I am not sure what is meant by the 'new PTC' comment, as I have never used PTC's products. I have heard some say that PTC's software is hard to learn, but I do not believe that is true of SolidWorks. I do have to say that from my experiences with SolidWorks, I don't think anyone needs to be 'embarrased' for them, as I think they are doing a great job. (As is Alibre, by the way.)

I am also glad to see that other posters have come forward to 'set the record straight' regarding SolidWorks' sales practices. I am also glad to read so much intelligent discussion comparing the two softwares. Like everyone else on this board, I believe in what Alibre is doing, but I don't think anyone is helping Alibre by claiming competitors are throwing 'beer and pizza parties' to increase sales.

wfpelletier

 

[indesign]

Everyone has a different use for the product they own. This is no difference here. If the software does not meet your needs then it would be wize to get what does. As for my needs I can do 99% of my jobs with AD and close to the speed of SW. I would not argue large assemblies but I don't use AD for large assemblies very often. This does not mean SW or AD are better or worse than the other, simply that the use I have does not require any special features that SW has a great advantage over. I have learned to use AD in a way that is nearly as quick as the leading rep can do in SW. This is by no means a comparison of all the features but simple of those I use.

When compairing features that are actually in both programs I found very little difference in the speed they can be used. (other than large assemblies which I consider more of a bug than anything else) Alibre can and has added more of those feature while keeping a pretty low cost. My hope is they will continue to do so.

When a person learns on one program and uses it for years then it would seem to them that doing it any other way would be slower and harder. That is not bashing but a fact I found in myself. I have used Auotcad for more years than I will admit so when using AD's 2d drafting I found it very difficult and slow. I have since learned to use AD's functions and have improved greatly on the 2d side.

 

[scarr]

Aren't we all tired of this? Ins't it about time to end the 'my CAD's better than your CAD' diatribes (we all know they're pointless - kind of like arguing about sports, or politics) and concentrate on what we can do with the CAD tool we've chosen. It would probably be better for those folks who really believe their CAD is better than ours, to hang out in forums dedicated to that particular application, if all they want to do is bang on that drum to the exclusion of everything else.
We're here to solve problems, help each other learn, grow, evolve, and contribute to helping to develop Alibre into the best tool possible for the best price available. Viva Alibre.

 

[mtauer]

Please do not take offense to this post but doesn’t it say General Discussion is for:

Posts include general comments and questions including those regarding how Alibre Design compares to other CAD systems.

Also this quote from above kind of bothers me:

“It would probably be better for those folks who really believe their CAD is better than ours, to hang out in forums dedicated to that particular application”

First of all, who is “their”? I, along with many other people happen to use multiple CAD systems as I am sure you do.

Also, who is “ours”? I pay maintenance on and use AD just as most everyone else in this forum.

Additionally, I do not think people are tired of discussion about different CAD systems, as it has gone on for 7 pages now as I am sure you are aware.

People have been bashing SW in a number of places on this post and I, as a FT user of SW and a PT user of AD thought I would add in what I thought would be valid comments. These comments should be taken as construction criticism, and maybe the folks at AD will review these posts and listen. Maybe not.

As I have asked before, would you let others make posts in different forums discussing perceived negatives about “your” software?

Regards,

Mark

 

[leeave96]

Having finished-up a right large project at work with SW and with a large project in the final stages at the house with AD, I am coming away with some last observations and thoughts - even though I did this in an earlier post.

1. Sure SW has more features, but at a cost that I can't afford for my home business.

2. In addition to the cost of SW, maintainence AND training are most expensive. Again very costly.

3. I have yet in my past years with SW and with my recent SW work found a part or assembly that I can't model and draw with AD - though sometimes with time consuming work arounds.

4. For the $$$, SW can't touch the AD repository functions OR the ability to create snapshots for file transfer.

5. I've been using AutoCAD for some 2D stuff and really like it.

The long and short of it is that I have come to the conclusion that Alibre and AutoCAD LT as a combo can handle most all of the CAD work I've done over the past 20 plus years (surfaces not withstanding) and that scope of work would satisify the needs of most companies for a fraction of the cost of Solidworks, Solid Edge, Pro/E and Inventor.

I think that the above companies have to be nervous about their cost vs benefit in return. Inventor is already cutting their cost when going head to head to SW. Just like SW smashed the cost barrier when compared to UG or the older Pro/E, I think once industry realizes they can save $$$ and/or put CAD onto more desktops, the same can happen again with Alibre this time around.

IMHO, Alibre is close to smashing through that barrier. They ought to start taking on SW as follows:

1. Add to their current marketing scheme to push Alibre as a direct replacement to SW or at the least, a lower cost companion. This would include making such things as Shift vs Cont'l pics similar to SW. The less one has to remember about the differences between programs, the easier to embrace AD.

2. KEEP THE PRICE DOWN!!!!!!!! There is a cost associated with some of the work arounds required to accomplish some the SW functions in AD. As this gap narrows, if the cost is reduced, then it is easier to justify AD. Further, as AD expert pushes towards the $2K mark, their are knocking on the door of what I have heard Inventor is willing to lower thier price when going head to head to SW.

3. Management can be VERY nervous when going out on a limb with a CAD system. It is easy to go with SW because one can pretty much be sure it will get the job done and let's face it - most management that make the final choice don't use CAD. AD needs to penetrate the market in a corporate environment and the cost vs return can be a great tool to get them there AND bring a certain piece of mind to managers as they look to fellow companies as to what CAD system they are using.

That's all for now!

Bill

 

[scarr]

I think you’ve missed my point. I’m all for open, methodical, logical, verifiable comparisons of like products. As for my statements regarding theirs and ours, it is simple to define. Since this an Alibre forum, it should focus on Alibre. It is not a SW, SE, or Pro-E user forum, or a forum for disseminating information on how to use any of these products, as interesting as this might be for some users. There are I’m sure, forums dedicated to all these applications.
As far as defending ‘my’ software against all others, or against wrong information being spread about it, I would attempt to correct that information if it was being pushed out in the forum dedicated to that application. If a statement is being made about Alibre in this forum, then this is where I would support/defend it. If it was being pushed out in a forum dedicated to another application, I doubt that I would see it, a personal shortcoming, no doubt. If I really want the true scoop on features, performance, etc., I’ll look for an independent source for that information, a source that deals only in quantifiable data.
Comparisons commonly focus on the similarities, not differences between two things. In comparing apples and oranges, the similarities between the two are many. They are both considered fruit, they are both round to a certain degree, they both grow on trees, they both share the same underlying biology, they both cost about the same, etc.
True comparisons are neutral in nature, being neither biased nor prejudiced towards a particular viewpoint or outcome. The basic problem with comparisons is that you can always find something better or worse than what you have, so it is always possible to feel either superior or inferior to others who have less or more.
What has been transpiring in this forum, in some cases, leans more towards diatribes for or against specific CAD applications? A person could make the mistake, based on the language used, that the views expressed are biased or prejudiced towards a specific point of view. The communication could be greatly improved if a set of basic rules were followed.
If the reason for this forum, as is stated in the general-purpose information, is to compare Alibre to other CAD Applications, then it is only fair that the comparison is based on the similarities between the applications. Here’s my proposal for a preliminary set of ground rules and/or areas for the comparisons.
1.Application type (3D parametric solid modeling applications only, with or without linked 2D functionality.).
2.Functionality (tool sets, workbenches, capabilities.).
3.Price range (based on the Alibre pricing structure +/- 10 %.). Or a statement to the effect that the software being compared is X times the price of Alibre, and the yearly maintenance is Y dollars.
4.Efficiency (Time required to complete a specific task. List the task, the steps involved, the hardware platform, graphics card, shared network, server/repository structure, etc.). Perhaps it would be worthwhile to benchmark the creation of different parts in the applications being compared.
5.Level of user proficiency (hours using the application, certifications, etc.).
6.License/maintenance fees for added features.

The spirit of this approach is evident in this forum, if not the actual execution. Add others if you’d like but base them on things that can be verified, measured, quantified, not on feelings about a particular product, or a generalizations that it, takes more/less time, is easier/harder, etc. in one application than it is in another.

Remember the comparisons should be based on similarities, not differences, other wise it should be stated beforehand that they are being differentiated, and not compared. Or we could say we are comparing and contrasting Alibre with other applications.

I think if we all take a closer look at what we contribute to the forum, the more valuable it will become.

As anyone who knows me is aware thru my postings on this forum, I am a dedicated Alibre supporter, because I believe it is the best 3D modeling software, for the money, on the market today, and that is based on a comparison with several of the higher priced applications. It works for me in my business. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t own it, or promote it.

If there’s a need for a CAD bashing forum, maybe it could be called My Pet CAD Software Peeves, or What I Don’t Like About Your CAD Software.

 

[scarr]

Sorry - I went past my word limit which usually isn't like me
The rest of my post follows.

As anyone who knows me is aware thru my postings on this forum, I am a dedicated Alibre supporter, because I believe it is the best 3D modeling software, for the money, on the market today, and that is based on a comparison with several of the higher priced applications. It works for me in my business. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t own it, or promote it.

If there’s a need for a CAD bashing forum, maybe it could be called My Pet CAD Software Peeves, or What I Don’t Like About Your CAD Software.

 

[wfpelletier]

Re:

If there’s a need for a CAD bashing forum, maybe it could be called My Pet CAD Software Peeves, or What I Don’t Like About Your CAD Software.

These sound like they could be interesting CAD forums, but they also sound like they could be good topics on the Jerry Springer Show. I have a feeling that if Jerry had a bunch of users of different CAD software as guests, the discussion would eventually break down into one of the shows infamous brawls..Come to think of it, just getting AutoCad users together would probably be enough. You would not believe the sorts of arguments I would get into with other AutoCad users regarding whether dimensions should go into paper space or model space, whether you should freeze layers or turn them off, whether or not you should ever draw on layer 0, etc.

(BTW, I have no intention of discussing any of these AutoCad issues with anyone on this forum!! One of the delights of working with softwares such as Alibre is that these issues do not come up.)

On the whole, this thread has been an excellent discussion. I personally would like to thank all of those who have contributed to it, and I would like to thank Bill for starting this thread. I personally do not agree with the details of everything he has posted, but I do agree with the spirit of his posts.

wfpelletier