What's your favorite CAD software?

[James79]

Just discovered this hidden-by-depth subforum, so I'm gonna be "that guy" and revive a semi-dormant thread.

I "grew up" on AutoCAD. A lot of features (namely keyboard shortcuts) I still wish other programs would get on board with. That said, I never much liked Fusion360 for parametric modeling, so AutoCAD is my go-to for 2d electrical diagrams and "as built" documentation for gas/fiber/electrical schematics...with "schematics" being a very generous term for "I put lines on paper so any idiot can figure out how A connected to B."

I'm now using PTC Creo (formerly ProEngineer) for work. I'm getting more and more used to it. Initially I hated it. As I get more familiar, there's a lot I actually love about it. Their back-end PDM/PLM software (Windchill) deserves to rot in hell, as far as I'm concerned. But the modeling space is...decent. Like I said, there's a lot I love, but there's also a ton that's just needlessly convoluted.

To the title of the thread: Solidworks. Hands down, I love Solidworks. It's got some limitations, but for basic modeling and assemblies, it's just painfully easy to use. The only time I've run into issues were when I started getting assemblies up beyond ~3,500-4,000 components, and that may well just be driven by maxing out my computer's hardware. I enjoy Solidworks enough that I went through their certifications during slow times at work, and have most of the certifications they offer. I've never found a need for surfacing, so that's foreign to me. Same with injection molds, though I'm interested to learn a bit about that just because I'm curious (username, eh?). The really amazing thing to me, which the process of getting the certifications kind of highlighted to me, is how seamless it is to leverage other tools without changing anything about the software. Creating a weldment frame, then a formed and stamped sheetmetal enclosure, and designing required components top-down from there is an easy process.

I'm going to stop nerding out now. If anybody's ever in a pinch and needs Solidworks (or general CAD) help, I'm happy to lend a hand if I can

I would love to get solidworks (and could for all of $20) but don't have a computer that meets their recommended minimum specs... What do you think is the legit bare minimum computer to run solidworks for simple design work (no more than 4 pieces in an assembly)?

 

[CuriousRambler]

A lot of it comes down to your settings, honestly. The first machine I had Solidworks on was way behind their minimum specs, with a video card they actually listed as specifically "not compatible." I had some initial issues that turned out to be generic video card drivers installed, once I put the "real" ones on, it sorted most of the problems out. From there, I dug around in the settings and turned down a lot of the quality stuff. One of the biggest resource hogs is how it animates everything. Mate two parts? They "slide" together in animation. Casting shadows, using realistic renderings, etc. all just drain your resources to look good, but provide zero useful benefit. I disable all of that stuff, even now that I have a computer that's incredibly overbuilt for Solidworks. When I need to put together some eye candy for presentations, I'll spend some time getting screen grabs with shadows, perspective views, realistic renderings, etc. all enabled.

I've very rarely managed to crash Solidworks. My experience has been that underpowered machines will just run a bit slower, you might get a slight delay before a given command processes, but it almost always still works. If you don't expect to be dealing in assemblies, I'd be shocked if your computer can't run SW, especially if you dial back some graphics settings. Complexity of parts also matters, but in my experience you need a part with a lot of surfaces/geometries before it starts to burden the machine as much as a relatively simple assembly of relatively simple component parts. Obviously your worst case scenario is assembling many complex parts.

As a point of reference, on my underpowered machine, I was able to run assemblies with probably 50-100 components, including awkward equation-driven splined surfaces, bifurcating helical extrusions, and quite a high number of mates between components. When I upgraded to a new machine, it was revolutionary to see how much faster and smoother everything ran (i.e. zero delay) but since my first "real" work was on a sloppy old machine, I just felt like how it ran was normal.

Obviously there are machines out there that wouldn't even be able to install SW, so I can't speak to your exact situation. If your specs are remotely close (and honestly, ignore their video card requirements basically entirely...) to their minimums, I can't imagine you'll have issues running it. You just may not get the best-case "time is money" functionality out of it.

Edit to add: I've even run SW on an old circa-2006 MacBook Pro dual booted into Windows XP. At the time, SW definitely didn't condone that.

 

[lostsheep]

Have to chime in here as another Solidworks fan boy. My machine shop couldn’t run with out it

 

[ScubaWithTurk]

I learned using AutoCad and did all the CAM work with MasterCam X for the mills, lathes, water jet and EDM. We had access to solidworks but I could never get the hang of it and did not feel the need to do 3D drawings in SW and then import to Mastercam to generate the CNC program.

Reading this thread brings me back to when I worked for the Air Force building prototypes at AFIT. Full run of a machine shop and we often built things for ourselves. I even made my BBQ smoker there.

 

[lostsheep]

I don’t mean this to be condescending but it’s 2020. There is no reason not to be parametrically modeling in 3D. If defined correctly design changes can be made almost instantaneously (within reason of course) and these days the CAM software will automatically update too.

 

[saxman242]

I don’t mean this to be condescending but it’s 2020. There is no reason not to be parametrically modeling in 3D. If defined correctly design changes can be made almost instantaneously (within reason of course) and these days the CAM software will automatically update too.

This depends entirely on what you're doing.

In @ScubaWithTurk's use case, where a drawing for a part was provided and simple cut paths are needed, recreating in mastercam may be the most efficient path.

There's also a lot of surface modeling for organic shapes that work much better in non-parametric softwares.

For most parts, however, I definitely agree.

 

[lostsheep]

This depends entirely on what you're doing.

In @ScubaWithTurk's use case, where a drawing for a part was provided and simple cut paths are needed, recreating in mastercam may be the most efficient path.

There's also a lot of surface modeling for organic shapes that work much better in non-parametric softwares.

For most parts, however, I definitely agree.

In my case, I can draw any shape with solidworks way faster than I can with any cam software.

I do very little organic surfacing, I’m an ME and a machinist, I’ll leave that to the industrial designers

 

[saxman242]

Sure, but if it's a simple enough shape, drawing it in solidworks, exporting, importing into cam and extracting the info you need may not be quicker. Depends on complexity.

 

[CuriousRambler]

I think that all boils down to familiarity. I suck at Mastercam, because I rarely use it. Therefore, it's MUCH faster for me to take a printed drawing, recreate it in solidworks, export a DXF, and process it in Mastercam. The same is true of Creo - which is my primary application at work. I'm getting better with it, but if I'm doing something trivial (doesn't need PDM tie-in, company templates, etc) and want it fast, I'll still open solidworks and knock it out. I won't say this is because solidworks is better. I'm just far more experienced with it and find it a much more fluid workflow. I'm sure by the time I have the same few thousand hours running Creo that I have in solidworks, I'll be just as efficient.

One of my coworkers, a machinist of nearly 40 years, can program his Morei to run simple stuff at the control conversationally faster than I can model the same part in solidworks. Again, that's not proof manual programming is better, just proof that familiarity is arguably more important than any software/hardware selection.

 

[lostsheep]

Before I dig myself to deep, I really should back pedal a bit and say that I tell ALL OF MY GUYS, I don't care how they do it, just get it done and I think that carries over here. Do what works for you as long as it's accurate and efficient for you. I suspect we all have focused in different areas. I do a lot of design and then am also responsible for machining my own parts. I think this has a lot to do with my approach.

One mistake that I have seen over and over again from those I have learned from, is that they get so stuck in their ways (myself included) that we stop learning the evolving techniques.

Solidworks has many CAM plugins (I've only played with HSM , Mastercam, and Camworks) that operate inside of Solidworks and interface fairly well. There is no intermediate file translation needed. And while I am not necessarily a fan of the some of the machining strategies, they are employing feature based machining which updates parametrically.

And I have to say this, I still have the first dinosaur of a CNC that I learned on; did someone say, "Mori?" (that is a pic from today of my mill not some stolen image)