passaggio solid edge st4 a solidworks 2016: come fare

[-Mc-]

Good morning to all,
in a company for which I work, it was decided (for various reasons), to pass from soloedge st4 to solidworks 2016 (or 2017 that it is).
in the transition phase, we will have to "misk" the files and use the solidedge designs in solidworks, both parts and assemblies, especially for those elements that are now considered standard (not subject to change).
It is important that the elements keep the same code in order to have the distinct compiled in the correct way.

- in solidedge st4 does not exist pack&go: correct?
- how can I do to save the most used assemblies/parts and then use them in sw? What is the best method?

I look forward to your opinions

Good job to all!

 

[Be_on_edge]

Good morning to all,
in a company for which I work, it was decided (for various reasons), to pass from soloedge st4 to solidworks 2016 (or 2017 that it is).
in the transition phase, we will have to "misk" the files and use the solidedge designs in solidworks, both parts and assemblies, especially for those elements that are now considered standard (not subject to change).
It is important that the elements keep the same code in order to have the distinct compiled in the correct way.

- in solidedge st4 does not exist pack&go: correct?
- how can I do to save the most used assemblies/parts and then use them in sw? What is the best method?

I look forward to your opinions

Good job to all!

for solidedge there is a tool to migrate drawings from solidworks while maintaining the uniqueness of views with 3d models; Maybe for solidworks there is a similar tool, you should ask in the section dedicated to solidworks.

Hi.

 

[-Mc-]

Okay, thank you. I will; it was not to open too many discussions on the same subject;
I will make a test saving as .step and see how it behaves;
In the meantime I ask the solidworksians
Thank you!

 

[cacciatorino]

Okay, thank you. I will; it was not to open too many discussions on the same subject;
I will make a test saving as .step and see how it behaves;
In the meantime I ask the solidworksians
Thank you!

solidworks definitely opens solid edge designs without conversion. if this solution is not good, better use parasolid rather than step.

then there would be to see if there are specific tools for this operation, which may allow the transfer of metadata associated with each part/axieme, but for this you will have to ask for help to your solidworks seller.

 

[cacciatorino]

- in solidedge st4 does not exist pack&go: correct?

Good job to all!

exists, but it is called revision manager (by the way it does thirty more things than the pack-and-go of solidworks.

a personal comment: having used both systems thoroughly enough, prepared to big headaches with the new cad

 

[-Mc-]

Thank you so much hunter!
in the st4 installation I cannot find the revision manager; I looked everywhere; by default where is it?
What do you think of solidworks and solidedge by comparing them in the latest versions?
don't you think sw is more elastic and offers more comfortable controls to speed up modeling?
I find it much more flexible and quicker on the assemblies.
I am very interested in your opinion

 

[cacciatorino]

Thank you so much hunter!
in the st4 installation I cannot find the revision manager; I looked everywhere; by default where is it?
What do you think of solidworks and solidedge by comparing them in the latest versions?
don't you think sw is more elastic and offers more comfortable controls to speed up modeling?
I find it much more flexible and quicker on the assemblies.
I am very interested in your opinion

Sorry, look for "view and annotation" and then from the "open" menu choose the subvoice "revision manager".

the comparisons I had made them at the time between solid edge v18 and solidworks 2012, and in the usability' there was a discreet abyss between the two, especially in the table environment and together, and management data and property. for the most recent versions I had no significant experiences on solidworks.

 

[-Mc-]

the comparisons I had made them at the time between solid edge v18 and solidworks 2012, and in the usability' there was a discreet abyss between the two, especially in the table environment and together, and management data and property. for the most recent versions I had no significant experiences on solidworks.

Are you also in favor of solidworks? I agree perfectly. Also in the new versions of soliedge, there are not many news on usability (unfortunately :-( )

view and annotation on this version do not find it; I go to look for it in solidedge directors because in my opinion, they were erased from windows start:-(

 

[cacciatorino]

Are you also in favor of solidworks? I agree perfectly. Also in the new versions of soliedge, there are not many news on usability (unfortunately :-( )

no I meant otherwise: coming from solid edge and going to solidworks was a continuous problem of things that I couldn't do anymore or that I could do but at the cost of very long work-arounds.

 

[cacciatorino]

view and annotation on this version do not find it; I go to look for it in solidedge directors because in my opinion, they were erased from windows start:-(

cerca:

"c:\program files\solid edge st4\program\win32\icnct.exe"

 

[Be_on_edge]

don't you think sw is more elastic and offers more comfortable controls to speed up modeling?
I find it much more flexible and quicker on the assemblies.
I am very interested in your opinion

I am very interested in knowing what these commands speed up modeling and what is much more flexible than the axieme.

 

[-Mc-]

thank you hunter! found!!!
be_on_edge I am preparing a detailed list;
we could open a discussion on the commands that has more/less solidworks vs solidedge;
In this way we can finally guarantee, if updated, a real feedback of what practical commands are missing/are present in the two software.
As soon as I finish the discussion, okay?
I press that I have used both solidworks and solidedge for years; solidworks in the updated versions, solidedge in the versions a little older (st4).

 

[marcof]

Good morning to all,
in a company for which I work, it was decided (for various reasons), to pass from soloedge st4 to solidworks 2016 (or 2017 that it is).

Excuse me if I dive (but not too much) from the core of your question.
among the many reasons, the only one I can imagine to justify a change (with all that entails for the historian to remake) passing from a cad of middle-end "with the red body" to a cad of middle-end "with the blue carrozeria" (and we have already understood on the meaning of the metaphor) is that you have a very important customer just acquired and for which you will work exclusively, a kind of galline from the eggs d
every other reason to me brings to mind only a very good solidworks salesman who has convited Qalcuno to the high floors that you will reduce the "time to merket" of half :smile:

 

[Be_on_edge]

... passing from a medium-range cad "with red body shop" to a medium-range cad "with blue wagon" ...

It's what I think too but since it seemed very convite I was interested to see point by point these differences in body color:wink::biggrin:

 

[-Mc-]

Excuse me if I dive (but not too much) from the core of your question.
among the many reasons, the only one I can imagine to justify a change (with all that entails for the historian to remake) passing from a cad of middle-end "with the red body" to a cad of middle-end "with the blue carrozeria" (and we have already understood on the meaning of the metaphor) is that you have a very important customer just acquired and for which you will work exclusively, a kind of galline from the eggs d
every other reason to me brings to mind only a very good seller of solidworks that has convito qalcuno to the high planes that you will reduce the "time to merket" of the middle

You're touching a subject that doesn't answer the question I asked.
business choices are well motivated and due to different factors. difficult to explain if not going down in detail. I will be vague because I do not think it is correct to post the various reasons. Surely, the choice is not due to the commercial passing by chance (I don't know how a consideration like that could come to mind...).
- if: higher license cost (the versions in use are two, one older than the other)
- if: lack of an appropriate online guide / online tutorial (the cost for assistance is high and not high)
- archive if unbuilt (undefined disks, parts used as axiemis: many files are unmanageable)
- archive if not huge
- the historian (parts in stock), initially, would remain on itself;
I do not agree on the color speech of the body shop; depends a lot on how you use it; I don't even think they're medium-range software, because it always depends on the job you have to do.
I disagree with saying that if and sw are au pair. demonstration of this is that sw, lately, has taken a lot of foot.
In any case, I am interested in understanding (for my personal culture), what has more than one program than the other.
sw I think it has multiple commands / is easier:
- copy with couplings
- automatic couplings (difficult couplings on if (rebalt positions))
- more effective and immediate measuring instrument
- context menu for selection
- relationships start on better manageable joints (relations related to the axieme)
- Hidden elements on the set reappeared on draft
- sheet mirror loses development
- mirroring parts (on if with cut original part)
- command selection before or after element selection, indifferent
- you can cancel exhibition/hiding
- sheet mirror with development
- rotation and displacement by ctrl and alt
- measurement of selection elements
- sketch, asola command
- visibility sketches used in functions
- copy sketches and functions with ctrl+drawing
- new files that can be blocked
- only 3 types of files (part, together, draft)
- quota command distinguishes rope from distance on xy
- numeric typing recognizes both comma and point
- zoom selection together
- construction part up together, fast and flexible
- little functional wheel zoom
- Free drag in the assemblies (without specific command selection)
- parallel coupled planes in axioms

these are some rumors that we can discuss; I, as already said, would do a unique post as vademecum;
seems to me a very useful discussion; we can compile it together and then, through administrators, create a unique post updated to the latest versions.
there are many topics on the forum, but they all end without a practical answer; If you agree, I would start this job

 

[cacciatorino]

You're touching a subject that doesn't answer the question I asked.
business choices are well motivated and due to different factors. difficult to explain if not going down in detail. I will be vague because I do not think it is correct to post the various reasons. Surely, the choice is not due to the commercial passing by chance (I don't know how a consideration like that could come to mind...).
- if: higher license cost (the versions in use are two, one older than the other)
- if: lack of an appropriate online guide / online tutorial (the cost for assistance is high and not high)
- archive if unbuilt (undefined disks, parts used as axiemis: many files are unmanageable)
- archive if not huge
- the historian (parts in stock), initially, would remain on itself;
I do not agree on the color speech of the body shop; depends a lot on how you use it; I don't even think they're medium-range software, because it always depends on the job you have to do.
I disagree with saying that if and sw are au pair. demonstration of this is that sw, lately, has taken a lot of foot.
In any case, I am interested in understanding (for my personal culture), what has more than one program than the other.
sw I think it has multiple commands / is easier:
- copy with couplings
- automatic couplings (difficult couplings on if (rebalt positions))
- more effective and immediate measuring instrument
- context menu for selection
- relationships start on better manageable joints (relations related to the axieme)
- Hidden elements on the set reappeared on draft
- sheet mirror loses development
- mirroring parts (on if with cut original part)
- command selection before or after element selection, indifferent
- you can cancel exhibition/hiding
- sheet mirror with development
- rotation and displacement by ctrl and alt
- measurement of selection elements
- sketch, asola command
- visibility sketches used in functions
- copy sketches and functions with ctrl+drawing
- new files that can be blocked
- only 3 types of files (part, together, draft)
- quota command distinguishes rope from distance on xy
- numeric typing recognizes both comma and point
- zoom selection together
- construction part up together, fast and flexible
- little functional wheel zoom
- Free drag in the assemblies (without specific command selection)
- parallel coupled planes in axioms

these are some rumors that we can discuss; I, as already said, would do a unique post as vademecum;
seems to me a very useful discussion; we can compile it together and then, through administrators, create a unique post updated to the latest versions.
there are many topics on the forum, but they all end without a practical answer; If you agree, I would start this job

in his time I had written a discussion entitled "what uncomfortable with solidworks", try to look for it then we talk about it. However reading your post seems to me that the problem is that you do not know solid edge, because 95% of those things can be done quietly. I think it's a matter of zone + or - good or + or - flexible sellers on the price, from my parts sincerely it's very common solid edge while swx doesn't meet almost ever.

 

[-Mc-]

in his time I had written a discussion entitled "what uncomfortable with solidworks", try to look for it then we talk about it. However reading your post seems to me that the problem is that you do not know solid edge, because 95% of those things can be done quietly. I think it's a matter of zone + or - good or + or - flexible sellers on the price, from my parts sincerely it's very common solid edge while swx doesn't meet almost ever.

Yes, I read, but it is a post of 2010 and little specific; I am not interested in propaganda (and as we know many on the forum yes); I care to put on a sheet of white paper the +sw -se and +se -sw commands.
many commands/functions I mentioned on if they do not exist. while others that are quoted, on sw they provide a fewer clicks.
we start from the first:
- copy with couplings
on sw: you have the function together with those on the bar; you can choose whether to replace the elements open on sw or search through the various directors.
where is the command? How do you proceed?
to you the answer.
I am trying to be objective and to create a useful post to those who do not know both systems in depth. no matter being experienced users; many on the forum have used autocad 2d until yesterday or have used only one 3d system for years. It is not a post to know "who has it longer." you have a lot of knowledge about yourself and you can provide your important technical opinion.
I think it's a good idea, don't you think?

 

[-Mc-]

from my parts sincerely is very widespread solid edge while swx does not meet almost ever.

I don't know where you are; I work for different companies and 90% is covered by sw;
demonstration is also in personal research; do a test: go to infojob, search solidworks; search solidedge: 425 against 100 job offers... ;-)

 

[cacciatorino]

business choices are well motivated and due to different factors. difficult to explain if not going down in detail. I will be vague because I do not think it is correct to post the various reasons. Surely, the choice is not due to the commercial passing by chance (I don't know how a consideration like that could come to mind...).

I'll tell you.

- if: higher license cost (the versions in use are two, one older than the other)

It's a commercial matter, try to change the salesman because I've recompensed from a little solid edge and I have an offer for swx, and swc costs a little more, made all the various discounts.

- if: lack of an appropriate online guide / online tutorial (the cost for assistance is high and not high)

Here too, my experience has been reversed, maybe here too, you should consider another seller.

- archive if unbuilt (undefined disks, parts used as axiemis: many files are unmanageable)

if the designers work badly in themselves, they will continue to do so even with swx



In any case, I am interested in understanding (for my personal culture), what has more than one program than the other.
sw I think it has multiple commands / is easier:

- copy with couplings

It memorizes relationships, which unlike swx, saves the info in the file of the part instead of in the active session, if you want I will explain to you also what consequences this fact entails, but I think it comes alone).

- automatic couplings (difficult couplings on if (rebalt positions))

I don't know what you're talking about.

-

more effective and immediate measuring instrument

true

- context menu for selection

I liked the context menu more than if because I've always found that swx too "rich" of functions, while that of if it limitates the voices to what you selected (e.g.: useless show me the "mused" menu if I selected a work plan, or something like that).

- relationships start on better manageable joints (relations related to the axieme)

If you refer to the display on the tree, I prefer that of if, I think it is a matter of habit.

- Hidden elements on the set reappeared on draft

there are configurations to manage these things, something similar to swx display states.

- sheet mirror loses development

I think it's really weird, as soon as I get back to the office, I'll try it!

- mirroring parts (on if with cut original part)

do not know the flow, you have to create a new part and insert the old, and choose whether to create it equal or mirrored.

- command selection before or after element selection, indifferent

actually this is an incredible advantage of swx

- you can cancel exhibition/hiding

If I don't think so,

- sheet mirror with development

You already said that.

- rotation and displacement by ctrl and alt

rotation and rest of what? parts? I don't know what you mean

- measurement of selection elements

mayor thingi?

- sketch, asola command

Try to find him better:wink:

- visibility sketches used in functions

What do you need?

- copy sketches and functions with ctrl+drawing

It should be there if, but I have to look at it.

- new files that can be blocked

c'e'

- only 3 types of files (part, together, draft)

true, these solid edge psms are a great break, unless it is possible to pass from a par to a psm to things done, I have to ask [MENTION=240]be_on_edge[/MENTION]

- quota command distinguishes rope from distance on xy

you have to crush an icon in the smart bar of the quotation

- numeric typing recognizes both comma and point

true

- zoom selezione in asseme

I want to do a test here I go back to the office

- construction part up together, fast and flexible

Is there an icon that if the awards start the preocedura of creating a new part in the context of the aid, did you see it?

- little functional wheel zoom

Boh? What is functional pouch in zoom back and forth?

- Free drag in the assemblies (without specific command selection)

I mean, like he did solid edge, so you don't risk moving something by mistake.

- parallel coupled planes in axioms

But then if you never really used it, which I suspect because a minimally experienced user can't not know the revision manager.

these are some rumors that we can discuss; I, as already said, would do a unique post as vademecum;
seems to me a very useful discussion; we can compile it together and then, through administrators, create a unique post updated to the latest versions.
there are many topics on the forum, but they all end without a practical answer; If you agree, I would start this job

I'll send you here.https://www.cad3d.it/forum1/forums/57-cad-meccanici-a-confrontoand more specifically here:https://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/35324-focus-sull-usabilitàI don't assure you of my participation, a little because I have very little spare time and my job is not selling cad but making drawings.

 

[marcof]

I am not interested in propaganda (and as we know many on the forum yes); I care to put on a sheet of white paper the +sw -se and +se -sw commands.

I think so far no one here has been propaganda. I use swx for example since 2000 and I seem to have expressed strong doubts about the draft of the choice to move from if to swx. hunter uses both if swx and if you go to read his posts when he started using swx you will find that the observations he makes about the gaps of the latter in comparison to whether they are circumstantial and that unconfutable date. I wonder why I think from the 2010 hunter's posts to date I have the impression that the vast majority of the gaps that he had highlighted are still there.

It is clear that I write so for the pleasure of discussing why as far as I am concerned you could also pass from solidedge to the tecnigraph that this would leave me completely indifferent. :smile: