SolidWorks or Catia

  • Thread starter Thread starter jkf1192
  • Start Date Start Date
Catia is a hi-end modeler and solidworks being mid range does not have modules to purchase if you realize you need more than a base package. Unfortunately solidworks has positioned itself as a mid range tool. ie. no extra modules.
 
design-engine said:
Catia is a hi-end modeler and solidworks being mid range does not have modules to purchase if you realize you need more than a base package. Unfortunately solidworks has positioned itself as a mid range tool. ie. no extra modules.
Click to expand...

Solidworks has several packages or modules to enhance the core product.

Among these are MBD, Inspection and Composer - and these are just for Technical Communication.

The biggest difference between high-end and mid-range products is that the SMEs haven't got the endless resources to keep spending money on modules for minor gain. CATIA and NX are especially susceptible to this, and in the mid-range, Inventor and SolidEdge are especially poor at the bundling of functionality to the core product.

Hence why SolidWorks sells better than SolidEdge, it can have FEA, CFD, Ray Tracing, a basic PDM etc, etc.

This is not to say that the alternatives may not be better for some companies or industries - it's a 'horses for courses' scenario.
 
Catia is so much more comprehensive of a tool. Comparing to Solidworks is strange and even inappropriate in that with Solidworks (no offence) you get only what you pay for w/ Solidworks. You can't buy more software except FEA.

With Catia you CAN purchase so much more software than it would blow you mind. Catia is modular based and a high end tool. That's how you define high end modelers..... they are modular based and often that means they are priced accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely no intention of comparing the two.

CATIA is high end, and the business model of charging mega-bucks for functions that should be included in the base package is, of course, par for the course.

SolidWorks is mid range, and is intended to be a reasonable fit for as many SMEs as possible. There are organizations that baulk at this and use the cheaper, or free, alternatives, not always with success.

CATIA, like NX, is capable of handling very large projects, and as such, has the structure and add-ons to cope with the requirements that go with it, though if you see the issues that come with the dictatorial stance the vendor forces with this approach, you can often see that it's not always an efficient route.

More of an issue is the stance, that adding on module after module is not necessarily an indication of capability; more an indication of improving the bottom line. It can be, however, an indication that the software may be capable of growing with the customer/users requirements, though, as this is a movable feast, it's in no way definitive.

Consider it as a comparison with automobiles, where your well-specified Asian compact will have a good range of standard accessories, against the Mercedes/BMW which has an 'extras' list as long as your arm, with numbers to suit; and many of the extras may be included in the basic asian compact.

On a personal basis, I can recall Autodesk trying the same approach when we looked at upgrading the design software some years ago, and for every requirement they 'had a module for that' at extra cost. The end result was an inferior package that cost two and a half times what we paid for an alternative, that merely required a different approach to the the methodology of working.

I'm not decrying any of these packages - they will suit some and not others - but having a plethora of add-on modules does not necessarily mean the software will be a better fit for your usage, but it also doesn't mean that a rounded package of slightly weaker tools will provide the depth of function you may require.

In the end, it's doing sensible and in-depth research of what you need, what you think you might need in the future and not being sold on something you will never need, just because it has a name, reputation and large price tag.
 
The funny part (or angry part depending on your position) is the same sales person made commissions for Tesla's mistake. Catia like Creo and UG are all high end modelers. Some differentiation for definition of high end modeler is: handles memory differently. Like Bob_s above mentiond many options should be included in the base package.... High end tools have multiple module options like Advanced Assembly, Manufacturing options. These tools have as many as 50+ modules that you can purchase. Key word to understand what is important is the word 'CAN'. With the mid range modelers such as Solidworks, Inventor you only CAN buy the one module. In some cases like w/ FEA these packages offer that and cabling as well however for the most part you CAN only get that one purchase. The Sales folks that prey on our mild ignorance (don't take offence as we all learn over time) and explain that these other tools are more expensive. Engineers in charge of making the purchase or switch or offer up the purchase order for software often are not the ones using the tool or are even held responsible for getting the project completed.

Tools like SW have come so far in the last 5 years that they truly compete with the high end tools. Over the years they have learend they can compete with the high end tools by integrating 5 or 10 percent of one module into the SW tool. I don't recall the specif problems beyond A-Class surfacing that Tesla learned after 2 years of SW integration but the problem was with respect to Teamcenter. When Tesla brought the problem to the VAR it was explained that they wanted to purchase 'CATIA' because in that tool the integration to tools like Windchill and Teamcenter are more mature. In the newest releases of SW they added a y=X^2 conic tool that is required to create legitimate Aircraft forms. Before 2013 that tool could only estimate aircraft surfaces thus used only on toys or models.

We as end users really want our software to cost more. As users we get to charge more for our time. If Solidworks cost more then they could dedicate the time and effort to developing it's ability for Advanced assemblies for example. 350 parts is large for SW without spacial tools for managing 17000 parts of a military satellite or a tractor for example.

My favorite example for elaborating on this topic is the use of Manufacturing tools. One customer told me 'bart you don't understand. Our vendors use solidwors' indicating that the company should switch modeling packages because of their vendor. In all actuality if the vendor can't do something a progressive fortune 500 company will attempt to educate their vendor into a partner status or choose a different vendor. If you baby sitter can't stay out past 10 pm then you simply choose a different baby sitter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7X-F4nyIFg < this CNC Creo Manufacturing Video I uploaded a few years ago explains this concept with an example. If you allow you vendor to use an IGES file then they can't take the changes at the last min. You may not care because the vendor is working off a fixed quote (cheapest chosen by your purchasing department) But that's why you call them a vendor. With a partner you may not choose the cheapest and you qualify their process. Educate them to use Creo Manufacturing which updates with a new model ECN. The Tool path simply updates like any part within you assembly. The IGES vendor has to spend another 17 hrs re writing the darn thing.


Autodesk is another Beast. I recall having a conversation with the Product Line manager of Inventor and listing to the then current plan for improving the surfacing capability of Inventor. It was my opinion that an integrated approach pulling Alias Studio programmers into the Inventor Programmers would create an almost unbeatable product. No one wants to compete in the high end market however. There seams to be more money and growth potential in the mid range tools. Compare a disposable razor market to a non disposable razor market. One costs more.... you get it. Basically a different market.
 
Last edited:
The funny part (or angry part depending on your position) is the same sales person made commissions for Tesla's mistake. Catia like Creo and UG are all high end modelers. Some differentiation for definition of high end modeler is: handles memory differently. Like Bob_s above mentioned many options should be included in the base package.... High end tools have multiple module options like Advanced Assembly, Manufacturing options. These tools have as many as 50+ modules that you can purchase. Key word to understand what is important is the word 'CAN'. With the mid range modelers such as Solidworks, Inventor you only CAN buy the one module. In some cases like w/ FEA these packages offer that and cabling as well however for the most part you CAN only get that one purchase. The Sales folks that prey on our mild ignorance (don't take offence as we all learn over time) and explain that these other tools are more expensive. Engineers in charge of making the purchase or switch or offer up the purchase order for software often are not the ones using the tool or are even held responsible for getting the project completed.

Tools like SW have come so far in the last 5 years that they truly compete with the high end tools. Over the years they have learned they can compete with the high end tools by integrating 5 or 10 percent of one module into the SW tool. I don't recall the specific problems beyond A-Class surfacing that Tesla learned after 2 years of SW integration but the problem was with respect to Teamcenter. When Tesla brought the problem to the VAR it was explained that they wanted to purchase 'CATIA' because in that tool the integration to tools like Windchill and Teamcenter are more mature. In the newest releases of SW they added a y=X^2 conic tool that is required to create legitimate Aircraft forms. Before 2013 that tool could only estimate aircraft surfaces thus used only on toys or models.

We as end users really want our software to cost more. As users we get to charge more for our time. If Solidworks cost more than they could dedicate the time and effort to developing it's ability for Advanced assemblies for example. 350 parts is large for SW without special tools for managing 17000 parts of a military satellite or a tractor for example.

My favorite example for elaborating on this topic is the use of Manufacturing tools. One customer told me 'bart you don't understand. Our vendors use solidwors' indicating that the company should switch modeling packages because of their vendor. In all actuality if the vendor can't do something a progressive fortune 500 company will attempt to educate their vendor into a partner status or choose a different vendor. If you babysitter can't stay out past 10 pm then you simply choose a different baby sitter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7X-F4nyIFg < this CNC Creo Manufacturing Video I uploaded a few years ago explains this concept with an example. If you allow you vendor to use an IGES file then they can't take the changes at the last min. You may not care because the vendor is working off a fixed quote (cheapest chosen by your purchasing department) But that's why you call them a vendor. With a partner you may not choose the cheapest and you qualify their process. Educate them to use Creo Manufacturing which updates with a new model ECN. The Tool path simply updates like any part within you assembly. The IGES vendor has to spend another 17 hrs re writing the darn thing.


Autodesk is another Beast. I recall having a conversation with the Product Line manager of Inventor and listing to the then current plan for improving the surfacing capability of Inventor. It was my opinion that an integrated approach pulling Alias Studio programmers into the Inventor Programmers would create an almost unbeatable product. No one wants to compete in the high end market however. There seems to be more money and growth potential in the mid range tools. Compare a disposable razor market to a non disposable razor market. One costs more.... you get it. Basically a different market.

In the end SW has one package to purchase. Catia has 50+ yea you can spend more money in Catia but you have some ridiculous amazing tools that you CAN utilize. With SW you stuck with that and good luck begging those product line managers into developing anything that would compete with their high end tool. trek is going thru that now with the possible integration of Sub'D tools into Solidworks. My sources at Trek tell me they are pisssssed off. Software programming takes time and even more time if your committed to a great bug free release.

An example of Sub'd in Creo for your information https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-z9Cex_7tU this freeform or Sub'D tool comes stock in the base package of Creo that compares to the base package of SW. Catia charges extra for this module. It is my guess that once solidworks has a working release of their tool using the Catia Kernel they may integrate Sub'd to solidworks. I am only speculating here tho.
 
Last edited:
SolidWorks is now undergoing 'Package-Creep'.

Visualize? EXTRA

MBD? EXTRA

No doubt it will continue as Dassault's EU approach of giving less for more cash will continue. Whether this will translate into more sales is a moot point - one of the problems Autodesk got into was the additional modules cost more than the base package so nobody updated.

Eventually you'll get so far behind, the licence will cost a fortune to update, so end-users consider keeping the old system for legacy, and changing the CAD/CAM system for one that will do the job.

This all goes back to the proprietary file format. Once they've got you by the short and curlies, it's difficult to break away without a lot of pain.

Eventually the pain will actually be the easy part!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top