It should be mentioned that Alias or ICEM are not complete design and engineering tools as high-end CAD packages like Unigraphics or Catia that's why what you have modeled in any of those surface modelers or a reverse engineering software will find its destination in one of thoes high-end CAD/CAM packages for further development and tools and mould design. The popularity of those modelers and their widespread uses in the industry has been much due to the more difficult to use and cumbersome UI and longer learning curves of those major CAD programs of yesterdays but as I am seeing the gap is much closer now and those CAD/CAM programs have been advanced into much complete all-in-one packages as NX and Catia with most advanced and easier to use free form modeling tools for designers. It has been a general mindset that it would be much faster to model in Alias for example and then export the model into other CAD software which in some studios has to be taken care by another engineering department or CAD operators of the client which in most cases have to rebuild the entire model. Earlier I was heavily using Alias and other modelers for modeling but now I do most of my modeling in Unigraphics or Catia which works best for me as for time-saving and eliminates the need for data exchange between different programs and reconstruction and healing of imported models. My point is that a more efficient designer would be capable of working and finishing the job with the high-end packages which already have the most advanced surfacing tools for an experienced designer, Shape Studio has always been fantastic and ICEM will develop the next generations of Catia's already powerful class-A surface modeler and also Pro/Engineer is capable enough with its ISDX. Though still Alias and Maya hold tightly their places for me in early stages of concept design and styling, each in their own way. Also as for physical modeling nothing can be more creative than the skilful hands of the designer which are not limited by a software limitations or the lack of skills to work with the software, which may make him compromise the original idea. That is why the reverse engineering is one the best proven methods for producing stunning results. A great concept car which is deserved to see the daylight and open roads must could be manufactured first.
You've got an interesting point a view but you can't say ALias or Icem are not complete design software. As I mentioned my experience concern car design creation and not engineering department. In companies like Volvo, Saab, Renault, Citroën, Smart, VAG or Porsche and many more, design and engineering are deferent department. They work in commun but they don't do the same job. That's why you got a project leader who follow the program from A to Z and coordinate every job for every department. A modeler work is to set sketch design and techinal data together to make the car real and designer always have to compromise with engineering when a car goes to production, that's a fact. It's a commun situation in every design center, how creating something new and stick to the reallity of production when you have to made millions of cars. So no matter what the technics are you will always have early sketch model, them correct it to class A surface and follow the engineering restriction (wind tunel test, etc,etc) and them to prototype for a long series of final tests, but that's a an other story. Best regards,
My point was the industry's move towards the efficiency and time and cost saving, which is pushing the CAD developers to advanced their products and incorporate new technologies into their products as the ultimate all-in-one packages demanding by today's manufacturers. It will not be too long that a designer would be qualified by his or her skills to works with Catia or NX and the like. Alias has been always a favorite for designers but industry is moving faster than what could hide its old kernel.
Icem surf has been one of the best packages in world in case of surfacing – In last few years it was been acquired by PTC – Now – these days Icem is again free company. I noticed that much of ICEM features have been very successfully implemented into ProEngineer. Earlier ProEngineer has not been good for surfacing – In these days I simple don’t have need to start Studio Tools, because almost all very powerful tools has under my hand into ProE. I can with easy work styling for yachts, guitars enc similar into ProEngineer, with all tools for evaluating those type of style design. With little tricks, everything can be parametric, and if you are in business you will definitively admire those capabilities.
About new and “improved kernel of some new one packages in market”
Everybody must understand that cheep software with nice tools is not wining solution in case of real job. Even old kernel (like somebody above say) has its advantages in its power, quality and stability of its tools etc. You must understands that in that “old” kernel has been spend very huge amount of money – New one companies with its cheap solutions must spent also huge amounts of money to succeed in implementing all those tools, with its powerful capabilities. Nothing comes over night – I thing that we speak in numbers of years. I am some kind of old and new one user. I have seen and work under dos, Unix and now I work almost all my job under windows. But I am not delighted with to many icons and too much nice Gui-s. I like more Spartans way of work with good results. Nice looking program with bad results is foolish for me. I am not so heated for those win looking and to everyone familiar gui-s.
I must mention – I have choose ProE not only because it can everything like Catia – but also because its code. What this mean. For ProE I need 1.3 Gb for installation – for all things – For Catia – I need 5 Gb. If you work same job in Catia and ProE on same machine – you will be slower at least fro 20 % in Catia. Catia need much more processor power than ProE – Also Catia is very “nice looking gui” which is not for me – One thing which I must mention – PTC has been founded by one Russian scientist which developed parametric kind of work – first in the world
Choosing a software has been made based on the needs, budget, previous experiences, and the studies of the purchaser. Yes for some PTC might can provide an ideal solution for some UGS, or DS can meet their needs, and I saw many who chose different solutions from not only those mentioned earlier but also from others like Autodesk, Delcam, Raindrop, Inus,...under one roof. Still my point is that the major CAD developers have significantly improved their surface modeling modules and for each it took ages to develope their products. PTC was founded by Samuel Petrovich Geisberg in 1985 after T-FLEX (another paranetric modeler and russian brain child) and Unigraphics was founded by John Writh in 1963 under the name of United Computing which was bouth in 1976 by McDonell Douglas which named it Unigraphics Groupe and released Unigraphics in 1980. As for ICEM, now they are developing next generation of class-A surface modeler for Catia which will be integrated into the next releases. As for old and stable kernels there has been always a point which developer must choose to take a brave move to stay in the market or being absorbed by a big player(Autodesk took over Alias) as PTC did with their Granite. Not long before they where using kernels licensed from the two market leaders (ACIS and Parasolid from DS's Spatial and UGS). Anyhow what is more importatnt is to think neutral, What works best for you, choose it regardless of its brand name and hypes. What I count most are functionality and efficiency. That's all.
My experiences with Ug is that it is very “un user friendly” and very complicated to work – Beside my work under dos and windows, that UG interface and way of work was very strange and unfamiliar – ProE and its “drop down menus” about much new members complaining is “little baby “ in case of GUI of Unigraphic. I must admit that I didn’t know information for UG and its creating, but now after you share some info about that with us I am interested in fact – did UG was from beginning parametric because my information’s is that real parametric work in whole world was implemented into ProE. I also known for “variable parametric” software’s like I-deas – bit that is “little far away “ from real parametric-ity.
About AutoDesk – After its poor tryouts to develop even one serious 3D tool, they finally succeed by acquiring Alias. I am sure that Alias in future will again be free after some period of time because AutoDesk need time to “pool out” all it needs for itself in case of Alias functionality, its kernel, stability etc. Adesk has been use parasolid for Mechanical Desktop, and that was even then old – Now – Maybe some new tools from Desktop was on the horizon
As for Autodesk they were using ACIS from Spatial for their AutoCad, MDT and Inventor till 2001 I think, when they announced they would develop their own kernel base on ACIS which is being used today by their products. As for NX(Unigraphics), they have put much of the functionality of I-DEAS and Imageware(both are UGS products now) as well as many other enhancements in each releases of NX, I regard NX3 and NX4 the closest thing to the term 'the ultimate all-in-one CAD/CAM PLM solution' closely followed by Catia. As for stability and usability if you are familiar with Solid Edge and Solidworks(both are using Parasolid now) it's not much different as for UI , but it's very much stable and robust for hardcore use and heavy tasks and will not take as much resources as Catia to operate well. It is very much a bug-free product and easy to update, consider the number of service packs and updates for other products which exceeds 5 and sometimes more than 10 heavy and large service packs and patches, and as for Wildfires you need to completely reinstall each new updates. I have Wildfire 2 and it went from m90 till m190, each to be reinstalled , that is 10 updates. For UG that was 2 update patches for NX3 while Catia v5 r15 is now on sp6 as I know and each sp is a full installation. I appreciate Pro/e and its ISDX but I have more options to get my job to be done faster the way I can. Still I believe it would be a dream for most designers to have Maya with StudioTools features. Maya's subdivision into Nurbs conversion is the future of freeform modeling I am sure it would be advanced enough to replace traditional nurbs modeling soon.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: khorram,
Hi,this is real interesting thread,in my opinion,in my design EXperience with cad/cas modeller,I think Alias is more logical in interface and procedure in any working-intensive-session,i hope this never change in the future.AliasStudio program and interface come from Poweranimator(someone remember?)on Unix,more tools today, more perfect and fast and power and surface ,but is logic is always the same,the kernel is the same, and i think it's the best one i have use, real "user friendly", for who work in industrial,automotive, in any free-form-modelling expirience. CAd is differente, "parametric engine" are realy different, someone can explane "concept" in fast time with any "pure cad solution"?I don't think soo....after this, you can get that concept, and directly trasform in perfect product solution,perfect class-A surface, no other great software can do this.I have use UG, too much "unfriendly"(i think the same!),Catia old version(beatiful but too much time to grow),Icem surf(power but "rigid"procedure).From the other way, is impossible to search likenesses from Alias to other, is seample, are different instruments, different tools! I think in "best class-A surface", we must include other parameters, like price and time to grow in perfection, I think Alias is the best compromise to do this. p.s:sorry for my poor language
zangtumtum, Have you used Maya? ST could be better if it was closer to Maya in speed and usability. I mean a not so limited construction history, unlimited undos ans middle mouse wheel support to zoom in/out as for example.
I have used maya, from 1.0 to 4.0, now sometime i use to render more complex scene(litlle animation fly-through)than Imagestudio can't do, but no more "funny" modelling in maya, are you speak about polygon?that's different,subdivsion is different thinking... you speak about usability and speed...for me,make a "precision model" at start without correct after for wrong dimension, is the best "speed" and "usability" i can desire.
