SIMULIA from Dassault Systemes is a simulation application for 3d objects.
N/A
SOLIDWORKS
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Dassault Systemes offers SOLIDWORKS, a computer-aided design (CAD) system for education and manufacturing supporting 2D or 3D design, electrical design, simulations, and product development with collaboration tools.
MARC can do the job from an FEA point of view. It even appears better at a couple of things such as 2D remeshing and surviving with highly distorted meshes. So I regard it as a very competitive alternative. I prefer SIMULIA because the GUI is so much better, especially the …
SOLIDWORKS is actually used by major corporations to design and create products for wide release, whereas AutoDesk Inventor is usually only seen as an instructional tool to teach students the basics of 3d modeling so that they can adapt to more complex software with less effort …
Creo is basically focusing on pure solid 3D modeling, while on the other hand the SOLIDWORKS' modeling approach is more parametric type and it is suiting for my purpose of use. Easy to use interface of SOLIDWORKS as compared to Creo. Features are easy to use. Just one click …
SOLIDWORKS is the best suited for the beginners,as it provides the simplest interface and simulation procedure. With SOLIDWORKS every simulation can be done easily and no professional training is required. SOLIDWORKS also has a drawing tab, which we can use to make General …
SOLIDWORKS is easier to use with just enough useful features to work with, the designing process is fluid like regular flow of design thinking. The other two software are very similar to SOLIDWORKS, Inventor and Solid Edge are more advanced in certain areas of application, …
Our team in China uses Siemens NX for the same reason our U.S. counterparts use SOLIDWORKS. Siemens provides similar features as SOLIDWORKS from the 3D CAD usage and Injection Molding Analysis.
Onshape is a direct competitor. It has great entry level pricing and it is easy to access with no installation required. Being a web based app there is sometime some lag being based in NZ. Management also have concerns over where the data is stored on the cloud. With SW we can …
We have chosen SOLIDWORKS for its diffusion (many of our partners use it), for its ease of use, for its great experience in the development of sheet metal, and for its excellent after-sales service.
SOLIDWORKS is way less complicated and easier to use, overall if you have had any computer training anyone can easily sit down and be trained within a minimal time to be able to use it efficiently and effectively. One of my employees went so far as to teach his 10-year-old …
We use both actually. SW is great for 3D, but given we do not design products, just tooling/processing to make products, we use SW to convert 3D into 2D then do all the work in DraftSight.
I have not used alternatives to SOLIDWORKS. I've used SOLIDWORKS for the past 7 years as it was the standard in my past job. It has many more capabilities than 2D software and is a staple of our engineering department. I plan to continue to use SOLIDWORKS for many years to …
Draftsight is the 2-d equivalent of SOLIDWORKS. Its main competitor is AutoCad by Autodesk, however I find Draftsight to be more user friendly. AutoDesk also makes Inventor, a 3-d software more similar to SOLIDWORKS however my experience with it was only limited to high …
SOLIDWORKS is simple to use and new users become proficient in a short amount of time. Operation is intuitive and with the aid of the built-in tutorials, most of the skills required for day-to-day use become second nature. The ability to collaborate and communicate ideas to …
In many scenarios, SolidWorks and Inventor actually compare fairly evenly to each other. However, I believe that where SolidWorks really stands out is the fact that it was designed from the start as a 3D parametric solid modeling application whereas Inventor comes from a …
I have previously worked with AutoDesk Inventor for designing very complex door mechanisms and large assemblies of drilling machines. I did not face any stability or performance issues
I only used Inventor for the 30-day free trial, which admittedly is not enough time to really give it a fair shot, especially since I had almost no 3D drawing experience before I used Inventor. There were two main things that pushed us toward SOLIDWORKS. First was the support …
SOLIDWORKS provides not only aesthetic appearance of a product but also provides the capability to analyze behavior of structural and material components.
AutoCAD, in many ways, still looks and feels like you are designing something in the 1980's. It definitely caters more to the generation of people who are used to drafting. SOLIDWORKS is much more visually appealing, which counts for a lot when you will have lots of engineers …
Creo offers easier design for surface modeling. Inventor is simpler to use, however, it is much more limited in modeling. Overall, I find SOLIDWORKS has a good balance of simplicity and completeness at the same time.
I chose SOLIDWORKS after trying a few open-source solutions. They were great, however sometimes lacked in a few vital areas, in a way that a commercial, well-funded product shouldn't. Given my previous familiarity and confidence with SOLIDWORKS, I didn't bother looking any …
Originally my company was using Onshape for CAD but many of our engineers were not familiar with the program and found it more difficult and less intuitive to use. SOLIDWORKS PDM vault works well so the cloud-based aspect of Onshape wasn't that unique.
It appears to be evolving more towards large users with the 3D EXPERIENCE, while becoming less focused on small users like me, becoming more expensive and limiting the number of cores while most PC's now can easily run 8 cores. Of course it is great for non-linear and highly non-linear scenarios, and especially good at combing a huge variety of element types. I guess it is not best suited for linear analysis due to its high price, but even in this case you have to put in the balance the ability to make the best choice of finite elements and being so straightforward about actually using them.
As a mechanical engineer, it is one of the best tools to just start modeling and engineering with. The UI tools are intuitive and engineering analysis such Mold Analysis, FEA, are great! Other 3D CAD modeling tools have a longer learning curve to master. All in all, if you're not planning to design an entire airplane with large assembly files, then Solidworks is your tool!
Create and modify designs from within the CAE environment. Although it has very basic capabilities, it is quite capable of generating 2D and 3D parametric designs. I have even generated some "fancy" designs which ended up being a challenge for draftsmen in specialized solid modeling CAD. I also like the fact that being somewhat limited, it forces you to stick to simple and effective design.
Addressing structural instabilities such as snap-through or buckling. This was such a challenge when I started using Abaqus, I had to take a course on "achieving convergence". Coming from there, I can see how SIMULIA has become increasingly able to give you the numerical tools or tricks you need to achieve convergence consistently. In the past I often feared running into different convergence issues as I moved across different produce sizes, leading to changes in the analysis approach, which would make it more difficult to compare them. I just went through a 12-size family in 5 dimensional scenarios each, without a single issue after ensuring convergence with the first couple of sizes.
Beautiful pictures. The post-processing of results enables me to generate highly illustrative, fairly easy to understand and elegant presentations, by controlling transparency and results shown independently on different groups, which I can select by material, location, etc.
The collaborative work environment is a cool and useful feature where groups of people can work on the same model at the same time, and SOLIDWORKS ensures that you don't overwrite each other's work.
The ease and amount of customization options are very useful for creating a personalized and intuitive user interface, whether SOLIDWORKS is your native CAD package or not.
It is very easy to quickly edit a model you have already created. The software allows sketch and feature editing without having to take the time to actually enter the sketch/feature environment.
The use of configurations and configurations-specific dimensions in the same sketch is very useful for creating different forms of the same part
Exporting sketches. For example, you can import dxf for sketches, but you can't export dxf. This is a major drawback for me, because I often communicate with customers through dwg or dxf sketches. If I can't export dxf, my sketches in CAE are "dead". I have to redo them in the dwg sketch. It is so inconvenient, I often end up making the sketches in DraftSight, so I can export them to CAE but I still have the originals in dwg format.
CAE doesn't remember element type assignment by sets. Sometimes when I reconfigure or modify a design, I regenerate sets and surfaces, and this in turn updates material assignments, interactions and loads almost automatically. This doesn't happen with element types, so I often end up submitting a job with the wrong element types.
Mesh regeneration and re-mapping in 2D within the job. I need this a lot to model axisymmetric assemblies with sharp indentation the destroys the original mesh. I had it in MSC/MARC and it worked great. Abaqus has it only for 3D. I have tried alternatives like lagrangian/eulerian and eulerian domains but it's still more complicated.
To date, the baked in surfacing tools lack power compared to dedicated surfacing software.
In a similar vein, the core modeling kernel is not owned by SOLIDWORKS themselves and so there exists limitations with regards to implementing certain modeling/math.
SOLIDWORKS is playing catchup to other online vendors of CAD (notable OnShape); instead of being the once leader, they are being forced to compare themselves. This, however, may work to their advantage and in turn allow them to produce a better on-line CAD tool.
Extremely well organized and friendly, reflecting the latest approaches in solid modeling and adding the FEA part so seamlessly for the user. It's a joy to use. I'm aware some people would complain about the meshing capabilities and thus prefer using HYPERMESH. Fortunately not my case. I did wish I had HYPERMESH a couple of times, but for most of my projects CAE meshing is fine.
I have been using SOLIDWORKS for around 12 years as of writing this review, so have learned where most things are and how they work. When first starting out it was quite daunting, but the interface is well laid out with like functions near each other which made finding new functions relatively easy.
I keep getting the feeling that it is drifting away from small users. I don't feel so comfortable with the SWYM community approach. I felt much better when you could just email or call HKS and you would feel like you were talking to a real expert who understood your situation. When I was reassigned to reseller in Argentina, which is like the other side of the world for me, I appreciated the cultural closeness, but I had to say goodbye to the level of support I had from HKS and learned to "support myself."
We have an unusual arrangement. We don’t pay for support, but we’re partnered with a VAR for second-tier support.
I work with other users if I have questions but when we’ve had to ask the VAR, they always have answers. It appears that all of the VARs have access to a support platform from DS SOLIDWORKS that helps them answer most questions.
MARC can do the job from an FEA point of view. It even appears better at a couple of things such as 2D remeshing and surviving with highly distorted meshes. So I regard it as a very competitive alternative. I prefer SIMULIA because the GUI is so much better, especially the ability to create actual parametric designs in CAE. ANSYS doesn't cut it for me. I tried it for 1 month and I would see how much I would struggle with convergence in large deformation and large displacement situations with hyperelastic materials with which I have to deal all the time. Also the GUI is not as well built an integrated as in SIMULIA.
Onshape is a direct competitor. It has great entry level pricing and it is easy to access with no installation required. Being a web based app there is sometime some lag being based in NZ. Management also have concerns over where the data is stored on the cloud. With SW we can control where it is stored
I don't even bother doing an ROI. Without SIMULIA I would be pretty much out of business. Except for the fact that I could still have an alternative with MSC/MARC.
Price is becoming a more difficult hurdle for small users. It appears I have survived because there was a 50% discount on my small 6-token package. Without this special price I would have to close my business. I'm currently exploring alternatives.
A more flexible scheme enabling to add tokens over short periods of time or paying per use could be an interesting possibility.
Hard to answer directly. Given our customer's needs, we absolutely have to have SW to open their file types.
Given the relatively limited use we need at our company, it would be useful to have a cheaper option that was more stripped down but still had some capabilities. Something in-between SW and eDrawings, for example. SW is very capable and expensive, eDrawings is free and super limited. Would be nice to have a middle option.
