A CAD-PARISON:

A USABILITY COMPARISON BETWEEN 3D-MODELING PROGRAMS SOLIDWORKS AND AUTOCAD

BY CHASE DINNING

-VERSUS-
CONTENTS
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology:.................................................................................................................................. 4
Tasks: ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Criteria: ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Results: ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Cube construction: ...................................................................................................................... 5
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................... 5
AutoCad................................................................................................................................... 5
Overall ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Sphere construction: ................................................................................................................... 6
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................... 6
AutoCad................................................................................................................................... 6
Cylinder Construction: ................................................................................................................ 7
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................... 7
Overall ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Torus Construction:..................................................................................................................... 8
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................... 8
AutoCad................................................................................................................................... 8
Overall ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Chamfering:................................................................................................................................. 9
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................... 9
AutoCad................................................................................................................................... 9
Overall ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Combination:............................................................................................................................. 10
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................. 10
AutoCad................................................................................................................................. 10
Overall ................................................................................................................................... 10
Removal: ................................................................................................................................... 11
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................. 11
AutoCad................................................................................................................................. 11
 Overall ................................................................................................................................... 11
Mirror: ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................. 12
AutoCad................................................................................................................................. 12
Overall ................................................................................................................................... 12
Section View:............................................................................................................................. 12
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................. 12
AutoCad................................................................................................................................. 12
Overall ................................................................................................................................... 13
Visual Styles: ............................................................................................................................. 13
Solidworks ............................................................................................................................. 13
AutoCad................................................................................................................................. 13
Overall ................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions: .................................................................................................................................. 14
Overall: ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Recommendations: ................................................................................................................... 14
Bibliography: ................................................................................................................................. 15
Solidworks Logo: ....................................................................................................................... 15
AutoCad Logo: ........................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix: ...................................................................................................................................... 16
INTRODUCTION:
Two of the largest Computer-Aided-Design programs, Soldiworks and AutoCad, are used
in various workplaces. The following white paper will provide the process and results of a
usability test performed some basic processes on both the 2016 version of Solidworks, and the
2018 version of AutoCad.

METHODOLOGY:
The following tests were conducted at a home desktop running Windows 10. They were
conducted in the afternoon with minimal distractions and background noise.

TASKS:
There were ten tasks set up, each to be completed on both programs. The tasks were as
follows:
1. Cube construction – Create a cube of 10x10x10mm.
2. Sphere construction – Create a sphere of radius 6mm.
3. Cylinder construction – Create a cylinder of radius 3mm, and length 50mm.
4. Torus construction – Create a torus of major radius 10mm, and minor radius 2mm.
5. Chamfering – Chamfer the top of the cube from test 1. by 2mm at the top, at an angle of
20°.
6. Combination – Merge the cylinder vertically through the center of the cube, with the
bottoms of each in the same plane.
7. Removal – Remove half of the sphere from the bottom of the cylinder-cube
combination.
8. Mirror – Mirror the result of the previous test across its bottom plane.
9. Section view – Use a section view to see the hollow sphere created by the mirror.
10. Visual styles – Test the different visual styles, and how they are applied.

CRITERIA:
The five criteria that each program will be evaluated on for each step are:
Effectiveness – I was able to complete the task.
Efficiency – The task took relatively little time, or few clicks of the mouse.
Engagement – The appearance of the tool/function was self-explanatory/helped it be
memorable.
Error Tolerance – When mistakes are made, they are relatively simple/quick to correct.
 Ease of Learning – The task was easy to learn to use and could be done again with little
help.
Each criterion will be ranked on a five-point Likert scale resembling the one below.

Strongly Neither agree or Strongly Agree

Disagree disagree
1 2 3 4 5

RESULTS:
Results will be shown step-by-step, with small explanations for each program, as well as
an overall ranking against each other. A spreadsheet with all of the raw data (in the form of
Likert scales) will be located at the end of the paper in the Appendix.

CUBE CONSTRUCTION:
SOLIDWORKS – The cube construction in Solidworks involved two steps. The two steps
were to draw a square of the desire length and width, and then to extrude that square to the
desired height. As seen in this image, there is the drawing with dimensions on the bottom, and
the extrusion upward. The dimensions can easily be changed simply by double-clicking on the
cube.

AUTOCAD – In AutoCad the process was rather similar, although it could be done it what
seemed more like one step. The “Box” tool was selected, then a starting point, then the
opposite corner of a square, and then the plane for the height. The dimensions were slightly
more confusing to change after construction, having to double-click, select the direction, and
alter the value.
 OVERALL – Solidworks seems more open to adjustments, but AutoCad is simpler to use.
Both were equal in effect, engagement, and ease of learning.

SPHERE CONSTRUCTION:
SOLIDWORKS – Making a sphere was a similar amount of work as the cube. It still
required a separate drawing and a similar process, but only one dimension was needed. A
revolve was used to revolve half of a circle about an axis.

AUTOCAD – The process for this was very simple. All that was needed was to select the
“sphere” tool, a center point, and then a point on the outside. Again, the dimensions were
slightly more difficult to alter.
Overall – Again, Solidworks allowed for more adjustments after the object was made but
required a little more input. The process was also slightly more difficult on Solidworks as you
were required to specify an axis and angle of revolution.

CYLINDER CONSTRUCTION:
SOLIDWORKS – This process seemed like a mix between the sphere and the cube. A circle
with one dimension was made, and then extruded to the desired length. The image below is
rotated 90° to fit better within this paper.

AutoCad – To make this piece in AutoCad, a center point was selected, and then move
the mouse to select a radius, and then a height. Again, it is slightly less obvious how to change
dimensions. The image below is rotated 90° to fit better within this paper.

OVERALL – These were both very simple constructions, although again the way that
alterations are made seems more straightforward in Solidworks, as the dimensions are shown
within the drawings.
TORUS CONSTRUCTION:
SOLIDWORKS – This process was more in-depth than the previous steps. To make a torus,
first you must draw and dimension the circle of the minor radius, the circle that will revolve and
create the shape. As a second step, a line of revolution must be made the distance of the major
radius from the center of the circle. After this drawing is completed, the ‘revolve’ tool is used,
selecting the circle and then the axis. Dimensions can easily be changed any time after
construction.

AUTOCAD – Torus construction was far simpler in AutoCad. There is a specific tool to
make them. You simply select the center point, major diameter, and then the minor diameter
and it is complete. To change dimensions is still slightly less obvious, although no less obvious
than previous AutoCad processes.

OVERALL – Making the torus in AutoCad is much simpler, and when Solidworks’ simpler
dimension correction usually makes up for this, in this case AutoCad is still simpler overall.
CHAMFERING:
SOLIDWORKS –The chamfer tool in Solidworks is very efficient, easy, and tolerant. Simply
select the chamfer tool, what edges you want chamfered, and then type in the distance and
angle desired. If the preview shows the chamfer in the wrong direction, there is a box that
allows you to easily flip directions.

AUTOCAD – Chamfering is much less straightforward with this program. You must select
the chamfer tool, select each edge, type ‘d’ do take you to the distance selection commands,
type the distance for the top edge, and then for the second edge you must do your own math
for a second distance instead of setting and angle. It’s not difficult math, but it makes the
process much less efficient and less error tolerant.

OVERALL – Because of the issues created by not being able to base a chamfer on angle,
Solidworks is much more usable than AutoCad for this task.
COMBINATION:
SOLIDWORKS – There is no command or tool to combine two separate pieces, but there
are a few very simple fixes to this. Either you could create an assembly and place the individual
parts where you want them, or you could create a new cylinder exactly where you want it and
select the ‘merge’ option. The second is what I did, creating a new extrude from the same plane
but going up through the center of the cube. The image below is rotated 90° to fit better within
this paper.

AUTOCAD – This process was more straight-forward. You select the point on the cylinder
that you want to move, and then select the point on the cube that you want to move it to. Once
they are moved together, you select the ‘union’ tool and select the two bodies. The two bodies
become one. The image below is rotated 90° to fit better within this paper.

OVERALL – The Solidworks process isn’t exactly combining the two previously made
pieces, but if you know what you wan to do beforehand it isn’t much different. It is a little less
efficient and intuitive, but it is much more tolerant to error. With AutoCad, if you wanted to
change the size of the cylinder you would have to use the ‘undo’ button back until the point
you made it, and then redo the whole process individually. For this reason, I find Solidworks to
be more usable in this task.
REMOVAL:
SOLIDWORKS – Much like with combination, there is no tool to remove one object from
another, but there is another easy fix. There is a set of tools similar to the ‘extrude’ and
‘revolve’ tools that remove material as opposed to creating it. To remove this half-sphere, a
drawing was created identical to the one to create the sphere, except its axis was centered on
the bottom of the cube. The ‘revolved cut’ tool was used to create the void.

AUTOCAD – There is a specific ‘subtraction’ tool for this. The center of the sphere was
selected, moved to the middle of the bottom plane of the cube, and then subtracted.

OVERALL – In the same way you would have to backtrack so much in the previous step
with AutoCad, you would have to in this step as well. Solidworks still has a more complicated
process, but it is much easier to correct errors.
MIRROR:
SOLIDWORKS – Mirroring is very efficient. Select the mirror tool, select the mirror plane
(in this case the bottom plane), and then select the bodies to mirror. Once you select ‘okay’ the
piece is complete. The image below is rotated 90° to fit better within this paper.

AUTOCAD – Mirroring is slightly less efficient here than it was with Solidworks. Select
the mirror tool, the body you want to mirror, and then three points that will create the plane
you want to mirror across. Finish this and then the piece is complete. The image below is
rotated 90° to fit better within this paper.

OVERALL – Both programs are effective and easy, but AutoCad is slightly less effective
and error tolerant.

SECTION VIEW:
SOLIDWORKS – Section view was very effective, efficient, and easy. Simply select the
‘section view’ tool, the plane you want it to be parallel with, and then drag the arrows to place
it where you want. You can even type in offsets to make it more accurate. The image below is
rotated 90° to fit better within this paper.

AUTOCAD – This process is very similar. Select the ‘section plane’ tool, select a face to be
parallel to, and either drag the arrows or type an offset to place it where you want it. The image
on the following page is rotated 90° to fit better within this paper.
 OVERALL – These two programs have almost identical processes for this. Because of this,
neither program is more usable than the other for this task.

VISUAL STYLES:
SOLIDWORKS – This program has five different visual styles that are all simple to change
between. Select the ‘display style’ box and choose which style to try. There are no
consequences based on changing style other than you might not like how it looks, or you might
not be able to see something. Here is an example of one of the more interesting styles, rotated
90° to fit the paper better.

AUTOCAD – There are nine different styles to choose from on this program. Some of
them are more artistic than useful. Again, they are all easy to switch between and have no
lasting effects. Here is an example of one of the more interesting styles, rotated 90° to fit the
paper better.

OVERALL – Although these options don’t affect the performance of the program, they
make it more interesting and visually appealing. Although they are equal in ease of use,
effectiveness, efficiency, and error tolerance, AutoCad has more options so it is slightly more
engaging.
CONCLUSIONS:
OVERALL:
Both programs are very similar. The differences mainly come down to efficiency and
error tolerance. Occasionally, Solidworks can seem rather overdone. It makes you go through
several steps before you get to the final product. However, when comparing this to AutoCad
where you take fewer steps, it is much more error tolerant. Because there is no way of going
back in time on AutoCad, you could easily find yourself losing a significant amount of time
redoing processes because you made a simple mistake early on.
The comparison is similar to that of a computer to a typewriter, where Solidworks is the
computer. It is more complicated, but you can always go back and fix things. With Autocad, the
typewriter, if you make a mistake you end up throwing away an entire page.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
I’m not sure that I would make any recommendations to Dassault Systemes. The fact
that their processes are slightly less efficient is part of why they are more error tolerant.
Changing anything there could cause more harm than good.
If I were to recommend anything to Autodesk, I would suggest a history system like that
in SolidWorks. That way if a mistake is made early on it could be changed by going back to that
point in history and changing it as opposed to undoing everything back to then.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

SOLIDWORKS LOGO:
http://driven.design/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Homepage-SolidWorks.jpg

AUTOCAD LOGO:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/6/69/AutoCAD_2017_lockup_OL_stacke
d_no_year.png/revision/latest?cb=20161227144941
APPENDIX:
Test Scoring---> AutoCad Solidworks
Disagree No Bias Agree Disagree No Bias Agree
Cube Construction
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Sphere Construction
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Cylinder Construction
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Torus Construction
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Using the Chamfer Tool
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Combine
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Subtract
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Mirror
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Section View
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x
Visual Styles
Effective x x
Efficient x x
Engaging x x
Error Tolerant x x
Easy to Learn x x