STEP vs SAT: Which one preserves editable 3D geometry more reliably?

[indiancad]

When transferring a mechanical model between CAD applications, choosing an exchange format can affect more than just how the model looks. Face boundaries, analytic surfaces, and solid recognition can influence how easily the imported part can be modified.

A model may import successfully but still require extra work before features can be edited or downstream operations can be performed reliably.

I’m interested in practical experience rather than just format specifications.

When exchanging 3D solids between different CAD systems, have you found STEP or SAT more reliable for preserving usable geometry? Does your choice change depending on the type of model?

[SLW210]

I do not recall having many issues with any of them.

 

AutoCAD cannot export directly to STEP, only Mechanical (which is a FREE toolset though).

 

Normally I determine the type by what is needed by the program that needs it, if any will work normally ACIS (.sat) would be preferred and if the program can I just keep it as a .dwg.

 

For 3d Printing I use .stl and ultimately .3mf.

 

If unknown what the end use will be, STEP is usually the best bet.

[indiancad]

18 hours ago, SLW210 said:

I do not recall having many issues with any of them.

 

AutoCAD cannot export directly to STEP, only Mechanical (which is a FREE toolset though).

AutoCADtutorials

 

 

Normally I determine the type by what is needed by the program that needs it, if any will work normally ACIS (.sat) would be preferred and if the program can I just keep it as a .dwg.

 

For 3d Printing I use .stl and ultimately .3mf.

 

If unknown what the end use will be, STEP is usually the best bet.

That's great ! Choosing the format based on the receiving application and the intended use seems like the most practical approach. I also find your point about using STEP when the end use is unknown interesting.