Mechanical Desktop, Inventor and AutoPlant
Mechanical Desktop, Inventor and AutoPlant
(OP)
Decisions, decisions what to do? We now have three software packages in our office, the latest being Inventor which was bought as part of a package when Mechanical Desktop 6 was purchased (decision by management). Scheduling of projects, human resources, training and annual leave has now become complicated with the different software packages and different releases of software, we are now forced to re-evaluate the situation. If you have been in this situation I would like to hear from you.
Here follows a short summery of our current situation:
Our workload is 60% structural (2D&3D) (plant & conveyor structures), 30% sheet metal work (3D) (underground vehicles & chutes) and 10% mechanical work (2D&3D) (shafts & gears).
Our team consists of three designers and six draughts persons. We also make use of contract draughts persons when the need arises.
We have 2 x Inventor packages, 2 x Mechanical Desktop 6 packages, 2 x Mechanical Desktop 5 packages and 4 x AutoCAD packages.
Options:
Upgrade all other software to Inventor. This would mean that a design could be detailed or revised by any of the draughts persons. There would also be a slump in production, as every one would need to go for training. There may be a problem in the availability of contract draughts persons with Inventor knowledge. I also have my doubts weather Inventor is suited for structural work?
Upgrade all other software to Mechanical Desktop 6. This would mean that we would need to purchases one or two AutoPol packages for the sheet metal work. The slump in production due to training would not be that great, as most of the staff have a good working knowledge of Mechanical Desktop. This would also mean that a design could be detailed or revised by any of the draughts persons.
Use Inventor for mechanical work (shafts & gears) and sheet metal work (underground vehicles & chutes) and purchase Rebis AutoPlant for the structural work (plant & conveyor structures). This might mean that the Designers and draughts persons would have to specialize in either one or the other software package. There would be slump in production, as every one would need to go for training. Again there may be a problem in the availability of contract draughts persons with Inventor and AutoPlant knowledge. Making use of Rebis AutoPlant & Inventor should speedup designs and the production of working drawings.
Here follows a short summery of our current situation:
Our workload is 60% structural (2D&3D) (plant & conveyor structures), 30% sheet metal work (3D) (underground vehicles & chutes) and 10% mechanical work (2D&3D) (shafts & gears).
Our team consists of three designers and six draughts persons. We also make use of contract draughts persons when the need arises.
We have 2 x Inventor packages, 2 x Mechanical Desktop 6 packages, 2 x Mechanical Desktop 5 packages and 4 x AutoCAD packages.
Options:
Upgrade all other software to Inventor. This would mean that a design could be detailed or revised by any of the draughts persons. There would also be a slump in production, as every one would need to go for training. There may be a problem in the availability of contract draughts persons with Inventor knowledge. I also have my doubts weather Inventor is suited for structural work?
Upgrade all other software to Mechanical Desktop 6. This would mean that we would need to purchases one or two AutoPol packages for the sheet metal work. The slump in production due to training would not be that great, as most of the staff have a good working knowledge of Mechanical Desktop. This would also mean that a design could be detailed or revised by any of the draughts persons.
Use Inventor for mechanical work (shafts & gears) and sheet metal work (underground vehicles & chutes) and purchase Rebis AutoPlant for the structural work (plant & conveyor structures). This might mean that the Designers and draughts persons would have to specialize in either one or the other software package. There would be slump in production, as every one would need to go for training. Again there may be a problem in the availability of contract draughts persons with Inventor and AutoPlant knowledge. Making use of Rebis AutoPlant & Inventor should speedup designs and the production of working drawings.





RE: Mechanical Desktop, Inventor and AutoPlant
Problem was that the company standard parts converted to 3D where "dumb" in SW. Since they lost configs and such in the conversion, they created even more standard parts.
Solved (?) by dumping MDT (pissed off AutoDesk) in favor of SW, and still use Acad for the older (no need to redo) stuff, and for quick and dirty 2D work on a DXF'd SW drawing.
Yes there was production issues, but the MDT folks (who first were adamendtly against it), took to SW with little learning curve, and haven't quit, so they must be okay with it. Course they redid all the standard parts again in SW, which was time consuming.
Either way, it is a cost issue to switch. Always has been, always will be. The same questions/arguments/issues were important when any organization went from the "board" to CAD. You pay for progress. So decide "where you want to be", and NOT how cheap it is to be better...
Good luck,
Mr. Pickles