inventor vs. solidworks 9

[romanp]

I have been reading quite a few messages on here and everyone seems to be quite defensive about solidworks. I need to make a decision on which system to go with. I have been an autocad user for 15 years and would like to go 3-d. I have heard all of the rhetoric from both of the sales sides. But I would like your opinion from those of you who know both systems. I have used solidworks before but not really inventor. Everything I output will be in the form of detailed drawings for my plant. We design and build machinery. It seems solidworks is not stable, or as stable as inventor? Your insight and knowledge would be helpful. Thanks alot in advance.

 

[symjim]

Go to the (highly censored) Inventor Discussion Group on at

http://www.autodesk.com

and really read what their *satisfied* customers write.

45 minutes to create a single drawing view,

NEVER use multi-sheet drawings,

"only" crashing five times a day

20 minutes to insert a fastener from ContentCenter

and they're HAPPY!?!?!?

 

[65Roses]

This comparison (argument) took place some time ago over on the "etch-a-sketch" (inventor) forum.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=159721&page=3

Why is my handle 65Roses?
Please visit

http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoundation/About65Roses/

to learn why!

 

[fcsuper]

lol

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA

http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php

 

[Rocko]

I deal with companies that range from fortune 500 to much smaller and I hardly run into anyone who uses Inventor. I would say that the numbers are as follows :
SolidWorks
Pro E
UG - Catia tie
AutoCad
Inventor

This is all in my experience but when you deal with 100's of companies in all kinds of industries, it can be a good guideline

 

[josephv]

Side note, I remember meeting someone a few years ago who asked if SolidWorks would ever release a DOS version. When I told him, "probably not", he then replied, "well, in that case I am sticking to AutoCAD v2 for Ms-DOS!".

Hopefully, he is using some 3D these days, either SolidWorks, SolidEdge, Inventor, SketchUp or even Cosmic Blobs and LegoCAD would be an improvement.

 

[overkill04]

I agree with the test drive each system for what you are going to use it for theory.

Personally I enjoy SW much more than Inventor, and I've worked on, and been an instructor for both. Besides Inventors Project setup is a tool of the devil.

Specs, Intel Pentium M 2.16 Mhz
SW 2007 R2.2
1.5 Gb Ram
NVidia GE Force GO 6800 256Mb

 

[chester1970]

to correct some of the blatant misinformation posted here about Inventor:

Lack of configurations in Inventor would be hard to live without.

Inventor has SW style "configurations", and also iParts and iAssemblies.

The only reason Inventor looks like SW is because they copied the interface off SW... it took AutoCAD 5+ years top remotely catch up to SW.


AutoCAD and Inventor are different products. the Inventor GUI is considerably different from SW. feature trees in 3D modelers predate SW by many years. the "green check/red X motif dates back to Windows 3 applications, and is rarely seen anymore.

Go to the (highly censored) Inventor Discussion Group on at www.autodesk.com

highly censored ? if that were so, there would be no posts with negative comments, such as those listed by symjim. I have found the Autodesk forum open and professional, with frequent input by Autodesk employees.

I use both SW and Inventor every day, depending on customer preference, they both have strengths and weaknesses. Autodesk bashing just makes SW users look fanatical and unprofessional, give it a rest !

 

[J-C]

Chester, IV does not have configurations like Solidworks parts have, and assemblies are a little closer but still not there. I haven't seen IV since a few releases back though, just going on what I read from other IV users.....did 2008 add them?

I think he meant Autodesk....not Autocad.....many people still refer to Autodesk as Autocad.

Also, check your history.....Solidworks created the feature tree concept with drag and drop history. Here's the patent (

http://www.google.com/patents?id=edMBAAAAEBAJ&dq=solidworks+tree&ie=ISO-8859-1)

(Kind of cool to see the old Solidworks 95 pics in there....gee looks alot like Alibre.....so much has changed)

I think there are a number of disgruntled ex-Autocad users about. Autocad didn't have any real compeition until Solidworks and Solidedge came around in its price range so they didn't treat their customers the best and lagged on development. You have to admit if not for Solidworks and Solidedge, you wouldn't be using IV....probably an ill-functioning Mechanical Desktop still running on top of Acad. So yeah, many swx users are passionate about Solidworks (more so than most)...mostly cause it opened there eyes to what real mcad software should be. Luckily for the IV users out there, Autodesk got the message and copied Swx and SE.



Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
UG NX4.01.0 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2007 SP3.1 on WinXP SP2

 

[pdybeck]

I was under the impression that when Inventor creates "configurations" it needs to create external files in order to do so. Is this true Inventor users (current ones). Thanks.

Pete

 

[matherjd]

>I was under the impression that when Inventor creates "configurations" it needs to create external files in order to do so.

Someone going from SWX method of Configurations to Inventor iParts and iAssemblies and Design View reps and Position View reps would be frustraited without training. Once you learn the logical flow it seems to represent the real world equivalents pretty good.

In Inventor you create iPart factory - that is a single part from which you create the different configurations each configuration of course being a different file just like each physical part being a different part with a different part number. I can imagine someone who has difficulty setting up a project folder would be totaly confused. Reminds me of the MDT people who can't see that different files for part, assembly and drawing isn't really a nightmare - simply a more representative virtual representation of the physical equivalents the guys out on the shop floor and in the warehouse deal with everyday.

I have seen some examples where SWX type configurations are a better solution. For example a resistor with the legs bent different directions in an assembly. The same part with the same part number in different configurations.

As far as the other mis-info, well enough said...

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=2017753

of course that was taken care of years ago, I'm sure I could find plenty of similar examples
but all I know is I can no longer access

http://forum.solidworks.com/

makes me wonder about censorship. Seems like the most active forum for SWX is eng-tips anyhow. But I would like to be able to see an open forum at the company site.

Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert
Certified SolidWorks Professional

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

matherjd ... Can you access the SW Portal?
Do you have an active subscription for SolidWorks? I don't believe a subscription is required anymore but you do have to create an account to gain access.


SW07-SP3.1
SW06-SP5.1

 

[pdybeck]

It is then, as I thought. From my perspective this would get very annoying in a company environment where your data management needs now increase because you have to keep iparts along with their buddies. The resistor example you gave was perfect for that situation. We have many files that would fit this scenario - enough that it would be painful to have to create additional files and relationships between them. Yes, I understand data management systems do this for you, but its just another layer of things to keep track off. When you are in the position of being in charge of the proper use and maintenace of thousands or tens of thousands of files, then adding additional burden is not something I would be too keen on. For smallish projects or learning environments - yeah its not a big deal. Like others have said, the configuration capability in SolidWorks seems to trump Inventor - although we are all biased of course. I do like Inventor's built in engineering handbook/calculator. It seems very handy to evaluate shear/moment diagrams of a shaft given the loads and restraints. SolidWorks is lacking in that department. I think this is b/c AutoDesk purchased Mechsoft a while back and incorporated that.

Thanks for the answers JD.

Pete

 

[matherjd]

>matherjd ... Can you access the SW Portal?
Do you have an active subscription for SolidWorks? I don't believe a subscription is required anymore but you do have to create an account to gain access.

Are you in any position to straighten this out? If you are I can forward my emails between myself and the folks at SWX (who were kind enough to contact me) on this problem but never straightened it out.

Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert
Certified SolidWorks Professional

 

[matherjd]

> For smallish projects or learning environments - yeah its not a big deal.

Just because I am now an educator don't underestimate my real world experience. I am also a master machinist (8yrs on the shop floor), set production standards and worked in R&D, total of 15 years industrial experience before I changed careers.

Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert
Certified SolidWorks Professional

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

If I were in a position to straighten this out I would be one of the folks at SolidWorks ... and would have already straightened it.

Have you contacted Greg Jankowski direct? He seems to have a major role in the running of the forum.


SW07-SP3.1
SW06-SP5.1

 

[pdybeck]

Wasn't knocking your knowledge or ability, but merely pointing out to romanp something that might not be so apparent while learning about the product or doing a small project. He might not fully realize this until well into entrenched use of the product. Trials are good and should be done, but one must envision what challenges lie ahead with a particular project as the scope of the amount of files, users, products, etc increases. I went through this with toolbox in SolidWorks. I was able to change some of the settings of how we used it before too much data was created where I work. Would have been too much time to spend to change things at this point.

Pete

 

[pdybeck]

edit... "particular project" should read "particular product" - in reference to CAD programs that are up for evaluation...

 

[matherjd]

>Have you contacted...

Apparently I was a little too subtle with the sarcasm.
Yes I have been in contact with Greg Jankowski (actually he contacted me) and Todd Bryant.
Had to give up for a while to get some other stuff done.

Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert
Certified SolidWorks Professional

 

[chester1970]

Chester, IV does not have configurations like Solidworks parts have, and assemblies are a little closer but still not there. I haven't seen IV since a few releases back though

your opinion is out-of-date and could be misleading. please consider that others might be influenced by this.

Autocad didn't have any real compeition until Solidworks and Solidedge came around in its price range

what is the relevance of this in a discussion of the relative merits of SW and IV ? if Inventor were not from Autodesk, I wonder if hard-core SW fanatics would be so quick to criticize. comparing Acad to any solid modeler is apples to oranges.

Also, check your history.....Solidworks created the feature tree concept

your kidding? someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the first history tree I recall was in Pro/E. even early versions of MDT had a feature tree. there are literally dozens of patents for 3D cad GUIs, a quick search shows them to be very specific to that application.

again, I use SW and IV, occasionally Pro/E depending on the customers native file format. I don't care who "invented" what particular program feature, as long as its there if and when I need it. let the OP judge SW and IV on their relevance to his business needs, not contempt for Autodesk.

 

[J-C]

UG stores configurations as separate files as well, and while its easy to setup and create them, it's a royal pain not being able to easily work and switch between different configs. I think I would feel the same frustration in Inventor.

Configs in swx can be used for:
[ul]
[li]Family of similar parts (Sizes)[/li]
[li]To create parts bent into shapes (resistor leads)[/li]
[li]Sheetmeal flat patterns[/li]
[li]Sheetmetal mfg forming steps[/li]
[li]Simplfied versions of complex parts (turn off features)[/li]
[li]Mirrored versions of parts[/li]
[li]Cast and Machined parts (if you want them together)[/li]
[li]Flexible parts like wiring that is unique for each assy its used in, yet have the same part number[/li]
[/ul]

The configs can be created derived underneath another so they have the same part number, or they separate with different numbers. Or mix and match both. I might have say 10 family of parts at different sizes with each its own part number, then each has a derived configuration maybe with fillets and other non important features suppressed for used as a simplified part for large assemblies (part number linked to parent config).

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
UG NX4.01.0 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2007 SP3.1 on WinXP SP2