Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Just to let you know
- Thread starter DonBoyd
- Start date
I see former SW users migrate to Inventor frequently with no problems. When they ask me why Inventor is so much more stable with "large" assemblies (more than 100 parts), has a superior user interface, and true parametrics, I direct them to this article:
100 parts is hardly a large assembly...I work with assemblies in Solidworks with up to 3000 parts. Very little stability issues.
In your opinion, what about the Inventor interface is superior? I've dabbled with it some and it looks like most 3d cad programs. Has a feature tree, dialogues for creating features. Nothing really bad, but nothing revolutionary either.
True Parametrics....please explain?
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
In your opinion, what about the Inventor interface is superior? I've dabbled with it some and it looks like most 3d cad programs. Has a feature tree, dialogues for creating features. Nothing really bad, but nothing revolutionary either.
True Parametrics....please explain?
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
Given that it takes at least 3 constraints to fully lock an assembly part into position, 100 parts implies 300 constraints. SW has a well-known and acknowledged "300 mate" limit, after which the assembly file becomes unstable. There are numerous references to this limitation on SW forums over the years. This forces the use of a sub-assembly structure, as a workaround, even in a design that has only one level of assembly in production.
What I appreciate most about Inventor is that it installs in "novice " mode, simple menus and user interface. As a user progresses, more sophisticated facilities are available.
For the veteran user, the Design Accelerators allow true feature-based modeling, as opposed to the traditional "sketch and extrude" methodology of SW amd other mid-range modelers.
By "true parametrics", I mean table-driven parts and assemblies, with the potential for declaring global variables across an entire array of parts, and to "program" the assembly with equations. This makes it possible to embed real-world design rules. I learned this technique years ago with Mechanical Desktop, and continue to apply it with Inventor.
What I appreciate most about Inventor is that it installs in "novice " mode, simple menus and user interface. As a user progresses, more sophisticated facilities are available.
For the veteran user, the Design Accelerators allow true feature-based modeling, as opposed to the traditional "sketch and extrude" methodology of SW amd other mid-range modelers.
By "true parametrics", I mean table-driven parts and assemblies, with the potential for declaring global variables across an entire array of parts, and to "program" the assembly with equations. This makes it possible to embed real-world design rules. I learned this technique years ago with Mechanical Desktop, and continue to apply it with Inventor.
What is Design Accelerators? Is this like smart components and library features in Solidworks?
Well, I've done excel tables that drive assemblies which in turn drive the parts in Solidworks. There might be different ways to go about it I suppose and Solidworks really needs to work on its equation function.
The little I've played around with IV, I like it's derived part feature since it allowed bringing in nearly everything (sketch, equations, etc.). There were no real configurations which would make my life difficult, something I'm going through with UG right now.
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
Well, I've done excel tables that drive assemblies which in turn drive the parts in Solidworks. There might be different ways to go about it I suppose and Solidworks really needs to work on its equation function.
The little I've played around with IV, I like it's derived part feature since it allowed bringing in nearly everything (sketch, equations, etc.). There were no real configurations which would make my life difficult, something I'm going through with UG right now.
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
A picture is worth a thousand words !
Design Accelerators are the result of integrating Mechsoft into Inventor, truly parametric design features driven by project requirements and engineering standards, not just dimension-driven geometry.
SW interpretation of table-driven parts is primitive and limited, most users I've talked to rarely make the effort. SW configurations only allow control of visibility and sizing of individual parts, and some limited positional control, using offset planes. Table-driven assemblies in IV are an order of magnitude beyone this.
As engineers, we evaluate the quality of new components and facilities, at least in part, by researching the source. Autodesk is an American company, with a 23 year history of setting the standard for CAD software. For info on SW, see the link I placed above in my first response to this thread.
Design Accelerators are the result of integrating Mechsoft into Inventor, truly parametric design features driven by project requirements and engineering standards, not just dimension-driven geometry.
SW interpretation of table-driven parts is primitive and limited, most users I've talked to rarely make the effort. SW configurations only allow control of visibility and sizing of individual parts, and some limited positional control, using offset planes. Table-driven assemblies in IV are an order of magnitude beyone this.
As engineers, we evaluate the quality of new components and facilities, at least in part, by researching the source. Autodesk is an American company, with a 23 year history of setting the standard for CAD software. For info on SW, see the link I placed above in my first response to this thread.
It's time to convince your employer to switch to Solidworks. Like you I had been working with Solidworks for about 8 yrs, recently I changed job to a new company that uses Inventor; the software is inferior compared to SW. After giving each engineering member a copy of the Solidworks demo, I was able to convince the company to make the change. Everyone was excite and happy as a result.
I think Inventor has a way to go before it can be as good as some mature softwares like SW. The important thing that comes to mind comparing Solidworks to Inventor is the ease of handling an assembly with up to 4000 parts, mating or part constaint is a peace of cake in SW; you can also easily edit the part right in the assembly because it' so easy to rotate (one hand) and it's so easy to visually inspect the part within the asembly, unlike Inventor where everything require extra step to get done.
I think Inventor has a way to go before it can be as good as some mature softwares like SW. The important thing that comes to mind comparing Solidworks to Inventor is the ease of handling an assembly with up to 4000 parts, mating or part constaint is a peace of cake in SW; you can also easily edit the part right in the assembly because it' so easy to rotate (one hand) and it's so easy to visually inspect the part within the asembly, unlike Inventor where everything require extra step to get done.
RICH942………
Are your criticisms of SW configurations and mate limitations based on fact or opinions?
Have you used Solidworks? Configurations are a very powerfully feature.
Autodesk (and some IV users) are excellent at putting out inaccurate information about competitor products, especially SW. It’s what’s known as scaremongering.
Eddy
(SW2006 user)
Are your criticisms of SW configurations and mate limitations based on fact or opinions?
Have you used Solidworks? Configurations are a very powerfully feature.
Autodesk (and some IV users) are excellent at putting out inaccurate information about competitor products, especially SW. It’s what’s known as scaremongering.
Eddy
(SW2006 user)
Autodesk may be an old company that is the standard in 2d....but with all the stiff 3d competition and the fact that most product design is going to 3d....looks like they will have to get used to not being number 1.
Luckily for all of us....the competition should drive for some inovative functionality that's good for us users. Just look at how stagnant Autocad has been over the years...only recently have they "spruced" it up some to try an counter losing customers.
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
Luckily for all of us....the competition should drive for some inovative functionality that's good for us users. Just look at how stagnant Autocad has been over the years...only recently have they "spruced" it up some to try an counter losing customers.
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
I have been in engineering since 1974, and have used every major CAD application in widespread useage since the early 80's. I developed and distributed three AutoCAD add-ons in the mid 90's, an effort requiring a detailed understanding of CAD database structure. My opinions are based on first-hand experience, and not clouded by emotional loyalty to any particular product or software vendor. Autodesk is a billion dollar company with around 3000 employees, based in America and employing an American workforce. SW is owned by Dassault (French) and outsources its programming to India. Whose product would you expect to be superior ?
Autodesk, to my knowledge, does NOT disseminate information about their competitors, other than comparitive sales figures from independent sources, industry analysts such as Daratech and Dataquest. I work in a predominantly SW environment, and have used the product when necessary since its introduction. The lack of contemporary features and instability have caused me to move any of my crucial projects to Inventor, a product I have also used since its inception.
To anyone who has doubts about the true industry leaders in 3D CAD, I would suggest that if you are serious about keeping current on this topic, study to become a recognized and reviewed software developer, and/or join the subscription websites that compile accurate and unbiased industry data.
Unless I am mistaken, this forum is for those of us who already use Inventor, and genuinely appreciate its stability, compatibility, and depth of developement.
Autodesk, to my knowledge, does NOT disseminate information about their competitors, other than comparitive sales figures from independent sources, industry analysts such as Daratech and Dataquest. I work in a predominantly SW environment, and have used the product when necessary since its introduction. The lack of contemporary features and instability have caused me to move any of my crucial projects to Inventor, a product I have also used since its inception.
To anyone who has doubts about the true industry leaders in 3D CAD, I would suggest that if you are serious about keeping current on this topic, study to become a recognized and reviewed software developer, and/or join the subscription websites that compile accurate and unbiased industry data.
Unless I am mistaken, this forum is for those of us who already use Inventor, and genuinely appreciate its stability, compatibility, and depth of developement.
Rich, I'd say you are just as IV biased as many CAD users are of their program of choice. If IV was superior, then the former IV users on the Solidworks forums would be bitchin up a storm. They also talk about how unstable IV is. Fact is, both programs have features that they do better than the other.
Also, Solidworks' parent company is french, but it started and continues to reside in the US with some of it add-in products it purchased and integrated being from other countries. Primary core programming is done here in the states.
You want to discuss Autodesk marketing and disseminating info? How about their bloated seat numbers. If they reallly were the number one seller with more seats than Solidworks, then how come there is only about a third of Inventor jobs as there are Solidworks? Or how about their older adaptivity marketing stuff, like they created some new concept. Or how only until very recently, Solidworks imported/exported DWG better than IV did.
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
Also, Solidworks' parent company is french, but it started and continues to reside in the US with some of it add-in products it purchased and integrated being from other countries. Primary core programming is done here in the states.
You want to discuss Autodesk marketing and disseminating info? How about their bloated seat numbers. If they reallly were the number one seller with more seats than Solidworks, then how come there is only about a third of Inventor jobs as there are Solidworks? Or how about their older adaptivity marketing stuff, like they created some new concept. Or how only until very recently, Solidworks imported/exported DWG better than IV did.
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
On the issue of instability, any CAD software can be crashed to desktop by poor modeling practices, inadequate hardware, or frantic mouse clicks.
Please see the second post in this thread for the link to a BusinessWeek magazine article, petaining to the location of the SW programming effort.
As for Autodesks installation base, the numbers are published in their quarterly reports. If there were any gross distortion, it would be investigated by the SEC. They do not include "institutional donations" (shelfware) as SW does, a tactic they learned from Apple.
Job posting do not represent software market saturation. SW is typically found in smaller organizations with higher turnover, while many larger employers have retained their workforce by upgrading from AutoCAD to MDT to Inventor, with appropriate training. The Autodesk-trained workforce is more stable, hence fewer job posts.
I preceive CAD software as a means to an end, no more. If another application is developed and becomes available to me, that is superior to Inventor, I will switch without hesitation.
Please see the second post in this thread for the link to a BusinessWeek magazine article, petaining to the location of the SW programming effort.
As for Autodesks installation base, the numbers are published in their quarterly reports. If there were any gross distortion, it would be investigated by the SEC. They do not include "institutional donations" (shelfware) as SW does, a tactic they learned from Apple.
Job posting do not represent software market saturation. SW is typically found in smaller organizations with higher turnover, while many larger employers have retained their workforce by upgrading from AutoCAD to MDT to Inventor, with appropriate training. The Autodesk-trained workforce is more stable, hence fewer job posts.
I preceive CAD software as a means to an end, no more. If another application is developed and becomes available to me, that is superior to Inventor, I will switch without hesitation.
The Solidworks source code theft was by an employee of Geometric software solutions in India which happens to code some of the add-ins like feature/works, and utilties. As I said, the core code is done here in the USA.
Autodesk and Solidworks publish new seats counts in their quarterly statements that do not include educational seats. It's the total seat counts that they both list that does include educational. Both claim to have in the 500,000's of seats.
Gross distortions? SEC?.....technically...what they do isn't illegal. They give away Inventor seats with Autocad mechanical and Mechanical desktop customers...then claim superior numbers. Doesn't matter if they use it or not. On the other hand, customers that buy Solidworks use it.
The Autodesk-trained workforce is more stable, hence fewer job posts. Now I know you're a VAR. Like somehow being trained by Autodesk means that people aren't going hunting for jobs. I'm sure companies that use Autodesk products have the same turnover that everyone else does. Most people we interviewed for open positions were Autocad users.
while many larger employers have retained their workforce by upgrading from AutoCAD to MDT to Inventor And companies upgrading from Autocad to Solidworks means they won't retain their workforce?
There's nothing magical about the job statistics regarding what cad program a company uses. Job turnover is the result of employees looking for $$$, greener pastures, and employer satisfaction. Not because they use brand x-cad.
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
Autodesk and Solidworks publish new seats counts in their quarterly statements that do not include educational seats. It's the total seat counts that they both list that does include educational. Both claim to have in the 500,000's of seats.
Gross distortions? SEC?.....technically...what they do isn't illegal. They give away Inventor seats with Autocad mechanical and Mechanical desktop customers...then claim superior numbers. Doesn't matter if they use it or not. On the other hand, customers that buy Solidworks use it.
The Autodesk-trained workforce is more stable, hence fewer job posts. Now I know you're a VAR. Like somehow being trained by Autodesk means that people aren't going hunting for jobs. I'm sure companies that use Autodesk products have the same turnover that everyone else does. Most people we interviewed for open positions were Autocad users.
while many larger employers have retained their workforce by upgrading from AutoCAD to MDT to Inventor And companies upgrading from Autocad to Solidworks means they won't retain their workforce?
There's nothing magical about the job statistics regarding what cad program a company uses. Job turnover is the result of employees looking for $$$, greener pastures, and employer satisfaction. Not because they use brand x-cad.
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2
I just started working for a small consulting company straight out of school last year and was put in charge of upgrading from 2D to 3D. I looked at both SW and IV and little else for 3 months and found that both programs satisfied our 3D needs. Our endproduct is 2D fabrication drawings in DWG format and ACAD was superior to DWGEditor.
I believe that both companies, in a push to parametric model the world, have left the 2D world as and afterthought. The reality is anything that gets fabricated by a human will need 2D drawings to make it, and that will not change anytime soon, and the majority of fab shops still use ACAD, although they love Isometric views on a 2D drawing. The first company to keep a live link from model to DWG will get our business and a lot of others as well.
Flue
I believe that both companies, in a push to parametric model the world, have left the 2D world as and afterthought. The reality is anything that gets fabricated by a human will need 2D drawings to make it, and that will not change anytime soon, and the majority of fab shops still use ACAD, although they love Isometric views on a 2D drawing. The first company to keep a live link from model to DWG will get our business and a lot of others as well.
Flue
Flue, I introduced my co-workers to the ASME Y14.41 standard last year, and we have had great success with machine shops that are willing to work with annotated part files. The CNC programmers love it, they can get right to work generating code, without interpreting a complex paper drawing, and our part reject rate has dropped dramatically ! Check out Y14.41 on Google, there are some excellent training facilities available. I spent half my life making traditional drawings, but this is the way of the future.
DeSimulacra
Mechanical
I don't see how anyone but an Inventor employee or associates can say that Inventor is 3D CAD superior in any way to SW or Pro/E. I have and do still use all 3 at times. I'm using Inventor now and like it. BUT it is a baby in the woods and still has a lot of growing to do. Surfaces haha, Mold work ..what?? You want to show part "text" in a drawing well if you do this and this ... and this.. I'm saying as long is it is simple Inventor is Good that’s as far as it goes. Don't believe me read AutoDesks articles, each time they brag about new features, that even SW has had for years.
I say this for the person who is thinking about buying CAD, don't go with Inventor just because it is AutoDesks product. Evaluate carefully.
I say this for the person who is thinking about buying CAD, don't go with Inventor just because it is AutoDesks product. Evaluate carefully.
Rich……
Take a look at the Autodesk discussion forum for Inventor “v11 wins the prize” before it gets pulled by them. 90 replies to date. (or have you been there already?)
Eddy
Take a look at the Autodesk discussion forum for Inventor “v11 wins the prize” before it gets pulled by them. 90 replies to date. (or have you been there already?)
Eddy
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
