Solid Edge vs. Inventor 1

[mewhg]

I am considering purchasing SE or Inventor for mechanical design of small mechanisms. I will be doing a lot of kinematic simulation and interference analysis. Especially important to me is 2D drawing creation.

If any one has experience using both systems I would GREATLY appreciate your comments or suggestions.

Best Regards,
Bill Geissele

 

[cfee]

Geissele-
As A long time ACAD user, I find S-E sadly lacking in many things I take for granted in ACAD, even Basic ACAD 3D (re- an earlier post conc creation of Polygons!!!). You mention a keen interest in the production of shop drawings. Seems you too are aware that as nice as (read- "useful&quot a 3D model IS, the production of product is where the rubber finally meets the road. If S-E weren't so "work-around dependant", I might not feel so strongly about suggesting the you REALLY INVESTIGATE Inventor before adopting S-E. Inventor's strong reliance on the full integration of the design cycle from concept to production really makes it a contendor, even if you discover one particular function or another that S-E has that you think you "really need". S-E addresses the intermediate position of concept-to-art, and produces BASIC drawings QUICKLY, but I work in a fully integrated Concurrent-Loop Engineering/Design environment, and I'm still finding S-E to be a bit immature. Just my opinion, but BE CAREFUL! Good luck. Please keep us all posted on your progress, especially your decision and why...
Good Luck-
C.F.

 

[cfee]

Geissele-
One other quick note- Many of the features we take for granted in std ACAD-Mechanical (portable forward as part of the Inventor migration path) ARE Available in S-E.
They come ONE AT A TIME IN MODULAR FORM, each module costing $$$.
When you are PROMISED a given "Important functionality", be careful. Check and see whether its included or extra. It may turn out to be something you just decide to either live without or work around. Just a thought-
C. F.

 

[mewhg]

Thanks for the comments C.F.

I agree 2-D shop drawings are the ultimate outpet of any CAD program and I have not been happy with the CAD system that I have had most experience with - ProEngineer. The features may be there but it is such a difficult program to use and get trained with unless you are willing to spend big $$ training with PTC. Case in point - center marks in holes. Still can't figure out how to do this correctly. I really desire a 3D CAD program with full functionality doing drawings. I feel that 2D drawings can be something close to a "work of art" and should be rendered according to correct drawing practice.....not just 'make-do' around a CAD program.

Bill

 

[JamesBarlow]

I don't have any real experience using Inventor, other than the trial copy I had, but I do use SE. I, like many others, have been using AutoCAD for many years and finaly found a company that wanted to use a Solids package.

From what I know of SE, it was originally developed as a Solid Modeling package, and then the draft environement was added on as an after thought. There is a lot to be desired to see in the drafting environment, but for what I do I was more concerened about the modeler. I just felt that it could do more, and seemed easier for me to use than Inventor, so we went with SE.

%80-%90 of the parts we draw are made in house, so if the draft is not perfect, we can live with that. If you are concered with the drafting of parts, right now I would say you should look into Inventor. They do keep making improvements, but it still takes me longer to draft a part than it does to create it.

 

[cfee]

James B.-

"There is a lot to be desired to see in the drafting environment, but for what I do I was more concerened about the modeler. I just felt that it could do more, and seemed easier for me to use than Inventor, so we went with SE.

%80-%90 of the parts we draw are made in house, so if the draft is not perfect, we can live with that."

I couldn't have said it better! There's lots to be proud of when you write an atractive modeler, and less to get the boss and investors excited about in the arena of true "production". That's my guess as to why atractive modelers get little productive attention, many as no more than an afterthought. Those of us who must produce however, often lament this lack, and forced to learn to "live with that"!

 

[Edgeomatic]

It seems a common opinion here is that SE is "Sadly Lacking" Anyone care to give some examples?

 

[swertel]

Example 1, broken views are nearly useless once the view has been created. In order to modify the content of the broken view, you must delete the view, recreate the full view, recreate any annotations you had as well as anything additional, then rebreak the view. TERRIBLE!

But, having used almost all but Inventor, the SE drafting package is far better than the other mid-range CAD packages. For the life of me, I could never get SolidWorks to produce an good ANSI or DOD (MIL) standard drawing. The options, settings, and features just weren't there to control the look. Pro-E was too difficult to use and I cold never find the right setting to modify draft elements. I-deas was not even in the ballpark.

UG and CATIA created excellent drawings, but the initial cost of the package, training, and setup/configuration to get the drawings is something most companies cannot afford.

--Scott

 

[cfee]

Swertel-

Actually S-E actually does ok with some of their auto-gen'ed drawing views. Try using the select tool to select the view and go to "draw in view" to make internal modifications. They'll even be to scale. Really not too bad.

Your comment tho that if a view is unusable as originally intended and that associated annotations are also deleted, that they with the view must be regenerated from scratch is RIGHT ON target! How many times in the design process do we find that an original concept's weakness isn't revealed until we go to the "manufacturability step" (the detailed 2D shop drawng)and discover a far better solution than was revealed in the 3D model? In the Design Loop of the Concurrent Engineering approach, interaction with the "manufacturability step" is KEY. In some mechanical engineering/ design solid modelers, however, it's viewed as an afterthought.

By the way, this is also a response the the previous post requesting "examples".

Good luck-
C.F

 

[cfee]

1. I've collected about half a dozen issues that could be addressed and improved. Anyone interested,let me know.
* I'm sure there's a workaround or a setting that would deal with each of them
* A programmed solution would be a real help- suggestions for probable next step or command options and their selection inputs (ACAD really got this user issue right)would be a real help, as one of the greatest drawbacks to adopting any system is that once a solution that will "get us by" has been discovered, often the better solution in terms of downstream issues is overlooked or never discovered.
2. ALL OF THIS NOTWITHSTANDING, S-E has done an ADMIRABLE job integrating at least some way of getting to the goal (sold/manufactured/shipped... product)into their system.
* S-E is a major contributor to 3D Solids becoming more accepted as an Engineering/Design approach, thru their mid-range cost coupled with their attention to new-user issues.
* Let's not forget that compared to ACAD they're relatively new on the market, and new releases show real effort to address the issues we're discussing.
3. Legacy data, talent pool and previous system experience ARE an issue.

The point is- be really careful, do as good a job as possible evaluating your choices, be willing to buy from (read "pay for&quot a vendor that KNOWS his product, and make sure he's willing to work for that sale, and put him through his paces! Try to get some formal training included in any sales contract. It'll really pay off getting a look at the approach S-E OR Inventor or any other, took as they coded their approach to DESIGN into their product. Believe me, a showy salesman running through the commands ISN'T the same thing!

Sorry I ran on a bit. GOOD HUNTING!

C.F.

 

[mewhg]

Thanks for the comments guys. I have been speaking to several Autodesk resellers here in the Phila area. Best price so far for the Inventor 5.3 with MD/ACAD package is $3950 +$1095 1 year subscription. My current feeling is that possibly Inventor might be slightly behind S-E in some areas and a little ahead in the 2D drafting. I am going to take the chance that with Autodesk's resources and their obvious commitment to 3D mechanical/parametric CAD that the next versions of Inventor will address any shortcomings it might have. At least I hope so....big companies get lazy sometimes.....and the smaller guy like S-E will put more effort into making a better product because that's the only way they will survive.

Bill

 

Bill,

Before you jump to Inventor, maybe you would like to take a closer look at Solid Edge. Solid Edge integrates with Autocad even better than Inventor. Solid Edge has had 2d drafting built into the software since version 1. It was never an afterthought. Drafting and data management were integral parts of the software from the get go. Solid Edge is a well thought out software package.

Inventor is a terrible modeling and assembly design package, and they have been promising release 6 for a long time. Solid Edge has excellent resources with EDS. They have been in production design with 3d and 2d modeling for decades. Inventor is new territory for Autodesk, and Autodesk often drops products that don't do well in the market. So who knows how long it will be out before they drop the product and stick with 2d.

The only thing that Solid Edge and EDS are lacking in is marketing. Unfortunately, Solid Edge is not promoted like the other midrange packages like Works and Inventor.

Contact Solid Technologies in Blue Bell, PA (

http://www.sldtech.com),

just outside of Philadelphia. They can offer you Solid Edge for about the same price. The least you could do before you make an investment like that is see a demo and try before you buy. Most vendors will give you a 30 day trial and some free training to get you started.

 

[mewhg]

I have used SE before and thought it was a good package. Actually one of the fellows from SLDTECH was kind enough to let me use an evaluation version for a couple of months. However, last week I made the decision to go with Inventor. The price I received for not only Inventor but AutoCad and Mechanical Desktop was too good to turn down. It's funny talking to the different resellers and they tell you they are at the rock bottom on their price but when you get a good price from someone else they are willing to match it.

Bill

 

[BBJT]

EdgeGuy,
Are you a VAR or Edge employee? If so why not let the people who actually use the software in real life situations chime in and give their opinion? I will believe the end users before I believe a seller that has to sell in a technical forum.

Please remember that the people in these technical forums are looking for answers from real life users not sales people.

Bill,
If Inventor gave you a deal you can not turn down and the software does what you need it to do, congratulations, your searching is over.

Good luck, don't look back, and keep us posted.
BBJT CSWP

 

[mewhg]

Right On BBJT!

One thing I wanted to clear up with the reseller before purchasing was the license deal. They assured me that for $1095 the first year and then approx $800 for the following years not only is Inventor covered by the subscription but also AutoCad and Mechanical Desktop. I'll get something in writing more sturdy than an email but it's seems like a decent deal.

Bill

 

[wolfthunder]

I need to know if solid edge files can be loaded in Inventor?
Are they compatible?
If it can be done, I would like to know the most efficent way.

Dxf, IGS........

What type of files does solid edge produce (ie Autocad *.dwg) ?

 

[wolfthunder]

I need to know if solid edge files can be loaded in Inventor?
Are they compatible?
If it can be done, I would like to know the most efficent way.

Dxf, IGS........

What type of files does solid edge produce (ie Autocad *.dwg) ?

 

[Edgeomatic]

I think my first choice would be the ACIS *.SAT file format which should be compatible with Inventor.
regardless of what solid format you use, STEP, SAT, IGES etc. you will only get a single body without any editable features, I don't know if Inventor has an available "feature recognizer" like Solid Edges.
for 2D Files, SE can export *.DWG version 12,13,14 & 2000

 

[hrvisser]

Hi All

Don't forget the aftesales. Inventor would be a bit cheaper in buying (in my situation), but ask also the prices for surport and training. I didn't believe that.
SE was and is very costum friendly toward me. Support is very very and again very cheap.

Henk