Inv 11 vs Solidworks 2007 28

[Randy1111]

3 years ago when I was last in a postition needing to evaluate and decide on a 3d cad package, the choice was quite easy. 3 years ago solidworks had the tools needed, and inventor was playing catch up. Now 3 years later I'm once again tasked with deciding, but the race seems a lot closer.

My company makes pulleys. The assemblies are small. A typical assembly may only have 8 parts. (adding bearings may bring this up to 50) The variety of sizes of each of those parts is almost endless. Each part we manufacture has almost infinite sizes. Each purchased part like bearings, is one of a hundred or so variations.

I like to automate as much as possible. Every style will be pre done as an assembly with all drawings. When a new job comes in we change every part parameter in an assembly, and have the already done drawing update. Clean it up, and print. (with solidworks this would be done with a design table at assembly level controlling a skeleton sketch and all parts drawn in contect and constrained to the skeleton)

Inventor used to lack configurations. Now it has them.
Soliworks used to lack drawing functions. Now it has them.
Solidworks still lacks good equations and global variables.
Inventor still lacks in some tools it has.

I guess both are able to do the job for me. Inventor has caught up quickly. Will it pass solidworks in the next few years?
Any comparasin I've read in the last couple months while researching has always been versions of a few years ago. Back when the biggest points were configurations and design tables. Now that distinction appears gone.

To anyone who is familiar with both in their current state, do you have any insight that might sway me one way or another?

How is autodesk vault compared to pdmworks?

Jarery


-------------

Randy

 

[ctopher]

We have hundreds of ACAD seats, only a hand full actually know much how to use them.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[rich942]

Rich someone with that much experience is out of date. No wonder you like the same old, same old of Autodesk products. Get with the times!

If you do a little research, you will find that Autodesk launched Inventor as a completely independent project in the early 90's. We've had a few people here who didn't respect experience, they usually don't keep up with the veterans, but most DO listen, and benefit from it !

Oh by the way then why have you started two threads on the SW forum yourself? Sounds like to me you are scared to death your beloved ACAD is going down the tubes.

I am occasionally asked to make inquiries on the SW forum, on behalf of co-workers struggling with problems I don't have with Inventor. I have found the folks on the SW forum very helpful, but I have no other interest in SW currently, as we are replacing those seats with IV. And if you read my posts carefully, you will see no mention of using AutoCAD, I upgraded to AME in 1989, Mechanical Desktop and Inventor with the initial releases of each.

ctopher makes an excellent point, many AutoCAD users learn perhaps 10 % of the program's functionality, but still manage to get their work done. Cadkey, Microstation, VersaCAD, Anvil, and many others fell into obscurity, AutoCAD is still a best-seller in the 2D domain.

 

[J-C]

....AME is Autocad......the 3d segment of it that is...you still had to use Autocad with it. And if IV was developed so early in the 90's...then why did MDT come about around the same time Solidworks and Solidedge did? It was Autodesks desperate attempt to add 3d parametrics to Autocad to try an compete and they create a dismal product....though it was probably the best they could do writing it on top of Acad.

MDT couldn't compete with Swx and SE so they wrote rubicon which became Inventor......a product that looks more like Solidworks than Autocad. Inventor's a capable product...but hardly superior to anything else out there. Time for Autodesk to get used to the competition....something they haven't really had to worry about with Acad.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[PeterCharles]

"...AutoCAD is still a best-seller in the 2D domain."

Maybe true, but don't confuse "best-seller" with BEST.

People use ACAD because people use ACAD. A justification for ditching our original 2D CAD system was "I can stand outside Woolworths and shout "I need a ACAD draughtsman" and half a dozen will walk up to me".
(It wasn't true, but then we are talking about higher management!!)

 

[ewh]

"...AutoCAD is still a best-seller in the 2D domain."
The OP was about 3D.

 

[ctopher]

"I can stand outside Woolworths and shout "I need a ACAD draughtsman" and half a dozen will walk up to me"

So very true!

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[rich942]

To dispel some of the revisionism and hearsay about the history of CAD software development, here is a link to a comprehensive compilation of significant events in the evolution of CAD. I have found this to be an accurate account, it matches my recollection of events from the mid-80s and on. Read and enjoy !

http://mbinfo.mbdesign.net/CAD-History.htm

 

[handleman]

I realize this is rather unscientific, but here's some data from Eng-Tips, and you may come to your own interpretations:

Inventor forum:
2681 Members
61 helpful posts counted on the MVP page.

SW forum:
14797 Members
Well over 1000 helpful posts counted on MVP page.

 

[JohnAndrews]

rich942,

Your link to the history of CAD is absolutely excellent, and brings back a lot of memories to another "experienced" CAD engineer; and although I use Pro/E and this is an Inventor forum, I really appreciate the link you provided - it is very interesting to see the rise and fall of different CAD companies over the last decades.

It's a shame that SolidWorks users and resellers try to use this forum to promote their product, and cause frustration for members like yourself for which this forum is supposed to be for.

We all think that our CAD system is better than the rest, and it will be very very intersting in 5 or 10 years time to see the updated "history of CAD" and see which of the current frontrunners no longer exist. Put yourself back 10 years, who would have guesssed that Computervision and SDRC would not survive. Who will still be there in 2016?

Best regards, and good luck to all current CAD vendors in the future.........

John

 

[rich942]

It's a shame that SolidWorks users and resellers try to use this forum to promote their product, and cause frustration for members like yourself for which this forum is supposed to be for.

Its an open forum, just one of many, and I assume that SW users browse here out of curiosity about Inventor. The REALLY lively forums are the subscription sites. I won't disrespect the webmasters here by promoting a competitor, but it IS a big Internet world out there ! But I AM mildly annoyed by the disinformation about Inventor, although I suspect the folks in San Rafael are not losing any sleep over it !

I realize this is rather unscientific, but here's some data from Eng-Tips, and you may come to your own interpretations:

Inventor forum:
2681 Members
61 helpful posts counted on the MVP page.

SW forum:
14797 Members
Well over 1000 helpful posts counted on MVP page

I would interpret this to mean that Inventor users do not require as much assistance, the Help files are very sophisticated and well indexed, and the tech support is first-class ! But I do not believe for a minute that there is any logical correlation between job postings and installation base numbers.

JohnAndrews, I was never that fond of Computervision, although they improved the product after merging with Prime. But I do miss SDRC, it was an excellent package, very stable and innovative. I see its influence in Inventor, and wonder if some of the IDEA-S developers migrated to Autodesk. BTW, we have a very successful division still using Pro/E, with a vast legacy of project files, wouldn't make any sense for them to switch.

 

[ctopher]

Sorry, but I have to put in my 2 cents.

Most Autodesk users learned the software because:
1. Free training by job/coworkers
2. Recieved a free illegal copy from friends/coworkers 15 years ago and never learned anything else.
3. Are not engineers or designers, but learned it because it was cool and the tool to learn...
4. Looked good on the resume.
5. Cheap training at a local HS or JC.
6. A lot of companies use it because it's ease of use.

There are not as many Adesk users at Eng-Tips as other CAD users because, most are not much PC literate.

Most SolidWorks users learned the software because:
1. They can all of the above and more.
3. SolidWorks can take Adesk files and translate between them, and to other high end CAD software.
4. Most SW users have more design experience backgrounds.
5. Most pick SW after carefully studying different CAD software because they know what they are looking for, and have the money to purchasing them.
6. Training is specialized and cost $$.
7. Most Adesk users wouldn't notice I skipped #2. (just kidding)

This is not a Adesk bashing by no means, just from my experience working with all types of CAD users.

rich942, Great link! I had it saved from a long time ago, but forgot about it. Thanks for sharing.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[oliebol]

Nice discussion. In my opinion there is no better or best software package among the mid-range CAD packages. (Solid Works, Inventor, Solid Edge and some other).

The term mid-range is a compilation of solid modelers able to run on a decent PC with a high level of new features at each release. As a 3D freak I always check out these new features to make life and work easy (say smart).

But after about 10 years of modeling at several companies I learned that it has nothing to do with the software but all about the required level of automation in your models.

The main ingredient for automation = ROBUSTNESS!

A robust Assy enables you to handle engineering changes properly without collapsing models at the first touch. This is usually achieved by the basic features (revolve, extrude, hole, fillet, etc) and not by the newly presented features.

Robustness needs a lot of anticipation BEFORE you start your work and a STRUCTURED way of enineering with modular built sub-assy's.


Greetz,

Martin



Unigraphics NX4,NX3,NX2,R17
Inventor 10,9,8,7
Solid Edge 10,9,8
Solid Works 2000,98
Mechanical Desktop 4,3
Autocad 2004DX,2000,R14, R12
Teamcenter 9

 

[ewh]

Martin makes a very valid point. There is no one "best" CAD package out there. They are tools. There are "best" packages for what your needs are, but those needs differ greatly. Why go to a BMW mechanic if you ride a bike? The difficult part comes in choosing the right tool for the job.

 

[J-C]

The members number here is misleading...anyone that visits a forum gets added as a member.....so forums probably has a number of members that are just curious "other" cad users. The is not a very large Inventor presence here....but there are other forums where there is a larger number.

http://www.mcadforums.com

is Seean Dotsons forum and has quite an IV following there. He also has other cad program forums but since it started as an IV user forum...there's not much activity in the others.


And Rich, as for you saying that IV users don't need as much assistance because of IV's excellent help....go look at macadforums and see the complaints there...lots of them. There's even some posts from an IV user about how much better Solidworks help is compared IV...so I don't that has much to do with the lack of IV questions here.


And please explain why job postings is not a good indication of install base. Are you saying that for some reason, companies that use IV don't need people that know IV?

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[aardvarkdw]

I learned both solidworks and inventor simultaineously. I was taking classes in both but was self taught in most repects. I like both programs but have found inventor to be better suited for me. I may think differently if I had more time to work with SW but having had equal oppertunity to work with both pieces of software and doing the same project on both, I chose inventer as my preference. I found inventor more intuitive and easier to navigate.

I also had a similar experiance with 2d software. I learned AutoCad and Cadkey at the same time and I would choose Cadkey over AutoCad in a heartbeat. So I am not just clinging to AutoDesk out of some misplaced sense of loyalty. Just my two bits.

 

[rich942]

There are not as many Adesk users at Eng-Tips as other CAD users because, most are not much PC literate.

This is an unwarranted assumption, and I find it amusing, considering that so many of us that have used Autodesk products since the mid-80's now have 20 years or more of PC and Windows experience ! We fought hard for the acquisition of computer hardware and software, at a time when conventional wisdom said that engineering documents would ALWAYS be produced manually, pencil and paper. If you are under 40 years old, you owe the current CAD environment to those of us who risked our jobs and our reputations to advocate the transition to CAD.

4. Most SW users have more design experience backgrounds.

AutoCAD 1983, SW 1995. ?

And please explain why job postings is not a good indication of install base.

That one is easy ! For the same reason that the number of applications for a driver's license would not be any indication of the number of cars on the road.

A robust Assy enables you to handle engineering changes properly without collapsing models at the first touch. This is usually achieved by the basic features (revolve, extrude, hole, fillet, etc) and not by the newly presented features. Robustness needs a lot of anticipation BEFORE you start your work and a STRUCTURED way of enineering with modular built sub-assy's.

Words of wisdom ! Wish I had written that !

 

[handleman]

That one is easy ! For the same reason that the number of applications for a driver's license would not be any indication of the number of cars on the road.

This is a "straw man" argument, although I grant that the analogy you made was appropriate for the wording of Jason's question.

Number of open positions vs. install base by itself is similar to DL applications vs. cars on the road. You can make no prediction on the actual number of cars on the road based on the number of open DL applications at any given time.

However, Jason's argument was one of ratios. Comparing the ratio of, say, automobile license applications to motorcycle applications, one may reasonably assume some measure of correlation to the ratio of automobiles on the road to motorcycles on the road.

 

[ctopher]

There are not as many Adesk users at Eng-Tips as other CAD users because, most are not much PC literate.

This is an unwarranted assumption, and I find it amusing, considering that so many of us that have used Autodesk products since the mid-80's now have 20 years or more of PC and Windows experience ! We fought hard for the acquisition of computer hardware and software, at a time when conventional wisdom said that engineering documents would ALWAYS be produced manually, pencil and paper. If you are under 40 years old, you owe the current CAD environment to those of us who risked our jobs and our reputations to advocate the transition to CAD.

From my experience, it's nothing to do with when ACAD came out or how it works with Windows, it's users that become lazy and stick with one program and don't move on. I never said it's ALL users, just most that I have seen.

4. Most SW users have more design experience backgrounds.
AutoCAD 1983, SW 1995.?

Also has nothing to do with which CAD came first.



Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[J-C]

To assume that the ratios don't jive you have to have reasons for why they don't. Basically it means you have to give some kind of special condition like:

Companies that use IV don't need new users as often as companies that use Solidworks cause:

1. IV users are happier and don't leave their jobs.
2. Those companies aren't growing their business such that it causes them to increase their staff.
3. Those companies are unable or unwilling to increase staff when needed.

Now number 1 I rather doubt....browsing the more active IV forums shows that IV has as many if not more bugs and issues than Swx. Most users won't leave a company anyway just because of dissatisfaction of the program they use.

As for number 2....wouldn't make sense that companies that chose IV aren't increasing business or are worse off in some way. I'm sure some Swx VARs would love to jump on that say it because they chose IV but we all know that's not the case.

Number 3 is the same thing....software choice is not likely to influence whether management decides to increase staff or not...though in the case of the high end cad programs I could see a budget situation cause they cost so much....at least for smaller companies using them.

Feel free to add more situations if you can think of any. I'm sure you could add something like "IV saves so much time that new users aren't needed" but I find it highly unlikely that IV has an advantage over Solidworks to such great extent that using it would save more time. Sure there are different areas where it may be better but the same could be said about Solidworks......it all evens out....and thus the number of job posting is a good indicator of the ratio of the companies using Solidworks versus Inventor.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP4.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[rich942]

To assume that the ratios don't jive you have to have reasons for why they don't. Basically it means you have to give some kind of special condition like:

My point is that internet job postings are no indication whatsoever of the installation base of any given software package. There is no "ratio" between these two conditions. Many of the best jobs never appear in any listing, print or online, but are filled by personal referals. Many other listings do not specify any particular software requirements (such as those placed by my current employer, as we are in transition from SW to Inventor). The assumption is that any reasonably well-educated and experienced engineer or designer can effectively use whatever software is selected by the program managers. Ultimately, all we have to go by are the sales figures, as provided by independant and unbiased sources, to determine who is leading the market. For my part, I would not choose any working tool ONLY because it was the "most popular", I also have to be convinced that it serves my purposes, is stable and well-structured, and is the product of a reputable and successful organization.

From my experience, it's nothing to do with when ACAD came out or how it works with Windows, it's users that become lazy and stick with one program and don't move on. I never said it's ALL users, just most that I have seen.

The point is, that most current Inventor users did NOT "stick with one program", but chose to advance from 2D to 3D within the Autodesk product line. That's not "lazy", just good budget management, and still required the acceptance of a steep learning curve. Certainly Autodesk has enjoyed the advantage of a huge legacy installation base, and has rewarded their loyal accounts with discounts and free technical assistance. Its just good business for all concerned.