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]

I just wanted to be the 100th reply.
SolidWorks 2007 has some very cool stuff. I think it beats the pants off all others.

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

 

[DeSimulacra]

WOW, This tread took off!! But it is becoming clearer from replies from those that prefer Inventor do so because it IS the solution to "easier parts". IE those that don't require a lot of 3D surfaces. This makes sense as AutoDesk has its roots in 2D and architural /Civil Drawings. I agree it does those very well!
If as I do you have complex 3D parts don't even consider Inventor.
Anyone wish to dispute this? If so you have not used Pro/E or SolidWorks to more than 25% of their abilities.

 

[rich942]

I have observed that the selection of software has become an emotional issue for some, leaving the technical aspects in the background. I have carefully documented most of the points I have attempted to make in this discussion, and made the distinction between fact and opinion. Also, I have refrained from personal attacks or derogatory comments, they are inappropriate on a professional forum.

That being said, I would invite anyone who has yet to use Inventor to make their own comparison, and see if it is suitable to their personal design style, and to the nature of the work that they do. Associating Inventor with AutoCAD can sometimes lead to an inaccurate evaluation, they are two entirely separate products, serving different markets.

And Chris, you beat me to the 100th post, fair and square !

 

[aardvarkdw]

DeSimulacra,

By saying "don't even consider inventor for complex parts" I think you are over simplifying things but I concur with the intent. You can create an sufficiently complex part in inventor to satisfy most any machinable components requirements. Where inventor fails IMO, is in the surface modeling needed for industrial design and for applications such as automotive and areospace where lofted surfaces are more nessesary. Working in an environment where we outsource our ID work, or it is simple enough that inventor can handle it without resorting to complex surfaces, Inventor does the job that SW could do for less money and a shorter learning curve.

David

 

[cookieman]

inventor has never been sold as industrial design software, but is pretty capable in organic surfaces;

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=4269527

i've learned a lot from this thread;

inventor is #1, SW is #4, according to that Wohlers report
SW outsources to India
autodesk has a programmer in china (maybe)
people can be very defensive about their favorites, all evidence to the contrary !

this has been a great discussion, thank you all !

 

[rich942]

In the interest of fairness, I want to share this press release with any and all who are following this thread. It was brought to my attention by an alert co-worker:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/10/HNhclautodesk_1.html

While this is an unfortunate trend, it in no way implies that any Autodesk product is being programmed offshore, simply that they are following a contemporary business practice of sending low-level tasks overseas. This was an open disclosure, not a discrete relationship exposed by a theft of source code.

I amend my previous statement that I had seen no reference to Autodesk outsourcing ANY jobs, clearly they are now doing so. I would hope that their experience with the sub-standard results typical in these situations will discourage any further attempts in this direction !

 

[ctopher]

True. As I wrote earlier, most software (or part of the code) goes to India. A lot of them also pirate the programs and sell as the real thing.

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

 

[aardvarkdw]

Why are we still fighting over who and where the software is made!? What possible bearing does this have on the merits of the software itself? What does outsourcing to India or China have to do with the tools each piece of software has and how they work?

Who cares which program is the most popular, can't you tell us why one is better without resorting to dredging up the statistics about seat counts?

Can we please relegate these arguments to a thread that is dedicated to this? I for one, come to this forum to get answers to problems and to perhaps to provide answers to the questions of you folks. It bothers me when these legitimate questions about the performance of a piece of software degenerate into a slugfest over something that should have no bearing on the original post.

Did anyone else notice that the OP has not had anything to say since 12 jul 06?

David

 

[J-C]

Its a world economy and a bit hard not to have some resources in various parts of the world. Our government should step and hold these other countries to our standards so that American resources can compete fairly. Hard to compete with China with they don't have to adhere to our pollution standards.

Even though Autodesk may outsource some work...I'm sure the source code is safe for the most part. Solidworks recently implemented some sort of program that prevents people from copying files without appropriate security (to prevent future theft). No doubt the code theft was by someone who got a hold of code he wasn't suppossed to have.

Jason

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

 

[DeSimulacra]

David,
While I don't agree with everyone, there have been many good points made on all sides and none have got in a flame war. I do think this has in general been a good thread for someone who is looking to buy CAD software. Even if the "OP" isn't talking.
Also you are right, ouch , I did not state it correctly when I said "don't even consider" So trying to be fair I will restate that if you are looking for software to do complex parts or assemblies there are several CAD packages that because of the extra tools do a much better job and do the job faster. I'm using Inventor now and though it is slower on complex parts none are faster on simpler parts. In this shop it can do all the design we have yet done. In shops where I have previously worked (2nd / 3rd tier Automotive) it would not be feasible to use Inventor.


Thanks
Mark

 

[aardvarkdw]

I may have been on my soapbox... but my point is that this theme seems to come up everytime there is a question about the merits of a particular piece of software. I have no problem with people expressing their opinions about the merits of the individual programs even if it is just to say that they think that one is the pinnicle of perfection and the other is so much horse shat. I think that even blunt opinions can have value to a prospective buyer. But the degerneration into discussions about who is giving software away and who is hiring children in africa to write help menus just helps to polerize everyone into groups that like one COMPANY better and doesn't help someone determine which product is better for their application. People may not like a program very much but it may just be the most cost effective and useful for their company.

This is my last rant in this thread...I promise...

No really, I really mean it this time...

David

 

[rich942]

I have observed that software selection in large corporations is often done with political motivations, rather than a true evaluation of the application, and the vendor. However, I would argue that the source of the software, who makes it, and where, is as relevant to this choice, as it would be for any other engineering acquisition. No experienced engineer would spec a component without researching the source, for crucial issues such as future availability and support, hidden costs, and industry acceptance.

I would encourage anyone involved in this decision-making process to gather as much information as possible, from reliable sources, in addition to testing the software with real, in-house requirements. If possible, engage the services of an experienced user, to demonstrate the features that YOU find important. Don't rely on a VAR for this, their job is to sell you THEIR software, and your needs may differ.

There have been a number of disturbing misstatements about Inventor in this thread, regarding the alleged absence of features that any real user of the program KNOWS are there, and have been for some time. This is unfair to anyone trying to make an informed choice. Its one thing to express a preference for a particular feature in a favorite application, but claiming that it is exclusive to that program, without confirmation, can be misleading. These myths tend to take on a life of their own !

 

[ctopher]

SolidWorks here is slowly taking over the Inventor seats mainly because it is easier/more efficiant to translate CAD file between ACAD/PROE/CATIA and our vendors. Inventor may work fine for smaller companies.

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

 

[DeSimulacra]

Ok here is a good one for anyone who is considering CAD software, lets list what is a known feature that is lacking. Everyone knows that Inventor has very poor surfacing software. But Today Tops All I Have Heard. Our IT manager came to me and said he needed a reader for a field person to read AutoDESK type files (.dwg mainly with some .dxf)I recommended the Autodesk .DWF viewer. HaHaHa never used personally to opening anything but a .DWF file. IT WILL NOT OPEN A .DWG OR...? So I gave him the SolidWorks viewer which will open AutoDESK files. Talk about egg on the face( not me AutoDESK)

 

[xgrigorix]

DWF is Autodesk's equivalent of an Adobe PDF. It's not the same as a DWG. Autodesk's viewer for DWG & DXF files is called DWG TrueView. These DWg/DXF & DWF file types serve different purposes in the Autodesk universe, hence different viewers. And now you know.

 

[J-C]

I think he's compareing it to eDrawings which views published edrawing files (ePrt,eAsm,eDrw) as well as native Solidworks files and also DWG and DXF files.

Jason

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

 

[rich942]

Everyone knows that Inventor has very poor surfacing software.

This is the kind of misinformation that I referred to in my post above, as it implies that creating organic shapes is somehow difficult or impossible with Inventor, or that the results are somehow inferior. Many IV users, including myself, would disagree. As with any CAD software feature, it is necessary to learn the specific protocols.

And as xgrigorix pointed out, the free DWF viewer is intended for opening DWF files only. There would be no reason to assume that it duplicates the function of DWG TrueView, which includes the DWF viewer.

 

[ewh]

Can you parametrically constrain the surfaces in Inventor? To what degree? I ask because it is an important feature of the high end packages out there to have such control.

 

[65Roses]

http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/PR/solidworks/081406_montech.htm

 

[ctopher]

http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=197260

This guy says it all IMO.

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