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

 

[DeSimulacra]

To prevent misinformation here is exactily (I hope)what the different viewers will do.

e drawings viewer:
eDrawings Viewer (one download, free)allows convenient viewing of native AutoCAD ® files (DWG and DXF™) and native SolidWorks® parts, assemblies, and drawings. The eDrawings Viewer is intended primarily for people who do not use CAD software and thus do not need to publish eDrawings files themselves. {Partially from eDrawings site}

AutoDESK;
Download the .dwf viewer AND trueview(2 downloads total, free), but they STILL will not read native Inventor files. (no it will not publish either).

"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."
The short and truest answer is no. Remember I'm using Inventor and like it for "simpler tasks" but it takes longer to use the protocols (work arounds) that I have to use to do the slightly Parametric features. It links to tables fairly well (again with certain protocols <per AutoDESK>) and I commonly use this feature to replace true associative parts.
I may be wrong but I don't believe you can do associations between 3D surfaces in assemblies? If wrong pls. explain to ewh and me. I do know you can't do complex 3D surfaces in V10 though V11 has a little more control.

Mark

 

[rich942]

A quote from the tenlinks article posted above:

Prior to SolidWorks, we used AutoCAD® Inventor®, which required so many upgrades that the cost of constantly re-training our engineering staff was unrealistic.

This is one man's opinion, and a misleading one. I have not witnessed the need for "retraining" with each new release of Inventor, the user interface has remained consistent throughout. There has been no major disruption to users, as the article implies.

This is a link to the Wikipedia article on Inventor, which identifies it as "the #1 selling 3D parametric solid modelling package", and provides a full history of release dates. I would consider Wikipedia a reasonably independent source of information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodesk_Inventor

For the sake of comparison, here is a link to the Wikipedia article on SolidWorks, which calls attention to the "limited" parametric approach utilized by SW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidworks

 

[G1DESIGN]

i use both

both work equally well

a good engineer is pretty useful too the software doesnt do the job

 

[ctopher]

If I click on my user info (ctopher) it shows I do not have any replies in this Inventor forum. Weird.
Any relation to how Inventor seats are counted? (just kidding)

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

 

[Mechman50]

Rich942: I would be careful about using Wikipedia as a source in arguments. This is on the ABOUT: page~

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Wikipedia just regurgitates facts submitted by users.

To quote

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1395/wise-words-on-wikipedia

"Anyone can make changes to entries; therefore, credibility is not maintained. I tell my students that Wikipedia is best used as a place to jump-start their research for information or ideas, and that they are to find credible sources to substantiate their ideas; Wikipedia is not dependable as a sole voice of authority. While I allow the website to appear on my students’ reference page, the source does not count as one of the required sources."

 

[J-C]

Rich, these Wikipedias are no doubt maintained by Solidworks and Inventor personnel and resellers and a few diehard users. Its hardly independent and unbiased as anyone can write what they want. I could create a "JasonCAD" page and list it as the number 1 selling 3d program.....I could also edit the Solidworks page to say the same thing. (Maybe I should change the Inventor page to say "Number 2 )

And what do you mean "limited"...I don't it showing much except a couple of pictures illustrating the concept of sketches and extrude features with parametric dimensions.....does Inventor do this differently?

Jason

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

 

[rich942]

I would be careful about using Wikipedia as a source in arguments.

No argument, just a populist forum that confirms already established facts. If anyone disagrees with the content, they are free to edit the page. These are both well-written and detailed articles, with a long history of contributors.

If you read this thread carefully, you will see that in nearly every case, disagreement has been expressed by attempting to discredit the source.

 

[DeSimulacra]

A good unbiased review of the 3 major players in mid-range 3D cad.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BLL/is_1_22/ai_n11836212

 

[cookieman]

"Its hardly independent and unbiased as anyone can write what they want."

isn't that what "independent and unbiased" means ?

one point that has been missed here. a SW user trying to use IV with SW experience only will be frustrated and get poor results. and miss some of the best features of IV!

 

[ctopher]

True. The same the other way around.
"... a IV user trying to use SW with IV experience only will be frustrated and get poor results. and miss some of the basic features of SW!"

It comes down to how competent the user is, how good the hardware is, schooling/training, and experience.

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

 

[J-C]

Also depends on what you're doing...no doubt that IV probably has areas where it does things better and vice versa. If all you do is sheetmetal...you may pick the program that does this best regardless of the rest. One may be way better with large assemblies but the point is moot if you never have to create an assembly over 5 parts.

Jason

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

 

[ajack1]

Exactly Jason, to suggest otherwise shows a basic lack of understanding about what all systems can do, although the original poster was fairly specific about their requirements, but that seems to have got lost over time.

To suggest numbers sold is a true indication is also laughable, I would guess Mc Donalds sell more burgers in the world than anyone else, how many people think they are the best burgers in the world?

Still this post is becoming increasingly funny as the allegations get wilder are more far fetched and less well informed.

 

[DeSimulacra]

This is for those readers who are looking for guidance on buying low to mid-range CAD software for the first time. First you must decide on 2D or 3D. Almost all companies are now going 3D. The reasons for this are many but that is another subject. The rest of this post pertains to 3D.
The CAD companies, especially the larger ones have a huge stake in your selection of software. Over the years you are agreeing to pay tens of thousands for a single seat.(a). As all CAD Professionals know VAR’s will show you a really nice Dog & pony show to hook you. Once they have you hooked it is hard to change.
If you really want a true yardstick to measure by first decide which software packages have the minimum features you require. If you have a major customer with a particular CAD package that may be a major influence on your choices (importation is always a compromise). Make sure the CAD packages you select are mature and stable unless you are not worried your archive of files (anyone not worried?). Now pare down to 2 or 3 packages. Contact the VARs that you think come closest to having the support and CAD software(s) you need. Then request a demo of their software at your plant site. Let them know you will want to model a product you are using so you can evaluate the effectiveness of their software. Most important tell them you will give them the specs. when they arrive on site. The last statement is especially important because they don’t have hours/days to create the show. If you need to have special features (IE; family tables, association between features/parts, motion, surfaces, reverse engineering, importation of files, use with CAM,….) be sure to let them know you will want a demo of that also. This is so the rep.(s) they send will have knowledge of those features. Have the rep show you the strengths of his product, he will show you things you may not have considered. Last be careful about add-ons, be sure what you see is what you are paying for.
Some might say that a lot depends on the quality of the rep. and I agree wholeheartedly. If they send you a low quality rep., steer away from that VAR, they will not give you the support you need. On new software I would go with a slightly lesser CAD and have a good VAR any day.

VAR = value added reseller, this is probably your pool of knowledge and the people you will call in a sweat when you have an urgent question.
(a) This is a good article for those smaller shops/individuals “Low”? end CAD Also it has a very good statement about Inventor seat numbers.

http://cadinsider.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/alibre_flies_ha.html

 

[cookieman]

new sales numbers posted for 2006:

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=5417320

 

[J-C]

Those are old...Autodesks 2006 numbers are really for 2005.

Jason

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

 

[ctopher]

I think I will design my own 3D CAD program to end this thread.

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

 

[65Roses]

ctopher do you really want this thread to end? Its been fun reading rich942's long rambling posts about how great Inventor is compared to everything else. I laughed more at his posts than when I watch the comedy channel. Sorry Rich nothing personal its been fun debating with you!

 

[ctopher]

It is fun.
But, I feel it is mostly about opinions than facts.
I also feel some of the articles from the links are based on opinions.
So, my opinion ... I've seen/used both, I will continue to use SW over Autodesk. (except for Arch/Civil 2D dwgs).

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

 

[rich942]

Its been fun reading rich942's long rambling posts about how great Inventor is compared to everything else.

For the sake of accuracy, I checked and found that none of my posts in this thread exceeded 20 lines, excluding quotes and links, hardly "rambling". And if you believe that my point was to promote Inventor as the best choice for all, then you haven't really read my posts very carefully.

My concern is more for the barrage of misinformation and opinionated speculation about Autodesk and Inventor, and the promotion of Solidworks as a vastly superior product, when the market analysis says otherwise. If I have encouraged even one reader of this thread to make a fair, side-by-side comparison of IV and SW, then it has been worth the time taken to respond.

 

[65Roses]

Ok Rich. I think we agree to disagree. Its been a hoot debating with you!