Mech Desktop being discontinued???....

[Skunkwerkes]

Please if you have info on this could you please post it or a link to it?...
I'm trying to convince my college that this is an outdated program and that their are several better and more widely used 3D modeling programs out their.
Thanks for your time,
Shaun Martin.

 

[midrangewebmaster]

Shaun,

Have you tried to do a comparison between different packages and pass the information on to the powers that be? Would they be open to a detailed document showing the differences between Mechanical Doorstop and others? Even if they are not, continued hammering in this area may at least open their eyes enough to start the ball rolling. Put some charts and graphs together and see if they will even look at them. On a positive note, at least you can't be fired for your efforts.

Good Luck!
Jim Smithie, Webmaster

http://www.midrangecad.com

Free CAD evaluation kits and comparisons

 

[EngrMech]

First off: there isn't a more widely used 3d design program (period). There is no question about that, despite how some folks feel about it. MDT has a huge user base, because it is based on AutoCad. That is the strength of MDT, and its weakness, because Acad was designed as a 2d drafting program.

But, the push seems to be towards Inventor, which is where you can expect the millions of Autodesk (AutoCad and MDT) users to start going over the coming years. INV is new to the 3d cad market, but has already leap-frogged its competition in many areas. Large ass'y performance, concurrent engineering, and ease of use are ahead of its competitors, and surfacing/contouring are catching up fast. Compare the leaders in the field; all of the players would be glad to come to your school to show their wares.

The mid-range cad leaders are similar enough that it hardly matters which you learn in school, but if you want to learn what you'll be using; push for Inventor...

More info:

http://www.ccsc-online.com/mcad/inventor5.htm

Be prepared for howls of outrage (with undertones of despair) from the users of the other packages that are out there. People tend to get quite attached to the software they bought, and in their defense, if they did comparisons a few years back, Inventor probably wasn't the best choice at the time. However, at present, the difference is between INV and the competition is like night and day, as you'll see if you compare for yourself.

 

[midrangewebmaster]

EngrMech,

It's time to put your money where your mouth is. If Inventor is so hot, then why don't you download a copy of the MOAC from MidrangeCAD.com and fill in the blanks. And be honest.

Now before you start making accuses about why you're not going to contribute any information, or make accusations of wrong doing and blow the whole thing off, let me state right now that the information in the comparison has been supplied by people just like yourself. And if there's is any wrong or misleading information in it, it's not my fault. It is the fault of the users, people such as yourself, or people that don't have a clue.

Every time I see someone open their mouth about Inventor, the same sales pitch blows out - large assembly performance, concurrent engineering, ease of use, blah, blah, blah. And time and time again, the readers of not only this forum, but all forums of this type all come to the same conclusion, that someone's idea of a "large assembly" or "ease of use" is so subjective that there is now way to support such claims without a some form of laboratory testing.

So that only leaves one outstanding issue, concurrent engineering. So what is it? What does Inventor do that is so great when it comes to concurrent engineering? I have asked this question a countless number of times and the response is always the same - NOTHING! If it's so note worthy, why doesn't anyone talk about it in detail?

As far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure others as well, you sound very much like all the other low-stick time CAD operators that have finally made it off some second rate 2D package. Well, now's your change to defend Inventors honor (start climbing the water tower with the paint).

My sincere and deepest apologies to the other readers of this post. I get a little worked up from time to time.
Jim Smithie, Webmaster

http://www.midrangecad.com

Free CAD evaluation kits and comparisons

 

[EngrMech]

Outrage! Despair! and a bit of Indignation. And a quick response to boot. Many congrats SWX webmaster.

MOAC: Mother Of All Crocks.
Large Assy: Thousands (many thousands) of Parts, a whole machine.
Concurrent Engr: More than one person working on a model, without the software crashing. (follow the link)

Laboratory Checks: The Real World! Early on in the "MidrangeCad" days, we read SWX ads touting the converts from Acad to SWX. Nowadays, SWX users are switching to Inventor.

It's easy to find people who will rail against Microsoft and their apps, but tough to find a Lotus 123 user. Like 'em or not, Autodesk is doing great things with INV, and spurring SWX to improve (2001 plus). Which isn't to imply that the guys at Autodesk aren't keeping an eye on SWX. But the question in this thread was: What should my school teach? "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future" (Yogi Berra), but my advice, "learn Inventor if you can" is still sound...

Get a demo, get a copy, fill out your spreadsheet yourself. Only you can determine which package is best for what you do.

 

[midrangewebmaster]

There it is again, the touting of subjective capabilities, and what amounts to a non-answer to the concurrent engineering question. On more than one occasion, I have read on many different forums that same old “stuff” that you have just posted. And every time the replies are generally the same - just enough information provided to allow people the opportunity to fill in the blanks with their own imaginary functionality. I’m willing to bet that if an individual can surf the internet, they are capable enough to develop their own conclusions about which is the better CAD package, that is if there is enough straight forward, truthful information at hand. Simple black-and-white facts are always going to be better than blanket statements.

This thread is about providing information about changing away from Mechanical Desktop and going to something that is newer, more functional, financially stable, or whatever. It's not up to me to deside, and if you’ll notice, my first posting didn’t say anything about which package to buy, it simply stated to make a comparison, compile information on the various packages, and providing the findings to those in power.

Oh, and just for your information, there has never been SolidWorks "ads" on MidrangeCAD.com. In fact, the only thing that comes close to an add right now is a sign-in window for Eng-Tips. I will admit that there have been testimonials, but no ads. But you will also notice that even the testimonials have been removed because they are out dated, and are somewhat subjective as well.

So can I and everyone else assume that you are not going to be forthcoming with any detailed information concerning Inventors Concurrent Engineering functionality?
Jim Smithie, Webmaster

http://www.midrangecad.com

Free CAD evaluation kits and comparisons

 

[SoledWorker]

More than one engineer/designer working in a model without the software crashing sounds like a pretty clear definition of "concurrent design" to me.

 

[MadMango]

Truely concurrent engineering deals with having a top level assembly, and being able to work on the individual parts or sub-assemblies, while still being able to keep the other half of the design team current with all the changes. There are products that are out there that help to achieve this goal, but truely concurrent engineering has yet to make it to the midrange CAD arena.

The closest though, has to be SolidWorks and the use of E-Drawings, along with the 3D Website functionality. I am currently working on a new product out of California and we are using a consultant out of Montreal, Canada. So far things have been rather smooth, and only the logistics of "concurrent engineering" had to be worked out for what was specific to my company.

By the way, the topic of this thread was that Skunkwerks was trying to convince his co-workers that MDT was outdated. I can only say that MDT is outdated, and that there are more advanced and capable solid modeling programs out there. As far as the most popular or widely used, I don't have any sales figures to support any claims. But, if you visit a few techinical forums and search the interenet you will see which programs have the most "after the sale" support from third party applications, and that should be a good indicator about which is the most used in todays environment. "Happy the Hare at morning for she is ignorant to the Hunter's waking thoughts."

 

[midrangewebmaster]

Mr. Cutright,

The hole idea of having more than one person working on the same assembly, ie, same file(s) is controled by Windoze and therefore, would cause a sharing violation error. That is the one point that everybody seem to be missing. There is no way to have one file opened by 2 different people at the same time with read/write privlages. One could have read/write and the other could have read only, but in this case, the program in question creates a copy of the files that are already open.

So unless Invertor has done something that defeats the Microsoft file handling control, the whole concurrent engineering functionallity that Inventor has is no different than anyone elses functionallity.
Jim Smithie, Webmaster

http://www.midrangecad.com

Free CAD evaluation kits and comparisons

 

whoa there you guys!!! Handbags at twenty paces . Take a look at the linked .pdf on this question in the MDT forum!! to stirr things up a little more. Ha Ha. An interesting read.

 

[EngrMech]

You should just go see a demo; Mister Overzealous And Crabby.

"Windoze" has an app called "Access" that allows multiple users to work in a database, lots of folks have seen that and do it on a daily basis (no sharing violation error).

All the MidrangeCad players are talking about web-based collaboration, which sells well, but in the view of many folks is a bunch of hoo-haa. What are you able to do with it, MadMango?

Mr Smithie, for YOUR information, by "MidrangeCad" I was referring to the industry, not the website...

Wonder if SkunkWerkes is still out there, or did the whirling handbags scare him off?

 

Yeah, I think the handbags gave him a black eye in the crossfire!. Someone sticking up for Autodesk around here! - (WOW) good.
Just thought I'd lighten the mood up .

 

[MadMango]

Heh, things can get personal around here can't they? = )

EngrMech, as for what we did, mostly the 3d Website feature of SWX allowed us to to share information and data, but not parts or the like. E-Drawings is actually more useful. With the new version of E-Drawings a person can attach design notes or comments (imagine e-Post Its) to any part or assembly model. This is great when working out the preliminary design issues of a project.

As far as "concurrent" work, I think we are still a few long months (perhaps a year or so) away from this ideal. The closest I have seen is several departments working on seperate but intergrated sub-systems. Where each group designs and developes their sub-systems, and refer to common interface points in the top-level assembly. One location is designated as the 'repository" that controls the final model, and they check the sub-assys to ensure there are no interferances or or other issues. One the Repository buys-off a sub-assy or a group of parts, they get the files FTP'd to their location for vaulting.

We also used NetMeeting to some extent to discuss design issues on-line This allows one group to control another groups computer remotely, and speak in real time. Software sharing is also a nice feature of NetMeeting. Now if someone could only combine all those wonerful features into a single application... "Happy the Hare at morning for she is ignorant to the Hunter's waking thoughts."

 

[svanels]

Bravo, bravo, very interesting points of view, but what is realy counting:

How many books are there on the different packages you all defend?

There are milions of users which rely on books written by 3rd parties.

I rank software by the number of independent writers which took their time to write something about the software they use.
At least you have more then one source to compare and learn from.

Mr. Skunkwerkes you could teach catia at your school, but I doubt that you would have a big library. Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

My company uses Inventor, and we have our system set up to allow multiple users in a model. The designers have to update (it isn't a "streaming" environment lide MadMango would like), but it does work.

 

[MadMango]

In SWX, multiple people can open the same model, but only in the form of Copies. I think it's the same in Inventor as well.

"Streaming Environment"... I'll have to remember that phrase, sums it up nicely. "Happy the Hare at morning for she is ignorant to the Hunter's waking thoughts."

 

The "ease of use issue" from an independent reviewer:

http://www.cadserver.co.uk/common/viewer/archive/2002/Jan/16/feature8.phtm

 

[RivieraCadMan]

Now I'm not bias on products, and have been doing engineering work for the last five years now and CAD for twice that time with a multitude of programs. I like MOAC, it's a nice little program, but I would have to admit that I personally liked Inventer much better. It was easier to use, had more ability, and was backed with addin driver support from my plotter and scanner venders. I would say that my production with Inventer was near twice that of MOAC on the occasions in which I had dipped into the software for various reasons. I think that would make up for the "access right" work around, bsides I do not want anyone else editing my information while I am. (NOTE: This problem has already been addressed in the next version of inventer anyway.) MOAC also seemed to require more system resources under heavy loads, so production was slower there as well. Just my two cents.

 

[Hush]

RivieraCadMan, just what is it have you mistaken MOAC for?

 

they teach MDT at my school,Iowa STate, in a mandatory design class. But if you want to learn another one they offer classes on solidworks and Pro/E, my personal fav. So i guess my point is. Who cares.