Solidworks vs Inventor Speed 6

[curvyrace]

Two years ago, I posted a comment regarding how much better I thought Solidworks is over Inventor. That comment stirred up quite a few responses, as you can imagine. Two yars later, I am now fully convinced that Solidworks is the better package and I've finally convinced the owner of my company to consider switching. Before cutting the check though, I wanted to perform some head to head tests of the two packages. One of these tests revealed a huge performance difference between the two packages and I was wondering if anyone else has seen similar results.

I took an assembly of approximately 240 pcs that had all been created in Inventor. The assembly had about 100 iParts and other solids in it, that were, again, all created in Inventor. I launched Inventor 2012 and had it open this assembly. It took Inventor 4m51sec to open the file and be ready for editing.

I then opened Solidworks and asked it to open that same Inventor .iam assembly file and walked away. The next morning, I found that Solidworks had opened the assembly and created Solidworks copies of each component in the assembly. I then saved the newly created sldasm file and closed Solidworks. Finally, I launched Solidworks and asked it to open the sldasm file. Solidworks had the file open and ready to edit in 9 sec!

Has anyone else seen this same level of performance difference or was there a flaw in my testing procedure? I performed this same test using a smaller assembly and a single part, with similar results.

Cheers!

 

[rollupswx]

Make sure you close TGL tags per the instructions HERE.

Is there a way to edit posts on this forum so I can go back and fix the ones I missed?

 

[steinmini]

rollupswx,

I have a similar file created in SW (basically the same thing, somewhat different rim profile), and since I created it that at the time when I had to decide which of two I would pick (SWX or AI) I never bothered to save Inventor files I don't need. Since I made my choice, here is one such file (SW2010) attached. It can be easily re-created in Inventor.

http://www.storyofstuff.org/

 

[rollupswx]

It can be easily re-created in Inventor.

I don't think that is the most efficient technique in SolidWorks or Inventor.

I was expecting a more subtantial test - something that would show measurable differenced between the programs.

Also - sketches are unconstrained.
Cross-section of rim doesn't look manufacturable (at least not at reasonable cost).

 

[steinmini]

The actual profile is even more complex because it has two more holes running through the profile. It's an Alloy extrusion (Al 6061) and since it is already manufactured in Taiwan, I never had to think about how it could be produced. This is a simplified representation of an existing product which we use to build our wheels. Two more holes would only increase the size of the file and I never needed that, just like I don't need balls inside the ball bearing to make an assembly - one circular and one coincident mate is enough to have it where I need it. The point I was trying to make is that even with such a simple model, my PC was coughing with Inventor... SW behaved just fine. Well, that was enough for me.

http://www.storyofstuff.org/

 

[rollupswx]

...my PC was coughing with Inventor

Surely you must realize that virually ANY 3D CAD program should not have difficulty with that trivial geometry.
I would want to find the source of the problem before making decisions on such an obvious anomaly.

 

[steinmini]

Let me put it this way:
When I asked (a while ago) which one to pick, the reply was very simple: Any job can be done with both (any), it's just a matter of personal preference and capability to "feel at home". To me, one of the reasons was that I personally found the SW to be more intuitive (to me) and also one reason with quite a fine amount of "weight" (as an argument) that all our fabricators and subcontractors actually use SW. Some of them use other apps as well, but they all use SW, so, being compatible with companies I'm working/collaborating with, basically added that grain of dust to the scale and I picked SW.
So, I have nothing against any Autodesk product, I'm simply not using them for simple, mostly personal and practical reasons.

And I really don't want or feel the need to prove anything to anyone.

http://www.storyofstuff.org/

 

[rollupswx]

To me, one of the reasons was that I personally found the SW to be more intuitive (to me) and also one reason with quite a fine amount of "weight" (as an argument) that all our fabricators and subcontractors actually use SW.

Now we are getting down to reality. This is the reason we are changing too. Not because of functionality (I have not found anything substantially different between the two programs.)

If someone in a company has made a decision (substantial investment) and you walk into their office and try to argue that it was the wrong decision - you better have all your ducks in a row. That's all I'm trying to emphasize here.

 

[steinmini]

Yup, right on spot.
As I'm the founder of my company and sort of my own boss, I tried to be reasonable. And even though Inventor has a nice touch on a thirty day free trial (I missed that with SW) the $$$ figure presented for the package was also a nice touch on Dassault's side. I was actually prepared to pay the extra $$$ for the Inventor, but the reasons I've presented were enough for me to decide which one, the saving in funds was just an icing on the Christmas cake.

http://www.storyofstuff.org/

 

[kellnerp]

I you want to argue about best technique, we had a competition a few years ago on comp.cad.solidworks to produce a truncated icosahedron. Several top notch modelers participated and some submitted multiple files with multiple techniques. What this exercise proved is that in SW, at least, technique has nothing to do with how fast a part rebuilds. It either does or it doesn't rebuild fast. Trial and error is the only way to make a fast rebuilding part and there are things that are surprisingly not obvious that effect rebuild times.

Anna's Punch Holder is a another example. Just reorder a few features and rebuild time drops like a rock. This kind of stuff just isn't obvious and the effect might even change from release to release. All this to say, 3D modeling software has to work with beginner technique or expert technique or you are getting into spending more time to eek out a few seconds here and there or you are spending time on design.

I think steinmini has pretty much done his due diligence on this one.

TOP
CSWP, BSSE

http://www.engtran.com

http://www.niswug.org

http://www.linkedin.com/in/engineeringtransport

Phenom IIx6 1100T = 8GB = FX1400 = XP64SP2 = SW2009SP3
"Node news is good news."

 

[curvyrace]

Well, I performed Inventor Pack and go on the .iam assembly and put it on the local hard drive where the Solidworks files exist. With that setup, Inventor took exactly 1 minute to open the assembly. So now I'm getting down to a speed difference I have more faith in; about 5 times faster with SW. BTW, both systems were 2012 flavors with all service packs installed.

Another factor that has a big influence on our decision is we design a lot of weldments and, again, Solidworks seem to have a significant advantage over Inventor in that area. Inventor Frame Generator still doesn't allow custom profiles with our part numbers and descriptions, whereas Solidworks does.

Thanks again!

 

[rollupswx]

about 5 times faster with SW

Did you rebuild features (including all sketch geometry constraints and dimensions in the SWx equivalent)already?
Did you rebuilt all assembly constraints in SWx before running the test.
How many parts did you say that was?
Can you attach the Inventor assembly here so I can investigate the technique used?
Can you attach the Inventor file here that you couldn't open in SWx?

Inventor Frame Generator still doesn't allow custom profiles with our part numbers and descriptions, whereas Solidworks does.

Can you provide the url from the Inventor forum where you were told this is not possible in Inventor? (I'm not interested in VAR statements - most of them don't know how to run the products (either one of them)either.

 

[rollupswx]

Oops, I meant to say the SWx file that you couldn't open in Inventor no matter what settings you used.

 

[mflayler]

Inventor DOES allow custom profiles and Part Numbering for Frame Generator as well as notching profiles. Investigate the Structural Shape Authoring Tool.

Was your project file locating the files directly from the workspace or are you using a project file that is not referencing that directory you placed the files in before opening them?

On kellnerp's point, I seen a lot more feature rebuild issues with SW that I ever have with Inventor. You may get your models open a little faster, and trust me, you don't want to hang your hat on just that fact even if it is trivial and probably environmental at this point, but the stability of your models may be in more question with SW. If all you do is Extrudes and Revolves then mabe it won't be as much of an issue.

In the end, I wouldn't switch based on a difference of 40 seconds. Especially when you have existing Inventor legacy data and a free license of AutoCAD to go with your Inventor. If you switch and still need a seat of AutoCAD you have to pay extra for that now. The cost of switching is more than just the initial price of the software.

This is what I am noticing in your scenario though...

You said you did receive training for Inventor correct? Based on your responses and feedback you have been providing I would not question you on the fact you received training, but the quality of that training. It is unfortunate that you may have not received the best training your money can buy, but it also appears you are not using that company to help in your testing and validation of your work here. Have you approached your Autodesk reseller? If they didn't have the time to answer or assist did you contanct another one? Maybe shop around for a better one or someone locally that can come in and validate or assist before adding a lot of cost and lost intial productivitiy to your engineering team with a software switch.

 

[curvyrace]

Thanks mflayler for the tip on structural shape authoring! The best tips I could find on this subject when IV2012 came out was to do it all through part publishing. The furthest I got then was getting the part published into Content Center, but could never get it to appear in the list of available profiles in Frame Generator. Research then indicated that was a common problem with Frame Generator. I think I'll try it through structural shape authoring and see if I can get it to work, unless you have a different approach.

 

[kellnerp]

On kellnerp's point, I [have] seen a lot more feature rebuild issues with SW that I ever have with Inventor.

I did not mention "feature rebuild issues". I was responding to rollupswx contention that training was the issue. He obviously believes as you seem to believe, that training (and hence technique) has something to do with the numbers. In other words rollupswx was saying that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a part or assembly to get best rebuild performance and he was also saying that you can know that ahead of time through training. I claim, at least for SolidWorks, that you cannot know that ahead of time and I have looked at examples and have test data to prove it. I have no reason to believe that Inventor doesn't behave the same way. If you happen to know where there is an open database of rebuild performance data for Inventor (from an independent third party) I would like to see it.

That being said there are techniques and tools in SW that allow performance to be measured on any part or assembly document. These tools come from SWx and from others in the form of macros.

As far as stability goes, SWx has a long and open history of problems with that. AutoDesk has historically suppressed that kind of discussion. So you can't make any meaningful comparison. To say SWx has stability problems is like Ralph Nader saying the Corvair is the most dangerous car on the road. He was put to silence by a simple question, "Compared to what?" Does Autodesk release a list of open issues with Inventor like SWx does?

Just cherry picking from 150 hits on Google for

site:eng-tips.com Inventor crash

thread790-297811
thread790-226300
thread790-68851
thread790-308864
and a bunch more.

For SolidWorks there were 1,240 hits.

site:eng-tips.com SolidWorks crash

This brings up the possibility that SWx has more seats and a higher adoption rate than Inventor and hence more people having these things happen.

TOP
CSWP, BSSE

http://www.engtran.com

http://www.niswug.org

http://www.linkedin.com/in/engineeringtransport

Phenom IIx6 1100T = 8GB = FX1400 = XP64SP2 = SW2009SP3
"Node news is good news."

 

[mflayler]

"This brings up the possibility that SWx has more seats and a higher adoption rate than Inventor and hence more people having these things happen."

Or less seats with more problems. Or less infrastruture support so they have to reach out to the community more. You can swing that stick both ways. Or the adoption rate is equal and there are far less problems with Inventor. Autodesk actually has about 40% of the Industrial Machinery market. So if there are only 150 hits on Inventor crashing, I am pleased with that.

What I was referring more to was more along the lines of general stability issues, while this plays into how a user models to great deal, I know some of the best SW users still have huge gripes about models having to be completely rebuilt based on surface issues and rebuild problems. I just never see these issues with Inventor as long as the user implements what they learned in a correct manner.

On an tangental note, it still amazes me how many companies with 2D CAD Standards never think to implement 3D CAD Standards for modeling especially in a engineering group. It ends up becoming a verbal dicussion and nothing ever gets document on the correct way for them to use the software. With both programs there is a lot of different ways to approach design, but the majority of users still don't take the time to break down methodology or company guidelines.

 

[kellnerp]

I used to be a VW mechanic. All I saw all day was broken VWs. but VW was outselling just about any other model at the time because it was a good car at the price.

Autodesk actually has about 40% of the Industrial Machinery market. So if there are only 150 hits on Inventor crashing, I am pleased with that.

AutoDesk, not Inventor. There is a lot of AutoCAD in that number and AutoDesk no longer gives out sales numbers. So 150 tells you how many people with bundled Inventor seats are really using it. Adoption, adoption adoption.

I know some of the best SW users still have huge gripes about models having to be completely rebuilt based on surface issues and rebuild problems. I just never see these issues with Inventor as long as the user implements what they learned in a correct manner.

Give some examples here. FUD is cheap.

We could same logic with many things:

I just never see these issues with SolidWorks as long as the user implements what they learned in a correct manner.

I've never seen anyone flunk an exam as long as they filled in the right answers.

I've never seen anyone crash a car as long as they stopped before hitting something.

Hey I can use this logic all day long.:

Again you haven't mentioned whether AutoDesk makes a list of open problems available to users.

TOP
CSWP, BSSE

http://www.engtran.com

http://www.niswug.org

http://www.linkedin.com/in/engineeringtransport

Phenom IIx6 1100T = 8GB = FX1400 = XP64SP2 = SW2009SP3
"Node news is good news."

 

[mflayler]

To my knowledge they only list open issues in release notes with hotfixes, their openly free service packs, or new versions. Everything else is an internal list for the development team and they address key issues as they come up in higher priority from crowd sourcing errors through crash reports or software reporting data.

Also let me restate. Autodesk Manufacturing has 40% of the industrial machinery market since I wasn't clear on that before. That does include AutoCAD Mechanical (not basic AutoCAD). I hate even mentioning seat couts because they don't really amount to anything other than a psycological milestone. Seat reporting doesn't tell you what seats are actually in use, or unless you ask for it, for them to break down educational vs commercial. Adoption and %'s mean nothing on either side if you don't have a body in front of the machine.

Yes, we can have logic arguements all day long I agree, and beleive me we both probably have a lot of ammunition for it but...

We are also veering off course of this topic. So lets leave it at that or open a new thread.

 

[kellnerp]

I know some of the best SW users still have huge gripes about models having to be completely rebuilt based on surface issues and rebuild problems.

Still waiting for a substantive answer on this point.

Since both run on Windows and are very demanding of OS and hardware resources, one would expect a certain amount of trouble common to both from that source. But I'm still waiting for specific complaints about problems pertaining to surfacing with links.

The OP is down to performance and reliability. So far it looks like performance is lacking. Reliability is in question for lack of hard data on Inventor.

TOP
CSWP, BSSE

http://www.engtran.com

http://www.niswug.org

http://www.linkedin.com/in/engineeringtransport

Phenom IIx6 1100T = 8GB = FX1400 = XP64SP2 = SW2009SP3
"Node news is good news."

 

[rollupswx]

Let's see the original dataset that started this thread.
I will reproduce it using best practices in both Inventor and SolidWorks and submit it to the forum of critique on whether it is or is not best practices.
Then we can run the test.
The scientific method in a colaborative environment.

As it is - the OP hasn't even posted the sldprt he couldn't open in Inventor (despite trying all options).