IV8 is better in what?

I know very well SW and I'm learning IV slowly. I'd like to know what kind of thing I'll like on IV compared to SW (example of command or features). You can be really specific, I've read a report paid by Dassault comparing SW to IV but I'd like to have comment fron the other side.

Robin B TMH Canada

Reply to
Loading thread data ...


But...... this isn't the other side


Reply to

Post a link to the report. It'll give us a better idea of how it was rigged or not.


Reply to
Corey Scheich

Robin, I passed the Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert Exam a couple of months ago. I an now studying for the Certified SolidWorks Professional Exam. I have been teaching both for about 2 years.

I have not found very many differences even if the terms are somewhat different. A line is still a line and a circle a circle. Extrude, revolve, sweep, and lofts are still extrusions, revolutions, sweeps, and lofts. Fillets and chamfers... I could go on and on...

Geometry is geometry.

Reply to

SW web contains currently comparison between SW2003 and I7

formatting link

Reply to

Can't create configurations for assemblies with IV6, is it like this still in IV8? Makes a huge difference for me.

Reply to
Markku Lehtola

Yes, but software can handle different shapes well or badly. When it comes to sweeps, lofts and fillets, there are big differences between how different releases of SolidWorks (or SortOfWorks, my present less-than-affectionate name) work or don't work. I haven't played with IV, but I've got to believe that there are big differences between how SW and IV work on this type of geometry. Given their histories, I would expect IV to be even less robust than SW.

If you're working on "normal" ME shapes, then I defer to your judgement on the similarities, but I'll bet if you do some serious design work with ID surfaces you will change your mind.

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"

Reply to
Jerry Steiger

Your assumptions are correct. Preventor has nothing to offer the ID. Tennis in snowshoes, so to speak.

It has: No blend with C1/G1 continuity on all boundaries. No C2/G2 - not even in its vocabulary. No variable section sweep or swept blend. No section propagation options for sweeps. No exception handling options for failed offsets or shells. No conic rounds. No silhouette split or curves functions. Only the most remedial curve creation functions. No geometry integrity checking, analysis, repair. Rudimentary at best surface analysis functions.

In general:

It has a nice UI and is adequate to good for most mechanical design, even excellent in some respects, but is intimidated by the most demanding mechanical shapes. It has an incredibly annoying habit of going into deep thought for hours trying to create a poorly defined or sometimes just difficult feature with no way out except giving it the 3 fingered salute. Forget recovery. Save it beforehand or loose it.

Top down design capabilities are good, versatile, but difficult to manage, untraceable, limitations and pitfalls are poorly documented, and schizoid behavior like sub-assembly coordinate system origins inexplicably being launched into the next county seems to be considered acceptable.

Drawing mode is capable, but slow, surfaces can't be shown, is intolerant of translated solids and some curvy native solids. It has a predilection for corrupting drawing files or crashing when supporting model files are corrupt providing no indication of where the problems may be requiring hours to isolate, correct. It can sense when you are approaching deadline.

The industry is not all abuzz about Shape Manager. For all practical purposes you will find 3 - 4 year old ACIS with some minor tuning under the bonnet.

They try to convince you you are getting a good deal since you get Desktop with it, but you probably know how that is. Those that don't should contemplate the learning curve on two very dissimilar programs if both are needed to get the job done. There is precious little interoperability even some subtle hostility between the two programs and the more advanced NURBS functions in Desktop which are the best the combo has to offer are not parametric.

The pace of development has been underwhelming and they have recently resorted to an old tactic of purchasing 3rd party applications, ho-hum integrating them, charging extra for them, promising future development of functions they didn't create and might or might not understand. They will probably end up giving them to users as has been done after similar endeavors in the past.

Consider it for machine design. Think twice if you need to build around models translated from other platforms. Shun it for industrial or consumer product design.

Reply to

That's some summary

Thanks a lot

Reply to
Andrew Troup

My students generaly don't have the clout to dictate what CAD program the company should use when they start a new job. Therefore everything we do I have them do it in both SolidWorks and Inventor.

formatting link
After 8 years as a machinist on the shop floor actually making parts rather than just pretty pictures, I am fairly certain geometry-is-geometry. Of course certain tools are better for creating certain types of geometry. The most complex solid we have been able to create so far in Inventor is a Mike Wilson's Scooby.
formatting link
on Student Gallery). The student who modeled this in Inventor tried to exactly reproduce the SolidWorks feature tree as much as possible, but did have to make some changes do to differences in the software and limitations in our hardware.

Based on Robin's comments on an Inventor forum, I would suggest learning the software at hand and trying to fit in as a new employee, rather than rocking the boat. Unless that is what you were hired to do and have the knowledge and clout to do it.


Reply to

And capability is capability, differing with software.

I generally leave X vs. Y discussions alone because they almost never yield anything useful; degenerating into meaningless jb, jiml, salesman vs salesman babble and rants. I also have only a casual passing interest in SW or IV, so my apologies for cluttering the group, but I think I see a chance at something useful coming from a discussion across the fence concerning a specific part modeling problem in the "This screw is killing me" discussion in the IV8 group.

If anyone has time to kill and is interested; the part (what appears to be a mixer / extruder screw) is a variable double helix wrapped around two discrete variable radius forms. I think it's an interesting shape of moderate complexity and it is definitely a step above the vendor demo / shootout show-em-up / marketing BS class of part. I know the part is a challenge to IV's ability and it is a bit of a challenge for the modeler (at least of my ability / experience level), no matter what software. (If anyone IS interested, I'd be happy to email a small .stp of a portion of the part. It's not really a good representation of what I think the goemetry should be, either, but a start to show the basic form. There are 2D's associated with the discussion thread, though.)

Sorry, if this is taken as trolling. It's not my intention. And thanks for the opportunity to raise the possibility. It's not possible to do so on the vendor maintained groups. I'm not interested in starting a mine is better than yours flame war (this problem is related to one small subset of the software package), but it would be Very_Interesting to see different solutions to the modeling problem and, to some extent, get beyond the salesman crap and see how it's handled by different programs.

Back to the mines before the boss gets back..... 8~) =====================================

Reply to
Jeff Howard

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.