solidworks2006 vs inventor11

hi, i need to buy a 3d software for solid modelling. i have a choice between solidworks2006 & inventor11. so plz advise as to which software
i should buy. also plz give some points to support your opinion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's no choice! That's like saying "choose between the Cadillac or the KIA". UGS Solid Edge V19 and SolidWorks 2006 is a choice. Both on a stable and capable modeling kernel (Parasolid from UGS), both use a state of the art 2D/3D constraint manager (D-cubed from UGS), and both backed by companies/personnel who have been involved with 3D mechanical CAD for more than 2 decades.
Inventor employs a modified version of the ACIS modeling kernel which is not used in any mid-high end CAD software. They are now responsible for their own development and do not have an open data model, so their is no direct model transfer format such as their is with Parasolid (X_T, X_B). Inventor is behind both Solid Edge and SolidWorks in maturity, and their published sales are a farce as they now bundle it with ACAD and most of the seats they claim to have sold are still sitting on a customers shelf in an unopened box. Just ask if Inventor has PMI (Product Manufacturing Information) capability which allows annotation of a 3D model per ASME Y14.41 Product Data Definition. Both Solid Edge V19 and SolidWorks 2006 do!
Ken

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ken,
Actually, Inventor will read and write standard ACIS version 7 .sat files. We have a vendor in the U.K. that's using it.
We also have a new client that's currently using Solid Edge, they're switching over to Solidworks. Not because of capability, but because everyone they deal with uses Solidworks.
Mark

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MM, and all, ... I rest my case.
Bo
MM wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think this is highly dependent on the work that you do. If you are a manufacturer that makes most of what you produce from raw material, or otherwise design it in whole, then you use whatever works for you. If you are a job shop or supplier, then you work with whatever works for your customers because you are at their mercy.
No manufacturers that I know of ask what their vendors use (many mandate what their vendors must use), but I've seen it the other way around for sure. In my industry, if we asked our vendors what to use, we'd be on AutoCAD :^(
Ken

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The fact that Inventor reads/writes ACIS V7 files does no good when the rest of the industry is using ACIS V15. So if Autodesk developed Shapemanager beyond the capabilities that existed when they took the source code (V7), and Spatial developed ACIS beyond the capabilities of V7, then any app using a newer version of ACIS and the current version of Inventor must perform a conversion to render the internally stored model back to a V7 format model. What do you think happens with any features that required the newer version to exist??? That is not a neutral geometry transfer!.
Ken

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ken,
Neither .sat (ACIS) or .x_b/t (Parasolid) carry over feature information. They aren't neutral formats, they are kernal level geometry descriptions. All they contain is B-rep information, faces, vertices, boundary curves, etc. You end up with a dumb solid.
Solidworks can read parasolid back to version 8, and acis back to version 1.6. This seems to be the rule rather than the exception with CAD software these days. The only system that I know of that won't read older kernal level files is U.G.. And they may have changed of late.
There will come a time when it may be an issue for I.V. though. I don't think reading older versions comes for free. There must be at least a minimal amount of coding necessary to maintain it.
Mark

software
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
These are all great discussions and I absolutely agree that it is extremely important to use the same software as your clients, (if possible). A similar issue, possibly more important is what is compatable with the shops that will be used.
The shop that I use has Master CAM which has a free module for reading SW files directly. This is very helpful.
Most of my clients use SW and most of the shops that I work with are compatable with SW, but beyone these two things, if the CAD software is unstable and hard to use, (which is the case with IV) then I'm not sure that compatability really matters.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed wrote: if the CAD software is

Pure bullshit. If anything it shows you have a lack of knowledge of the software, computers, or both. We run Inventor and SolidWorks side-by-side on un-certified hardware and we don't experience stability issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What kind of assemblies do you create? How many parts in them and how do they interact with each other? Or are you confined to one off part (albeit an intricate one) at a time? You do usualy help people to sort out some of the problems they experience with creating parts. But I don't recall your inputs when it concerns producing large assemblies and follow up drawings.
Igor.
--
To reply please use snipped-for-privacy@iinet.net.au address
< snipped-for-privacy@pct.edu> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm an idiot Igor, sorry for wasting your time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't that being inappropriately dismissive considering your "Pure bullshit" (which I must admit took me by surprise so I guess you have strong feelings on the subject) is based largely on classroom environment experience or are my perceptions in error?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeffery,
I don't believe this is the best answer you could came up with. I was hoping you would elaborate on your original statement in line of my questions to you. Is there still a chance?
Igor.
--
To reply please use snipped-for-privacy@iinet.net.au address
< snipped-for-privacy@pct.edu> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I will try to get back to this with a more thoughtful response when I have time. Unfortunately I have "volunteered" for more projects than I can handle and am jumping just to keep my nose above the water-line. But for a brief response, I am not aware of any CAD program that will not create drawings in a reasonably reliable set-up. To state otherwise is simply worth no more than the stuff you get on your boots out in the barnyard. Yes there are differences in size and complexity. (Our educational license of SolidWorks is always latest release -1, so my experiences might not be considered valid.) In my experience these two particular programs are essentially identical for most users. My modeling techniques in both are cross-influenced by how each works. I am certain I would be far less proficient in either if I had only used one or the other exclusively. While I do work as a consultant in industry during the summer months and do have 15 years manufacturing experience including 8 years out on the shop floor and 3 years in R&D I accept the arguement that I don't now work under "real world" conditions. My involvement in industry is now limited to "complex" (for mid-range MCAD) geometry problems that push the envelope of mid-range MCAD capabilities. (This past summer it was on wire-stripping tools for the CATV industry - a derivation of the cylindrical CAM-path problem for which Jeff has taught me much in the way of good-enough solutions while we wait for the capability to sweep one solid along a path in another solid resulting in the intersection being removed. This can sort-of be done now with the new guide surface sweeps but I still get errors and have to return to the method Jeff demonstrated several years ago.) However there is ample evidence that at least a couple of people have been successful in using these products to do their work. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence until you jump over the fence and land in the "fertilizer".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for the reply, Jeffery;
The thing is that most of your work revolves around one-off part. For me it is not an option. I design custom machinery and a range goes from some structural frames based machinery to a precision laser measuring devices. Thus, assemblies and their stability is of paramount importance to me. And not just that. Data management is equally important since it takes significant portion of design time. You probably recall my recent post at the IV forum under the heading "Design Assistance: Friend or Foe?". No one so far came up with the answer to the question. SolidWorks, on another hand, appears to be free from some questionable programming solutions Inventor is having if the field of file management. If we take a close look at some of the similar tools in both programs, I would like to compare Hole feature between the two softwares. SW is absolutely brilliant in the way they have implemented this tool. Can you say the same for IV? Absolutely not! And there are quite a few examples like that.
Now, to the million dollar question: why not to change platforms? The answer is similar to that why doesn't one changing his/her bank every now and then. The fees are high, the service at branches are low but not many people changing banks anyway. The answer to both questions will be somewhat similar, I guess.
Best regards,
Igor.
--
To reply please use snipped-for-privacy@iinet.net.au address
< snipped-for-privacy@pct.edu> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've heard of a couple of people using CAD software for assemblies. I've got to believe that it can be done. Maybe I should do a little more research.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmmm?
I think it is about time to just sit down at your SolidWorks VAR and go through a small set of parts and then put together that simple assembly. I'm sure they ought to have an example of a large assembly, too.
Or find an existing SWks customer who would show you complex assemblies.
Bo
snipped-for-privacy@pct.edu wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's nothing more than blatant sarcasm. Several of his responses fall into this category. Non-native English speaking persons will have a more difficult time detecting this.
:D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kenneth wrote:

Apparently a little too subtle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are probably right on this one (since I am non-native English speaking person). However Jeffery has a reputation of a serious and knowledgeable person in a field of design softwares. Thus I, for one, was taking what he was saying at its face value.
Igor.
--
To reply please use snipped-for-privacy@iinet.net.au address
"kenneth" < snipped-for-privacy@none.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.