SW vs INVENTOR

Inventor is dog pile. : )

You know I really thought we had all made it past the "my CAD software is better than your CAD software". I avoided this NG and lurked for so long because this type of attitude ran rampant. I'll admit it was similar in the IV newsgroups but I can confess that I tried not to participate in those threads. It was refreshing to run into users like Ed Eaton and Richard Doyle at COFES who gave Inventor the respect it deserves. Sure they like SWX better an sure a few lighthearted jabs were thrown back and forth, but there was a mutual respect.

Both packages have pros and cons. I have both. I use IV a whole lot more than SWX but I find that SWX can do some things better than IV and vice versa. I think that anyone who chooses a package based on the few "Inventor sucks" or "SWX is garbage" posts they get in these NGs is a fool. They need to test them out in their setting to see what works best for them.

As for our attitudes, I has thought we had all finally gotten to the point where we could acknowledge each other as peers and realize that people will choose different software packages (AutoCAD/IntelliCAD, Windows/Linux, PC/Mac) and not sum up the other guy's choice as a "dog pile". Guess I was wrong...

.....some people are really easy to bait.... have a nice weekend Mr Dotson ;o )

Neil.. RU just bored just because it's labour weekend, haven't you been fishing lately?

Mr Dotson seems a nice bloke to me.

roll of eyes. Mr Dotson will survive I am sure, Cam. CAD is indeed a very serious business deserving of our continuing reverence.There must be a continual focus on professionalism to the exclusion of all else- especially good natured fun.Fun is of course inappropriate and unnecessary for the industrial age.

The multinational company where I get most of my work have just told me the're planning a rollout of Inventor. I've been using SW there for the last four years and being told I might have to get my head around a "dog pile" in none too encouraging.... even if it's said with a smile.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place for some positives on Inventor.

..thinks to himself no eDrawings no configurations where will I get my zillion standard parts setup with configurations? single key short cuts? what's the swoopy surfacing stuff like? can I run my spacemouse? does it have a SW explorer thingy? who the hell uses it around here? is it time to look for new clients?

Enjoy your weekend..

after 4 years of sw they're switching to iv. seems a bit backwards. oh well.

...snip

...snip

Well we know which parts of what Mr. Yares said you don't agree with. Does this mean you agree with his four deadly sins? All you have to do is look at this newsgroup or any other "open" newsgroup to see evidence of this.

I signed up.

It will never happen. It's essentially the Ford/Chevy/Dodge truck thing only it's now CAD instead of trucks.

"Cam" wrote in news:Gzyed.610$ snipped-for-privacy@news.xtra.co.nz:

Hi

Been using Both packages for a couple of years.

From your above list Inventor only lacks eDrawings. 8( too bad.

Personally, I feel the Inventor people created a product that is very intuitive to use. (user friendly) The terminology is much better alligned with commonly published drafting standards and practices. In other words they did not re-invent the drafting wheel. It just seems that SW and SE and et-al have their own language for common commands.

Inventor gets the job done with fewer keystrokes. Especially on repetative tasks where the dialog boxes remain active for the next task. SW you have to re-activate the tool.

Inventor has had a superior spin and rotate twirly thing (called orbit) Very slick. It always orbits about the centroid of the first object (part or face or particle on a face of a part. Regardless of zoom distance. Where, with SW you first have to right click on an edge or point.

I like SW load large assemblies light option. Inventor handles large assemblies a bit differently but very well.

Inventors Project folders concept is a bit quirky to wrap your head around but I tend to preffer it.

Had a bitch of time with Inventor document template files. I created some and placed copies on our server. Inventor crashed a sudden death when anyone tried to use them. The problem was the video card driver. Figure that one out.

SW crashes often amongst my group (a few times per week, sometimes per day). There's 4 of us and three are 10 year veterans, so it's not the user.

Inventor crashes too. Hell, all software (PC based) crashes.

SW is vastly better integrated with MasterCam (a very widely used CAM package)

Not sure on this, but I believe Inventor has a better surface capability. (for those igs files)

I preffer the way Inventor facillitates in context design. I see that SW has adopted Inventor's method of showing relations in sketchs.

SW is to 3D modeling as AutoCad was to 2D before 3D. It was the first PC based solid modeler and has a huge following. Inventor is much less in demand but gaining approval from the existing Acad group, but only because it comes with AutoCad (Mechancal Desktop).

If your shop is dependent on outside suppliers, machine shops and provides drawings to customers then perhaps SW is the better way.

If your shop is independant then Inventor is a great choice.

Each does a few specialized things better than the other.

I like the way Inventor does formulas. Very slick, very accessable and far fewer keystrokes. It is a spreadsheet interface and can link to an external spreadsheet.

Your decision must be driven by your needs and not opinions. (that's a given) Go see it in action and give it a test drive, kick the tires on both of them.

SW

Actually Inventor does have eDrawings now

It also has 3D DWF (which I will admit is not as nice as eDwgs but it is useful in certain circumstances)

Nice analysis SW, I'd agree with most of what you say.

Paul, See my comments intertwined....

Everyone would like to have their files load instantly, be able to work without waiting, and even "buffer" commands like the old days of AutoCAD. Can we? No, sometimes we wait. But it's not strictly the fault of the software, the computer has to share part of the blame. I've heard more than once that SolidWorks (and other CAD companies, I'm sure) would like to add more features and functionality, but PC horespower is an issue. Hopefully some of the new technologies due soon will show us some improvement.

A 180MB file seems like a bit of an oddity. Our largest AutoCAD file, (out of approx 40,000) is 6.5MB. Loads over the network in a couple of seconds, and regens in a fraction of that. We wait sometimes for our large SolidWorks assemblies to load, but never more that a minute or two. CAD will never be fast enough for everyone, and I would agree that it's not "perfect". But adequate, satisfactory, even acceptable - these are words I would use to descibe SolidWorks in our application.

Some users struggle mightily with CAD due to insufficient (or no) training, lack of regular use, or simply because the just don't "get it". Others can make SolidWorks do things that are unimaginable to me. The same could be said for all software. The current trend in CAD is "ease-of-use", but look back at some of the comments when new interfaces are introduced to make it easier. I don't have enough experience with other systems to judge, but for what I do with SolidWorks, it's pretty easy to use.

You'll get the same reactions here as from the performance question. Some users experience more crashing than others. Some users come to expect, anticipate, and allow for sudden trips to the desktop. It would be nice to have a CAD system that never crashed, but does anyone really expect to get there? The best we can do is help identify issues as thay arise, and try to help the vendors improve the reliability of the software. Call it paid Beta testing if you will, but it's in our best interest to report what we see.

You can't please all the people all the time. SolidWorks has ~200,000 users, what, maybe 30,000 different companies use the software. How in the world could any software company anticpate how they will all use it? Best they can do is follow some industry accepted standards, and allow enough flexibility to let users tailor the system to their methods. It won't always be possible, but if it can be done, and enough users what it, SolidWorks will likely find a way to allow it. I hope that SolidWorks users never stop finding new ways to use the tool. It makes it better for all of us.

I guess you could say that no, I don't agree with Mr. Yares. I have been accused on ocasion of seeing things through rose colored glasses, and it's probably true. But I do know that 3D modeling jump started an increasingly monotonous career at a time when I really needed it. Design is fun again, and just gets better all the time. I look forward to launching SolidWorks and jumping in every morning (and lots of nights). I read this newsgroup all the time - lots of frustrated folks here. But I also get a chance to be around plenty of users just like myself that find SolidWorks to be a fantastic tool, and they are having as much fun as I am. I wish Mr. Yares and his OpenDesign alliance all the best, but I hope they never get what they want. If they do, we'll all be doing things the same way, we'll likely not get the innovation that has been happening over the past several years, and I won't have as much fun as I do now. It might turn in to "just a job".

Terrific. See you there.

Richard

Inventor is not even close to SWX in terms of handeling surfaces. I would question anyones credentials who made a statement that they thought Inventor was better that SWX with handeling surfaces (even if they qualify the statement with, "not sure on this". I hold Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert status and am currently studying for the SWX certification. I teach both Inventor and SWX side-by-side. Every problem we do in one we also do in the other. For most designs I have found the programs to be remarkably similar. Essentially identical. We even go so far as to set up the GUI for each so the tools are in more or less the same location and move seamlessly from one to the other.

The students seem to prefer the Inventor interface when it comes time to do their major projects. (In two years I have had only two students choose SWX for their projects - one of the students took second place in a national contest using SWX.) In my area, central Pennsylvania, the systems in use (between just Inventor and SWX - not including others) are about 50/50. (Employers - not seats). I have found that students who do not express strong favoratism for one or the other seem to do the best quality work. They approach problems as geometry problems and not software problems.

J.D.

...snip

Richard,

You thought I was talking about assembly performance. Oops. I was talking about part and drawing performance.

I am trying to hold my tongue, but some people, certainly not all, run into the very bottlenecks listed here. The fact that you don't have these problems doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that I do, and when people come along and say that I am not or should not be having these problems, well, it really bothers me. It also bothers me that SW will take statements like you are making and use them to marginalize those that do have performance problems or at least rationalize in their own mind that it is not something they need to look at. It is interesting to me that the four points listed were the reasons I got into SW in 1996. At the time SW was fast, had really small files and was rock solid. Mr. Yares wasn't the first with that list. That is what made SW fun for me.

increasingly

Assembly, part, drawing - shouldn't really matter. If you use all three, any performance hit at one level probably impacts the others. I'll remind you that I do strictly heavy metal stuff - SHCS, big ol' blocks o' steel, and plenty of sheet metal. I'm sure there are issues with "swoopy" stuff that I wouldn't be able to understand. In my case, performance has increased many, many times over since I started in 97.

By all means Paul, let go of your tongue. I vowed at the beginning of the year to be more understanding of user's frustrations, and I think I have. I do not believe that no one has these issues, nor would I ever be so bold as to say you should not be. I am very interested in hearing from other users and the issues they face. As for what SolidWorks does with my comments, sorry, they are free to use them as they see fit. I am, and always will be a strong proponent of SolidWorks and the people that work there. They are a fine bunch that I enjoy working with very much. I also believe that they want SolidWorks to be the best CAD software available. I believe that they take evey issue seriously, and I try to do my part when I find things that are wrong. I know you do too - amigo....

This is the part I always have trouble with. Some users talk about the good old days when SolidWorks was fast and solid - and yet a google search will always bring up plenty of newsgroup threads to the contrary. Have expectations outpaced innovation? Are users creating more complex parts, assemblies, and drawings? Does file size really matter? I don't know Paul, from my perspective SolidWorks has gotten even better over the past few years. I'll bet though that you could ask 100 users the same thing and get

100 different answers. I hope you and I can spend some time in Orlando discussing this.

My issues with Mr. Yares opinions, and the ODA (oohhh, if you say that just right it sounds really sinister) are not directly tied to SolidWorks. Software sucks just doesn't help. I spent three days at COFES trying to understand what people meant by it (okay, they didn't use "sucks" at COFES - "Software needs to get better" was the term). I heard it over and over:

"Software needs to get better"

How?

"I don't know, it just does"

What kind of tools would you like to have that you don't now?

"That's your job"

How could we make it easier?

"That's your job"

Eesh, at times is sounded like and Abbot and Costello routine. The best way to make SolidWorks and other CAD systems better is by user participation. Constructive user participation - enhancement requests, bug reports, roundtables, sharing with other users through user groups and conferences, and hopefully providing more direction to SolidWorks. But lets not dismiss the minds that created the software in the first place, they're a sharp bunch. And yes, they will continue to monitor the competition and (hopefully) "borrow" some ideas to make our tool better. And they will no doubt offer features/functionality that appeals on the "marketing" side, but does little for some users. They do have to keep selling the stuff after all.

See you in Orlando (unless you see me first, eh?)

Richard

snipped-for-privacy@pct.edu (JDMATHER) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

I rarely use surfaces in either package. That's why "... not sure on this." is in the statement. Perhaps nothing said would have been better.

In answer to the credentials question:

20 years computer usage, including setup and maintenance (hardware - software) Teaching full time course loads at college Machine design Product design

Applicon (aka Bravo) Acad 2.6 and up Inventor 4 and up Solidworks 2000 and up Mechanical Desktop CadKey SolidEdge

Dos 2 and up 9 (including all the windoz) Unix, VMS, Qnx, Linux

Software: MicroSoft - Access, Excel, Word Power Point, Visual Interdev, Visio, WordPerfect, SQL Server, Adobe Illustrator, Corel Draw WordStar Wordperfect 4 and up Lotus 123 ver 2 and up Visicalc (the grandfather of all pc spreadsheets) Harvard Graphics FoxPro DBase III

Programming: C, Fortran, Visual Basic, VBScript, ASP, HTML, CSS, AutoLisp and script for Acad, PLC's - Allen Bradley, Seimens, Omron, CNC (G-code), Fanuc and Motoman Robots

(I know I missed a few, but I don't want to brag)

Engineering and Design: Machine Controls, Pneumatics, Hydraulics

I have integrated MS Access with AutoCad and Inventor with bidirectional data communication.

Currently on contract with GE working on mechanical dedign for CT Scanners.

I like what you said in the last two sentences. It is the way design problems are best solved. In any medium. There is usually an alternative method in one package where the other might be better suited and vice-versa. So the job gets done by creativ thinking and not the tool.

Cheers

SW

"Sean Dotson" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de:

Wow. I know that the IV group has been screeming for that for some time now. Great news.

Thanks Sean

I've been hammering the keyboard long enough that most all software all looks and feels the same to me.

Only difference is the location and the terms for the controls. Kinda like driving a different car.

Another thing: I love Inventor's "Pack 'n Go"

Cheers.

SW

I haven't run across too many people who really know how(or need to know how)to use surfaces in either software package. The ID people tend to use other software like Alias.

If you are interested in learning to use surfaces I have a series of tutorials at-

We do the problems in both Inventor and SolidWorks with essentially identical technique. Most of the stuff that can't be done with identical steps can be done with workarounds that are software specific. But SWX has some surfacing features that Inventor users can only dream about.

J.D.

You just sparked a thought of mine by your statement of "I love Inventor's 'Pack 'n Go'" in that SW offers a method to do it also. I'm not familiar with IV, but in SW, say you have an assy open, then go to File/Find References and tell it to Copy files. You can either maintain the folder structure or not. It then makes a copy of everything needed to open that assy.

WT