Inventor V's Solidworks

You don't really have a clue what's involved in machinery design,
do you? Or even in making the parts that are not purchasesd.

 

Nobody said you had any clues.

 

Why were you not in church begging forgivness for your
endless & ceaseless lies?

"Operator error" with an ad demo I assume.

Do you even have a phone? LOL ....

 

...is cause for censorship. Or at least it was back when

It's all pretty interesting if you look at what's really going on.

You have to start with the fact that it's a company owned and supported
forum. I don't know who's budget pays for it but it is, first and
foremost, a marketing tool. Trends, and the guidelines handed down to the
moderators, change but there has been a noticeable tendency to leave "off
topic" posts that portray the Product favorably and kill those that don't.
I relatively recently had a reply relating a very unfavorable observation
on drawing view generation speed, Inventor vs. Brand X, that stayed up for
about 10 minutes. I don't remember how long the original question stayed
up before my reply, but ... well you get the picture. It wasn't an
isolated incident. Depends on the weather, though. Trends and guidelines
change, judgement calls are made, etc.

In the end you can't really blame them, and while suppression of
information is always distasteful, I consider it to be less of a hindrance
(there's always an "appropriate" place to ask a question) to illumination
than the dissemination of misinformation that's common on all groups re
subjects like this. In varying degrees we're all either salesmen or
wannabes. The trick is to figure out who has an agenda and who doesn't
(no, that's not right; we all have some agenda or we wouldn't be here, so I
guess it's figuring out what the agenda is), and then you have to figure
out if they really know squat about what they are talking about. Oh, well;
such is life. 8~)

 

FYI - I work for a SolidWorks VAR, and thought I would share the following.

A recent report (15 page "Condensed" / 44 Page "Full" version) written by
CAD/CAM Publishing, Inc., compares SolidWorks 2005 and Inventor R9, for use
in developing industrial equipment.

This report points out many of the SolidWorks advantages, that would be
difficult for a prospective purchaser fully appreciate during a typical
"demo / evaluation" phase.

As a long time SolidWorks user & supporter, I can appreciate the benefits
that these advantages offer. Many aspects of the two products are
considered, including technical and business related issues.

To quote the summary, "The study found SolidWorks 2005 to be superior in
many respects to Autodesk Inventor R9 for design of industrial machinery".

CAD/CAM Publishing is headed up by Stephen Wolfe, one of the most respected
"independent" editors in the CAD industry. Mr. Wolfe was presented with the
CAD Society "Industry Lifetime Achievement Award" last year for his
significant contributions (30+ years) to the CAD industry. He is the
publisher of CADCAMNet, an online source for information regarding CAD,
product data management and rapid prototyping.

While I realize everyone has opinions, I have found Stephen's to be accurate
and valuable.

This report doesn't detail every topic that might be important to your
decision making process, but should provide some valuable insight into the
product differences.

To get a copy, contact your SolidWorks VAR.

Best regards,

John

 

Go with neither and instead go with Solid Edge!

Seriously though, I hope you did give a serious look at Solid Edge.

Anyways, when evaluating CAD (and aside from the normal strength of the
company, strength of their support, past records on product delivery) you
need to thoroughly evaluate it using a typical and complete product design
running it through a complete lifetime of changes (birth to death) to get an
accurate portrayal of a products usefulness. Demos and feature lists are
great, but not any more useful than looking at a car in the showroom. You
need to drive it!

Ken

 

FACT:

VX develops their own kernel. SolidWorks does not.

"At the heart of VX is the second generation of a proprietary technology
called VX OVERDRIVE (TM). The VX OVERDRIVE (TM) kernel and
database are truly high performance in every sense of the word. In
independent benchmark tests of functionality, speed and robustness, VX
compares favorably against every CAD/CAM product available today ---
regardless of price."

"One key to the profound stability of VX OVERDRIVE (TM) is the methodology
we call Proximity Compliance Tolerancing. This unique technology is a
substantial improvement over other kernels that rely on a fixed, relative or
"adaptive" tolerancing scheme, and has the potential to eliminate tolerance
problems entirely. While obviously a significant advance, this is just one
example of the many groundbreaking technologies that characterize the VX
OVERDRIVE (TM) modeling kernel."

FACT:

Hybrid modeling is an afterthough in SolidWorks. SolidWorks was not
conceived as a hybrid modeler.

"The desire to address the full range of 3D modeling tasks, from industrial
design through mechanical engineering and on to mold and tool design, has
led experts to conclude that a comprehensive CAD/CAM system must
support a combination of solid, surface and wireframe modeling techniques.
This approach is known as hybrid modeling, a concept
pioneered by VX Corporation. No other company has more experience with this
technology than VX Corporationa and no other modeler has integrated solid,
surface, and wire frame geometry as seamlessly as VX. The integration is so
seamless, in fact, that it is totally transparent.

FACT:

"From the introduction of the first commercial PC-based B-rep solids modeler
in 1987, to the first true hybrid geometric modeler and process-oriented CAM
system in 1991, concepts pioneered by VX Corporation have helped shape
modern CAD/CAM and are integrated into it's very fabric.


FACT:

"Founded in 1985, VX Corporation has quietly established a tradition of
supplying powerful and innovative technology, both in our own commercial
products and as an OEM supplier to many CAD/CAM industry leaders."

jon

 

<snicker>

ACIS was bad enough?

Popped many kernels lately?

 

IOW It allows lots of slop in the tolerance, right?
And what happens when you try to translate things to systems
or applications that require tighter tolerances?

What an idiot.

 

Ever heard of a parametric modeler, jb?

LOL .....

 

STOLEN MARKETING BLURB:

You are on a roll today, jb.

 

John,

I have a subscription to all of the Wolf publications, and I can't find this
report. Do you have any idea where (within the CADCAMnet site) it lives ???


Mark

 

Cliff, give Jon a break. He was out of junior high today because of
bad weather in the Rockies and didn't want to do his homework.

Bo

 

Posted by me today to www.cadchat.com

"I would be happy to participate in such a forum.

Since VX allows anyone to download VX from their website for free (limited
save in demo mode )and since VX makes some very well written training .pdf
files available from their website for free, I believe it would be well
worth the effort to create such a forum.

VX is just to good of a product to ignore, especially because in my opinion
VX blows the doors of products like SolidWorks and Inventor."

Why settle for solid modelers that are now trying to become hybrid and
amount to kludged together hack and whack solutions ?

Why settle for surface modelers that can't fillet, have no construction
history and very limited solids ?


jon

 

Excellent advise.

jon

 

Have your spelling checker working again, do you?

It's a real riot when it's busted <G>.

 

You banned there (again ?) yet?
Need some help?

All done with 3dinkies & ACIS blurbs are you?

It's not like you can actually use any of any of this
for anything at all ... or have a legal copy of any
of it either. Or even have the faintest of grasps of
the basics .....

But keep up the hoots <G>.

 

Really funny.
JB, in one post: "For those who have had enough of Cadkey /
KeyCreator I have requested a forum on CADChat for discussing VX.
"
In another: "I would be happy to participate in such a forum."
(Replies: 0)

Looks like he's posting replies to himself ...... and bragging about
it here <G>.
He's going to suggest that it replaces CadKey I expect .... another
place he's banned IIRC ....

HTH

 

.... And the majority here are very savvy when it

Here's where we differ, or perhaps are talking different "points". Mine
is that censorship is not the most insidious form of market manipulation.
A few are savvy, the majority rely on the advice of others, probably
weighting the value of that advice on whether it comes from a salesperson
or a "peer" and probably will assume that a "majority opinion" is closest
to a "truth". Yeah, well ... maybe, maybe not.

Just to clear the air or avoid possible misunderstanding; what I say is
based on my experiences with Autodesk groups. I'm not a SW user, don't
"know" the program, so have no opinion of value re its suitability for one
type job or another. I have seen posts on this news group that I suspect
might mislead; that reek of salesman, wannabe, loyalist.

I enjoy open and critical discussion, it's informative or at least can be.
I really don't think there's a whole lot of value in these X vs. Y
discussions, though. I see things (not necessarily this specific thread,
but in the genre) that I know to be true, that I know to be false, may
argue the point. The initiate that asked the question isn't savvy and
doesn't know me. My post is just more fog to them. I'm a believer in
providing examples that at least seem to support my suppositions, opinion,
claims, what-have-you and will rarely argue a point where I can't. I'm not
going to, and neither is anyone else, spend 40, 80, 120 hours going thru a
project to provide empirical evidence to compare. The really telling
examples, assuming they're applicable, will take more time to demonstrate;
big, complicated assemblies, something that pushes the envelope of the
software. These questions will never be resolved in news groups and it's
only the savvy can sift the information to glean anything useful at all.
What's really sad is that the respective software marketers (who too often
don't know jack about what they are selling, know less about what their
competitors are selling, know little about what the customer really needs)
aren't better prepared or paid well enough to spend the time to effectively
demonstrate their wares. A penny wise dollar foolish consumer shares the
blame; will let one or two thousand sway their decision, be unwilling to
invest in a reputable consultant (if there is such a thing) to evaluate
their needs, etc. resulting in many thousands annual loss. I don't know
any good answers. I do know (from personal experience) that putting value
on the advice put forth on news groups re this subject can be a big
mistake. Especially beware those that want to talk about future this and
that, market share, what's good for the masses, etc. They may be well
meaning, but are generally clueless. Or, maybe I'm clueless. I do know I
have a narrow perspective. I really think that consulting some sort of
mystic is about as useful as asking this type of question on a news group
though. Only difference is that this way we can all join in the fun.

I'm rambling on, talking over my own head and was gonna quit but there's
one more thing that gripes me. The often offered and best advice to
follow; "test drive the software" is really a pretty crappy solution to the
problem and no solution at all to those making the transition from 2D to
3D. I know, middlin' fluently, four 3D CAD or design software packages.
The learning process gets easier with each one because some of the
accumulated knowledge is applicable to most programs. I can pick up a new
one and probably become basically functional in it in a few day assuming
it's at all user friendly and well documented (that includes Pro/E which
was the last one). It'll take weeks to months to learn enough about most
of them to get a glimpse of how far the software will take me when the
going gets tough or support me as I and my needs evolve. I simply can't
imagine going thru that process starting with, presumably, little or no
knowledge of 3D or parametric / relational modeling, and evaluating several
programs. I'd even go so far as to say that I think if a prospective
user's needs are so simple that such evaluation is meaningful they should
question the need to make the transition or simply not worry about what
software they use; virtually any will do nicely. Dunno, but seems there
are questions (maybe only in my head) that need better answers than are
available today.

Well, enough of this. Think I'll make another pot of coffee and go watch
the fog lift. 8~)

 

Hi Jeff

Let me make sure my flame suit and hard hat secure before making this
post ;~)
See embedded.

I disagree. To some extent it is true just because its focus is one
product, but if you would talk to any of the developers that reply on
the groups, they would all say they wish the group could be locked down
to technical questions only. The only real marketing I see on the groups
is between users and trolls. (like me ;~) here)

Trends, and the guidelines handed down to the

I think you might be surprised at what the real guidelines are. Being
that it's charter is a Technical forum, I don't think you will see a lot
of posts that are complaining about functionality or lack of being
removed. What you will see getting removed is posts that say Brand X
does this function and Inventor doesn't so we should all jump ship.
Basically anything that you wouldn't allow your competitor to stand in
your doorway and tell your customers. I suppose to some extent that is
censorship, but I find it funny that everyone things Autodesk should
allow it on their server when none of you would allow the same basic
thing to happen at your place of business. So basically we are trying
to keep the marketing down, and as you say the marketing type of
argument... i.e. brand x is better than brand y is something that is
never going to be won on a internet newsgroup or anywhere else for that
matter, and it takes away from the technical discussion. In my mind
the group has two purposes. For users of the software to have a place
to get help that for various reasons they don't get from the Vars. The
second is for developers and Marketing to see where people are having
trouble without having to sift through too much of the "I want Inventor
to work just like Brand X".

You are very correct on the judgment call part of that. That is all it
can be, we are just human, and some days things are pulled that other
days might slip through. But I do know everyone tries to keep bias out
of it as much as humanly possible.

I have scanned this group for years, just to try to keep up with what is
out there, and personally I much prefer having some structure in the
discussion rather than the constant waste of bandwidth banter between a
few people. Sifting through mindless banter to find good technical
discussion or having the developers and product leads responding to some
of my inquiries.... hmmm tough choice ;~)

I am sure I will probably get blasted, but thought maybe it was time for
the other point of view to be posted. Having done that, I have no
intention of continuing in this discussion, as it will not accomplish
anything.

One of the bad guys ;~)
Kent Keller