SW vs INVENTOR

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.

 

Mr Dotson will survive I am sure, Cam.

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..

 

The multinational company where I get most of my work have just told me

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

 

....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.

Ken

 

Actually Inventor does have eDrawings now

http://www.solidworks.com/pages/products/edrawings/eDrawingsforInventor.html

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

 

Been using Both packages for a couple of years.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

I rarely use surfaces in either package. That's why "... not sure on

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-
http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/content/DSG322/inventor_surface_tutorials.htm

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

 

I have heard, from some mold designers, that surfaces is the design choice.

I tend to disagree, to a degree. I have been doing mold design strictly in
solids since I started using SW in '96. However, that is when I started
doing actual mold designs period (rather than building them), so I have
never used surfaces at all. It can be difficult at times doing it in solids
only. I can't be sure, but I bet that there are just as many difficulties
using surfaces also. It all boils down to the techniques and methods that
you use and get accustomed to.

 

Actually It is easier to define surfaces, from a computer's point of view
that is. Hey, the proof is in the pudding. Surfacing technology has been
around longer than solids. Hence the evolution and deveopment has to be
more advanced. It's been here since the 60's. As a result, the CNC camp has
enjoyed the bennifits of Computer Aided Design for much longer than the
mechanical group. Ergo, further development in that arena. I feel that the
surfacing tools are more advanced than the solid tools for their specialty.
The specialized ones, that is (such as CadKey). CNC does not need to know
about the solid and its properties, the machinist handles that. EG:
Spiderman and The Perfect Storm (movies) were done using Maya, primarily a
surfacing techonology. Cartoons and other movie SPFX don't utilise solids.
Most people stick with what they know and will defend it. And rightly so.

Mechanical CAD has made leaps and bounds in the last few years. Having the
ability to create and edit surfaces allows a broader user field. Mechaical
designers and industrial designers as well as the CNC group, for instance.
Mechanical CAD has steered toward and achieved parametric capability where
surfaces have difficulty with that because surfaces are, in this context,
irregular and difficult to define, create and illustrate. So a lot of
people stay away from that kind of design. (it's difficult) Now, lately,
you have opened up surface capability to a larger user base (the mechanical
camp) by incorporating it into mechanical CAD, the users like or dislike
the tool and we end up with mechanical designers (from the relm of nice
straight lines and flat surfaces) delving into complex designs. But they
are comfortable with the tools at hand, mechanical CAD. But Mechanical CAD
has its limitations when it comes to surfaces.



Anyhow,

I do not purport myself to be an expert with with computer technology. And,
these are just my opinions based on what I have observed. I have seen what
is used, who used what, how long it's been around, how things have
developed over the course of 20 years and have a bit of knowledge of the
history of Computer Aided Design.

In the end of the analysis,
It's the user of the tool and not the tool in use that makes the
difference. That, I can put money on.



Not a rant...
Not a bash nor a promotion.
Just my view on things.

Cheers

SW






(however, i'll hedge my bets since the mechanical workd is finally
catching.up)

 

The advantage of solids over surfaces is the automated technique. Solid
technique automates making sure that a model represents a watertight
volume. The main advantage of surfaces over solids is that surfacing
allows you to create shapes face by face, and worry about the watertight
volume when you have created all the faces to enclose the volume.

When it comes right down to it, surfacing is just an evolutionary by-
product. In the same way that 2D used to encompass all of CAD, but now
is just a step along the way, the same can be said of 3D wireframe and
surfacing.

2D cad describes projections of edges onto orthogonal planes
3D wireframe describes the edges themselves in real space
Surfacing describes the area between the edges
Solid describes the volume between the surfaces

Consider the steps SW uses internally to make a rectangular solid
extruded cut into an original solid.

- create extruded rectangular surface from sketch and depth dim
- create rectangular end caps
- trim and knit 6 surfaces together into cutting solid
- use the faces of the cutting solid and the original solid to trim one
another
- knit the newly trimmed faces back together, check for watertight
condition

The question about parametrics is not a solids vs surfaces question,
that's entirely software specific. Software like SW or Pro/E is just an
interface on a geometry creation engine (kernel).

matt

 

Actually, it all sort of grew out of APT and the need for plotting.
I've actually written simple CAD programs (for complicated tasks)
in APT & used the plotting capabilities for display ....

Computer power & graphics capability held things back.

That's debatable <G>.

 

Don't confuse actual surfaces, which can be resolved to
the limitations of compute capability, with polygon mesh
approximations for (generally) display purposes.

 

IMO, Surfaces are not the problem at all.
Parametrics tend to limit what can readily be done BUT
are easier for certain people to use and can provide
checks on bad design practices & designs.

 

How so?