SW2008 vs Inventor 11

[
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:49:25 -0700, jon_banquer

Should I start listing all the people / companies with no mechanical
engineers who have designed their own engines, gearboxes, etc
]

After being repeatedly asked to post the list you offered to post you
shut up Jon and don't post it, why is that Jon?

Oh! Never mind I know. You made it up, when called can't post any
examples, real examples just excuses for not posting them.

Tom

 

Aparently, even with my poor speelling, you were able to read and agree
this applies to you, Jonnie.

gk

 

Which takes less CPU & memory? Which has the most
compact binaries/executables? Which might require lesser/less
frequent hardware upgrades with time & new releases? Which
has the best internal (to your $$ software) documentation, help
& training? The best online support via their Sites or via newsgroups,
(public or private for actual legal users only) etc.?
Which is so fast that you don't hae to wait (much) for anything
that really matters?

 

BottleBob (BB) needs to do another survey .....

Are you fooled by poor clueless still?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

 

Poor clueless.

Except poor cluelees cannot find any no matter how long & hard he
has searched for some while about everybody else thinks his clueless
lies, hype & BS are funny.

Poor clueless cannot even post anything about "machining" or "CNC"
that makes much sense. He cannot even count pallets (though I'll admit
that the actual number was, for him [he has no shop math to
speak of, having been kicked out of school early on], a large one
[it was over 2.0]).

Unlike the great clueless one who uses a "diamond hone" to dull
the nice sharp factory-provided edges on reamers and "double drills"
holes which are wrong .... perhaps that makes them smaller or in a
"better" location or not quite too deep/shallow.
But otherwise seems to know nothing much about actual machining
or CNC or CAM or CAD/CAM programming.

<Snicker>
Where are you applying for "work" this week?

http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/
"Have broom, will travel."

Had to move yet again? Used to be Chula Vista ... mooching off
some poor girl, right? Did she wise up too?

It's too bad that some of the *published* CAD & AEC press (as well as
probable AutoDesk VARs) do not agree with you, eh?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=autodesk+inventor+aec&btnG=Google+Search

 

iQ here to respond to the actual question, unlike the babble of
others.

I am in the middle of evaluating both Inventor and WildFire over our
current CAD SWx. I have had second demos now of both, these were more
focused on our product design.

First of all I would like to state that the pop-ups in these other CAD
programs become a nuisance.

And WildFire is the worse that I saw. I saw multiple times where
there were 3 layers of pop-up windows that opened over the top of each
other. A very well trained user did about 27 picks in 3 pop-ups in
about 15 seconds. This alone caused me to cringe as I would never
become that understanding of a program to be able to go this fast.
Just knowing about these other pop-ups would be draining. I would
expect that it would take me 3-6 months to become proficient in this
program with about a year to understand this program fully. Now their
FEA was excellent, a far cry better then the cosmos that we have
today. But in all the interface was not up to what I would have
expected in this program. They have had extensive time to refine
this, and wildfire was a great leap in the right direction. But with
all that I have seen it has not progressed since we looked at this
program 6+ years ago. Still looked difficult to use.

Inventor was lacking. I do not believe that AutoDesk is applying
enough resources to this effort. The demo person was less than
superior. He had been using the software for 2 weeks so he did not
know enough about the software to be a presenter. Most of this second
demo was canned show and tell with regulated bar charts. We had sent
them one of our assemblies to open and show us program effectively and
all they brought up was a small sub-assembly. The sales man was not
sufficient for the technical end and the manager of the VAR had little
to help in the situation. It is like they were looking to get a
management approval where we leave CAD software decisions up to the
actual users. Also this 2 week user was the technical staff that I
would be contacting for support, not good. Good news is that they
would give us a 50% cost break to use their software. Other items
that I liked was how it handles bolt stackups and associated holes,
very good. But even their toolbox did not have everything. The first
toolbox item we asked for was a torx head cap screw, not there, or any
torx fasteners. It was still more than WildFire had.

Overall they were both good CAD packages and are good for mechanical
design. Inventor looks like it is easier to use if starting from
scratch. Wildfire we will have to see. Both CAD programs
demonstrated crashed in the demos.

After what we have seen, SolidWorks is starting to look better and
better. Who would have thought that SolidWorks would look so good,
just demo the others.

Anyway I am still in evaluation phase, will write more as I get it.
iQ

 

Hi Joseph,

Rule 1 about posting on news groups should be don't trust ANY of the replies
you get! For example CS is wrong on at least 2 counts with his remarks
concerning Inventor 11 :-


"You have to Hit F8 every time you want to rotate your part and then the
rotation is exactly like the rotation in AutoCAD then to continue work on
your model you have to hit F8 again. This makes it nearly impossible to do
efficiently model using a standard mouse".

Actually it is F4 which you can use as one method to rotate views (there are
at least 2 others available) and you DO NOT have to press F4 (or F8) again
to return to work. Pressing and holding F4 invokes the Rotate View command -
releasing it quits the command. Not too difficult really!! I agree that SWx
users are used to different methods but Inventor is arguably more productive
than SWx in that you can select items implicitly through the model (e.g.
pick an edge to fillet which is not at the 'front' of the model). AFAIK
earlier versions of SWx did not allow for this but it may be possible now.


"On top of that every Function or form in inventor pops up infront of your
model. then you have to move it out of the way to make your selections."

This is simply rubbish (unless that is you are running Inventor on 640 x 480
VGA system, maybe). By default Inventor dialog boxes appear in the top left
of the work area; they can be dragged into different locations and are
'remembered' there (also on dual screen systems); finally, Inventor dialog
boxes support the standard MS interface option of 'pinning' into a location
which then means the dialog box is only seen when the cursor is moved over
the header bar on the dialog.


In reply to your original post, Inventor 11 improves on version 7 in a
number of ways, but for machine design I would think the productivity gains
from the Content Centre (standard parts library but much more than just nuts
& bolts) and the Design Accelerator (built-in calculations and parts
generator for shafts, beraings, gears, belts, and bolted connections to name
a few) make it worth looking at. As regards SWx 2008 there are loads on
others here who will be able to give you more info than me. At the end of
the day both products are being used widely for just the type of work you
are planning and it may be simply down to what fits best with your customers
(e.g. if you get sent models in one form or another) or which dealer gives
you the best support.

Best of luck in your decision and HTHs a little.

JB

Joseph,

I see you have gotten yourself into a heap of information here most of
which if bloat and impossible to sift through. I have used both
Inventer (Only for a little while) and SolidWorks for years.
Obviously my biast is toward SolidWorks, but I know that as a machine
engineer either product has the tools to do the job. There is one
thing about inventor that plain annoys me is that as small as it may
seem it really slows productivity. You have to Hit F8 every time you
want to rotate your part and then the rotation is exactly like the
rotation in AutoCAD then to continue work on your model you have to
hit F8 again. This makes it nearly impossible to do efficiently model
using a standard mouse. ( I believe if you use a Space Pilot it
negates this issue though ) On top of that every Function or form in
inventor pops up infront of your model. then you have to move it out
of the way to make your selections. Whereas in SolidWorks everything
in neatly on the side out of the way. SolidWorks 2008 has many UI
enhancements that make it's workflow even easier than earlier versions
which were all quite good in themselves. (though it does take some
getting used to). If you ask me I would take SolidWorks hands down no
questions asked. I feel that solidworks makes more efficient use of
UI space and allows you to minimize clicks and picks. If you don't
read tips and tricks on this NG and others though you may miss much of
the built in speed the interface can offer.

Regards,

Corey

 

Thanks JB. That's the kind of info I've been wanting.

Joseph

 

iQ here to respond to the actual question, unlike the babble of
others.

I am in the middle of evaluating both Inventor and WildFire over our
current CAD SWx. I have had second demos now of both, these were more
focused on our product design.

First of all I would like to state that the pop-ups in these other CAD
programs become a nuisance.

And WildFire is the worse that I saw. I saw multiple times where
there were 3 layers of pop-up windows that opened over the top of each
other. A very well trained user did about 27 picks in 3 pop-ups in
about 15 seconds. This alone caused me to cringe as I would never
become that understanding of a program to be able to go this fast.
Just knowing about these other pop-ups would be draining. I would
expect that it would take me 3-6 months to become proficient in this
program with about a year to understand this program fully. Now their
FEA was excellent, a far cry better then the cosmos that we have
today. But in all the interface was not up to what I would have
expected in this program. They have had extensive time to refine
this, and wildfire was a great leap in the right direction. But with
all that I have seen it has not progressed since we looked at this
program 6+ years ago. Still looked difficult to use.

Inventor was lacking. I do not believe that AutoDesk is applying
enough resources to this effort. The demo person was less than
superior. He had been using the software for 2 weeks so he did not
know enough about the software to be a presenter. Most of this second
demo was canned show and tell with regulated bar charts. We had sent
them one of our assemblies to open and show us program effectively and
all they brought up was a small sub-assembly. The sales man was not
sufficient for the technical end and the manager of the VAR had little
to help in the situation. It is like they were looking to get a
management approval where we leave CAD software decisions up to the
actual users. Also this 2 week user was the technical staff that I
would be contacting for support, not good. Good news is that they
would give us a 50% cost break to use their software. Other items
that I liked was how it handles bolt stackups and associated holes,
very good. But even their toolbox did not have everything. The first
toolbox item we asked for was a torx head cap screw, not there, or any
torx fasteners. It was still more than WildFire had.

Overall they were both good CAD packages and are good for mechanical
design. Inventor looks like it is easier to use if starting from
scratch. Wildfire we will have to see. Both CAD programs
demonstrated crashed in the demos.

After what we have seen, SolidWorks is starting to look better and
better. Who would have thought that SolidWorks would look so good,
just demo the others.

Anyway I am still in evaluation phase, will write more as I get it.
iQ

Thanks iQ. How did you get AutoDesk to offer 50% off? I'd be very
interested in that offer.

Joseph

 

I've just not had the free time for the last 18 months or so to
much follow AMC, sorry. Probably at least 10,000 posts behind there
but I do try to make some time for clueless now & then <VBG>.

 

Jon,

You where the one not handling change and was complaining that the
machine you were running didn't have G12 & G13 canned cycles. I told
you to stop complaining about it and program the canned cycle
yourself.

I even spent my time to help you by writing you a sample macro* to get
you started. It's been nearly a year now, I am sure you never
completed your macro's since all you do is complain and never actually
complete/do anything. Of course you can prove me wrong by posting your
completed macros.

[

]

Tom

*

From:
Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc
Subject: G13 FANUC MACRO : Was : using fanuc and climb milling
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 19:07:59 -0700

Fanuc used to have this and for some reason dropped it many years ago.

If it's that valuable a feature for you why don't YOU write one for
yourself?

Here is a start for you.

You stated that your company uses a lot of macros so I did not use any
#500 variables. I used local variables that are reset every time the
macro is called up.

I left you some work if you want it to emulate G12, G13. If you want
to make the macro modal like a normal G-Code canned cycle someone who
knows how to program macros can easily do it.

If you want the option of CW or CCW that is easy enough to do. I laid
it out for you and commented the macro much more than I normally do to
help those reading it here in this forum to understand it without
having to study it too closely.

There are a lot of ways to go about it, I am showing just one way.
There are a lot of ways it can be improved to add more functionality
but YOU have to START somewhere and I am not going to do ALL the work
for you.

If your machine supports it you can call this 9000 program (macro) two
ways.

G65 P9013 X Y Z I D R F Q

or

G113 X Y Z I D R F Q

******************************************

If you want to see how this macro works you can download a trial
version of NCPlot at:

http://www.ncplot.com/

***********************************************
I just wrote this macro and have not tested it.
***********************************************

O0001 (TEST SUB-PROGRAM MACRO)
G40 G17 G80 G90 G49 G20 G54 G94
M6 T1
S2500 M03
G00 X0.0 Y0.0 /M08
G43 H1 Z1.0
G65 P9013 X0.0 Y0.0 Z-1.0 I10.0 D.5 R.2 F10.0 Q3.0
G00 Z1.0 M9
G40 G0 Z4.0 M5
G91 G28 Z.0
M30


O9013 (CCW CIRCLE WITH RADIUS LEAD IN/OUT)
(SIMILAR TO G13 BUT NOT THE SAME AS)
(RADIUS LEAD IN AND OUT IS HALF THE HOLE RADIUS)
IF [#17LT0] THEN #3000=3 (PLUNGE FEEDRATE Q LESS THAN ZERO)
IF [#9LE0] THEN #3000=4 (NO FEEDRATE GIVEN)
IF [#4LE0] THEN #3000=5 (NO HOLE DIAMETER GIVEN)
IF [#7LE0] THEN #3000=6 (NO TOOL DIAMETER GIVEN)
IF [#4LE#7] THEN #3000=7 (TOOL DIA. TOO LARGE)
IF [#24LT0] THEN #3000=8 (NO X LOCATION GIVEN)
IF [#24LT0] THEN #3000=9 (NO Y LOCATION GIVEN)
IF [#26EQ#0] THEN #3000=10 (NO Z HOLE DEPTH GIVEN)
IF [#18LT0] THEN #3000=11 (NO CLEAR POINT GIVEN)
IF [#18LT#26] THEN #3000=12 (RAPID CLEAR LT HOLE DEPTH)

#8=#4003 (G90/G91 STORE CURRENT MODE)
#1=#5003 (STORE CURENT Z POS.)
#2=[#26-#18] (CALCULATE INCREMENTAL Z DEPTH)
#5=[[#4-#7]/2] (SUBTRACT TOOL DIA FROM HOLE DIAMETER CONVERT DIAMETER
TO RADIUS)
#6=#5/2 (LEAD IN AND OUT 1/2 CIRCLE RADIUS)
#100=#17GT0 (IF Q IS LARGER THAN 0 FEED TO DEPTH)
IF[#17LT0]THEN#100=1 (IF Q IS 0 RAPID TO DEPTH)

IF[#17LT0]THEN #3000=1(PLUNGE FEED WRONG Q VALUE)

G#8G0X#24Y#25 (G90/G91 RAPID TO HOLE CENTER)
G0Z#18 (RAPID TO CLEAR Z POINT)
IF[#17GT0] THEN GOTO1 (IF FEEDING TO Z DEPTH GO TO N1)
IF[#17EQ0] THEN GOTO2 (IF RAPID TO Z DEPTH GO TO N2)
N1 F#17 (PLUNGE FEED RATE)
N2 G91 G#100 Z#2 (RAPID OR FEED TO Z END DEPTH)
G91G3X#5Y0I#6J0F#9 (RADIUS LEAD IN WITH CIRCLE FEED RATE)
G3I-#5 (CIRCLE)
G90G3X#24Y#25I-#6J0 (RADIUS LEAD OUT BACK TO START POSITION)
G0G90Z[#1] (RAPID TO INITIAL POINT)
G[#8] (G CODE BACK TO PREV. G90/91)
M99
%

YOU MUST SPECIFY X, Y, Z, I, D, R, F AND Q VALUES IN SUB-PROGRAM CALL
OR IT WILL GENERATE AN ERROR.

MAIN PROGRAM CAN BE ABSOLUTE OR INCREMENTAL POSITIONING.

MACRO STORES G90/91 SETTING, RUNS THE MACRO THEN RESETS BACK TO STORED
MODE BEFORE RETURNING TO MAIN PROGRAM.

(X Y POSITION TO CENTER OF HOLE)
(Z DEPTH/END)
(I HOLE DIAMETER)
(D TOOL DIAMETER)
(R RAPID START/END POSITION)
(F FEED RATE FOR CIRCLE)
(Q PLUNGE FEED, IF Q=0.0 WILL RAPID TO DEPTH)

Tom

***********************

From:
Subject: Re: G13 FANUC MACRO , Corrected Macro
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 19:19:33 -0700
Organization: An InterNetNews Site

There was a long line where I thought the line wrapped but it didn't.
It was a key stroke error that created an EOB dividing the comment in
two.

Corrected this line from the original.

#5=[[#4-#7]/2] (SUBTRACT TOOL DIA FROM HOLE DIAMETER CONVERT DIAMETER
TO RADIUS)

**********************
Edited program below
***********************

O0001 (TEST SUB-PROGRAM MACRO)
G40 G17 G80 G90 G49 G20 G54 G94
M6 T1
S2500 M03
G00 X0.0 Y0.0 /M08
G43 H1 Z1.0
G65 P9013 X0.0 Y0.0 Z-1.0 I10.0 D.5 R.2 F10.0 Q3.0
G00 Z1.0 M9
G40 G0 Z4.0 M5
G91 G28 Z.0
M30


O9013 (CCW CIRCLE WITH RADIUS LEAD IN/OUT)
(SIMILAR TO G13 BUT NOT THE SAME AS)
(RADIUS LEAD IN AND OUT IS HALF THE HOLE RADIUS)
IF [#17LT0] THEN #3000=3 (PLUNGE FEEDRATE Q LESS THAN ZERO)
IF [#9LE0] THEN #3000=4 (NO FEEDRATE GIVEN)
IF [#4LE0] THEN #3000=5 (NO HOLE DIAMETER GIVEN)
IF [#7LE0] THEN #3000=6 (NO TOOL DIAMETER GIVEN)
IF [#4LE#7] THEN #3000=7 (TOOL DIA. TOO LARGE)
IF [#24LT0] THEN #3000=8 (NO X LOCATION GIVEN)
IF [#24LT0] THEN #3000=9 (NO Y LOCATION GIVEN)
IF [#26EQ#0] THEN #3000=10 (NO Z HOLE DEPTH GIVEN)
IF [#18LT0] THEN #3000=11 (NO CLEAR POINT GIVEN)
IF [#18LT#26] THEN #3000=12 (RAPID CLEAR LT HOLE DEPTH)

#8=#4003 (G90/G91 STORE CURRENT MODE)
#1=#5003 (STORE CURENT Z POS.)
#2=[#26-#18] (CALCULATE INCREMENTAL Z DEPTH)
#5=[[#4-#7]/2] (SUBTRACT TOOL DIA FROM HOLE DIAMETER CONVERT DIAMETER
TO RADIUS)
#6=#5/2 (LEAD IN AND OUT 1/2 CIRCLE RADIUS)
#100=#17GT0 (IF Q IS LARGER THAN 0 FEED TO DEPTH)
IF[#17LT0]THEN#100=1 (IF Q IS 0 RAPID TO DEPTH)

IF[#17LT0]THEN #3000=1(PLUNGE FEED WRONG Q VALUE)

G#8G0X#24Y#25 (G90/G91 RAPID TO HOLE CENTER)
G0Z#18 (RAPID TO CLEAR Z POINT)
IF[#17GT0] THEN GOTO1 (IF FEEDING TO Z DEPTH GO TO N1)
IF[#17EQ0] THEN GOTO2 (IF RAPID TO Z DEPTH GO TO N2)
N1 F#17 (PLUNGE FEED RATE)
N2 G91 G#100 Z#2 (RAPID OR FEED TO Z END DEPTH)
G91G3X#5Y0I#6J0F#9 (RADIUS LEAD IN WITH CIRCLE FEED RATE)
G3I-#5 (CIRCLE)
G90G3X#24Y#25I-#6J0 (RADIUS LEAD OUT BACK TO START POSITION)
G0G90Z[#1] (RAPID TO INITIAL POINT)
G[#8] (G CODE BACK TO PREV. G90/91)
M99
%

***************************

From:
Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc
Subject: Re: G13 FANUC MACRO : Was : using fanuc and climb milling

You have been running second shift lights out with no probing?
Wow, gutsy move.

Have you written Fanuc macros or Probing macros before?

Well I did give you a start.....lol.

I will be editing the macro for my own use to make it emulate G13/12
options, will make it modal and add a loop so it can run multiple DOC
passes if needs be.

Tom

*********************************

From:
Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc
Subject: Re: G13 FANUC MACRO : Was : using fanuc and climb milling
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:10:34 -0700

Bob,

Well you went to a good source, Tim is a great programmer.


If Parameter #6053 = 13
G13 will execute the macro (Program Number O9013)

*****************************

Make #6054=13
Change macro program number to O9014.
G13 will execute the macro pgm O9014.

This is great stuff and way under utilized IMO.

It's a simple thing to do, you want G13, G12 and don't have it? No
need to complain just program it. Got a good idea for a custom G Code,
program it.

Family of parts shit with a macro you can even have the controller
prompt the operator for inputs if needs be.

Want to know the real spindle utilization, not just machine on/off,
program start/end? You can tie custom macros to M codes as well. Turn
the spindle on with S code (timer starts) M5 (timer stops) macro
calculates time and adds it to the variable that stores the total.
Dprint that collected data to your desktop computer.

Tom

 

AutoDesk offered me to trade in my SWx serial munber to get this cost
advantage. now you can continue to use SWx as the license cannot be
transferred in this manor. you may even be able to upgrade it, i am
not too sure. the license to use the software is what we all have.
it is not allowed to be sold in most circumstances. but i believe
that the intent of Adesk is to get users on their software and stop
upgrading SWx. if this was the path that we would go down then i
would have kept using the current version for history CAD
maintenance. all new CAD endevors would have been done in Adesk.

here is the bad news. my efforts have been stopped on this project.
my core engineering group that was in the review with me were so
dissapointed in both softwares, PTC & Adesk, that this project has
been discontinued, primarily by the chief engineer and design lead
engineer. i really wanted to continue as my next step was to train on
both softwares and do an internal project on them and see how
effective they were. you know it is a real shame that you can look at
10 different CAD software programs and find out that you may have the
best in class out there. even with the issues that SWx has, and i
have with it, it is pretty darn good. so this is the end of this
round of CAD program research. i am very dissapointed.

still working on PDM tools review and WIndChill still looks to be best
in class as a full fledged PDM/PLM. iQ

 

Thanks for the update!

AutoDesk offered me to trade in my SWx serial munber to get this cost
advantage. now you can continue to use SWx as the license cannot be
transferred in this manor. you may even be able to upgrade it, i am
not too sure. the license to use the software is what we all have.
it is not allowed to be sold in most circumstances. but i believe
that the intent of Adesk is to get users on their software and stop
upgrading SWx. if this was the path that we would go down then i
would have kept using the current version for history CAD
maintenance. all new CAD endevors would have been done in Adesk.

here is the bad news. my efforts have been stopped on this project.
my core engineering group that was in the review with me were so
dissapointed in both softwares, PTC & Adesk, that this project has
been discontinued, primarily by the chief engineer and design lead
engineer. i really wanted to continue as my next step was to train on
both softwares and do an internal project on them and see how
effective they were. you know it is a real shame that you can look at
10 different CAD software programs and find out that you may have the
best in class out there. even with the issues that SWx has, and i
have with it, it is pretty darn good. so this is the end of this
round of CAD program research. i am very dissapointed.

still working on PDM tools review and WIndChill still looks to be best
in class as a full fledged PDM/PLM. iQ

 

here is the bad news. my efforts have been stopped on this project.

I'd say it's good news. You, like most, don't appear to have a clue.

They sound like smart guys to me.

It's a real shame that you remain clueless.

Translation: Most other CADCAM companies are not giving users tools to
quickly and easily understand all the complex relations either.

ROTFLMFAO. What research?

So am I. Not for the same reasons you are, however.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

I have the bad habit of referring to & thinking of Autodesk as AutoCAD -
IIRC that was their only product way back when. AutoCAD was 3D back
then too (Rev 10 days), not that you could accurately model the
average ashtray with it.