Autodesk Inventor

[#1]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:42:33 -0800, "Albert Allen"
wrote:

> Frames are ultra quick in a solid and a lot easier to
>visualize and modify.

I second that statment. However, I also found that for most frames,
I can do it much faster in AutoCAD. The reason is that all those
constraints take time to do, and unless your design really needs the
parametrics, there is no benefit to doing it in Inventor.

Joe Dunfee

[#2]

I really have to disagree. I would put money on the fact that an
experienced Inventor user could make a frame as quickly if not quicker than
an AutoCAD user could make all three projected drawings. Especially if
he/she used skeletal modeling.

The other advantage is if something changes the update process is simply
"update". Now try changing all those lines in AutoCAD.

My two cents

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
remove all #s from email
-----------------------------------------
"Joe" wrote in message
news:3dc281cf.2109022@discussion.autodesk.com...
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:42:33 -0800, "Albert Allen"
> wrote:
>
> > Frames are ultra quick in a solid and a lot easier to
> >visualize and modify.
>
> I second that statment. However, I also found that for most frames,
> I can do it much faster in AutoCAD. The reason is that all those
> constraints take time to do, and unless your design really needs the
> parametrics, there is no benefit to doing it in Inventor.
>
> Joe Dunfee

[#3]

I'll call your two cents and raise you two.

--
Cory McConnell
BJ pipeline Inspection
"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:00AD3B704E09AF9A4DEE0C28240B8D63@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I really have to disagree. I would put money on the fact that an
> experienced Inventor user could make a frame as quickly if not quicker
than
> an AutoCAD user could make all three projected drawings. Especially if
> he/she used skeletal modeling.
>
> The other advantage is if something changes the update process is simply
> "update". Now try changing all those lines in AutoCAD.
>
> My two cents
>
> --
> Sean Dotson, PE
> http://www.sdotson.com
> remove all #s from email
> -----------------------------------------
> "Joe" wrote in message
> news:3dc281cf.2109022@discussion.autodesk.com...
> > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:42:33 -0800, "Albert Allen"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Frames are ultra quick in a solid and a lot easier to
> > >visualize and modify.
> >
> > I second that statment. However, I also found that for most frames,
> > I can do it much faster in AutoCAD. The reason is that all those
> > constraints take time to do, and unless your design really needs the
> > parametrics, there is no benefit to doing it in Inventor.
> >
> > Joe Dunfee
>
>

[#4]

was that an agreement or a disagreement?

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
remove all #s from email
-----------------------------------------
"Cory McConnell" wrote in message
news:49C55BC2920752237E6131730D126526@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I'll call your two cents and raise you two.
>
> --
> Cory McConnell
> BJ pipeline Inspection
> "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> news:00AD3B704E09AF9A4DEE0C28240B8D63@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I really have to disagree. I would put money on the fact that an
> > experienced Inventor user could make a frame as quickly if not quicker
> than
> > an AutoCAD user could make all three projected drawings. Especially if
> > he/she used skeletal modeling.
> >
> > The other advantage is if something changes the update process is simply
> > "update". Now try changing all those lines in AutoCAD.
> >
> > My two cents
> >
> > --
> > Sean Dotson, PE
> > http://www.sdotson.com
> > remove all #s from email
> > -----------------------------------------
> > "Joe" wrote in message
> > news:3dc281cf.2109022@discussion.autodesk.com...
> > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:42:33 -0800, "Albert Allen"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Frames are ultra quick in a solid and a lot easier to
> > > >visualize and modify.
> > >
> > > I second that statment. However, I also found that for most frames,
> > > I can do it much faster in AutoCAD. The reason is that all those
> > > constraints take time to do, and unless your design really needs the
> > > parametrics, there is no benefit to doing it in Inventor.
> > >
> > > Joe Dunfee
> >
> >
>
>

[#5]

Agreement.

"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:781621FF047AB3C953BD6138763F423E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> was that an agreement or a disagreement?
>
> --
> Sean Dotson, PE
> http://www.sdotson.com
> remove all #s from email
> -----------------------------------------
> "Cory McConnell" wrote in message
> news:49C55BC2920752237E6131730D126526@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I'll call your two cents and raise you two.
> >
> > --
> > Cory McConnell
> > BJ pipeline Inspection
> > "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> > news:00AD3B704E09AF9A4DEE0C28240B8D63@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > I really have to disagree. I would put money on the fact that an
> > > experienced Inventor user could make a frame as quickly if not quicker
> > than
> > > an AutoCAD user could make all three projected drawings. Especially
if
> > > he/she used skeletal modeling.
> > >
> > > The other advantage is if something changes the update process is
simply
> > > "update". Now try changing all those lines in AutoCAD.
> > >
> > > My two cents
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sean Dotson, PE
> > > http://www.sdotson.com
> > > remove all #s from email
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > "Joe" wrote in message
> > > news:3dc281cf.2109022@discussion.autodesk.com...
> > > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:42:33 -0800, "Albert Allen"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Frames are ultra quick in a solid and a lot easier to
> > > > >visualize and modify.
> > > >
> > > > I second that statment. However, I also found that for most
frames,
> > > > I can do it much faster in AutoCAD. The reason is that all those
> > > > constraints take time to do, and unless your design really needs the
> > > > parametrics, there is no benefit to doing it in Inventor.
> > > >
> > > > Joe Dunfee
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[#6]

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 05:39:39 -0800, "Sean Dotson"
wrote:

>I really have to disagree. I would put money on the fact that an
>experienced Inventor user could make a frame as quickly if not quicker than
>an AutoCAD user could make all three projected drawings.

In my case, I have been making the frames in 3-D using polyface
boxes to represent the square tubing. So, I already have the
projected drawings from that.

When I've done similar structures in Inventor, I always ran into
unanticipated changes which caused many of my constraints to become
invalid. Upon reviewing my design process, I saw there was no way I
could have anticipated the changes, and avoided the re-constraining
hassle. Actually, even the first assembly takes much more effort
because of all the additional steps to add the constraints not needed
in Vanilla AutoCAD.

I wish inventor would be pratical for us, since I have had to give
up certain advantages such as the weight and center of gravity
information. I am starting now to write up a BOM program for AutoCAD
to do stuff Inventor can already do.

Joe Dunfee

[#7]

Look into the skeletal modeling method. I have an example on my site of a
simple box frame. You could extend the logic to more complex designs. The
advantage of skeletal modeling is the facts that no constraints are used.
See my site (see signature) and go to the tutorials page. Introduction to
skeletal modeling. There are other examples on many other sites like Drew's
and Kent's (see the FAQ posted weekly for links)

(the dark side is a powerful force Kent)

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
remove all #s from email
-----------------------------------------
"Joe" wrote in message
news:3dc2df38.7676678@discussion.autodesk.com...
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 05:39:39 -0800, "Sean Dotson"
> wrote:
>
> >I really have to disagree. I would put money on the fact that an
> >experienced Inventor user could make a frame as quickly if not quicker
than
> >an AutoCAD user could make all three projected drawings.
>
> In my case, I have been making the frames in 3-D using polyface
> boxes to represent the square tubing. So, I already have the
> projected drawings from that.
>
> When I've done similar structures in Inventor, I always ran into
> unanticipated changes which caused many of my constraints to become
> invalid. Upon reviewing my design process, I saw there was no way I
> could have anticipated the changes, and avoided the re-constraining
> hassle. Actually, even the first assembly takes much more effort
> because of all the additional steps to add the constraints not needed
> in Vanilla AutoCAD.
>
> I wish inventor would be pratical for us, since I have had to give
> up certain advantages such as the weight and center of gravity
> information. I am starting now to write up a BOM program for AutoCAD
> to do stuff Inventor can already do.
>
> Joe Dunfee