Autodesk Mechanical Desktop

[#1]

Group,

I've been using MDT for some time now. There's always the pressure to
convert to Inventor. I've looked at the Inventor newsgroup and there
are some unhappy campers with Inventor.

Why should a person consider changing to Inventor. I can build solids
with MDT. So, why would one change over????

Someone put some wisdom upon me!!!!

Thanks,
MikeF

[#2]

As per my reply in an earlier post
I have been Designer/MDT user since day 1.
I used MDT 6 for 3 years. Very Stable & Fast.
But I have been using MDT2006 since its release and
it is the fastest most stable MDT to date and the fastest
CAD modeller I've ever used.
I run a DUAL AMD Athalon 2000 (Now 3 years old)
2 gbRAM, Raid array HHDs (2X80GB)
Nvidia 5600 GXL 256 gb onboard ram (Converted driver using
"SoftQuadro 4" (Note: this graphics card is faster than my
"Quadro4 500"
My Laptop using MDT2006 & Inventor 10 is a HP ZD8000
running Pent 4 3.4GHZ HT 2mb L2 cache 2gb ram
Ati Mobility Radeon x600. 80gb HDD
This laptop is my first that I used for my main drafting tasks.
It flys.
Slightly faster generally than the work station.
Basically I love MDT and using my own profile and parametric
models it has made my drafting tasks a walk in the park and
its easy money for me using the this software compared to
ANY other available.

Cheers Tim Jolly

[#3]

Inventor has some really cool user interface features and also does a few
things better than MDT.
That said,
if you have large projects going from design to manufacture with an archive
system of any kind for retrieval and reuse or modification,.....forget it.
IV has way to many file issues.
A simple single file in MDT of a project under 5 meg topped out at 45meg in
IV and had a whole gambit of files to keep coordinated and updated to
archive. To retrieve the model at a later date off of an archive is a roll
of the dice.

Right now it's kinda like a paintbrush quality package with real potential.

IMHO,
Chas

Maybe someday but not anytime soon.
"MikeF" wrote in message
news:5225126@discussion.autodesk.com...
Group,

I've been using MDT for some time now. There's always the pressure to
convert to Inventor. I've looked at the Inventor newsgroup and there
are some unhappy campers with Inventor.

Why should a person consider changing to Inventor. I can build solids
with MDT. So, why would one change over????

Someone put some wisdom upon me!!!!

Thanks,
MikeF

[#4]

I appreciate your input. At this point the only thing I've recognized
with Inventor is the fancy pictures. I haven't seen that it creates any
solids anymore accurate than MDT.

--MikeF

MikeF wrote:
> Group,
>
> I've been using MDT for some time now. There's always the pressure to
> convert to Inventor. I've looked at the Inventor newsgroup and there
> are some unhappy campers with Inventor.
>
> Why should a person consider changing to Inventor. I can build solids
> with MDT. So, why would one change over????
>
> Someone put some wisdom upon me!!!!
>
> Thanks,
> MikeF

[#5]

It does do a flat layout of a sheetmetal part if the parameters are set
correctly, it does work some (I stress some) complex curved objects that MDT
has a real issue with but I haven't seen anything that would tempt me to
consider a full change.

I must be getting old'
I actually just defended a inferior product.

Chas

"MikeF" wrote in message
news:5225775@discussion.autodesk.com...
I appreciate your input. At this point the only thing I've recognized
with Inventor is the fancy pictures. I haven't seen that it creates any
solids anymore accurate than MDT.

--MikeF

MikeF wrote:
> Group,
>
> I've been using MDT for some time now. There's always the pressure to
> convert to Inventor. I've looked at the Inventor newsgroup and there
> are some unhappy campers with Inventor.
>
> Why should a person consider changing to Inventor. I can build solids
> with MDT. So, why would one change over????
>
> Someone put some wisdom upon me!!!!
>
> Thanks,
> MikeF

[#6]

>There's always the pressure to convert to Inventor. I've looked at the Inventor newsgroup and there are some unhappy campers with Inventor.

Why don't you post this question over there?
That is where the people who have succumbed to the pressure to convert hang out. You might get some input from their experience in making the transition, here you are limited to those who couldn't make the transition. I used to tell my class first day that MDT was my preferred CAD program until I fully understood Inventor.

Inventor Plus
No need to profile sketches
Shared sketches
Derived sketches
Derived parts
Far easier parametric work-plane creation (I ran into a lot of MDT users who use ACAD UCS command to create non-parametric sketchplanes/workplanes).
Parametric surface creation
Sculpt tool that doesn't exist in MDT
Boundary Patch tool that doesn't exist in MDT (tangent)
Loft options that don't exist in MDT
Sweep options that don't exist in MDT
Fillet options that don't exist in MDT
Interactive assembly constraints that don't exist in MDT (I ran into a lot of people who use ACAD align command instead of parametric 3D constraints which they didn't understand how to use).
Assembly motions that don't exist in MDT
Sheet metal flat pattern generation with bend allowance
Construction Environment tools for fixing imported geometry (MDT used to lead in this function - no longer true).
Frame generator tools that don't exist in MDT
Inventor Studio
DWF Animation
Assembly save as stl
Creating traditional 2D drawings from 3D models or assemblies is far easier all the way around.

I don't understand what all the difficulty is that long time MDT users have with part, assembly and drawing files being separate files. What is the difference between a file and a folder in terms of management? In the digital world a file or a folder of files is all 1s and 0s. Actually in the physical world a part is a part, an assembly is a group of parts, a drawing is a flat sheet of paper, not a part or an assembly. Wow that is confusing to keep track of. (I often saw MDT users always start with an assembly file rather than a part file and they didn't know how to use the assembly Catalog).

>I can build solids with MDT. So, why would one change over?
That is great! Your CAD software purchases are over as MDT is no longer sold anyhow. Be happy you don't have to keep up with learning all of the above and the inevitable pains with new technology. Just hope your employment is secure clear to retirement. (Same thing I said to board drafters 20 years ago.)

[#7]

I feel you are sending a sermon, not wisdom!!!

--MikeF




JD Mather wrote:
>> There's always the pressure to convert to Inventor. I've looked at the Inventor newsgroup and there are some unhappy campers with Inventor.
>
> Why don't you post this question over there?
> That is where the people who have succumbed to the pressure to convert hang out. You might get some input from their experience in making the transition, here you are limited to those who couldn't make the transition. I used to tell my class first day that MDT was my preferred CAD program until I fully understood Inventor.
>
> Inventor Plus
> No need to profile sketches
> Shared sketches
> Derived sketches
> Derived parts
> Far easier parametric work-plane creation (I ran into a lot of MDT users who use ACAD UCS command to create non-parametric sketchplanes/workplanes).
> Parametric surface creation
> Sculpt tool that doesn't exist in MDT
> Boundary Patch tool that doesn't exist in MDT (tangent)
> Loft options that don't exist in MDT
> Sweep options that don't exist in MDT
> Fillet options that don't exist in MDT
> Interactive assembly constraints that don't exist in MDT (I ran into a lot of people who use ACAD align command instead of parametric 3D constraints which they didn't understand how to use).
> Assembly motions that don't exist in MDT
> Sheet metal flat pattern generation with bend allowance
> Construction Environment tools for fixing imported geometry (MDT used to lead in this function - no longer true).
> Frame generator tools that don't exist in MDT
> Inventor Studio
> DWF Animation
> Assembly save as stl
> Creating traditional 2D drawings from 3D models or assemblies is far easier all the way around.
>
> I don't understand what all the difficulty is that long time MDT users have with part, assembly and drawing files being separate files. What is the difference between a file and a folder in terms of management? In the digital world a file or a folder of files is all 1s and 0s. Actually in the physical world a part is a part, an assembly is a group of parts, a drawing is a flat sheet of paper, not a part or an assembly. Wow that is confusing to keep track of. (I often saw MDT users always start with an assembly file rather than a part file and they didn't know how to use the assembly Catalog).
>
>> I can build solids with MDT. So, why would one change over?
> That is great! Your CAD software purchases are over as MDT is no longer sold anyhow. Be happy you don't have to keep up with learning all of the above and the inevitable pains with new technology. Just hope your employment is secure clear to retirement. (Same thing I said to board drafters 20 years ago.)

[#8]

> I feel you are sending a sermon, not wisdom!!!

There's some wisdom there but there is no wisdom in asking the question. The
only way you will figure it out is to use the program full time 3 to 6 months,
unless you are modeling and assembling Leggos, and then you will be minimally
qualified to make a wisdom judgement and comparison in your environment, which
of course you don't consider significant enough to minimally describe, or hire a
competent analyst to come in and help you out. If you ain't gonna make either
investment you shouldn't worry about it. 10 years of arguing about SW vs MDT
and now it's degenerated to IV vs MDT. Sheesh.

[#9]

Now, you sound like a consultant, one of those that seem to know a
little about everything.

All, I was asking is why the urge to move up to Inventor, not a sermon
about my employment through retirement!!!

--MikeF


ncch wrote:
>> I feel you are sending a sermon, not wisdom!!!
>
> There's some wisdom there but there is no wisdom in asking the question. The
> only way you will figure it out is to use the program full time 3 to 6 months,
> unless you are modeling and assembling Leggos, and then you will be minimally
> qualified to make a wisdom judgement and comparison in your environment, which
> of course you don't consider significant enough to minimally describe, or hire a
> competent analyst to come in and help you out. If you ain't gonna make either
> investment you shouldn't worry about it. 10 years of arguing about SW vs MDT
> and now it's degenerated to IV vs MDT. Sheesh.

[#10]

> All, I was asking is why the urge ...

That's just the result of having sales water dribbled on you. When the need to
move is real you won't have any questions.

JD (and maybe a marketing weenie or two) spent some time on that list. It's
pretty good and a cumulative response to a lot of questions. Don't knock it til
you've tried it.

Don't you have a copy of Inventor at your disposal?