Autodesk Mechanical Desktop

[#1]

I don't have an issue keeping track of the files and folders but it seems IV
does have an issue, that's my point.

Chas

wrote in message news:5226026@discussion.autodesk.com...
>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.)

[#2]

Hi Phil,

I notice in your signiture that you are a gauge designer at North American Lighting. That is why you understand where I'm coming from, as we are gauge and fixture builders too. There is a tremendous amount of surface manipulation required in fixture building, as well as the need for points and lines (SPC points and vectors). Really, for our line of work, a hybrid modeller, such as Mechanical Desktop, is essential. This is where most modern "Solid Modeler" fall short. Surfacing is not dead, nor will it ever be.

Dan

[#3]

Dan,

Yes - Your absolutely correct. I design gauges and test fixtures for
automotive lighting. If you think of a modern automotive Headlamp for
example, you can see where were coming from. Lots of free-form surfacing
involved, and always the need to express SPC points in terms of unit vectors
(I,J,K). On gauges, we have to create functional pin check rails that match
the nominal gap and flushness between the car body and the lamp. Not to
mention the environmental fixtures, where we have to simulate the entire
surrounding.

Thanks for the reply.

--
--------------------------------------
Phil Kenewell
Gage Designer
North American Lighting, Inc.

[#4]

Hi Phil,

We do those types of fixtures quite often. In fact, we have built fixtures for your company.

Dan Message was edited by: DBayn

[#5]

Interesting - What's the name of your company?

--------------------------------------
Phil Kenewell
Gage Designer
North American Lighting, Inc.

[#6]

A.V. Gauge and Fixture Inc.

[#7]

Ah Yes - I've seen a couple of gauges down at the Illinois plant with your
logo on them. You guys are in Ontario Canada - right? Our internal gauge and
fixture department is located at the Farmington Hills tech center in
Michigan.


--------------------------------------
Phil Kenewell
Gage Designer
North American Lighting, Inc.

[#8]

Yes, just outside Windsor.

[#9]

"No need to profile sketches", kind of correct but to do anything with a sketch, you still have to click on the Return Icon...sounds like the same thing as profiling a sketch to me. same clicks...

"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)." True and False, sounds like the instructor didn't properly show them how to create work planes.

"Fillet options that don't exist in MDT" MDT can do Fillets that IV cannot, I learned this in a IV class recently, and can show proof.

"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)." 3D constraints in MDT are far superior, you do NOT have to create a midplane workplane on the first part to mate it with the "midplane" of another part, IV you must and it must be visible and it must be a month that ends in Y and a new moon...etc


"Inventor Studio" Oh yes, I love the great "Friday Pictures" Spongebob with a light saber and all, how long has render been around? How about a useable drawing to make parts!?!

One question I have, why does it take soooo long to insert a simple socket head cap screw in IV, if you can even get it to work? 2-3 minutes is out of the question. Especially when you have to insert 1-300 screws...

So no pressure here...I have my full list of comparison at work and will try to post it at a later time.

[#10]

JD typed... "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."

Yeah. Take a look over there and see my questions on why half the *&^%
advertised in IV doesn't work or is broken /fixed from release to release
and unreliable. Be sure and read my rants and responses showing how
disappointed I am with IV. They are from a LONG time MDT user that is
trying to understand why on the 11th release of IV that the software is
totally unstable and not a time saver at all for me. Also, be sure and keep
in mind that JD is a tool and has an agenda that doesn't match yours, as he
makes money "teaching" people how to use a program that is so "intuitive".

Give it a *&^%$# rest, JD. I've been to the "promised land" and it's under
construction. Here's your new icon.



--
Robert Davis
QC/CMM Dept.
robert@easmfg.com

E.A.S. Manufacturing Co., Inc.
804 Via Alondra
Camarillo, Ca 93012
805-987-3665 Voice
805-987-7948 Fax
eas@easmfg.com - General E-Mail
www.easmfg.com - Web Site

wrote in message news:5226026@discussion.autodesk.com...
>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.)