Autodesk Mechanical Desktop

[#1]

I just take JD's advise for based on his arena of expertise.

I need advise and feedback from actual users in the manufacturing world. Not
from a classroom. Not knocking the classroom but we have a bit steeper
requirement for a software package than frills. It must be stable, robust
package that can handle large projects and accurately produce dwg files. It
has to be able to handle archiving total data packages without interfering
with our standard parts inventory.
It must be retrievable from archive.

IV fails miserably.

Chas
"Robert Davis" wrote in message
news:5232130@discussion.autodesk.com...
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 "i
ntuitive".

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 sketc
hes
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
employme
nt is secure clear to retirement. (Same thing I said to board
drafters 20 years ago.)

[#2]

My frustration stems from actually trying what JD has suggested over and
over again ad infinitum, (This is actually my second attempt at IV) and
learning IV, only to be disappointed with the product.

I also work in a manufacturing environment and I agree with you. The thing
is, IV has so much potential and some of the stuff is great, but the basic
functions, like the program actually working the way it says it's supposed
to is a crap shoot.

I was so looking forward to the Content Center when I installed IV11,
supposedly the latest and greatest IV. I thought that the extra time that it
takes/took me to model and get up to speed with IV would be offset by being
able to quickly insert fasteners, extrusions, etc and have them populate the
BOM, and at least get my drawings to production quicker on that end. What a
mistake that was. The CC simply doesn't work. I can't create my own library
of parts and the part names and descriptions provided are so useless I have
to start from scratch anyway. Cross part associativity apparently is a crap
shoot, file maintenance is a nightmare, standard drafting tasks take longer,
etc.


--
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

"Chas" wrote in message
news:5232249@discussion.autodesk.com...
I just take JD's advise for based on his arena of expertise.

I need advise and feedback from actual users in the manufacturing world. Not
from a classroom. Not knocking the classroom but we have a bit steeper
requirement for a software package than frills. It must be stable, robust
package that can handle large projects and accurately produce dwg files. It
has to be able to handle archiving total data packages without interfering
with our standard parts inventory.
It must be retrievable from archive.

IV fails miserably.

Chas
"Robert Davis" wrote in message
news:5232130@discussion.autodesk.com...
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 "i
ntuitive".

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 sketc
hes
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
employme
nt is secure clear to retirement. (Same thing I said to board
drafters 20 years ago.)

[#3]

A machinist's toolbox is brown not red.

[#4]

A tool knows toolboxes.

--
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:5232417@discussion.autodesk.com...
A machinist's toolbox is brown not red.

[#5]

Yes I have a few tools in my toolbox. I guess I should get a real job helping real people do real work. I don't get out onto the shop floor all that often anymore. I do on-site consulting if you would like to see my tools.

[#6]

I repeat below from earlier in this thread (this was not a rhetorical
question - I would really like to know if you can help!):

JD - since your the IV surfacing guru - Have you ever tried this scenario?
Importing a complex IGES surface file into an IV file, then offsetting,
untrimming, extending, re-trimming, and using the altered surfaces to cut
new solids? We have to do these type of manipulations on a daily basis. [I
haven't been able to do this effectively in IV yet - I am forced to continue
using MDT.] Any insights you might have into doing this reliably and quickly
in IV would be greatly appreciated.

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

[#7]

Zip and post your file.

[#8]

Unfortunately, I cannot do that because of both security issues and an
outgoing e-mail size restriction here. I was looking more for general
techniques and methods for handling and manipulating imported surface
geometry to make new solids - for example: Importing a headlamp lens "A"
surface and then creating a surrounding set of rails that maintain a 3mm gap
around the edges, normal to the edge surface, and also matching the "A"
surface on the front of the rails. Attached is a screenshot of a job I am
working on currently in MDT. It's a couple of flush and gap rails for a rear
combination lamp that shows what I need to accomplish in IV:

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

wrote in message news:5247678@discussion.autodesk.com...
Zip and post your file.

[#9]

>I was looking more for general techniques and methods for handling and manipulating imported surface geometry.

I am working on a series of tutorials using the Inventor CE for doing that type of stuff that I will be submitting to AUGIWorld for publication in the future. I like to find real-world examples as the rap I get is that I don't work in the "real-world".

[#10]

Oops, forgot to attach the IGES repair document here a while back.

Anyone still interested?
How you MDT guys doing these days?