Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Conclusion (?) on IV2008 to Solidworks department wide change

11 REPLIES 11
Reply
Message 1 of 12
afettig
721 Views, 11 Replies

Conclusion (?) on IV2008 to Solidworks department wide change

I posted a topic about changing to SW in January. I recieved very good information from this group before we launched into a time consuming comparison of which software will work best for us into the future.

It looks like SW came out ahead for how we will use it. I'm not happy about changing but a 30 day evaluation and some demonstrations in our data sets gave some definite reasons to change. I am about to approve a few hundred thousand dollars of engineering time to make the switch beyond software purchase costs. We are not casual users (see our products at www.entrusttool.com) and I believe we are using Inventor as effectively as possible. If any one has direct experience with the following primary deciding factors I would appreciate a rebuttal before I start the process next week:

#1: Configurations .vs iParts and iAssemblies: I even went back to Autodesk VAR training on this one with one of my engineers to make sure we weren’t doing it wrong. I have generated thousands of iParts and still find them slow and cumbersome. The multiple child concept and file structure makes using them a serious commitment rather than a natural flow of design. Using them for multiple states of a casting with machined features is not practical. iAssemblies are about the same, the parts count was wrong in the bill of materials during the VAR class and required several forced updates after it was noticed before the bill of materials was correct. This is an every day advantage for switching to SW.

#2: Weldments: Inventor forces us to design each piece as a separate part, and then machine them afterwards. Using the weldment environment for machined features (essentially assembly level features) slows large assembly performance per white papers from Autodesk and our experience, so we use derived components of the welded assembly to create machined parts. Heavy investment in skeletal modeling was made several years ago to make this go more smoothly, but a simple copy of a weldment for reuse in a new design is a serious time commitment. I asked the VAR about Vault and redirecting a new dataset to a different master sketch but wasn’t comfortable with the answer. SW uses a multi-body part environment and is smart enough to recognize multiple plates/stock the same size even when created as sketched extrusion and breaks them out into a parts list. Coupled with configurations for machined/welded state, SW is superior for our products.

#3: Drawings: SW is quicker for detailing, auto dimensions from user selected datum’s .vs only model sketches. Complex sectioning is possible, Inventor is still lacking in basic functions. I want to pay my engineering staff to design parts, not detail them. The .dwg compatibility focus is not important to me, nobody uses Autocad anymore for serious machine design or machining, CAM is always 3D in our industry.

#4: FEA: We run IV 2008 pro and Simulation versions with ANSYS part FEA. We cannot use this tool on assemblies, so essentially it isn’t very helpful unless we manually attempt to simulate relationships in separate parts and I personally only trust the results in very basic cases. Cosmos in the SW premium works across multiple parts in assembly mode and appears more useful in actual design. I got pricing on ANSYS designspace but it even though the link is dynamic, it isn't as accessable to the designer (and it is expensive to purchase and maintain).

#5: The basics: Sketching constraints, intersecting bodies, etc. is not as simple as it could be in inventor. Modeling features such as extrusions at offsets, different dimensions in different directions and assembly context geometry projection and sharing relationships seems smarter in SW.

#6: Industry acceptance: It was about a 20:1 ratio of SW to Inventor experience on resume’s. We hired two mechanical engineers to expand our department that had Solidworks experience. Both said they were willing to learn Inventor and I’m sure we could train effectively if we had to. Our CAM software Mastercam just announced live geometry links between Solidworks models and their toolpaths. According to our salesperson, no plans are in place to develop this for Inventor. Many of our supplier can read SW models, all of our suppliers require us to step out our Inventor files. There is a definite stigma against Inventor as an inferior (cheap) product.

I do believe Inventor is superior in some ways:

Performance: Large assembly opening was actually faster in Inventor (although the parts came from native Inventor construction stepped out for the test), about 35 seconds .vs 50 seconds on a 4000 part assembly (With lightweight parts on, SW opened it in about 15 seconds). Rotating models on the screen, creating drawing views and selecting edges on huge drawings was somewhat quicker with Inventor on our 64 bit $5k workstations. We can open an 8600 part assembly in Inventor across our network (no locally stored libraries) in 3.5 minutes in shared mode, without Vault.

Interface: SW2008 looks like Microsoft Office 2007. I hate Office 2007. I am obviously more familiar with Inventor, having used it 50-60 hours a week since R5, but even adjusting for my comfort level, I believe Inventor has a very elegant user interface.

Graphics: The native inventor textures, shading, etc. on parts make it enjoyable to work in a realistic view without resorting to obnoxious or performance sapping “special modes” that SW offers. Good job Autodesk (since the beginning this has been very good.)

Threads: Inventor can show left hand threads, SW cannot (really, it’s true.)

Support: Access to file downloads, service packs, discussion groups without requiring subscription (although we are on subscription so I guess this doesn’t matter.)

Any final suggestions or thoughts are appreciated.

Anthony Fettig
Chief Operating Officer
Entrust Tool and Design Co., Inc.
Menomonee Falls, WI
www.entrusttool.com
11 REPLIES 11
Message 2 of 12
Josh_Petitt
in reply to: afettig

Anthony, I enjoyed reading your analysis. It sounds like you are making the right choice in the change. I'd be interested in knowing how it all went 6 months from now.
Message 3 of 12
Eddy_Lintern
in reply to: afettig

Anthony…

“Threads: Inventor can show left hand threads, SW cannot (really, it’s true.)”

In SW when mapping the thread bitmap to a cylindrical face adjusting the angle slider left or right of its centre position will run the thread texture opposite ways to create a left or right hand thread as required.

Eddy
Message 4 of 12
Cschmidt
in reply to: afettig

Thanks Anthony for you honest feedback. You did your homework and actually took the time to evaluate the software. You made some excellent observations about both softwares.
Message 5 of 12
Lancasterm
in reply to: afettig

Anthony..

It appears from your posting that a lot of thought, effort, and time was put into evaluation of both products. Great job..

In the end it boils down to what product suits the need of your organization. No matter what the products are, Catia, Pro/E, Inventor, Solidworks, and etc, they all have their pros/cons.

In our evaluation, Solidsworks never made it past the initial list since it did not have the tools we needed. For us we are moving ahead with Inventor.

The next few months for you (and us) will be disruptive but if in the end the results are positive, then it’s well worth it. No matter what it is, change is hard for a lot of individuals. There will be individuals in your organization that will step up to the plate and take Solidworks head on with an open mind, while a few will sit back and try to find the “negative” of doing so.

Good luck… As others have stated, I would too like to hear your progress in 6 months (or a year) as well.

Regards

Markl
Message 6 of 12
afettig
in reply to: afettig

Which tools were missing for your purposes?
Message 7 of 12
Lancasterm
in reply to: afettig

Our designs are centered around water and fuels/chemical filtration. So piping (components) is are #1 criteria. Without it, Solidworks was eliminated from any further consideration.

In addition our customers required either AutoCAD (or Inventor) models and drawings.
Message 8 of 12
martiste
in reply to: afettig

In drawing mode I am finding Inventor way superior to SW and also selecting function before object makes more sense filters are very seldom necessary in this case. Like in a previous post, I also would be interested to see how you will feel about SW 6 months from now after you have discovered all its weaknesses.
Message 9 of 12
billco-mfg
in reply to: afettig

I'm interested in knowing what happens after two more releases of both products. Other than the popularity contest that seems to be of some importance in your industry, you would have to re-evaluate your decision every couple years. If it is worth it now, it could be worth it then.

When we made our selection, I considered the direction the products were headed at the time. It's difficult to put numbers on that sort of thing. Autodesk made that a little easier, by making the betas open to people that don't own the software. SWX wasn't open to that at all. I had to compare an old version that I learned a year prior with the demo that was available at the time.
Message 10 of 12
afettig
in reply to: afettig

Friday we issued an order to SW for licenses and training. Thanks to this group for assistance over the years.

Regards,

Anthony Fettig
Message 11 of 12
KendredCooper
in reply to: afettig

Wehnerk has a good point. With the acquisition of Alias and the FEA software company (sorry, can't remember the name off the top of my head) and a few others, Autodesk no doubtedly has a future plan to put their MCAD package on the top of the list - cudos Autodesk, sick'em. The next coulpe of releases might more clearly reveal which package is superior. Granted, SW has done a fine job developing and marketing their product. They had a couple of years head start on Inventor, but it has always amazed me that Inventor caught up (let's not get technical, the two are very similar in functionality) to SW so quickly and in some areas of functionality, Inventor has passed SW completely. 'Course, the same can be said of SW features to Inventor, tomAtoe/tomautoe.
Anthony, I do hope that your choice goes well for you. I also know that not doing your home work can be a very very expensive mistake years after the decision. My hat is off to you on a very well done investigation. Part of me naturally hopes that Inventor pulls through and you guys have to come back to your roots, but another part hopes that your choice does well for you. As others have pointed out, you have to do what best fits your industry at that time, and sometimes, that "fit" can be a flavor of the month, sometimes not. I raised some mental questions on some of your items in the "SW is better section" of your post. These questions I plan to investigate on my own, for one to see if I understand what you were looking for, I might not, but it will give me some extra 3D time :). Again, as with everyone else, don't be a stranger, we have our share of SW trolls now and then, you're welcome to be one :). Let us know how it goes. Good Luck.
Message 12 of 12
Anonymous
in reply to: afettig

Good comment here. We use both, for large automated aseembly line equipment
projects, based on the preference of our customer. We find the drawing side
of SW ghastly. The equation editor in SW is really irritating, you'll miss
the access to the parameters editor. The amount of effort to put varying
tolerances parts (vs IV styles) is exhausting.

In the modelling environmment, simple things like being able to hit the
Enter key, or control-Enter really add up. I find 8 hours of clicking on
the littel green check mark, or Ctrl-B (two handss) zones me out. The
DimExpert features is time consuming to set up all the datums, etc, but once
you've done it, that particular part would be fast to detail. But I find it
faster just to detail the part (and on it goes).

I feel personally competent in both packages, but find for machine design I
get siginificantly more done using IV. I'd love to hear how's it's going in
6 month, as you've said.

Gary

wrote in message news:5844725@discussion.autodesk.com...
In drawing mode I am finding Inventor way superior to SW and also selecting
function before object makes more sense filters are very seldom necessary in
this case. Like in a previous post, I also would be interested to see how
you will feel about SW 6 months from now after you have discovered all its
weaknesses.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report