This version of Autodesk Inventor has major revisions in performance

[Anonymous]

http://www.inventor-certified.com/graphics/cert_ws.php Ummm . . . am I missing something, ppls?!?!? This version of Autodesk Inventor has major revisions in performance. Please do not compare these performance times against other versions of Autodesk Inventor when selecting a system.. "You mean, for instance, an overall performance degradation from R9 to R10 of like 25-35%?????????????????????? TRI-STAR StarStation P4 Extreme 3.2 GHz 2 Nvidia Quadro4 980 XGL Win XP Pro SP1 2 GB Part Rebuild Time R9: 2,312 . . . R10: 3,069 Assembly Update Time R9: 425 . . . R10: 539 Drawing Creation Time, R9: 1,246 . . . R10: 1,706 Total Time, R9: 3,983 . . . R10: 5,314 -- -

[Anonymous]

Did PTC mean Inventor instead of SolidWorks?

http://www.ptc.com/go/proof

[Anonymous]

"John-IV8SP1" wrote in message news:42519f0d$1_3@newsprd01... > http://www.inventor-certified.com/graphics/cert_ws.php > > Ummm . . . am I missing something, ppls?!?!? > > This version of Autodesk Inventor has major revisions in performance. > Please > do not compare these performance times against other > > versions of Autodesk Inventor when selecting a system.. > > > > "You mean, for instance, an overall performance degradation from R9 to R10 > of like 25-35%?????????????????????? > > > TRI-STAR StarStation P4 Extreme 3.2 > > GHz 2 Nvidia Quadro4 > > 980 XGL > > Win XP > > Pro SP1 2 GB > > Part Rebuild Time R9: 2,312 . . . R10: 3,069 > > Assembly Update Time R9: 425 . . . R10: 539 > > Drawing Creation Time, R9: 1,246 . . . R10: 1,706 > > Total Time, R9: 3,983 . . . R10: 5,314 > > > -- > - > > that's why the first download fix, which was posted before the software release, is a pdf describing various ways of speeding up the system..........

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm I see what you mean Dell M60 total time went from 4008 in R9 to 5560 in R10. My Dell M70 in R10 (5082) is slower than an M60 was in R9

[Anonymous]

Hmmm....must be that "top gun" ShapeManager kernel development team hard at work again!! "SAN RAFAEL, California, October 20, 2003-Autodesk, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADSK), the world's leading design software and digital content company, today announced that since taking over development of the company's own 3D geometric modeling kernel, the Autodesk® ShapeManager, nearly two years ago, the company has delivered advanced robustness, geometry coverage, and performance to its manufacturing customers who are under tremendous pressure to bring higher quality products to market faster for less cost............." Hopefully they delivered on robustness and geometry coverage. # : < ) "Paul Houlker" wrote in message news:4251a318_2@newsprd01... > Hmmmm I see what you mean > > Dell M60 total time went from 4008 in R9 to 5560 in R10. > > My Dell M70 in R10 (5082) is slower than an M60 was in R9 >

[Anonymous]

I predict they will place the blame for the performance hit on the incorporation of Microsoft .NET tools functionality which will require updated graphics card drivers too! ;-) "John-IV8SP1" wrote in message news:42519f0d$1_3@newsprd01... > http://www.inventor-certified.com/graphics/cert_ws.php > > Ummm . . . am I missing something, ppls?!?!? > > This version of Autodesk Inventor has major revisions in performance. Please > do not compare these performance times against other > > versions of Autodesk Inventor when selecting a system.. > > > > "You mean, for instance, an overall performance degradation from R9 to R10 > of like 25-35%?????????????????????? > > > TRI-STAR StarStation P4 Extreme 3.2 > > GHz 2 Nvidia Quadro4 > > 980 XGL > > Win XP > > Pro SP1 2 GB > > Part Rebuild Time R9: 2,312 . . . R10: 3,069 > > Assembly Update Time R9: 425 . . . R10: 539 > > Drawing Creation Time, R9: 1,246 . . . R10: 1,706 > > Total Time, R9: 3,983 . . . R10: 5,314 > > > -- > - > >

[Anonymous]

Nah. You only spend the money to publish ads targeting real competitors in a common market . No sense telling everyone how much better you are than TurboCad. Wouldn't surprise me to see an Adsk ad campaign targeting Alibre pretty soon.

[Anonymous]

The first 32(!!!) machines running IV9 are faster than the fastest machine running IV10!!! These "IV9 machines" have MUCH LESS RAM than the "IV10 machines" (3,24 GB (IV10) vs. 2 GB (IV9)) The "only" thing here: almost all the IV10 machines had Norton Antivirus running... "John-IV8SP1" wrote in message news:42519f0d$1_3@newsprd01... > http://www.inventor-certified.com/graphics/cert_ws.php > > Ummm . . . am I missing something, ppls?!?!? > > This version of Autodesk Inventor has major revisions in performance. Please > do not compare these performance times against other > > versions of Autodesk Inventor when selecting a system.. > > > > "You mean, for instance, an overall performance degradation from R9 to R10 > of like 25-35%?????????????????????? > > > TRI-STAR StarStation P4 Extreme 3.2 > > GHz 2 Nvidia Quadro4 > > 980 XGL > > Win XP > > Pro SP1 2 GB > > Part Rebuild Time R9: 2,312 . . . R10: 3,069 > > Assembly Update Time R9: 425 . . . R10: 539 > > Drawing Creation Time, R9: 1,246 . . . R10: 1,706 > > Total Time, R9: 3,983 . . . R10: 5,314 > > > -- > - > >

[Anonymous]

I'm sure they meant Inventor instead of Pro/E.......... Jerry "Andreas" schreef in bericht news:6588571.1112646264372.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > Did PTC mean Inventor instead of SolidWorks? > > http://www.ptc.com/go/proof

[Anonymous]

Maybe they couldn’t find any radii examples against IV?

[Anonymous]

> Hopefully they delivered on robustness and geometry coverage. Did you ever use pre-IV5.3 versions? Trust me, they did! 🙂 It seems the whole point of moving away from ACIS was that it was never going to be a powerful enough kernel to be competitive with Parasolids or PTC. Things improved dramatically with IV5.3. Now it's a game of catch-up with the big dogs in the higher end market. Patrick

[Anonymous]

I'm going to pretend that I didn't see any of this!

[Anonymous]

> .... It seems the whole point of moving away from > ACIS was that it was never going to be a powerful > enough kernel to be competitive with ..... Alternative hypothesis: They have no intention of competing with brand x or y as a modeler and ACIS 7 is good enough from here on out for intended usage. Anyone have any idea how ShapeManager stacks up against some of the better implementations of current versions of ACIS with regard to performance and reliability?

[Anonymous]

All I know is that the quality of Inventor improved dramatically when they changed to Shape Modeler. I know they were having a very difficult time getting Spatial to fix a the inherent errors in ACIS. Also, ACIS was incapable of constructing the more advanced geometry that is being used in IV today. Autodesk's Cambridge team seems to be doing quite a bit more development than Spatial was probably willing to do. Solid Edge switched kernels about a year before Autodesk for the same reason. No other major player (besides MDT) uses ACIS. Patrick

[Anonymous]

Maybe this isn't an issue for most folks but I'm fairly in a PANIC over these numbers folks!! Do I wait until 11? How do I deal with an already unwieldy program with NO large assembly handling features!? Are these numbers real? Is Autodesk fine with these numbers??? I just did another analysis seeing that they have the same workstation from 8 thru 10: HP Workstation, xw4100 P4 3.0GHz. 1 Nvidia Quadro4 980, Win XP Pro SP1 1GB Part Rebuild Time R8: 2,192 ... R9: 2,378 ... R10: 3,184 Assembly Update Time R8: 735 ... R9: 428 . . . R10: 555 Drawing Creation Time, R8: 1,837 ; R9: 1,242 . . . R10: 1,760 Total Time, R8: 4,764 ... R9: 4,048 ... R10: 5,500 Wow!! What should I do? I thought it was a wise move to wait for 10, because of ALL the issues with 9 (2 service packs, countless hot fixes). It brings back the question, where's the value?? I've been with Autodesk since AutoCAD 2.62. "John-IV8SP1" wrote in message news:42519f0d$1_3@newsprd01... > http://www.inventor-certified.com/graphics/cert_ws.php > > Ummm . . . am I missing something, ppls?!?!? > > This version of Autodesk Inventor has major revisions in performance. Please > do not compare these performance times against other > > versions of Autodesk Inventor when selecting a system.. > > > > "You mean, for instance, an overall performance degradation from R9 to R10 > of like 25-35%?????????????????????? > > > TRI-STAR StarStation P4 Extreme 3.2 > > GHz 2 Nvidia Quadro4 > > 980 XGL > > Win XP > > Pro SP1 2 GB > > Part Rebuild Time R9: 2,312 . . . R10: 3,069 > > Assembly Update Time R9: 425 . . . R10: 539 > > Drawing Creation Time, R9: 1,246 . . . R10: 1,706 > > Total Time, R9: 3,983 . . . R10: 5,314 > > > -- > - > >

[Anonymous]

It would be nice if someone from Autodesk would comment on this issue. Do these numbers represent apples-to-apples comparisons? Regardless of your hardware, any "upgrade" that actually degrades performance has a pretty low ROI IMO. Blane

[Anonymous]

Why would it be any better in 11? You need more RAM by the judge of what they are saying is recommended for release 10, something like 3 GB now eh? 3 GB of RAM isn't cheap. 11 will require 6 GB by the progression over the years IMHO.

It won't be long till PTC does a comparison to Inventor like it did with SolidWorks on speed.

[Anonymous]

All, The data on those pages represent testing done just prior to each release with representative datasets available at that time. It is provided as a guidance to compare hardware for that particular release only. To compare between releases is doing an apples to oranges comparison. We polled the Beta users just a few weeks ago and when asked about performance their responses were very positive: Inventor 10 Performance: (How do you rate the performance of the Beta compared to Inventor 9 for these categories?) · Parts 94% rated R10 equal or better to R9 · Assemblies 91% rated R10 equal or better to R9 · Drawings 93% rated R10 equal or better to R9 Inventor 10 Quality: (How would you rate the quality of this release to that of Inventor 9?) · Overall 97.1% rated R10 equal or better to R9 You'll be able to see for yourself shortly. The product started shipping yesterday (4/4). -- Andy Palioca (Autodesk) "BTBeilke" wrote in message news:4252fac6$1_2@newsprd01... > It would be nice if someone from Autodesk would comment on this issue. Do > these numbers represent apples-to-apples comparisons? > > Regardless of your hardware, any "upgrade" that actually degrades > performance has a pretty low ROI IMO. > > Blane >

[Anonymous]

time to recall subs ?
pull the plug ?
Is Autodesk governed by any kind of ombudsman?

[Anonymous]

Sorry Andy, I didn't want to cry wolf or give fodder to the recent troll invasion. "Andy Palioca (Autodesk, Inc.)" wrote in message news:42532644$1_1@newsprd01... > All, > > The data on those pages represent testing done just prior to each release > with representative datasets available at that time. It is provided as a > guidance to compare hardware for that particular release only. To compare > between releases is doing an apples to oranges comparison. > > We polled the Beta users just a few weeks ago and when asked about > performance their responses were very positive: > > Inventor 10 Performance: (How do you rate the performance of the Beta > compared to Inventor 9 for these categories?) > > · Parts 94% rated R10 equal or better to R9 > > · Assemblies 91% rated R10 equal or better to R9 > > · Drawings 93% rated R10 equal or better to R9 > > > > Inventor 10 Quality: (How would you rate the quality of this release to that > of Inventor 9?) > > · Overall 97.1% rated R10 equal or better to R9 > > > You'll be able to see for yourself shortly. The product started shipping > yesterday (4/4). > > -- Andy Palioca (Autodesk) > > "BTBeilke" wrote in message > news:4252fac6$1_2@newsprd01... > > It would be nice if someone from Autodesk would comment on this issue. Do > > these numbers represent apples-to-apples comparisons? > > > > Regardless of your hardware, any "upgrade" that actually degrades > > performance has a pretty low ROI IMO. > > > > Blane > > > >