Announcements
IMPORTANT. Forum to be archived in several phases. You can no longer submit new questions - but can only answer existing threads until Oct 17th 2016. Please read this message for details
Mechanical Desktop (Read Only)
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

MDT vs Inventor

40 REPLIES 40
Reply
Message 1 of 41
Anonymous
1472 Views, 40 Replies

MDT vs Inventor

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
40 REPLIES 40
Message 2 of 41
joltek
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 3 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 4 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 5 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 6 of 41
JDMather
in reply to: Anonymous

>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.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 7 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.)
Message 8 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

> 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.
Message 9 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.
Message 10 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

> 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?
Message 11 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Mike,
There's no fire at Autodesk.
You need to keep in mind the powers of marketing.
As example: all subsciption users of MDT still get an updated version with
new features and interface, but now we get Inventor for free with it. That
allows Autodesk to up the claimed number of Inventor seats sold to some
unreal figure(Even if the Inventor disc never makes it out of the box).
Autodesk's main thrust is to refine and promote their latest child
(Inventor). Don't worry MDT isn't going to go away.

You need to make the descision to move or not based on how you use your CAD
department, what kind of products you work with, project lifecycle.
We made our decision based on the complexity of our products and the fact
that we work a model from design through manfacture in repeating cycles with
continuous revision. IV brought our system to it's knees trying to keep up.
MDT is much faster and less cumbersome for these types of processes.

IV and MDT user,

Chas

"MikeF" wrote in message
news:5226127@discussion.autodesk.com...
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.
Message 12 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Chas,

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying. Memory and
disk space may be cheap today, but I've seen the case of very large and
unmanageable files.

--Mike


Chas wrote:
> Mike,
> There's no fire at Autodesk.
> You need to keep in mind the powers of marketing.
> As example: all subsciption users of MDT still get an updated version
with
> new features and interface, but now we get Inventor for free with it.
That
> allows Autodesk to up the claimed number of Inventor seats sold to some
> unreal figure(Even if the Inventor disc never makes it out of the box).
> Autodesk's main thrust is to refine and promote their latest child
> (Inventor). Don't worry MDT isn't going to go away.
>
> You need to make the descision to move or not based on how you use
your CAD
> department, what kind of products you work with, project lifecycle.
> We made our decision based on the complexity of our products and the
fact
> that we work a model from design through manfacture in repeating
cycles with
> continuous revision. IV brought our system to it's knees trying to
keep up.
> MDT is much faster and less cumbersome for these types of processes.
Message 13 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

It'd not only the disc space but day to day management of the files can be a
nightmare.
Move the files associated with a project to a folder and burn it off to
disc. Then try to open an existing project and find mapping to referenced
parts are missing. Then a year from now try to restore an old IV project and
spend time remapping the whole project. Better yet, contract with an
institution that requires dwg files for as-builts and try to do an export of
IV files to dwg. This is not suppose to be a big deal. When you review the
dwg files generated by IV and find the don't come close to the files sealed
by the A/E and you end up spending numerious hours cleaning up a junk IV
drawing to meet customer requirements (I've had to do this myself and it
really sucks).

IV has it's place and may yet mature into a fully vertical application but
for now it's a niche application.

Chas

"MikeF" wrote in message
news:5226731@discussion.autodesk.com...
Chas,

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying. Memory and
disk space may be cheap today, but I've seen the case of very large and
unmanageable files.

--Mike


Chas wrote:
> Mike,
> There's no fire at Autodesk.
> You need to keep in mind the powers of marketing.
> As example: all subsciption users of MDT still get an updated version
with
> new features and interface, but now we get Inventor for free with it.
That
> allows Autodesk to up the claimed number of Inventor seats sold to some
> unreal figure(Even if the Inventor disc never makes it out of the box).
> Autodesk's main thrust is to refine and promote their latest child
> (Inventor). Don't worry MDT isn't going to go away.
>
> You need to make the descision to move or not based on how you use
your CAD
> department, what kind of products you work with, project lifecycle.
> We made our decision based on the complexity of our products and the
fact
> that we work a model from design through manfacture in repeating
cycles with
> continuous revision. IV brought our system to it's knees trying to
keep up.
> MDT is much faster and less cumbersome for these types of processes.
Message 14 of 41
joltek
in reply to: Anonymous

Thought I would bring the discusion back to basics.
As a drafter/modeler working solo and in large orginisations the principle consideration for the shareholders is to make money.
Currently drafting costs can be estimated pretty accuratly when using Mechanical desktop.
When costs need to be estimated for using Inventor it becomes dangerous.
I have worked on to large defence contracts using Inventor and the cost blowouts have been in the order of 5 times greater than estimated.
This is unsustainable if your work in a small design office competing for work.
I never quote drafting times if I have to use Inventor.
This has frustrated the cost account managers.
There was never any dissension about this fact amongst the drafters using Inventor.
You can argue till the cows come home, the simple fact is Mechanical desktop is a mature product that is capable of
just about anything with guaranteed results in a timley fashion.

Cheers Tim
Message 15 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Sounds like you were / are trying to use adaptively. Worlds greatest time
waster. You either spend 10 times as long setting it up so it will work
right or 10 times as long fixing the problems it creates when used wrong.
Ray

wrote in message news:5227926@discussion.autodesk.com...
Thought I would bring the discusion back to basics.
As a drafter/modeler working solo and in large orginisations the principle
consideration for the shareholders is to make money.
Currently drafting costs can be estimated pretty accuratly when using
Mechanical desktop.
When costs need to be estimated for using Inventor it becomes dangerous.
I have worked on to large defence contracts using Inventor and the cost
blowouts have been in the order of 5 times greater than estimated.
This is unsustainable if your work in a small design office competing for
work.
I never quote drafting times if I have to use Inventor.
This has frustrated the cost account managers.
There was never any dissension about this fact amongst the drafters using
Inventor.
You can argue till the cows come home, the simple fact is Mechanical desktop
is a mature product that is capable of
just about anything with guaranteed results in a timley fashion.

Cheers Tim
Message 16 of 41
joltek
in reply to: Anonymous

Yep,
Adaptivity we turned off
Didnt use Vault / Too many hassles.
All modelling done locally
Large assemblies took 120 MInutes to load then you couldnt
do anything with them. (Computors fastest available)
Created our own table driven parts. (iparts too slow)
All parts held locally.

The list goes on

Cheers Tim
Message 17 of 41
joltek
in reply to: Anonymous

I forgot.
we used constraints initially and then locked parts
and removed the constraints close to model completion.
Constraints & adaptivity was suicide

Cheers Tim
Message 18 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

What he said, what he said.

Chas
wrote in message news:5227926@discussion.autodesk.com...
Thought I would bring the discusion back to basics.
As a drafter/modeler working solo and in large orginisations the principle
consideration for the shareholders is to make money.
Currently drafting costs can be estimated pretty accuratly when using
Mechanical desktop.
When costs need to be estimated for using Inventor it becomes dangerous.
I have worked on to large defence contracts using Inventor and the cost
blowouts have been in the order of 5 times greater than estimated.
This is unsustainable if your work in a small design office competing for
work.
I never quote drafting times if I have to use Inventor.
This has frustrated the cost account managers.
There was never any dissension about this fact amongst the drafters using
Inventor.
You can argue till the cows come home, the simple fact is Mechanical desktop
is a mature product that is capable of
just about anything with guaranteed results in a timley fashion.

Cheers Tim
Message 19 of 41
DBayn
in reply to: Anonymous

The nature of our work requires that we build our tooling off of customer supplied surface files. They are generally provided in native format, and sometimes in IGES format. Surfaces imported into Mechanical Desktop work seamlessly, whereas IV uses them as reference, with little ability to manipulate them. At least that was the case last time I looked at IV. I've been told that Inventor V12 will provide surfacing capabilities that are better than Rhino ( I seriously doubt that claim).

It has been suggested by Autodesk to use STEP format instead of IGES. That may be possible if supplied STEP files, but when our data comes as Catia, UG or I-deas, we do not have this option. A STEP translator for Catia, for example, is over $8000! It's not easy to explain to the bosses why we need to spend thousands of dollars for translators so that we can use a product that will get us right back where we were as far as surface functionality goes.

Dan
Message 20 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I absolutely agree!!! I'm in the same situation. IV can not seem to import
and manipulate existing surface files even half a well as MDT, and that only
IF you can import them at all!

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. 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.

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report