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
1470 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 21 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.)
Message 22 of 41
DBayn
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 23 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.
Message 24 of 41
DBayn
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 25 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Interesting - What's the name of your company?

--------------------------------------
Phil Kenewell
Gage Designer
North American Lighting, Inc.
Message 26 of 41
DBayn
in reply to: Anonymous

A.V. Gauge and Fixture Inc.
Message 27 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.
Message 28 of 41
DBayn
in reply to: Anonymous

Yes, just outside Windsor.
Message 29 of 41
JStrang
in reply to: Anonymous

"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.
Message 30 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.)
Message 31 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.)
Message 32 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.)
Message 33 of 41
JDMather
in reply to: Anonymous

A machinist's toolbox is brown not red.

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


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 34 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.
Message 35 of 41
JDMather
in reply to: Anonymous

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.

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


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 36 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.
Message 37 of 41
JDMather
in reply to: Anonymous

Zip and post your file.

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


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 38 of 41
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.
Message 39 of 41
JDMather
in reply to: Anonymous

>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".

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


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

Message 40 of 41
JDMather
in reply to: JDMather

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

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


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


The CADWhisperer YouTube Channel


EESignature

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report