Solid Works compare with MDT

[Anonymous]

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">I am a AutoCAD and MDT
user for 10+ years.

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">I’ve got trained do
design in Solid Works (SW)  because
here in Michigan

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">for some reason its
getting more popular than MDT.

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">All Big (are they still
Big?) Tree car producers adopting SW for tooling design.

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">After trying SW do real
job I was very disappointed and disgusted by primitiveness and
limitation

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">of this
program.

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">AK
style="mso-spacerun: yes">  

[eb]

Not to blow MDT's horn too much, but we tried SW a few years ago when we were looking to upgrade from AutoCAD/ACIS solids and go parametric. SW simply couldn't do what we wanted it to do. The guy demonstrating it said he was an expert and he even called in some of his SW consulting friends. They just couldn't do the geometry that our project required. One of the biggest limitations was that it couldn't draw lines in 'space'. Unfortunately, neither can Inventor. That and the fact that inventor still doesn't do surfaces, means that MDT is still my favorite .

[Anonymous]

To make a long story short, SW can do almost
everything (and many times even more than) any other modeler out there can, but
you need to do it the SW way, not the MDT way. Same seems to be true for
IV.

I'm using all three, personally I prefer MDT over
both others, just my very personal sympathy.
size=2>

Regards,
--
Leo Laimer
Maschinen-
und Fertigungstechnik
A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria

style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">

"eb" <
href="mailto:erich@specialstructures.net">erich@specialstructures.net>
schrieb im Newsbeitrag
href="news:f0f5762.0@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f0f5762.0@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Not
to blow MDT's horn too much, but we tried SW a few years ago when we were
looking to upgrade from AutoCAD/ACIS solids and go parametric. SW simply
couldn't do what we wanted it to do. The guy demonstrating it said he was an
expert and he even called in some of his SW consulting friends. They just
couldn't do the geometry that our project required. One of the biggest
limitations was that it couldn't draw lines in 'space'. Unfortunately, neither
can Inventor. That and the fact that inventor still doesn't do surfaces, means
that MDT is still my favorite .

[eb]

"To make a long story short, SW can do almost everything (and many times even more than) any other modeler out there can, but you need to do it the SW way, not the MDT way. Same seems to be true for IV."



That may be, but if even their own 'expert' can't show us how it can be done, I don't know how we would ever find out for ourselves. We were told that they just didn't know how to do it. The project consisted of many parts which had to be precicely machined with many facets at compound angles to each other. The SW folks went away scratching their heads. We still have not found a way to do these projects in Inventor either. To see an example, go to specialstructures.net and see the "Helicoid" project.



Believe me, we really want those other programs to work, but no one could tell us how.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I'm not a modeling guru.

Only modeling limitation the parasolid kernel has
that I know of is no disjoint bodies, and no holes at distance from body rim
exact half of bore diameter. Another limitation was that SW has problems with
microscopic small features/dimensions.

Went to your site, Helicoid looks really great.
Question: How do you model this in ACAD? I think, that if this is possible in
ACAD/3D, then its possible in any other modeler too.

To get the most advanced answer about modeling, you
may ask in the IV NG. They did a modeling competition the last days and the
results were very impressive.

If you really think SW needs to do this job you may
post in their NG, maybe Paul Salvador likes to explain what modeler in this
world can do it <g>

Regards,
--
Leo Laimer
Maschinen-
und Fertigungstechnik
A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria

style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">

"eb" <
href="mailto:erich@specialstructures.net">erich@specialstructures.net>
schrieb im Newsbeitrag
href="news:f0f5762.2@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f0f5762.2@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

"To
make a long story short, SW can do almost everything (and many times even more
than) any other modeler out there can, but you need to do it the SW way, not
the MDT way. Same seems to be true for IV."

That may be, but if even their own 'expert' can't show us how it can be
done, I don't know how we would ever find out for ourselves. We were told that
they just didn't know how to do it. The project consisted of many parts which
had to be precicely machined with many facets at compound angles to each
other. The SW folks went away scratching their heads. We still have not found
a way to do these projects in Inventor either. To see an example, go to
specialstructures.net and see the "Helicoid" project.

Believe me, we really want those other programs to work, but no one could
tell us how.

[Anonymous]

Can you explain what you mean by draw a line in space? Isn't that what all modelers do?

Looked at the link you posted. way way out of my league, ...was it done with surfaces
or??

Just curious for a better explanation of what can't be done in other modelers that can in
MDT. I know of quite a number of things MDT is capable of that others aren't but most of
them are in other areas than the actual solid modeling (not surfaces)

--
Kent
Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"eb" wrote in message news:f0f5762.0@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

One of the biggest limitations was that it couldn't draw lines in 'space'. Unfortunately,
neither can Inventor. That and the fact that inventor still doesn't do surfaces, means
that MDT is still my favorite .
>

[Anonymous]

Kent,
I believe he is referring to the fact that in ACAD you can draw a line
from/to any 3d coordinates or given snappoints. This not possible in any
other feature based modeler that I know of, unless you call a special
command.

Regards,
--
Leo Laimer
Maschinen- und Fertigungstechnik
A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria

PS: There are many things MDT can but IV can't, you know them all!


"Kent Keller" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1E067A99CC7A5DB9D78F9EA4F2CF419C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Can you explain what you mean by draw a line in space? Isn't that what
all modelers do?
>
> Looked at the link you posted. way way out of my league, ...was it done
with surfaces
> or??
>
> Just curious for a better explanation of what can't be done in other
modelers that can in
> MDT. I know of quite a number of things MDT is capable of that others
aren't but most of
> them are in other areas than the actual solid modeling (not surfaces)
>
> --
> Kent
> Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program
>
>
> "eb" wrote in message
news:f0f5762.0@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> One of the biggest limitations was that it couldn't draw lines in
'space'. Unfortunately,
> neither can Inventor. That and the fact that inventor still doesn't do
surfaces, means
> that MDT is still my favorite .
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

I would add that it boils down to the design procedure one uses. A wire
frame can be evolved early in the design and used to develop profiles.
The wire frame is always available and visible with other profiles and
parts or solids. With inventor and others, that kind of integration is
not as easy to achieve. When you look at an existing part you can say
that a particular modeler could do it easily, but that is after the
fact, and excludes the method used to evolve it.
--
Billy Hiebert
HIEBERT SCULPTURE WORKS
Small Part Injection Molding
http://www.hieberts.com

Leo Laimer wrote:

> Kent,
> I believe he is referring to the fact that in ACAD you can draw a line
> from/to any 3d coordinates or given snappoints. This not possible in any
> other feature based modeler that I know of, unless you call a special
> command.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Leo Laimer
> Maschinen- und Fertigungstechnik
> A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria
>
> PS: There are many things MDT can but IV can't, you know them all!
>
>
> "Kent Keller" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:1E067A99CC7A5DB9D78F9EA4F2CF419C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
>>Can you explain what you mean by draw a line in space? Isn't that what
>>
> all modelers do?
>
>>Looked at the link you posted. way way out of my league, ...was it done
>>
> with surfaces
>
>>or??
>>
>>Just curious for a better explanation of what can't be done in other
>>
> modelers that can in
>
>>MDT. I know of quite a number of things MDT is capable of that others
>>
> aren't but most of
>
>>them are in other areas than the actual solid modeling (not surfaces)
>>
>>--
>>Kent
>>Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program
>>
>>
>>"eb" wrote in message
>>
> news:f0f5762.0@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
>> One of the biggest limitations was that it couldn't draw lines in
>>
> 'space'. Unfortunately,
>
>>neither can Inventor. That and the fact that inventor still doesn't do
>>
> surfaces, means
>
>>that MDT is still my favorite .
>>
>>
>
>

[Anonymous]

eb wrote:

project consisted of
> many parts which had to be precicely machined with many facets at
> compound angles to each other. The SW folks went away scratching their
> heads.


LOL... I'm pretty sure the same guys came to my work. I work primarily
with surfaces because of the nature of our designs and products. The SW
guys couldn't even do a simple fuselage section loft. The combination of
surface and solid modeling, 2d drafting, and legacy drawing
compatibility make MDT the ONLY choice for us at this time.

Robert

[eb]

"Can you explain what you mean by draw a line in space? Isn't that what all modelers do?

Looked at the link you posted. way way out of my league, ...was it done with surfaces or??"



Leo got it exactly right. Without giving too much away, these projects are done by creating a wire frame geometry in 3D space and it is important to be able to create plains normal or tangent to the connecting lines between the various nodes. The nodes are both mathematically and geometrically created, so numerical input is important as well.



The parts are created as solids, not surfaces.

[Anonymous]

Thanks ..... like I said... Way out of my league. 8^)

I would think it would be possible with other modelers, but maybe much much harder. Many
more planes I would guess.

Thanks for the explanation. 8^)

--
Kent
Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"eb" wrote in message news:f0f5762.8@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

> Leo got it exactly right. Without giving too much away, these projects are done by
creating a wire frame geometry in 3D space and it is important to be able to create plains
normal or tangent to the connecting lines between the various nodes. The nodes are both
mathematically and geometrically created, so numerical input is important as well.

[eb]

Kent,



How would this be done in IV? As Bill Hiebert said, creating 3D wire frames is an important tool in some designs. IV has no real way of doing it, does it? Maybe I'm missing an important feature that wasn't readily apparent when I demo'ed it.

[Anonymous]

Well I imagine you would need to create a plane for every set of points or lines.

In Inventor there is nothing making you extrude sketches. And you can create planes from
the lines in existing sketches In fact that is a big part of what is called the Skeleton
approach in Inventor.

But if you need easy input of XYZ points from a set WCS then you are going to have
problems.

Like I said, this is really way out of my knowledge area, you really should ask in the
Inventor NG. There is a lot of people a lot better versed in it than I am. I am somewhat
in limbo between the two programs. 8^0

--
Kent
Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"eb" wrote in message news:f0f5762.10@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Kent,
>
>
> How would this be done in IV? As Bill Hiebert said, creating 3D wire frames is an
important tool in some designs. IV has no real way of doing it, does it? Maybe I'm missing
an important feature that wasn't readily apparent when I demo'ed it.
>
>

[eb]

"Well I imagine you would need to create a plane for every set of points or lines."


"But if you need easy input of XYZ points from a set WCS then you are going to have problems."



That is exactly what is required. We create the points in the program (i.e. x=12.456, y=3.345, z=4.567). IV doesn't seem to be able to do that.



".... you really should ask in the
Inventor NG"



MDT seems to do the job well. It also works well for my other field of 'expertise', boat joinery design. I use the surfaces generated by the hull designer and offset them to fit the furniture to the hull. In order for me to adopt another modeler, it would have to do something MDT doesn't. I don't feel like I have time to learn a new program just to be able to do things a little differently. Can you think of any great advantages of IV (or SW for that matter)?

[Anonymous]

eb,

Simply stay with us other 400000 MDT users out
there, why not?

Regards,
--
Leo Laimer
Maschinen-
und Fertigungstechnik
A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria

style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">

"eb" <
href="mailto:erich@specialstructures.net">erich@specialstructures.net>
schrieb im Newsbeitrag
href="news:f0f5762.12@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f0f5762.12@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

"Well
I imagine you would need to create a plane for every set of points or
lines."

"But if you need easy input of XYZ points from a set WCS then
you are going to have problems."

That is exactly what is required. We create the points in the program (i.e.
x=12.456, y=3.345, z=4.567). IV doesn't seem to be able to do that.

".... you really should ask in the
Inventor NG"

MDT seems to do the job well. It also works well for my other field of
'expertise', boat joinery design. I use the surfaces generated by the hull
designer and offset them to fit the furniture to the hull. In order for me to
adopt another modeler, it would have to do something MDT doesn't. I don't feel
like I have time to learn a new program just to be able to do things a little
differently. Can you think of any great advantages of IV (or SW for that
matter)?

[Anonymous]

 

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Yes, I am back, sorry was out
of town, and computer too.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I did not expect so much feedback
from you guys.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I am just trying to understand how
they choosing which software is the best for doing the
job.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">How these big sharks making
decisions? Are they consulting with some one before do so, or picking up from
the ceiling?
I do
not know about other places, but here in MI there is a tendency so-called “ease
to use”.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Some reason SW was selected by this
characterization.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">But when it comes to do the job (I
am talking tooling design in my case but could be the product too with latest
release MDT) its “ease to use” turns to big trouble.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Buy some reason AutoCAD used here
primarily for 2D system layouts.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Some design shops do 2D design in
R14 and some of them R2000 and they are very proud of themselves.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">All head hunters now telling me that
SW is chosen as a prime program for 3D tooling
style="mso-spacerun: yes">  

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">and some product modeling and
design.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I do not want to get into discussion
about advantages AutoCAD/MDT versus SW.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It might take me probably several
hours and pages (unless you want me to do)

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">But I cannot imagine that I will not
be able to strike “o” key on keyboard and did not get “offset” at command
line.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It makes my heart
bleeding.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I personally think that Autodesk
should do better job to promote their product.

style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Again it is my only subjective
opinion and I do not want to influence anybody.

size=3>Alex

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"Alex Kaplan" <123@234.net> wrote
in message
href="news:A3603403289720CA4CA1F9C5E7E6A65D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:A3603403289720CA4CA1F9C5E7E......

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">I am a AutoCAD and MDT
user for 10+ years.

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">I’ve got trained do
design in Solid Works (SW) 
because here in Michigan

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">for some reason its
getting more popular than MDT.

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">All Big (are they still
Big?) Tree car producers adopting SW for tooling design.

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">After trying SW do real
job I was very disappointed and disgusted by primitiveness and
limitation

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">of this
program.

style="FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'MS Sans Serif'">AK
style="mso-spacerun: yes">  

[cadsysmgr]

Sorry about the misunderstanding.....I was not implying you were trying to influence anyones decision process...Sometimes we get competitor vars here just trying to stir things up a little..It is upsetting and I am now and then a little to sensitive towards it.....I can also feel your pain....I think having to make ones living at the whim of the Auto industry can be very stressfull at best...It appears I think that they have SO MUCH MONEY to through at software solutions it isn't necessarily that they buy the best or most universal software product...but intead what software vendor is offering the best price and incentives.....Rubermaid used to be the same way, not sure now, but at one time they used to chose a software to develop tooling and if you wanted to be a Rubermaid vendor you had to own the same software....in one 5 year period they changed CAD software 3 times as I recall....It drove their outside vendors nuts....So I can only guess at what it must be like in the Auto industries...I guess that is why when a software vendor lands a big deal with them the software vendor makes such a big deal in the trade venues about it....

[StuartMoore]

Having recently 'upgraded' to Inventor Series, I can offer some preliminary observations regarding IV and MDT6 (I have been using MDT for 4.5 years from R2 to R6). IV does not have the materials manipulation that MDT has. For example, in IV you cannot change the refractive index of a transparent material to create real lens effects by raytracing. However, IV can do shiny materials - something that is missing from MDT. IV can render in polished materials like Copper, Black Chrome etc. I cannot get to grips with the 2D drawing creation and manipulation in IV and it makes my computer cough and splutter. The bottom line is that when I want to play and make great pictures I use IV, when I have work to do it has to be MDT.

[Anonymous]

Your statement below kind of says it all.... why change when what you are using works. I
certainly am not going to try to change your mind, ... I am using Inventor a little more
than MDT these days, but that is because it has the sheetmetal tools. Much of my heart
(and head) is still in the MDT world.

PS Jeff is probably a good one to jump into this thread and straighten us all out.
Hopefully he will do just that

--
Kent
Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"eb" wrote in message news:f0f5762.12@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> MDT seems to do the job well.

[Anonymous]

Duh, which way did he go? Which way...... You are too kind, Kent.

Actually, I think Charles Bliss would have much more useful insight than I.
I'm a bit geometry "challenged". From what I can see (there's a gif sequence
on Mr. Hoberman's site that I couldn't see very well at all) the geometry
issues involved in the mechanism might be right up IV's alley. Charles could
also comment on the SW capabilities that might be relevant.

I'm not sure if the subject of discussion is the design / modeling of the
entire sculpture or just the supporting mechanism.... If there is any complex
surfacing to be done, IV's out of the race (but then I'd opt for Rh___ [can I
do that?] instead of MDT, too. For static math based sculptures, at least, it
seems to be a well accepted tool.).

Pertaining to the input of 3d points, wasn't there a post yesterday to a link
for spreadsheet or text file input of coordinates to create (3D?) work points
in IV? I'm not sure that I'd use it, though, as they would probably be static
and not lend as much to the problem solving capability as could be had using a
parametric skeletal part, adaptive assembly or combination of the two. I
could be totally out of the ball park, though, with my assumptions as to the
design problem.

Super neat stuff, Erich. If you are truly interested in finding out what IV's
capabilities could contribute, you might post to the IV group (Got any better
pics that could be posted to CF or links thereto? I'd like to see some just
for curiosity's sake, Ohio is too far.) and see what comes of it.

Now, which way did he....
Jeff
============================



"Kent Keller" wrote in message
news:F941FA7AB64E162493593979E9CBE88B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Your statement below kind of says it all.... why change when what you are
using works. I
certainly am not going to try to change your mind, ... I am using Inventor a
little more
than MDT these days, but that is because it has the sheetmetal tools. Much of
my heart
(and head) is still in the MDT world.

PS Jeff is probably a good one to jump into this thread and straighten us
all out.
Hopefully he will do just that

--
Kent
Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"eb" wrote in message
news:f0f5762.12@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> MDT seems to do the job well.