Difference in performance -Fusion and Inventor

[thomas.kuehr]

Hello,

Is there a difference in performance between this two programs?

On the same computer if I will try to open/edit the same assembly in Inventor and in Fusion 360, will be a difference in waiting time/performance?

[ToddHarris7556]

I've never done a qualitative test on this, so this is 'anecdotal' based on my experience. 

I've used Inventor to design entire process plants: structural steel, pressure vessels, piping, etc. There are a number of tools available (Level of Detail, Shrinkwrap substitutes, etc.) to help with performance, and it's quite possible to work with assemblies with tens of thousands of parts. (I'm not sure what the biggest assembly I ever worked on was, but I know I've done >75k parts.)

Fusion would simply not be able to handle anywhere close to that. There are some great threads available out there, including Martin Molin/Wintergatan sharing his fantastic adventure with MMX on YouTube. The limitations start to show up pretty quickly - in the 1k-2k part range. Depending on the geometries you're modeling, YMMV, but these are broadly true. 

Fusion and Inventor use fundamentally different file structures, so I'm not sure if a real 'apples-to-apples' comparision can really be made. I'm not savvy enough re: the internal code structures to say which modules are shared, or to what extent. 

Having said all of that, in real-world terms, I suspect that most users have much more generic needs, and will be able to get respectable performance from either tool. Our team (design/fab studio) uses Fusion for everyday modeling, toolpathing for CNC routers, and 3D printing. We start to hit limitations when we're doing an entire museum exhibit layout. We'll model individual exhibit components/modules in Fusion, then blast out to Inventor for exhibit layout, or 3DSMax for rendering. I'll use Inventor Pro for anything that requires more complex dynamic simulation, BOM/PLM needs, routed systems (piping & electrical) or structural frames (Frame Generator). Minus any of those, we'll lean on Fusion. 

I guess my real question might be 'how would you define performance?' An accomplished user of either tool probably won't be held back while sketching or basic modeling. i.e. I don't typically find myself 'waiting' much with either. I will say that there was another recent thread having to do with junk sketch geometry - i.e. getting a source DXF file from a client that is sloppy, and trying to work with it in Fusion. In my experience, junk geometry is just horrible, but I've noticed that trying to bring a junk sketch with 10k line segments into Fusion will just plain bring it to it's knees. Inventor seems to handle this better. Not sure if this is a meaningful benchmark.    

[Anonymous]

I've not used inventor but i agree with you 100% on fusion. i'm currently trying to import a dxf file to engrave, and since starting, i've watched a full episode of x-files. fusion360 is abysmal at handling dxf (and also svg)

[cekuhnen]

@Anonymous that is because the sketch engine is not very good with complex and imported sketches.

often imported DXF and SVG is also needlessly complex making it extra hard for Fusion.

rule of thumb I draw stuff in Fusion directly!

[ToddHarris7556]

I'd agree at least in part of what @cekuhnen offered:

Fusion's sketch solver seems to be hit particularly hard when confronted with 'dirty' DXF imports. In the exhibit business, we're constantly importing DXFs from Adobe Illustrator, and other graphic design programs. The layering, splines, and not-quite-coincident-endpoints often mean that it's easier to sketch from scratch in Fusion. 

[cekuhnen]

I dont even import into Fusion.

On the other side Fusion has much better drawing tools than Illustrator or similar.

One of my clients they do all the vector work in Rhino.

Truth is for illustration Adobe Illustrator did not mature much in the past lets say 18 years when it comes to drawing tools when compared to technical illustration tools from the 90s.