Why should anyone get Inventor instead of solidworks?

[Anonymous]

As I understand it Inventor is designed to do more or less the same things as Solidworks, easy 3D modeling.  I think the cheapest version of Inventor is $5,000 and the cheapest version of Solidworks is $4,000.  Since Solidworks is generally considered the industry standard, the best out there, why would anyone get Inventor (except for reasons like that an entire company is already using AutoCAD and doesn't want to switch)?  Is there anything of significance that Inventor does better than Solidworks?

[Anonymous]

I cut my CAD teeth on VAX-based h/w platforms, moved to unix-based systems and then to WINTEL-based PC systems.

The truth (in my opinion) is that:

1. ALL systems have faults.

2. All systems will do some things better than others.

3. CAD is a tool to do a job and unless you are your own boss, you are likely using a tool that was purchased for you to use (so you had better learn to use it).

4. You will likely prefer product "A" over product "B" if you first learned on "A" and can make it sing. That doesn't mean that somebody else who learned on "B" can't make it perform just as well.

Full Disclaimer: I am likely responsible for the (original) behavior of assemblies in BOTH Inventor and Solid Edge. Both were largely based on the behavior found (long, long ago) in ProE.

These this-v-that debates get old and silly after a while.

Gary

[rmerlob]

Can´t believe this troll is still on front page. Common people stop feeding him.

IRONY DISCLAIMER: I totally realize that by posting this I am feeding it myself, but I resisted too long and broke under the pressure especially since this is still front page and some threads I really wanted to see a discussion about are down to 4th or 5th pages.

Regards,

RM

[Anonymous]

Hi Chris_in_Stockholm,

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation of why Inventor is not a good CAD program.  You seem to be very familiar with that program.  I am somewhat familiar with AutoCAD 2013 – including its 3D modeling functions – and Inventor Fusion.  But I have only been using AutoDesk Inventor for a few days (I am using the 30 day trial version).  I am not familiar with most of the functions and attributes you are speaking of. 

I also note that several other people in this discussion forum as well as you said that Inventor is not a good choice.

I am presently looking at a trial version of IronCAD.  Have you heard of that program?  From what I am reading it is supposed to be better than Solid Edge because it combines direct modeling with history based modeling.  I am also considering Solid Edge as well as Solidworks.  Based on what you wrote I guess you would say that of those three CAD programs Solidworks is the best.  Is that right?  (I am planning to try trial versions of each of those.)

Best regards,

Vincent

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation of why Inventor is not a good CAD program. 

I also note that several other people in this discussion forum as well as you said that Inventor is not a good choice.

Vincent

---

My impression is that you do not have enough experience to evaluate anything that has been written here.

[Anonymous]

Ummmmmm, Solid Edge, ever since they developed Synchronous technology, is a combination of history/dimension driven and direct modeling. You can do either one, or you can even now do a combination of the two within the same part file. Additionally, Solid Works is built on Solid Edge's history based kernel. And if you decide to look into solid works' maybe "about" section, you'll see that they don't own Parasolid.....Solid Edge does and Works has to pay them to license it.

However, I'm starting to think that perhaps Solid Works is probably where you should be. That is if you're wanting a real 3D modeling software.........or you can just stick with AutoCad and its severly lacking 3d capabilities.

[stevec781]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

My impression is that you do not have enough experience to evaluate anything that has been written here.

---

As someone who is a certified professional in both Inventor and Swx, perhaps you could give him some unbiased comparisons. 

How about you start with mates.  Solidworks has 'width mates'  The 4 click inventor equivalent is ?

You could show him (and me) how to get this model to update without crashing (inv only - I can do it in Swx with just 2 features)  http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Inventor-General/How-to-handle-a-basic-topology-change/m-p/4359463/highlight/true#M478971

How about getting inter part project cut edges in top down work flow to be associative in Inv?

Maybe you can also confirm that Swx subscription customers to get full access to their database of bugs.  Where can Inventor subscription customers go to search for what bugs may affect their work?  This is a big deal.  Here's kinda how it has gone for me in the past.

Swx - I have a problem, better search the database, ok there it is, I need to figure out a work around.  Might ask on the forum.

forum - oh yeah that bug,  here's a work around.

Inv - I have a problem, better call my VAR.  Hello VAR I have a problem.

VAR - you probably need training

me - no I dont.

VAR - Is your hardware certified.  Do you have a $2000 certified graphics card.

me- No. So what.

VAR.  Send me your model so I can test it on our certified hardware.  We will have one of our fresh out of school juniors look at it for you.

me - I'm busy but ok. 

VAR - yes it is a bug, well spotted, I will let autodesk know. Shhh dont tell anyone.  Ticket closed, marked as solved.  Monthly stats looking good.

me. - Great when will it be fixed.

VAR - I dont know, would you like some work around training, we can send a junior to come and help you next week.  You will have to change the way you work but we can turn your world upside down for $1000/day.  But you have to train us about your industry first, we have no idea what you do or what you need, but would love for you to pay us while we learn.  It will help us make future sales.

me - no, I will ask on the forum, they know more than you and answer faster.

VAR - Would you like some training in 3DS max, there is a course nest week.

me - what's that.

VAR- its a great program that you have paid for as part of the suite.

me - oh one of those useless things I paid for because I need piping, no thanks.

me to forum - Problem with bug, please help.

Forum type 1.  It cant be a bug, Inventor is great, you are an idiot, get some training.

Forum type 2.  here is a way around your problem, I too wish they would fix it.

me to var 2 years later...Is that bug fixed yet?

VAR - what bug?

me - ticket 12345.

Var - that ticket was solved and closed, please submit a new ticket if you have a problem.

me- but you didnt solve anything you just confirmed a bug.

VAR - yes we are clever, ticket was closed.

me- is there a subscription deal where I can pay for upgrades only without your expert support bundled in.

VAR - no, if they did that we wouldnt make any money.

me -  you have a great business, I wish my customers would pay me for achieving nothing.

VAR - yes we do, would you like some 3DS max training, we have a course next week.

Wasnt planning on doing that but made me laugh!  Eases the pain of the thousands of $$$ in lost productivity I have lost over the years.

To be fair though, maybe its changed, I'm not on subscription any more so havent phoned one for a while now, and have only ever dealt with two of them, maybe others are better.   And yes the Swx var I used to deal with followed the same script, but with the bug database you dont need to call them as often.

[Anonymous]

Hi Chad,

Not exactly...

SWX was released prior to Solid Edge by several months. SWX was originally built on the Parasolids kernal. Solid Edge was originally based on the ACIS kernal. As time passed, Solid Edge was spun off from Intergraph and purchased by Siemens who also subsequently purchased the Parasolids kernal. So, it is slightly confusing to suggest that Solid Works is based on the Solid Edge kernal. History lesson over 🙂

Gary (I was there in the beginning)

[jletcher]

Not all correct Gary, Parasolids kernal is or was Dassault just like the ACIS kernal. This is why Autodesk had issues with new features in Inventor Dassault would not change or fix the Kernal fast enough and that is why Autodesk bought it back for 1.2 billion back in Inventor 5, changed the name and came out with Inventor 5.5.. Kernal name Shape Manager..

  I was working with Autodesk at the time this is how I know you can also find articles on Autodesk purchased it own kernal back from Dassault..

P.S. Yes autodesk did sell the ACIS to them when they needed the money to expand.

[JDMather]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Not all correct ....

---

Get facts correct or give it up.

As usual, threads of this type end up meaningless garbage.

[jletcher]

What facts are not correct?

[stevec781]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

As usual, threads of this type end up meaningless garbage.

---

And your positive contribution has been...????

[Anonymous]

Jim, When Integraph built the original Solid Edge, ACIS was owned by 3 Space. It wasn't purchased by Dassault until 2000. I worked at Integraph prior to and during the first 6 version releases of Solid Edge. I then left and worked on Inventor. The buying and selling of companies and component suppliers has certainly been confusing over the years. Regards, Gary

[jletcher]

Well then I was not incorrect. I started with Autodesk when Dassault had it.

 But you are correct buy sell who has it.....

[Anonymous]

I didn't even go looking for this thread but I read it from beginning to end and found it somewhat helpful. And as usual with these types of questions it appears to result in a couple of people challenging the others knowledge.

Maybe you do not need Inventor or the 3D design software you think.  Lots can be done directly in AutoCad.

I used AutoCad since its beginning.  Used Autocad for 3D design in its early days until I finally made myself migrate to Inventor...I think it was v9.  I could always prototype faster in AutoCad than Inventor because sometimes parametrics are not a good thing, constraints are not always what you want in doing design work...in fact you want freedom, but predictable freedom.  Assemblies in Inventor can be a major headache if you are doing prototype design concepts. And still to this day Inventor is really unstable and has many bugs.  I intentionally wait a year and stay behind before migrating to a new release.  Over the year, Autodesk has had its high points and low points.  2013 might have been a real low point.  2014 doesn't even appear to attempt to fix many of the issues that give me trouble.But again the benefit of being a subscription customer is not only do you pay a large fee to stay current, you also find out you don't get your issues really addressed, rather they are just acknowledged.

Bottom line is this.  I think all the programs have their issues.  For me it appears its more about knowing what to avoid in these tools to keep them stable.  I have to say despite my long term and considerable investment, since 2013 product design suite was introduced, and now with the long wait before I went to 2014,  I spend so much time reworking broken relationships between files and assemblies that I'm finding the desire to really start to look at what the other manufacturers have to offer and see if something else will work better.  

I do not know about these other cad packages.  My single biggest complaint about Inventor is that once you move to a current release, you are hard pressed to go back to the previous version open files made with the "new" version and use and older release.  This you don't have to worry about in AutoCad because you can save in and older version.  

Despite my self proclaimed knowledge of AutoCad, I am still learning with Inventor after 4+ years and I still find it very convoluted in the way it works - especially when the parametric relationships fall apart.

[stevec781]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Bottom line is this.  I think all the programs have their issues.  For me it appears its more about knowing what to avoid in these tools to keep them stable.  I have to say despite my long term and considerable investment, since 2013 product design suite was introduced, and now with the long wait before I went to 2014,  I spend so much time reworking broken relationships between files and assemblies that I'm finding the desire to really start to look at what the other manufacturers have to offer and see if something else will work better.  

---

+1.  That is exacty the point.  All programs can get the job done eventually, and they all have problems.  The difficult part is finding out if the program you are considering has problems that will affect you before you get trapped in the work around cycle.  Much better to find one that wont require work arounds for your needs.  And the best way we can help the OP is to be honest about the limitations we know about.  One thing is for sure, the VAR's wont tell him.

[brian]

Hi Guys, Forgetting facts, here is a user opinion/experience.....

I have used in the real world designing with AutoCAD R9-R2000 (IMHO R14 is/was still the best release ever...) I used Mechanical desktop in real world design from (actually pre MDT, Designer even) through all releases I transferred to Inventor for "real world work" about release 5.3 I believe. Before that it just annoyed me to use as I could work so much faster in MDT (I knew the software better).

Around the Inv 5.3 release the feature set and drawing sheet abilities passed those of MDT by such a significant stage that it became worthwhile to swap/learn to Inventor IMO. The transition from MDT to Inventor was for me...... Horrible..... I swear that Autodesk was on another planet when making this software..... It even made me look to SWX at the time, but that was like moving to another solar system! I think it took me about a year to become confident with Inventor and get to the point of enjoying it. Then after 2 years thinking, "How the hell did I ever use MDT!!!" I look back now on some of the designs, huge assemblies and work we done on MDT and shudder, and think how much I would love to redo them in Inventor. But at the time, MDT worked, and it worked very well.

After 3-4 years and up until the current release, learning Vault etc etc and some time spent in a VAR, and my own design company, I love Inventor, I can design and model I believe anything I choose to, at a speed I am always told by employers/clients that is much faster and more accurate than most others regardless of skill set or software of choice.

My role from 2011-2013 involved supervising a mixed design staff in one company that used a mix of Inventor AND SWX. What a hairbrained idea that was!!! Within the same company we had approx 15 designers at head office, 10 using Inventor, 5 using SWX, all working on the same projects. Other divisions of the company used either SWX or Inventor, often sharing data between locations. One thing I learned during this process is we had Awesome Inventor users, and we had *Ahem* Not so awesome Inventor users. We had Awesome SWX users and we had *Ahem* NOT so awesome SWX users. We had people using Inventor that had previously used SWX and hated it, we had people using SWX that had used Inventor and hated SWX. We had people using SWX that I would trust completely with any design using that software, the design/drawings would be great, changes would be quick and efficient, and the time to complete would be excellent. I would not be able to do the job better or faster myself in Inventor. Of course we had others that struggled every single day..... In either software etc etc.

In reality both software is capable, just look what the users are creating with each! User training and comfort level is the most important thing!

I recently had the opportunity to live work in Germany for a year and am employed by a local Mechanical Design company that has fantastic products, it’s a lot of fun (and the beer is Fab!)

..... However...... Their software of choice is Solidworks 2013.......

I haven’t really used it, only managed others who did, so I know it’s capable, and I knew I was in for a rollercoaster ride. Once again.....

The first 3 months were horrible! I could not believe what I was seeing, how can people work with this junk... blah blah blah. Just like my experience “transitioning” to Inventor. After 4 months I seriously considered moving to the company down the road that uses Inventor. Funnily enough Almost ALL our contract WORKSHOPS use Inventor as they LOVE detailed shop drawings. Almost all the “design only” companies here I know, use SWX and the majority of the “parts suppliers” as well. Strange coincidence maybe, but here people that rely on workshop drawings tend to favour Inventor (Maybe a legacy ACAD/Autodesk thing?) Design only houses without a workshop and thus not such a big importance on workshop detail drawings seem to use SWX..... go figure *shrug*.... this is only a general rule and in my experience.

Anyway I have stuck it out with SWX for now about 8 months. I am starting to get to the point of being a little more comfortable with it. Yes most days there are things that annoy me, but now there are some that don’t.

Am I still faster on the same job with Inventor? Of course!

Do I still long to use Inventor? Of course!

However I have no doubt that if I continue to use SWX for a couple of years I would also become proficient and as fast etc as I personally am capable with Inventor. I don’t think you can use 2 different peoples experience as a reference for the software itself. As I know some guys that use SWX that could swap to Inventor and still never be fast or accurate as other people, the software is not the limitation. I really think that design capabilities and speed are much closer tied to the person than the software. If you have a lot of experience with one and a small amount with the other you would almost always naturally favour the one you know better.

Bottom line is both software’s are fully capable (and of course SE as well).

To sum it up, the software gives out, only what you put in, in terms of training and time spent..... there is no magic bullet!

Side note.... I have been around long enough to also know.... Gary Smith knows what he’s talking about, and is a genuine great and knowledgeable guy! Everyone using Inventor has a lot to thank him for 😉 My 0.02 Euro

Brian

[Anonymous]

Interesting discussion, I am a long time ( 8 years ) Solidworks user who now works ( 1.5 years ) with Inventor. Like has been said by others had huge troubles in the learning stages of Inventor but and cpomfortable and reasonably productive now.

My plus and minus highlights

Inventor plus's BOM's and I-properties are magic compared to Solidworks. Incredibly easy to set properties up for doing a lot of things. Some very bright people here at this company setup some great templates also that make our work a lot simpler, not sure the same thing could be done in Solidworks.

Minus's - Adaptivity - Inventor is an unmitagated disaster compared to Solidworks, adaptivity is not usable even for very basic features whereas Solidworks did it very well. Would not even consider doing a top-down design in Inventor the way I used to in Solidworks.

I parts and I assemblies - pretty much a wash, the table in Inventor is great but the I parts and very cranky and cumbersome. Configurations and design tables in Solidworks were harder to setup but better to use after that.

[Anonymous]

Brian - tried to PM you, could not. PM me if you get a minute. Gary

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your interesting post.

[Anonymous]

JDMather,

You wrote: "My impression is that you do not have enough experience to evaluate anything that has been written here."  That is a very disrespectful, offensive and false statement.  Why do you want to insult me?

Perhaps you were responding to my comment in my message (# 63) to Chris_In_Stockholm which said: "I am not familiar with most of the functions and attributes you are speaking of."  Well, he was talking (in message # 58) about various aspects of Inventor including "Iassy," "Ipart," and "Vault basic."  I admit that I do not know much about those things.  I have only very limited experience with Inventor.  However, when I wrote: "I am somewhat familiar with AutoCAD 2013 – including its 3D modeling functions – and Inventor Fusion."  I was trying to show some humility.  To be more clear, while I would not want to call myself an expert in AutoCAD I feel confident that I can design whatever I want in that program. 

I resent having to take the time and energy required here to defend myself against a completely uncalled for and unnecessary personal attack by you.

If you believe that only people who have 20 years of experience in working with three different CAD programs are worthy of participating in this forum then I suggest you petition whoever runs this forum and ask them to label it as such.  It is not labeled as such and your comment is inappropriate and I don’t need your insults.

In another message (# 68) you wrote that “As usual, threads of this type end up meaningless garbage.”

I disagree with that statement as well and so do others who have participated in this discussion.

I have gotten some useful information out of this discussion.  The original question I put forward was to ask whether Inventor or Solidworks would be the better program to choose, and since Inventor costs $5,000 and Solidworks costs $4,000, why would anyone choose Inventor.  Some of the responses turned me onto Solid Edge and also IronCAD.  I am looking into both of those now (as well as Solidworks and Inventor).  Unless someone else had suggested these two programs to me (or unless I had learned about them in some other way) I would not have known to look into them.  Also, someone pointed out on one of the posts that I can actually get Inventor for much less than $5,000 if I get it alone (not as part of a suite), something which was also useful information for me to know (although I don’t think that would be a good choice for me).  Another post pointed out that I can get free trials of all these programs and I took that advice and downloaded free trials.  A recent and interesting post by Brian (message # 75) argues that the exact CAD program you get is less significant than the person using it.  He wrote (in essence) that they all have strengths and weaknesses and you just have to learn to use whatever program you are using well.  That is an interesting perspective and, I think, probably correct.  Additionally a number of other worthwhile points have been discussed here.  So I have gotten useful information from this discussion and I disagree that it is all “meaningless garbage.”

Furthermore, other people also disagree with you on this point.  ScottJohnson824 in message # 73 wrote: “I didn't even go looking for this thread but I read it from beginning to end and found it somewhat helpful.”  Mario428 wrote in message # 76: “Interesting discussion.”  A number of people have posted repeatedly, which implies that they found this discussion to be of interest.  So a number of people in addition to me disagree with your statement that this discussion has been “meaningless garbage.”

 -Vincent