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]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

... I want to make sure I spend the money wisely. 

---

As twinz3950 suggested, obtain trial versions of the various software packages you are considering; I believe that most have a 30 day trial version that you can either download online or acquire from your local VAR (Value Added Reseller).  You might even consider having your VAR do a demonstration of the software using one of your typical parts (or a simplified version thereof) for evaluation of the whole process.  If you are evaluating them yourself, create the same set of parts, assemblies, drawings, etc. in each software to understand where are their strengths and weaknesses. 

Don't expect to instantly become proficient on any of the software packages; taking a course at the local technical institute or collage will provide a good foundation but each software package will have its own particularities -- some things will be easier to accomplish in one package than in the others and vice versa.  While the user interface between the different software packages will be different, the approach to creating stable parts and assemblies is essentially the same.

HTH

Is there something specific or unique that you need to be able to do; if you provide typical examples (or even simplified versions thereof), we might be able to provide an indication of how easy/difficult what you want/need is to accomplish in the various software packages.

[PaulMunford]

Speak to your Autodesk reseller. The price you quoted is for a joint license of AutoCAD and Inventor. Your reseller can sell you Inventor on its own if you want - at a cheaper price than Solid works (they don't advertise this option much!).

Solidworks has more options for surfacing. You can build the same things in Inventor, but it might take more steps.

Inventor seems to have more tools for mechanical design, such as the design accelerators.

Solidworks seems to be more popular with industrial designers and small independent job shops, while inventor is more popular in general engineering.

Autodesk have the advantage in multidisciplinary companies who need a solution for Civil or BIM alongside mechanical design.

My recommendation its that you start with your customers. What CAD format are they looking for as a deliverable?

Who are you most likely to share data with? What do they need?

Either package will do what you want. The initial investment will soon be written off. Personally, I would be looking for a smooth workflow with my collaborators and an enjoyable daily experience.

[stevec781]

I have used both, currently using Inventor, might be switching back to Swx.  Here is what I have found over the years.

Inventor has far superior BOM management.

I like inventors frame generator better.

Both are user friendly and easy to learn.

Inventors derive feature is far superior.

Inventor has more control over adding balloons in drawings.

Except for Autocad, I don't use any of the other software bundled with the suite, I don't even install it.

But

Swx integrates with Rhino much better.

Swx handles topology changes much better.

Swx is fully associative, Inventor is not.  Copied straight from the help Projected cut edges are not associative in a sketch. The geometry is a "snapshot" of the geometry when projected, and if the parent geometry changes, does not update  (Yes I know there is a work around, but Swx does not need a work around)

Swx can send assembly features back to part level, inventor can not.  (yes there is an add on that provides a work around, but again Swx doesn't need an add on)

Swx has more mate options.

Swx has multi body sheet metal parts, Inv does not.

But Swx future is unclear as they may be switching to the Catia kernel, might be powerful, might be a disaster.

If it wasn't for the BOM differences I would switch back to Swx in a heart beat, but BOM is a big deal for me so not sure yet.

Both have their limitations, so you have to see which limitations affect you the most, the problem is  the resellers wont tell you about them.  Insist they demo by modeling and editing something that is relevant to your industry.

If you work on your own, don't care about industry standards, don't need piping and don't need a frame generator, have a look at Ironcad as well.   It has a very powerful mix of history and direct editing.

[yannick3]

Hi Stevec781

You are  right the Inventor help tell that projected cut edge is non-associative but if you try it you will find that is associative

i've tried with 3 different model (created from scratch ) and it's associative

take a look at the attachment and try to break the associativity.

i've find that center point from projected cut edge is non-associative, if you add concentric constraint it's become associative.

[cmcconnell]

That geometry has not always been associative - I think that may have been added in the 2009 release.

Cory McConnell
President | Mechanix Design Solutions Inc.
e: cory@mechanixdesigns.com
m: 403.875.3393403.875.3393>
w: www.mechanixdesigns.com403.875.3393>

[Anonymous]

I am basically just doing 3D modeling.  I just need to finish disigning this set of parts and then take them to a machine shop, give the guy a printed design, have him build prototypes, and then probably make corrections to the design and then when it is right, to start getting the stuff produced.  I am not thinking about BOM nor interfacing with anyone nor other extra things.  I think that some of the program attributes that some people are discussing here are beyond what I need. 

You mentioned me maybe providing a drawing of what I am doing so you could help determine what program might be best.  That might be helpful.  I might take you up on that.  However, I have a problem with my computer right now and I can't access my hard drives.  It will probably be at least a week, as I am ordering a part.  When I get up and running again maybe I will take you up on your offer.  (Thanks.)

[Anonymous]

I think I heard or read that about the price for Inventor.  I think I saw that it was available for $1,500.  If I got just that would that program alone have approximately the same capability as Solidworks?

[stevec781]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hi Stevec781

You are  right the Inventor help tell that projected cut edge is non-associative but if you try it you will find that is associative

i've tried with 3 different model (created from scratch ) and it's associative

take a look at the attachment and try to break the associativity.

i've find that center point from projected cut edge is non-associative, if you add concentric constraint it's become associative.

---

It is asscoiative at part level.  It isnt associative when used at assembly level, which is what the hep is takling about.  So interpart relationships are not possible in this case unless a derive work around is used.  The help topic is Projected Geometry in Assembly. 

The workaround is to copy the face or faces that you want to reference into the part, then do the edit at part level.  A problem with this is copy face is buggy and doesnt always update, so then you have to use derive, which means you have to use a common origin work flow.

[stevec781]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I am basically just doing 3D modeling.  I just need to finish disigning this set of parts and then take them to a machine shop, give the guy a printed design, have him build prototypes, and then probably make corrections to the design and then when it is right, to start getting the stuff produced.  I am not thinking about BOM nor interfacing with anyone nor other extra things.  I think that some of the program attributes that some people are discussing here are beyond what I need. 

---

Then perhaps the base version of Geomagic (Alibre) is all that you need, or if the models are suited to direct editing Creo Elements direct modelling express is free.

[Anonymous]

I just downloaded and tried Creo Elements Modeling Express.  It won't open my AutoCAD 2013 file.  I think I tried a creo elements program before and I had the same problem.

[stevec781]

Open or Import?  Inventor wont open acad files either, you have to import them into a sketch.

[PaulMunford]

If you just need to get some geometry down, I would recommend Fusion 360, which is currently free.

http://fusion360.autodesk.com/

[stevec781]

I could be wrong about this but as far as I can see Fusion 360 cant create drawings, its just a modeller.

[Anonymous]

Also, and I could be wrong, but it also doesn't deal in sheetmetal, does it?

[PaulMunford]

I didn't notice Exploding Bee asking for sheet metal?

Fusion360's drawing envioronment is in Beta. However, to give a guy a printed 'design' in a workshop - would a dimensioned up screen shot do? Don't forget - it's free!

---

I am just an independent guy working on a completely independant project that I eventually hope to market and make money with.  I have no income from my CAD project at this time so if I am going to spend $4,000 or so to get a legit CAD program I want to make sure I spend the money wisely. 

I am basically just doing 3D modeling.  I just need to finish disigning this set of parts and then take them to a machine shop, give the guy a printed design, have him build prototypes, and then probably make corrections to the design and then when it is right, to start getting the stuff produced.

---

[yannick3]

Hi Paul
Fusion 360 it's not free ( only trial time) it's about 300$ per year

[stevec781]

---

@PaulMunford wrote:

I didn't notice Exploding Bee asking for sheet metal?

Fusion360's drawing envioronment is in Beta. However, to give a guy a printed 'design' in a workshop - would a dimensioned up screen shot do? Don't forget - it's free!

---

Sure, but as Yannick says its a free trial, but also Creo elements Direct is free forever, and already has associative drawing capabilities.  Unfortunately when you consider the direct editing capabilities of the others such as Solid Edge, Ironcad, Spaceclaim & Creo, Fusion is at the back of the pack.  So unless the OP has a preference for Autodesk products, which it seems he doesnt, there is no reason to even consider Fusion.

[Anonymous]

I have no affiliation (in fact I've used Inventor since 2003) but if I were in your position I would definitely give Solid Edge a serious look - in fact I may myself for a side project I'm planning for the new year. They have rental options available, you can get the basic design and drafting for a monthly rental fee of $130, up to $350 a month for the premium version which contains tons of stuff including basica analysis.

I sometimes wonder why Solid Edge isn't more popular, it seems like it might be the best midrange program that nobody uses. I like the ability to use both history based & direct modeling together in the same model. Here is a link to a website detailing the pricing & options:

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[jletcher]

Well I was the Inventor all the way guy I have used Solidworks but when Inventor came out I fell in love I praised it sold it made lots of clients buy it.

 Would fight with solidworks guys on issues proved my point many times with Inventor.

 Now that Inventor went to this new interface added 100's of extra clicks screwed up and pay more attention to rendering rather then a manufacturing software this is where they messed up including the new interface.. 

  I am trying to get all my clients to change to Solidworks or Pro-E or even Solid Edge they stepped up and listen to the users. Autodesk only listens to stock holders now..

 Autodesk messed up  What a mess..

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[blair]

I honestly feel that ADSK and SolidWorks spend to much time trying to make their interfaces look good for the schools/students that don't pay for the software in hopes that they will want to work with it after they leave school and will influence the decision makers to purchase the software they learned on. They both brag about the number of versions "Installed", but a good portion of those are "Student" licenses that they haven't received any payment for. Hence the "Nice-Look" ribbon interface for both software venders. They forget that it's a tool to do a job. I don't care what the graphics look like on my hammer, as long and the grip is comfortable and it drives in the nail.