IV8 is better in what?

I know very well SW and I'm learning IV slowly. I'd like to know what kind
of thing I'll like on IV compared to SW (example of command or features).
You can be really specific, I've read a report paid by Dassault comparing SW
to IV but I'd like to have comment fron the other side.

Robin B
TMH Canada

 

Robin,
I passed the Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert Exam a couple of
months ago. I an now studying for the Certified SolidWorks
Professional Exam. I have been teaching both for about 2 years.

I have not found very many differences even if the terms are somewhat
different. A line is still a line and a circle a circle. Extrude,
revolve, sweep, and lofts are still extrusions, revolutions, sweeps,
and lofts. Fillets and chamfers... I could go on and on...

Geometry is geometry.

 

Can't create configurations for assemblies with IV6, is it like this still
in IV8? Makes a huge difference for me.

 

Yes, but software can handle different shapes well or badly. When it comes
to sweeps, lofts and fillets, there are big differences between how
different releases of SolidWorks (or SortOfWorks, my present
less-than-affectionate name) work or don't work. I haven't played with IV,
but I've got to believe that there are big differences between how SW and IV
work on this type of geometry. Given their histories, I would expect IV to
be even less robust than SW.

If you're working on "normal" ME shapes, then I defer to your judgement on
the similarities, but I'll bet if you do some serious design work with ID
surfaces you will change your mind.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

That's some summary

Thanks a lot

 

My students generaly don't have the clout to dictate what CAD program
the company should use when they start a new job. Therefore
everything we do I have them do it in both SolidWorks and Inventor.
http://cadence.advanstar.com/2003/0403/coverstory0403a.html

After 8 years as a machinist on the shop floor actually making parts
rather than just pretty pictures, I am fairly certain
geometry-is-geometry. Of course certain tools are better for creating
certain types of geometry. The most complex solid we have been able
to create so far in Inventor is a Mike Wilson's Scooby.
http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/content/DSG322/inventor_surface_tutorials.htm
(Click on Student Gallery).
The student who modeled this in Inventor tried to exactly reproduce
the SolidWorks feature tree as much as possible, but did have to make
some changes do to differences in the software and limitations in our
hardware.

Based on Robin's comments on an Inventor forum, I would suggest
learning the software at hand and trying to fit in as a new employee,
rather than rocking the boat. Unless that is what you were hired to
do and have the knowledge and clout to do it.

J.D.

 

And capability is capability, differing with software.

I generally leave X vs. Y discussions alone because they almost never yield
anything useful; degenerating into meaningless jb, jiml, salesman vs
salesman babble and rants. I also have only a casual passing interest in SW
or IV, so my apologies for cluttering the group, but I think I see a chance
at something useful coming from a discussion across the fence concerning a
specific part modeling problem in the "This screw is killing me" discussion
in the IV8 group.

If anyone has time to kill and is interested; the part (what appears to be a
mixer / extruder screw) is a variable double helix wrapped around two
discrete variable radius forms. I think it's an interesting shape of
moderate complexity and it is definitely a step above the vendor demo /
shootout show-em-up / marketing BS class of part. I know the part is a
challenge to IV's ability and it is a bit of a challenge for the modeler (at
least of my ability / experience level), no matter what software. (If
anyone IS interested, I'd be happy to email a small .stp of a portion of the
part. It's not really a good representation of what I think the goemetry
should be, either, but a start to show the basic form. There are 2D's
associated with the discussion thread, though.)

Sorry, if this is taken as trolling. It's not my intention. And thanks for
the opportunity to raise the possibility. It's not possible to do so on the
vendor maintained groups. I'm not interested in starting a mine is better
than yours flame war (this problem is related to one small subset of
the software package), but it would be Very_Interesting to see different
solutions to the modeling problem and, to some extent, get beyond
the salesman crap and see how it's handled by different programs.

Back to the mines before the boss gets back..... 8~)
=====================================