better inventor or solidworks?

[daniele-1]

Hello, everyone!
are in phase of purchasing assessment on inventor and solidworks.
my requirement is that of mechanical design (machine organs, dimensions, etc.), but having tested them both I have found merits and defects on both I have to say that they are very fought on the choice to do. What do you think?

 

[stefanobruno]

Hello, everyone!
are in phase of purchasing assessment on inventor and solidworks.
my requirement is that of mechanical design (machine organs, dimensions, etc.), but having tested them both I have found merits and defects on both I have to say that they are very fought on the choice to do. What do you think?

It will be very difficult that you will get here a definitive answer, it is an open battle.
each of us will always support his cad3d (listed at the forum :biggrin: ).
If you were able to test them both, you're already ahead of so many of us.

Bye.

 

[Matteo]

the first answer that came to mind was "solidworks" but thinking about it well, I think it depends on the fact that I used it for a long time (while inventor I only saw demo): I think even invetnor is a great tool.

my advice is: try to define well the needs (mechanical "pure"? his style principles? need to integrate the software into a pdm because the organization of theut is complex? any need for structural calculation?) so as not to aim at the absolute mileage, but at the mileage for you. also take account of the dealer and its availability to provide courses and assistance at reasonable price. :smile:

 

[daniele-1]

thank you stefanobruno and thank you matteo.
In fact, the needs (current) are the design (clearly with dimensioning etc.), but apart from this the rapidity of the prototype (sometimes of complex form) is fundamental. inventor already has an integrated computing system (desing accelleretor) while solidworks does not have such a tool, but from what I could see solidworks is much more 'simple' and fast in the constraining of solids.

 

[tomas]

never tried toptron and... excellent cad...

 

[cacciatorino]

thank you stefanobruno and thank you matteo.
In fact, the needs (current) are the design (clearly with dimensioning etc.), but apart from this the rapidity of the prototype (sometimes of complex form) is fundamental.

Probably a big discriminant is the ability to handle big asses, where swx may have a few extra numbers. Is that something you get?

 

[daniele-1]

Yeah!
In the great assemblies I find some difficulty from inventor.. .

 

[stefanobruno]

inventor has standardized libraries, solidworks I don't know (there is still a good sw site that provides it )
someone using solidworks respond please.
Could be a good discriminatory.

Bye.

 

[marcof]

Hello, everyone!
are in phase of purchasing assessment on inventor and solidworks.
my requirement is that of mechanical design (machine organs, dimensions, etc.), but having tested them both I have found merits and defects on both I have to say that they are very fought on the choice to do. What do you think?

If I were you, I would carefully scroll the thread titles in the swx forums and inv focusing on those related to problems and difficulties complained by users of the two cads. I think it is easier to make a likely idea of any magagne you will meet by choosing one or another.
I think inventor is introducing an explicit modeling system like that of himself; it is hoped that they will not throw themselves to work on the lower head only on the new environment leaving the possible improvements of the classic environment.

Hi.

 

[cacciatorino]

I think inventor is introducing an explicit modeling system like that of if

Actually, there's a subtle but fundamental difference! that of inventor should be a so-called "direct modelling", in the sense that the changes made by ironing the model with the handles (we understood) are transformed into features and saved in the tree of the model, so wanting I can then edit with the quotas put in automatic (think for example to stretch a solid with a "stira"). in itself, instead of these changes, there is no trace in the history of the model, which is actually abolished, so it is impossible to return to the previous state, a little like working with osd or with the first 3-dimensional: The solid is still paramount, wanting, but it no longer has history, which can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the case.
I long prefer to have the feature story, but maybe it depends on the fact that I formed this way.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

why not invest then on pro/e or on solidedge?
it is not good to buy a cad for bookcases or for ease....
Saludos...

 

[maxopus]

why not invest then on pro/e or on solidedge?
it is not good to buy a cad for bookcases or for ease....
Saludos...

Let go, pro/e is ostico (a dealer of competition even told me that every time I came back from the holiday I should have resumed everything from scratch) and is only suitable for auto-lesionists like you and me:biggrin:

 

[davide75]

I use inventor for a lot and sw I am using it now and cmq someone of the forum already knows that I work with if and pro/e wf2 for which I think I have tried quite well to evaluate predictions and defects of oguno.
sw that I am using recently I could notice that in short it is a little messed up in finding the settings, but the big assemblies keeps them well. It's very fast in modeling I admit it, but as put in the table in short lax a little to desire (think that in my opinion the best table is that you are if ). for the surfaces I do not know tell you anything.cmq we at work is that we are very satisfied
to decide best you should work for a while on the 2 cad maybe doing the same job to see better qualities and defects and especially what you intend to do exactly.

p.s.
of course you also need to have proper hardware preferably 64 bit

 

[daniele-1]

Thank you very much for your details. what I can tell you that I would currently be oriented to inventor for the cost,complete product, and compatibility, even if the sw is technically more advanced and gets less.... .

 

[tomas]

definitely better solidworks.. .

 

[Focus]

definitely better solidworks.. .

excellently argued opinion.............

 

[re_solidworks]

I'm talking about solidworks because I don't know much inventor. if you take an office license you have the integrated libraries and it is the toolboxes. I do not use them because I already have a very complete library. toolboxes use a technology called smart fastener that automatically recognizes holes by size in placing screws, etc.
with about 350-400 euros you can buy cadenas, a library that can work on all cads and in addition to din rules, uni, etc... has more than 400 catalogs of exportable material manufacturers in interchange or native formats.
also for swx you find macro, application and everything you can serve.
for the swx fem you have the cosmos packages, I would say they do not need presentations. Of course, to have something usable you have to spend something, with the base you do little.

by curiosity: what do you plan?

 

[re_solidworks]

I use inventor for a lot and sw I am using it now and cmq someone of the forum already knows that I work with if and pro/e wf2 for which I think I have tried quite well to evaluate predictions and defects of oguno.
sw that I am using recently I could notice that in short it is a little messed up in finding the settings, but the big assemblies keeps them well. It's very fast in modeling I admit it, but as put in the table in short lax a little to desire (think that in my opinion the best table is that you are if ). for the surfaces I do not know tell you anything.cmq we at work is that we are very satisfied
to decide best you should work for a while on the 2 cad maybe doing the same job to see better qualities and defects and especially what you intend to do exactly.

p.s.
of course you also need to have proper hardware preferably 64 bit

solidworks has among the system requirements to be able to operate the native support request of active directories. When you're using a linux server, you know you're looking for rogne. the same goes for nas, not all those based on linux work well. I say not all because there are good things and they work very fast.

I can't understand how you can use it at high level more cad. I use it 3:

solidworks
proje wf2
autocad lt + top

frankly I can't deepen at the same level swx and proe at the same time, despite the philosophy of use is similar, in advanced modeling if I begin to push on one I lose fluidity with the other.
I don't know what to say, I think there's a lot of tools and that you can work well without too many problems or losses of time.

 

[re_solidworks]

Let go, pro/e is ostico (a dealer of competition even told me that every time I came back from the holiday I should have resumed everything from scratch) and is only suitable for auto-lesionists like you and me:biggrin:

So you leave classes every time you go to vacation?

 

[davide75]

I will not want to say that you can use all the high-level slopes, perhaps I have been misunderstood.Of course there will be a cad with which you feel more facilitated, brought compared to others, but to me it happens often that I have to change cad from one moment to another and as long as you work only on one for 2/3 months you will get used to that and go like a sph