better inventor or solidworks?

[GD1907]

thanks for your answers.
the company is of great size so I am a little out of the logic of these decisions, I suppose that the choice of meridian is only due to economic interests, to particular relations with the company supplying, because they have not even been taken in soderation other pdms, much less that of soloworks, than having it we have never used :36_1_4:
Unfortunately swx has always been seen badly by some characters within the company and so I think this is just an excuse to get rid of it, and the choice of inventor is only due to the economic interests I was talking about.
In short, it is a casino in pure Italian style and the expense of it is just us designers.
Anyway thank you, what I was interested in was answered.

 

[re_solidworks]

thanks for your answers.
the company is of great size so I am a little out of the logic of these decisions, I suppose that the choice of meridian is only due to economic interests, to particular relations with the company supplying, because they have not even been taken in soderation other pdms, much less that of soloworks, than having it we have never used :36_1_4:
Unfortunately swx has always been seen badly by some characters within the company and so I think this is just an excuse to get rid of it, and the choice of inventor is only due to the economic interests I was talking about.
In short, it is a casino in pure Italian style and the expense of it is just us designers.
Anyway thank you, what I was interested in was answered.

I apologize in advance, but let me vent. It's crazy! what you describe explains very well how there are many difficulties in the Italian economy....

 

[GD1907]

I apologize in advance, but let me vent. It's crazy! what you describe explains very well how there are many difficulties in the Italian economy....

We think of it the same way, and he thinks we are one of the biggest Italian multinationals. ..we go forward for inertia, and we are standing only thanks to the developing foreign markets.

 

[GD1907]

in the company was made a comparison in terms of costs: all the solidworks licenses we currently have the same number of autocad licenses cost us 38k a year, the same number of autocad inventor licenses, which with inventor are free, would cost us 18k.
With these figures, the bosses will quickly decide, taking care of every other aspect!

 

[Onda]

in the company was made a comparison in terms of costs: all the solidworks licenses we currently have the same number of autocad licenses cost us 38k a year, the same number of autocad inventor licenses, which with inventor are free, would cost us 18k.
With these figures, the bosses will quickly decide, taking care of every other aspect!

Maybe that's why dassault pulled out drafsight completely free and very similar to autocad.
I don't know if you tried it, but it's worth it, especially if you have old autocad licenses and send you drawings in the 2010 version.

greetings
wave

 

[marcof]

in the company was made a comparison in terms of costs: all the solidworks licenses we currently have the same number of autocad licenses cost us 38k a year, the same number of autocad inventor licenses, which with inventor are free, would cost us 18k.
With these figures, the bosses will quickly decide, taking care of every other aspect!

to me, who industrially are less than a toy, these more than bosses seem to me neighborhood bullies, but those with toy guns and robbing the children of ice cream. . .
to save 18k euro per year change cad and lose 4 years old with swx? otretutto passed from a parametric to a contextual or a hybrid that can really work on imported models could, perhaps, also stand there; pass from swx to inv or vice versa only for the 18k€ of difference seems to me from dements.
I wonder if, except for the poor employees who always take it in that place: mad:, then it is so disastrous that certain companies disappear from the market.

 

[re_solidworks]

Well, inventor is not a fetecchia, it is now a proven cad and comparable to swx. Of course the cost of a change is not limited to the money spent at the dealer, there are many other aspects.
In my opinion it also depends on how much "training" of employees is thrown. you can also save by updating licenses every 2 years.
and then: what do you need to keep updated autocad? It's the same for 10 years now... .

 

[GD1907]

Well, inventor is not a fetecchia, it is now a proven cad and comparable to swx. Of course the cost of a change is not limited to the money spent at the dealer, there are many other aspects.
In my opinion it also depends on how much "training" of employees is thrown. you can also save by updating licenses every 2 years.
and then: what do you need to keep updated autocad? It's the same for 10 years now... .

interesting ideas thanks, I will make them present.
I'm wondering whether inventor might require more performing pcs than solidworks and so there's also this aspect to consider.

 

[re_solidworks]

interesting ideas thanks, I will make them present.
I'm wondering whether inventor might require more performing pcs than solidworks and so there's also this aspect to consider.

from what I hear say solidworks is the best midrange cad to manage large assemblies. compared to inventor is also better in the management of sheet metal, there are discussions also addressed here on the forum where you noticed a bit of swx superiority in this.
I think what matters most is the practice of trade. It would be important that if you now go to inventor in 3 years you will not be able to change again. by now the differences between the 3 competing products are fairly reduced and what matters most is the knowledge of the software by users.

in my opinion swx is overall superior for the modeling of superifices, which not only serves for the molds, but also to get strange sheets, and as already said for the sheet a little more developed.
Another point in favor of swx is the large number of third-party applications that allow you to really do everything, I think it is the cad that has more on the market. try to check on the site of swx where there are certified products. . There are so many.

 

[maxopus]

disinterested opinion ... your leaders do not understand a bat.
you will not have improvements and will cost you much more than you could save in maintenance terms.
do you have any idea what will happen when you have to change a complex project and you can no longer count on the combination of drawings and models?
because the old archives will have to convert them by force (the 3d in step and the 2d in dwg or dxf) to make them readable in inventor.
this conversion loses all the relationships between components, the parameters of the models and the association between tables and models.

I could have understood if you had the need for an upgrade and then switch to a more performing cad/plm system.
but this is not your case, from the operating point of view switch from swx to inventor will not bring any advantage.

Happy birthday.

 

[The_Matrix]

from the operating point of view switch from swx to inventor will not bring any advantage.

Happy birthday.

what says max is correct at 1000x1000.
in front of 20k savings per year (but if you go to swx and tell them that you have an ongoing assessment the distance will go down...):
1) you will have to do the training to all users (cost of training in itself and the lack of production in the days themselves)
2) you will miss the 2d/3d
3) you will miss mating conditions (think if you make a small change to a component and the neighbors do not fit)
4) you will miss the features for changes to solids (I don't think inventor has such developed directc modeling)

... I join the " wishes" of max...

 

[GD1907]

Sorry again a question, now in the office we're undermining, people who don't even know the program that judges, criticizes, etc.
the last problem of swx invented is that what made with a new version is not readable with the older ones.
I think it's very normal for all the parameters, can you give me confirmation? also inventor or other programs have this particularity?
Thank you.

 

[maxopus]

so for all the parameters, including inventor.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

It is as well as for all programs not only for parametrics.
except pro/e that has a file recovery tool created with a more up-to-date version in the older one, but it is a tool that allows you to open them and maintain the association, not the historian, if nothing else is useful to not make a step or an iges and open it with the least recent version.

greetings

 

[Matteo]

It is as well as for all programs not only for parametrics.
except pro/e that has a file recovery tool created with a more up-to-date version in the older one, but it is a tool that allows you to open them and maintain the association, not the historian, if nothing else is useful to not make a step or an iges and open it with the least recent version.

greetings

I confirm, it is a commercial choice of all manufacturers who so force suppliers and customers to remain "aligned" (there are also technical reasons, especially in the case of parametrics, but increasingly less important as the software becomes "matter", and swx is definitely).

the proe tool is very useful... spaceclaim also has a similar tool, but I have to say that I have noticed precisely on the occasion of this answer... before I was always past the step or for "clonation" procedures (the "part" files of sc are actually folders that separate geometry from parameters and "pseudo" features) :smile:

 

[cacciatorino]

It is as well as for all programs not only for parametrics.
except pro/e that has a file recovery tool created with a more up-to-date version in the older one, but it is a tool that allows you to open them and maintain the association, not the historian, if nothing else is useful to not make a step or an iges and open it with the least recent version.

greetings

Remember that cocreate (not parametric) allows to save backwards, at least within certain release intervals, you see that they do not change the internal file format.

 

[cacciatorino]

the proe tool is very useful... spaceclaim also has a similar tool, but I have to say that I have noticed precisely on the occasion of this answer... before I was always past the step or for "clonation" procedures (the "part" files of sc are actually folders that separate geometry from parameters and "pseudo" features) :smile:

a question: what do you use to recompress the file?
I saw that solid edge files are actually compressed files (it looks like *.msi) and with 7-zip I can disappear, but then I don't know how to "close them."

Bye.

 

[Matteo]

a question: what do you use to recompress the file?
I saw that solid edge files are actually compressed files (it looks like *.msi) and with 7-zip I can disappear, but then I don't know how to "close them."

Bye.

are renamed zippers by modifying the extension.

 

[cacciatorino]

are renamed zippers by modifying the extension.

If it doesn't work, then the cad can't open them.

sin, I also want to try to make back-compatible some files like that! :biggrin:

 

[Matteo]

If it doesn't work, then the cad can't open them.

sin, I also want to try to make back-compatible some files like that! :biggrin:

this is one of the possibilities in fact, with a bit of manual skill with bees you can do very fun things! there is to say that with a "pure" parametric would be more complex (think if a feature is added in the x release not present in the x-1)