better inventor or solidworks?

[Parametric_Ozzy]

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.

you in fact also for bvautocad (as for office products) it is possible to do it but you have to by force to open the file with new version and save it with less recent version, I meant that there is no direct tool on the contrary. :smile:
definitely for non-history cads as co-create and sc it is possible since they do not affect the interoperability of the model tree. .
We will see how this story will be created.

 

[driss]

hi, of the two I recommend you inventor, but if you have to use the program to design more or less complex situations I recommend you co-create is the best

 

[GD1907]

hi, of the two I recommend you inventor, but if you have to use the program to design more or less complex situations I recommend you co-create is the best

Can you give me some reason? Two or three reasons to corroborate your argument?
in the office we tried to take a great set made with solidw and to open it with inventor.. .
apart from a few pieces if you lose it, I don't know why, but as soon as we made the table the program fell! ! !

 

[The_Matrix]

in the office we tried to take a great set made with solidw and to open it with inventor.. .I don't know why., but as soon as we made the table the program fell! ! !

What an analysis overflows...
Maybe they weren't your data? (They also have different kernels)

 

[GD1907]

What an analysis overflows...
Maybe they weren't your data? (They also have different kernels)

apart from my analysis, snitch, if we have to move from swx to inventor we have to convert everything done with swx.
and I do not explain why in importing some parts or assemblings you do not load them!

 

[cacciatorino]

apart from my analysis, snitch, if we have to move from swx to inventor we have to convert everything done with swx.
and I do not explain why in importing some parts or assemblings you do not load them!

You better talk to your autodesk dealer, they definitely have some specific conversion tools in addition to the brutal attempt you made. probably then it's better to go through some interchange format like the step, the results will certainly be better.

p.s. I don't know what you're dealing with, but for certain types of companies (e.g. those who work on orders) often the problem of the recovery of the historian is not as important as it would seem at first sight, and it is not worth taking it as a very "heavy" element in the choice of that or that other cad.

However, you could also go to the swx and show him the price that makes you inventor, I think you will meet a lot!

 

[Er Presidente]

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.

Hey fat!
Shake your mouth before appointing cocreate!
:biggrin:

I remind you that with cocreate you can always save "backward", evil that goes out in step and reimport, will always be a "native".

I had to write "you have to save yourself" and "you have to import" and now he's dead!
:smile:

 

[cacciatorino]

I remind you that with cocreate you can always save "backward", evil that goes out in step and reimport, will always be a "native".

I bet that by saving in step and reimporting you also preserve metadata, threads and association with the table! This cocreate is a bomb!

I'm pointing out that the direct-modeling functions already had paramedics, but it was before it became fashion that marketing philosophers didn't use it to leverage the selling of fiscal year. :biggrin:

 

[Er Presidente]

I bet that by saving in step and reimporting you also preserve metadata, threads and association with the table! This cocreate is a bomb!

I'm pointing out that the direct-modeling functions already had paramedics, but it was before it became fashion that marketing philosophers didn't use it to leverage the selling of fiscal year. :biggrin:

eeehhhh! quanti caxxi!!!
:biggrin:

 

[re_solidworks]

I bet that by saving in step and reimporting you also preserve metadata, threads and association with the table! This cocreate is a bomb!

I'm pointing out that the direct-modeling functions already had paramedics, but it was before it became fashion that marketing philosophers didn't use it to leverage the selling of fiscal year. :biggrin:

I can't stand seeing the software houses that have always made us parametres throw their time and money for 'this direct modeling. with everything we would do to improve the product on many functions of substance, but unfortunately, less impact on potential customers.

 

[The_Matrix]

apart from my analysis, snitch, if we have to move from swx to inventor we have to convert everything done with swx.
and I do not explain why in importing some parts or assemblings you do not load them!

As I have already tried to explain to you, the data transfer between cad systems is not a trivial thing. . .
it is necessary to think well, both as method and as tools.
... and remember that after data transfer:
1) 3d models will no longer be parametric (if you have good direct modeling tools ok, otherwise they are cabbage)
2) Tables will no longer be associated with 3d
3) assembly will have the pieces in place, but without mating conditions

the simple opening with inventor a large assembly swx is a proof that leaves the time it finds.

 

[The_Matrix]

p.s. I don't know what you're dealing with, but for certain types of companies (e.g. those who work on orders) often the problem of the recovery of the historian is not as important as it would seem at first sight, and it is not worth taking it as a very "heavy" element in the choice of that or that other cad.

Oh, my God. .
Let me not agree.
There is another element to keep under control. . .
besides the cad is there a pdm? and will there also be in the target?
... of course the data transfer must take into account the different revisions of 3d objects, assemblies and tables.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

As I have already tried to explain to you, the data transfer between cad systems is not a trivial thing. . .
it is necessary to think well, both as method and as tools.
... and remember that after data transfer:
1) 3d models will no longer be parametric (if you have good direct modeling tools ok, otherwise they are cabbage)
2) Tables will no longer be associated with 3d
3) assembly will have the pieces in place, but without mating conditions

the simple opening with inventor a large assembly swx is a proof that leaves the time it finds.

I quote what Beppe says.
the test is also really fugitive, it amounts a non-native set of that program, therefore not modeled and besieged with its own rules.

idem would be the opposite... from inv to swx you certainly would have problems.
I return to reiterate that this choice should be made in a much more oculated way and not just looking at the cad side.

 

[GD1907]

then in the company there was the presentation of inventor 2011, I say my impressions even if I mean little.
regarding the passage of the models of swx also the expert autodesck used inventor, with excellent results (the pieces that you lost was my mistake because I did not realize that they were in speedpack).
in general: I do not like the graphical interface, less intuitive and with more voices/commands, both for 3d and for table setting.
However, the table has some advantages and more possibilities than that of swx.
inventor believes however require more powerful pcs, we have to check with our assemblies the use of configurations (provisional control if I did not understand badly).
this in general since we have not entered too much detail.

 

[re_solidworks]

then in the company there was the presentation of inventor 2011, I say my impressions even if I mean little.
regarding the passage of the models of swx also the expert autodesck used inventor, with excellent results (the pieces that you lost was my mistake because I did not realize that they were in speedpack).
in general: I do not like the graphical interface, less intuitive and with more voices/commands, both for 3d and for table setting.
However, the table has some advantages and more possibilities than that of swx.
inventor believes however require more powerful pcs, we have to check with our assemblies the use of configurations (provisional control if I did not understand badly).
this in general since we have not entered too much detail.

Now I'm curious: What's more in the table missing in swx?

 

[Alessandro 1974]

hi I had the opportunity to try solidwork and in my company use pro/e.ti I can only say that if the basis of the 2d drawings is made on autocad I would recommend you to take inventor, you will certainly be more facilitated in the creation of the models since the base is the same. solidwork is a cad very easy to learn and very intuitive, but do not expect it to be stable, i.e. you risk reopening the file that some feature fails or some component is no longer bound. if you want to have an excellent strumeto at the same cost of solidwork more or less in acquiring pro/e from the wf4 onwards. If you go to the ptc site they have also created a new cad integrated between pro/e and cocreate that is called creo and is really fabulous. go to the site to see it.
Hi.

 

[marcof]

solidwork is a cad very easy to learn and very intuitive, but do not expect it to be stable, i.e. you risk reopening the file that some feature fails or some component is no longer bound.

or is an isolated file that has a problem (and then you should understand if that problem you created it or swx) or if you want to generalize then you are not able to use it. the features that failed you and the parts without constraints were already such at closing the file.
Come on, let's not shoot them too big.

 

[GD1907]

Now I'm curious: What's more in the table missing in swx?

one thing we need is to hide individual lines and this inventor can do it, swx instead no (as far as I know).
I was referring to this, because we didn't see much, then those of inventor did the magicians saying that the table is their strong!
we also asked him how much he would want to train, the answer was 4 days!! !
colossal ball, I think it takes more than swx to learn how to use it

 

[marcof]

Now I'm curious: What's more in the table missing in swx?

one thing we need is to hide individual lines and this inventor can do it, swx instead no (as far as I know)

right click on the edge and drop down menu "hide edge".
Who made you the demo of swx, the sausage? :smile:

then those of inventor did the cool by saying that the table is their strong!

Maybe all part 3d is not really in the state of art but at the bottom in a cad 3d this is a negligible detail...

 

[stefanobruno]

a reply was 4 days!! !
colossal ball, I think it takes more than swx to learn how to use it

I took 3 half days and I was prevented, because with the test installation that they had given me I could not do anything.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: