inventor e/o solid works

[Yebisu]

I see many ads looking for solid works mechanical designers and/or inventor the use of one does not affect the other, what sense does it have to have 2 identical software in my opinion?

Since the building is firm... I convert to mechanical... I was considering learning the use of one of the above-mentioned software.
What would you recommend?

 

[bertu]

I recommend you inventor, as the overview of autodesk products is much wider (mechanical, electrical, construction, etc.)
Hi.
♪

 

[Yebisu]

I also thought I was inventor for the simple fact that I come from autocad ..

 

[Filo]

If it is to be able to "sale" on the market better inventor that is more widespread, cmq in my opinion solid is more aware than inventor.
anyway they are both easy-to-use programs with pretty similar logic, so learn one can easily learn the other too.

Hi.

 

[marcof]

I also thought I was inventor for the simple fact that I come from autocad ..

the one has nothing to do with the other, they are not even relatives, so it is good to choose other evaluation parameters like a greater diffusion from your inv or swx parts.

 

[marcof]

I recommend you inventor, as the overview of autodesk products is much wider (mechanical, electrical, construction, etc.)

the panormica is wide, but they are completely different software and without any interoperability with inventor.

 

[c'erounavolta]

the interoperability between the autocads and inventor is, look for example that between electrical and inv, the first you design the electrical system and then with the second you draw it in 3d

 

[bertu]

the panormica is wide, but they are completely different software and without any interoperability with inventor.

I usually use revit + inventor and make it all with showcase (I could also do it with 3d studio max) without problems of interoperability.
I know for sure he works well with inventor.

this only from my experience. . .

Hi.
♪

 

[marcof]

the panormica is wide, but they are completely different software and without any interoperability with inventor.

the interoperability between the autocads and inventor is, look for example that between electrical and inv, the first you design the electrical system and then with the second you draw it in 3d

I was a little rushed into the answer. I was referring to the interoperability of self-desk products not so much to the specific modules that work with inventor. As we were talking about inventor vs solidworks I think that revit and autocad can be considered programs with which you can dialogue only through exchange of neutral formats.

 

[bertu]

in reality autocad and revit work very well together.
I design plants, prospects, profiles, or other two-dimensional things and go to connect these files with revit and continue the work.
if necessary I modify the dwg and telling revit to update I automatically have the changes made (always everything to check and check and in the case of heavy changes prepare to adjust a lot in revit.

logically autocad can not open the revit files if not properly exported in the desired mode 2d or 3d. but setting well the initial parameters also works well (tested on the tables 2d)

 

[goccia]

who deals with mechanical design: which of the two software to a mechanical ing student to gradually prepare for the future work?

 

[ROAR]

As performance you look like,you can start with solidworks definitely even more widespread, but in the job search no company will tell you "we use inventor and look for a professional figure that knows how to use inventor,but if you know how to use solidworks you go well the same"

 

[cacciatorino]

who deals with mechanical design: which of the two software to a mechanical ing student to gradually prepare for the future work?

I think one is worth the other, in the sense that no company will assess you on the thorough knowledge of a system or the other, so much so are things that you learn in two weeks. rather they will want to know if you are able to draw a piece that is then actually buildable, or if you can put useful odds in the drawing that will be passed to the prduction. My advice is to spend less time on cad and more on technical drawing books and mechanical technology.

 

[Lettore espatriato]

Good evening hunter,
If I may, submergedly, I would like to compare myself to these points that you highlighted:

I think one is worth the other, in the sense that no company will assess you on the thorough knowledge of a system or the other, so much so are things that you learn in two weeks.

I think it depends also on the type of job and what you consider for thorough knowledge. But it's my opinion.

rather they will want to know if you are able to draw a piece that is then actually buildable, or if you can put useful odds in the drawing that will be passed to the prduction. My advice is to spend less time on cad and more on technical drawing books and mechanical technology.

Sure. You have, in my opinion, completely right. but, once built a "solid base", the evolution of the cad is measured in months, the mechanical one in years. In other words, solutions that make a certain type of "salt" in non-mechanical mechanics, I think, are as frequent as those in cad systems, then, I am also convinced that cad is a "strument" as was the rapidgraph . more complex but always instrument.
I said baggianate?

 

[cacciatorino]

Good evening hunter,
If I may, submergedly, I would like to compare myself to these points that you highlighted:

In short, I think the skills in the use of a cad are of low value, because they acquire in a short time, and therefore they are worth little on the market. I mean, learning how to make a loft protusion takes 20 minutes of work, shaping a g2 surface will be enough one day to use a pdm a week if it's complicated.

technological skills, however, as they were talking about mechanical design, are of high value because they require years of study to be acquired, and therefore a company that uses solidxxx, between a boy who knows how to use solidxxx and one who knows how much overmmetal it gives to a welded compound so that then you can fresare without deforming once removed from the plate, who will choose?

 

[Lettore espatriato]

Good evening hunter,
you are right to argue that professionalism (in the broadest sense of the term) is what pays.
I repeat that a base there must be and the higher the training is, the better it is. for the company and for themselves. It seems, instead, that you want to "push" about the fact that an ignorant (as I am) can draw without knowing what he is doing. I don't support this.
I say that, however, this correct reasoning is applied with different "fumations" depending on the country and the type of company reality. in the typical Italian company, medium-small, with 15 employees of which 2 or 3 as designers, it is correct to point more on the professionalism "technical" than on that cad. because those who design will have to worry about all the product and all the equipment and its complete cycle, will have a direct and daily contact with those who produce, will probably manage the product cad independently without having to pass to others its work, etc.
in the reality of the great company or foreign companies (at least those I have seen), I think the organization is a little different.
everyone, within it, has a specific task, which must know how to do well. and that task, in most situations, is really small to little. If you work all day and for months and for years only to do, for example, wrap wheels with the cad, know how the structure of a bumper is made you don't need much. You need more, for example, to know how to define a macro and a master file that transforms your fem analysis into surfaces. and saves you days or weeks of work. and I don't think it's a kind of activity you learn in 20 minutes. Italian companies, when they are looking for people like this, unfortunately, have to go looking for them abroad and pay them proudly.
It may be that, instead, the company is looking for a tyre specialist, on how the structure has to be made, etcc, but then it can be that of the aspect falls to them does not matter "nothing", because a cad will never touch it. you will follow 10 people specialized on a certain cad who will professionally do what you "say".
It's just my opinion. You say I'm wrong?

 

[cacciatorino]

Good evening hunter,
you are right to argue that professionalism (in the broadest sense of the term) is what pays.
I repeat that a base there must be and the higher the training is, the better it is. for the company and for themselves. It seems, instead, that you want to "push" about the fact that an ignorant (as I am) can draw without knowing what he is doing. I don't support this.
I say that, however, this correct reasoning is applied with different "fumations" depending on the country and the type of company reality. in the typical Italian company, medium-small, with 15 employees of which 2 or 3 as designers, it is correct to point more on the professionalism "technical" than on that cad. because those who design will have to worry about all the product and all the equipment and its complete cycle, will have a direct and daily contact with those who produce, will probably manage the product cad independently without having to pass to others its work, etc.
in the reality of the great company or foreign companies (at least those I have seen), I think the organization is a little different.
everyone, within it, has a specific task, which must know how to do well. and that task, in most situations, is really small to little. If you work all day and for months and for years only to do, for example, wrap wheels with the cad, know how the structure of a bumper is made you don't need much. You need more, for example, to know how to define a macro and a master file that transforms your fem analysis into surfaces. and saves you days or weeks of work. and I don't think it's a kind of activity you learn in 20 minutes. Italian companies, when they are looking for people like this, unfortunately, have to go looking for them abroad and pay them proudly.
It may be that, instead, the company is looking for a tyre specialist, on how the structure has to be made, etcc, but then it can be that of the aspect falls to them does not matter "nothing", because a cad will never touch it. you will follow 10 people specialized on a certain cad who will professionally do what you "say".
It's just my opinion. You say I'm wrong?

I have an opposite opinion, said with respect of course. Meanwhile, who asked the question specified that we were talking about mechanical design and presumably looking for 'work in Italy, where the typical business structure is what you also describe, and then, according to my experience, even the simple designer are always and still required knowledge of technological processes, that is how you can build the piece that you are drawing. I didn't say you should know how a bumper is made, but something about the retreats, the fittings, the blows you need to know. This is because usually the designer "senior" does not complete modeling 3d, but leads it to a certain point and then passes it to the designers, who will complete it in favor of manufacture. I have seen drawings made with catia (beautiful) but on which were indicated impossible mechanical processing, type in areas beyond reachable from the mill.

Besides, hyperspecializing on a single tool, I think it's not very smart, because you don't know what's gonna be waiting for you once you're in a business organization, and maybe it'll come out that what you needed was different.

Back to topic, give the options:

1) I learn well inventor
2) I learn solidworks
3) I make a basic training on one of two randomly and spend the rest of time on machine tool books, mechanical technology, mechanical design

I would definitely recommend the 3.

 

[marcof]

Besides, hyperspecializing on a single tool, I think it's not very smart, because you don't know what's gonna be waiting for you once you're in a business organization, and maybe it'll come out that what you needed was different.
Back to topic, give the options:

1) I learn well inventor
2) I learn solidworks
3) I make a basic training on one of two randomly and spend the rest of time on machine tool books, mechanical technology, mechanical design

I would definitely recommend the 3.

quoto, adding that "goccia" declares to use and know catia, so in fact knows perfectly the logic of working of the parametric cads and switching from one to another I think is the last of the problems for an engineer looking for work.

 

[Lettore espatriato]

Good morning hunter,
a part of the post goes, evaluates whether to remove the part and, perhaps, transfer it to another area.

your opinion is a daughter of our knowledge and experience. being the owner or manager of Italian company, you will have all the good reasons and experience to adopt this way of proceeding.

Back to topic, give the options:

1) I learn well inventor
2) I learn solidworks
3) I make a basic training on one of two randomly and spend the rest of time on machine tool books, mechanical technology, mechanical design

I would definitely recommend the 3.

back to topic: both yebisu and drop required which software to choose between inventor and solidworks. not if studying on a book related to stamping or welding.
my answer:
1) depends on what you want to do (product, equipment, sheet, plastic, etc.) and where ( geographical area, type of companies, etc.? ).
If, by hypothesis, behind the house, drop or yebisu have an induced of companies that use inventor to make automatic machines, why not? even if the sector is concentrated on other cads, as could be solidworks or solidedge, it does not mean that you cannot acquire knowledge also with other software.




then, in accordance with the theme of choice between inventor and solidworks:

... I didn't say you should know how a bumper is made, but something about the retreats, the fittings, the blows you need

know... .

If you read my post, I said that for those who make wheel envelopes it is not said that it is necessary to know how a bumper is made, not that those who make bumpers should not know how to make a bumper.

... according to my experience, even the simple designer are always and anyway required knowledge of technological processes,

That's how you can build the piece you're drawing... .

Again. I did not say that a person without any kind of education or training can do any kind of job from today to tomorrow.
I said that once a basic training is defined (that, for example, drop as an engineering student, when he comes out, he should have) he will have to focus on acquiring a professionalism that, not always, is acquired with a reading of a book. sometimes it takes years next to people with so much experience. class a, gears, bumpers, nx, catia, inventor, pro-e, sheet metal molds, plastic molds, etc.
that professionalism will be recognized, especially in large companies and abroad.
and it is not said that having 10 years of experience in aircraft, may be of interest to those who make cars. even if you have a master's degree.

... I have seen drawings made with catia (beautiful) but on which impossible mechanical processing was indicated, type in areas

unattainable by the mill.

After a few years I realized that, of course, there is very little in the sector.
when there is time and money, (almost) everything you can do.
Perhaps a technological process "impossible" for an Italian company, is possible for a German company.
a "impossible" for a producer of "series", it is possible for one of niche.
what is "impossible" with a 50k euro mold, it is possible with one from 100k.
"impossible" tolerance for your trusted supplier, you can for a new one just came out on the market.

then, for the series "I saw things that you humans...":
I have seen geometries and artistic graduates learn to design and design plastic details in an absolutely authoritative way.
I have seen estimated professionals in the equipment industry approach the study of a product as they were the same thing.
I have seen engineers, with a flower of collaborations, who have sent up the release of a product because, among other things, " .. yes but so solidedge does the aesthetic connection and you can see nothing..." and other information about the molding that, to the reality of the facts, turned out wrong.

It's always hard to judge others' work. especially if, in the middle, there are n passages and more n tends to infinite, more information that come to us is partial and "of part".

end

 

[Lettore espatriato]

buonasera marcof,

quoto, adding that "goccia" declares to use and know catia, so in fact knows perfectly the logic of working of the parametric cads and switching from one to another I think is the last of the problems for an engineer looking for work.

therefore the fact of "declaring to use and know catia" means that it is automatically able to be productive from the first day that will open solidworks after a "full immersion" of 5 days?
How long have you been working on solidworks? looking back, have you been productive after the first week or after, to say, the first six months? I say solidworks but I refer to any software.
then, catia has 40 packages only for industrial design, without counting fem, electric, plm, etc...
I think they are there, maybe they have fewer packages, for a different subdivision of the licenses, but the "commands" I think are in similar numbers.
really you can declare: "I know the xxx software "? I think it is different "to make a cube" and "industrialize a product" .