that 3d choose?

[re_solidworks]

thank you for all the many advices.... I attend... to today I contacted the inventor and solidworks dealer, they came to visit me and have widely praised their product as the most sold, more complete etc... in the first analysis and despite the demonstrations, for me and my colleague, it is very difficult to choose. . economically speaking I have not yet arrived at the bottom of the pot, I have not yet treated... according to you, who would you choose and why? What are the most important differences?

I have them both, with solidworks I have several years of experience of use and with inventor are at the beginning.
As much as I have seen inventor is more complete at library level and with vault you can work decently in team. My packaging is a premium product suite, but I don't know what they give with the base.
It should be remembered that all the news I have seen in inv. 2012 exist in swx from one or more versions, this means that despite everything inventor is still in pursuit.
solidworks is more powerful at modeling level and better manages large axes. solidworks is much further on multibody management and multibody welded is much faster to create welded carpenters. with swx surfaces you can do a lot and also serve to create folded sheets, here on the forum there are several discussions about it.
for solidworks you find everything at the level of third-party applications and if even the free and integrated pdm there are excellent solutions for payment.
basically with swx you definitely spend something extra but buy a product in my opinion a little more performing.
I await the replica of the most experienced inventor users of me..

 

[enri]

Does not swx have advanced direct modeling tools? (see inventor fusion)

 

[maxopus]

so much to increase confusion, with creo parametric you have direct modeling and a cad with in counterfeit at the price of a midrange (or slightly higher).

I am using the f000 of creo 1.0 (f000 are trial versions and not advisable for production) and seems stable as a definitive build, it is a real show.

 

[maxopus]

rather the questions would be:
What kind of data exchange can there be with customers/suppliers?
What standardization can there be on products?
Are you planning to communicate the cad with the management system in the future?

These 3 questions are fundamental, because saving 2,000 euros today can mean throwing in the future tens of thousands of euros in work for lack of specific functionality of the tool cad.

 

[mariuss.r]

so much to increase confusion, with creo parametric you have direct modeling and a cad with in counterfeit at the price of a midrange (or slightly higher).

I am using the f000 of creo 1.0 (f000 are trial versions and not advisable for production) and seems stable as a definitive build, it is a real show.

max .. it seems to me to understand that I create is the union of the parametric + the direct modelling.
That you know there's a chance to download a trial to prove it?

 

[maxopus]

max .. it seems to me to understand that I create is the union of the parametric + the direct modelling.
That you know there's a chance to download a trial to prove it?

there is the possibility to have a 30-day temporary license, go to the site you will find the instructions.
create parametric will have a low cost add-on module for direct geometries editing.
creo direct will be the re-edition of osd (pure direct motor).

 

[re_solidworks]

Does not swx have advanced direct modeling tools? (see inventor fusion)

on the direct swx is more backward than the competition, but it seems that this gap will be filled after the abandonment of parasolid (from very unofficial voices).
at the presentation of inventor 2012 I saw the fusion demo and I was not impressed. the controls of freeform surfaces like those of inventor swx has them inside without going through another application. It seems to me that fusion serves more to fill the shortcomings that exist in the modeling of the surfaces.

 

[re_solidworks]

so much to increase confusion, with creo parametric you have direct modeling and a cad with in counterfeit at the price of a midrange (or slightly higher).

I am using the f000 of creo 1.0 (f000 are trial versions and not advisable for production) and seems stable as a definitive build, it is a real show.

proe stability is proverbial as well as ptc has implemented for years functions to which the mids still do not approach.
the fact is that these functions return useful to a company on 100, who designs machines like conveyor belts, for example, do nothing about creating curves with mathematical functions, etc....

In my opinion, it remains more sluggish and in the end in my reality it is much slower than swx in doing the job.
Recently one of mine has been training on proes and is using it for 3 months uninterruptedly and continues to tell me that the same work with swx is done in half the time.
to keep in mind that it is out of place and together with colleagues with much experience of use.
as I have said many times, when it is enough a mid according to me it is better to take that, if it is poor then it is better a big one.

maintenance:
inventor at 1000euri a year with sub practically mandatory (if you stop you must pay also the years of stop to return and after 3 years you recompense the license)

standard swx 1500 euro per year and if you stop for 10 years you can return by paying the fee of 500 euro

pro and about 1900 euro a year with a policy similar to inventor.

then for all you have to see the "special occasions" and promotions (which are almost every year).

 

[maxopus]

proe stability is proverbial as well as ptc has implemented for years functions to which the mids still do not approach.
the fact is that these functions return useful to a company on 100, who designs machines like conveyor belts, for example, do nothing about creating curves with mathematical functions, etc....

In my opinion, it remains more sluggish and in the end in my reality it is much slower than swx in doing the job.
Recently one of mine has been training on proes and is using it for 3 months uninterruptedly and continues to tell me that the same work with swx is done in half the time.
to keep in mind that it is out of place and together with colleagues with much experience of use.
as I have said many times, when it is enough a mid according to me it is better to take that, if it is poor then it is better a big one.

maintenance:
inventor at 1000euri a year with sub practically mandatory (if you stop you must pay also the years of stop to return and after 3 years you recompense the license)

standard swx 1500 euro per year and if you stop for 10 years you can return by paying the fee of 500 euro

pro and about 1900 euro a year with a policy similar to inventor.

then for all you have to see the "special occasions" and promotions (which are almost every year).

hi king, I tell you that 3 months are not enough to become a pro/e slender, as well as not enough to become a swx slender.
to me the same thing happened last year when I had to resume swx. I was much slower than with pro/e, although with swx I wasn't fasting, simply it was 3 years that I didn't use it.

for maintenance officially pro/e is so, in practice if you return after a long interruption of maintenance, you get a 50% discount (if the period is much longer even more) ... retailers don't tell you but it works so.
and if by chance at that time do not give it to you wait for the next quarter or the next semester and fall like the mature pears (not them in fact, depends on ptc).

 

[Er Presidente]

...creo direct will be the reissue of osd (pure direct motor).

:biggrin::finger::smile:

 

[marcof]

provided that the most suitable sw as it was said are the cad midrange, it is not at all true that rhino does not have those possibilities, just use the right plugins, rhinowork for cinematics and constraints, and rhino parametrics for parametric modeling.

I miss the sense of such bizarre advice

Come on, let's not joke. 1000 euros only for two plugins that make to rhino (other 1000 euros) more or less than what makes alibre base from 200 euros!
our friend must make ovens, not design. if you take rhino can at the most use the installation cd as a submachine.

 

[mariuss.r]

I miss the sense of such bizarre advice

Come on, let's not joke. 1000 euros only for two plugins that make to rhino (other 1000 euros) more or less than what makes alibre base from 200 euros!
our friend must make ovens, not design. if you take rhino can at the most use the installation cd as a submachine.

I downloaded time ago the free version of alibre ( xpress) and comparing the feature list with today's version pe see that they are the same.

with this version (which is sold for $199) you can't import anything except dwg.
and nothing can be exported except stl.
It's a version designed for hobbyists who want to shape something and then make a rapid prototyping.

The sheet metal design module is not included in the p but from the pro onwards, which obviously will have another price:biggrin: how it is right.


rhino is a purely surface-oriented cad, using it for other purposes is a force.

 

[re_solidworks]

hi king, I tell you that 3 months are not enough to become a pro/e slender, as well as not enough to become a swx slender.
to me the same thing happened last year when I had to resume swx. I was much slower than with pro/e, although with swx I wasn't fasting, simply it was 3 years that I didn't use it.

for maintenance officially pro/e is so, in practice if you return after a long interruption of maintenance, you get a 50% discount (if the period is much longer even more) ... retailers don't tell you but it works so.
and if by chance at that time do not give it to you wait for the next quarter or the next semester and fall like the mature pears (not them in fact, depends on ptc).

I agree that 3 months are not enough to have the necessary dexterity for a maximum fluidity work.
as I told you, however, there are several things that even ask expert users do not find answer.
for example when model parts in the context of the axieme I hate the couplings on the place and I go to insert and mate an empty part. this is useful to achieve alignment of the coordinate system to the piece with a minimum of consistency. in swx after making the skeleton use plans, sketch lines and points to couple the components. in proe the skeleton sketch entities are not selectable for couplings and it is necessary to create additional entities that cost time.
another thing is the impossibility of changing the references to the tables and if I have to put on the table many objects only after having shaped them all it is necessary to make the tables to one by one (for this I had also asked for assistance and I had not had positive answers).
to carry behind the tables you should not only clone the model but do it after completing the drawing. In my opinion the boards should be finished only after the approval of the project by the client, finishing the boards first means spending additional time because there are often important changes that involve having to completely remodel details or have to throw it completely.
Moreover there is the speech of the welded carpenters, included in the base of swx and sold separately in proe, those of swx will be smaller (efx I never used it and I can not say if and how much it is better) but if those of swx it is enough to save me further 4500 euros.
In essence I insist with my thesis, it is good to take proes if you make whirlwinds, changes, differentials, complex surfaces that may require applications in class to or cases of this type.
Unlike me, it's better than a mid as a swx.

 

[maxopus]

I agree that 3 months are not enough to have the necessary dexterity for a maximum fluidity work.
as I told you, however, there are several things that even ask expert users do not find answer.
for example when model parts in the context of the axieme I hate the couplings on the place and I go to insert and mate an empty part. this is useful to achieve alignment of the coordinate system to the piece with a minimum of consistency. in swx after making the skeleton use plans, sketch lines and points to couple the components. in proe the skeleton sketch entities are not selectable for couplings and it is necessary to create additional entities that cost time.

This is not clear to me. in pro/e if I work in top-down (without aax), I do not worry about mating. I use the default positioning (sysco with sysco) and relay features to other components.
If instead I use the aax there is no piece, in the sense that the skeleton is directly published in the parts and then you can relate to what you want.

another thing is the impossibility of changing the references to the tables and if I have to put on the table many objects only after having shaped them all it is necessary to make the tables to one by one (for this I had also asked for assistance and I had not had positive answers).
to carry behind the tables you should not only clone the model but do it after completing the drawing. In my opinion the boards should be finished only after the approval of the project by the client, finishing the boards first means spending additional time because there are often important changes that involve having to completely remodel details or have to throw it completely.

What do you mean when you say it's impossible to change references to the tables?
If you use a start-part model with a connected table, the table is created automatically.

Moreover there is the speech of the welded carpenters, included in the base of swx and sold separately in proe, those of swx will be smaller (efx I never used it and I can not say if and how much it is better) but if those of swx it is enough to save me further 4500 euros.
In essence I insist with my thesis, it is good to take proes if you make whirlwinds, changes, differentials, complex surfaces that may require applications in class to or cases of this type.
Unlike me, it's better than a mid as a swx.

on this I do not express judgments.
efx is definitely more evolved than the structural members of swx.
can be that by spending those 4500 euros extra you can employ a 1/3 of the time you use in swx.

 

[Er Presidente]

This is not clear to me. in pro/e if I work in top-down (without aax), I do not worry about mating. I use the default positioning (sysco with sysco) and relay features to other components.
If instead I use the aax there is no piece, in the sense that the skeleton is directly published in the parts and then you can relate to what you want.

And you're not "clear," let alone if you weren't "secure"! ! !
Aramaic is a second mother tongue for me.

 

[enri]

I miss the sense of such bizarre advice

Come on, let's not joke. 1000 euros only for two plugins that make to rhino (other 1000 euros) more or less than what makes alibre base from 200 euros!
our friend must make ovens, not design. if you take rhino can at the most use the installation cd as a submachine.

but alibre base does not do what rhino does. :

 

[maxopus]

And you're not "clear," let alone if you weren't "secure"! ! !
Aramaic is a second mother tongue for me.

Just to stay in topic, I'm not like you, I miss a piece.

So what do you recommend to learn Norwegian?
that then I discovered exist two languages, one is practically Danish and the other a mistone of dialects.

I really want to go.
reading here and there among the sad chronicles of these days, I discovered that Norwegian has the second pil procapite in the world after Luxembourg (and unlike the latter is not a tax haven).
On average a Norwegian earns $7,000 a month and have a more advanced and civilized public and social system of ours.

 

[marcof]

but alibre base does not do what rhino does. :

But what our "rickcick" does is a pippa:wink: Rhino is not even to be named for what our friend has to do.
my hyperbole on alibre base was to say that with 200 euros makes the assemblies with the possibility to move the pieces and verify the interferences and has almost all the tools of modeling the full version.
Those plugins for "tarocking" rhino imho are quite ridiculous, especially if you want to believe you can then use it in the mechanical field.
then oh... everyone can throw away time and money as best believes and make pure mechanics and assembled with rhino. :smile:

 

[enri]

but in fact I had said that the target was a mcad, but sicermente when it is said that rhino is for the "visualization" and the "design" according to me is a cable, they also use it to design, here I am, and it is also accurate in the 3d. with those plugins you can really do everything, within certain limits. So the advice on rhino for those works, was not completely in the air in my opinion. should not forget that we talk about cad from 5-6 thousand euros on, plus a course, at least, a paid support, and the objective difficulty of using those cad. should not design the shuttle... until yesterday they used autocad lt.. :

 

[maxopus]

but in fact I had said that the target was a mcad, but sicermente when it is said that rhino is for the "visualization" and the "design" according to me is a cable, they also use it to design, here I am, and it is also accurate in the 3d. with those plugins you can really do everything, within certain limits. So the advice on rhino for those works, was not completely in the air in my opinion. should not forget that we talk about cad from 5-6 thousand euros on, plus a course, at least, a paid support, and the objective difficulty of using those cad. should not design the shuttle... until yesterday they used autocad lt.. :

spend 1,000 euros and then put it 5 times a lot to try to set up a project appearance does not seem a good solution.

rhino is not made to manage projects, even of medium-low complexity (type 200-300 components ... we don't even talk about those from 10,000 up).

I did some tests even with the activities that should be classic of rhino, like opening a scan stl that can be constituted by 4-5 million triangles (a bas-relief of 2 square meters).
on the same notebook, rhino crashes, geomagic no.
ehhh but rhino costs 10 times less than geomagic.... Yes, but you can only do simple jobs and I don't even want to think about the difference in performance.

therefore decency would like to admit that it is suitable for certain areas and induce a user to think that it is suitable for mechanical design is at least incorrect.

You'd show me one, and you'd film it for me to figure out how long you take?
How can you put the flat and folded configuration of the same component?
The plates are not a secondary aspect in mechanical design, and can't you tell me that you do them with spaceclaim... that you do half project with one program and half with the other?
how do you change the rays of a solid if you have noticed that you have to change the radius size or if you have to change a circular beam to conical... or from variable radius constant?

on boys, it is as if I said that pro/e is suitable for photo editing and nx to graphic layout.