The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an 
upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.

It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs 
between the two.

Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where 
the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.

We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.

Any help appreciated. 

"Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>
> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs
> between the two.
>
> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where
> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>
> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
>
> Any help appreciated.


Well, if you like to do any kind of 2D layout work, Solidworks is useless.
With Inventor you get Autocad with it.  My company had both and I made the
decision to dump Solidworks for that reason.  I'd go with Inventor.

tony kujawa wrote:
> 
> "Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> > The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
> > upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
> >
> > It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs
> > between the two.
> >
> > Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where
> > the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
> >
> > We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
> >
> > Any help appreciated.
> 
> Well, if you like to do any kind of 2D layout work, Solidworks is useless.
> With Inventor you get Autocad with it.  My company had both and I made the
> decision to dump Solidworks for that reason.  I'd go with Inventor.

I think Tony's company must have done this before SW2005 came out.  With
2005 you get a DWG Editor -- basically Intellicad, which is an AutoCAD
look-alike and has about 99% (if not 100%) of what you'd get with
AutoCAD.  But regardless, SolidWorks is FAR from useless for 2D layout .
.. . you just have to get used to a different way of sketching.  And the
sketches made with SolidWorks are useful to drive the sketches for 3D
parts and assemblies.  It's true, however, that I wouldn't use
SolidWorks to lay out something like a 2D overlay or label . . . it's
not the right tool for that.  But then AutoCAD doesn't excel with that
either, although it's a better tool than SolidWorks for that.

Since you do machine work I would imagine that both products are pretty
much on par with one another.  Some things you might investigate with
Inventor is whether they have the equivalent of SolidWorks' "Physical
Dynamics".  I don't know much about Inventor's equivalency of SolidWorks
configurations, either, but I would hate to be without the capability to
drive configurations of both assemblies and parts with a spreadsheet, as
can be done with SolidWorks Design Tables.  That would be a really
severe handicap.

One other thing you might want to think about is whether Inventor has
any capability to emulate toolpath cutting.  Take a look at the thread I
started entitled "SUCCESS!!: A toolpath cut normal to a cylinder
(cylindrical cam)".  Doing some such things in SolidWorks can amount to
a clusterfuck, although really that's probably not something of great
importance to your average machine design.  It's just an inconvenience,
mostly.

And yes, I do design machinery.

Mark 'Sporky' Stapleton
Watermark Design, LLC
www.h2omarkdesign.com

Well Tony since the man has just stated they want to move to 3d that's not a 
real helpful answer is it. It also shows that you aren't familiar with the 
capabilities of SW2005.

Chris,to me it sounds as if SW would be ideally suited to their type of work 
especially the handling of configurations which would be a feature of 
specialist machinery I would think.
The only thing I would say is that it will take a while for users to migrate 
to 3d particularly away from the AutoCAD mentality so that the transition 
needs to be well managed.Presently SW2005 is really too young in its cycle 
to be ready for production however if you are coming to it in a few months 
you should be fine.
I think I would be right in saying a lot of people find SW to be a company 
with a better attitude toward its customers.No doubt others will chime in 
with some opinion also.
cheers
neil 

How large are the assemblies?

Do you intend to utilize "top down" design techniques or just assemble
unrelated solids?

Will there be a need to interface with objects not of your design; e.g.
will you need good data translation abilities?

"neil" <neilscad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5KSHd.9850$mo2.744514@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Well Tony since the man has just stated they want to move to 3d that's not
a
> real helpful answer is it. It also shows that you aren't familiar with the
> capabilities of SW2005.


OK, so it only took Solidworks 7 years (which is how long I have been using
it) to get something useful when it comes to 2D drafting.  We just got sick
of waiting and using 2 different programs.  Well, good for you and 2005, as
far as I was concerned it was 7 years too late.  The dimensioning is still a
pain in the ass.



> Chris,to me it sounds as if SW would be ideally suited to their type of
work
> especially the handling of configurations which would be a feature of
> specialist machinery I would think.
> The only thing I would say is that it will take a while for users to
migrate
> to 3d particularly away from the AutoCAD mentality so that the transition
> needs to be well managed.Presently SW2005 is really too young in its cycle
> to be ready for production however if you are coming to it in a few months
> you should be fine.
> I think I would be right in saying a lot of people find SW to be a company
> with a better attitude toward its customers.No doubt others will chime in
> with some opinion also.
> cheers
> neil
>
>

"> Since you do machine work I would imagine that both products are pretty
> much on par with one another.  Some things you might investigate with
> Inventor is whether they have the equivalent of SolidWorks' "Physical
> Dynamics".  I don't know much about Inventor's equivalency of SolidWorks
> configurations, either, but I would hate to be without the capability to
> drive configurations of both assemblies and parts with a spreadsheet, as
> can be done with SolidWorks Design Tables.  That would be a really
> severe handicap.


Yes, it does.



> One other thing you might want to think about is whether Inventor has
> any capability to emulate toolpath cutting.  Take a look at the thread I
> started entitled "SUCCESS!!: A toolpath cut normal to a cylinder
> (cylindrical cam)".  Doing some such things in SolidWorks can amount to
> a clusterfuck, although really that's probably not something of great
> importance to your average machine design.  It's just an inconvenience,
> mostly.



Not sure about that.

> Well, if you like to do any kind of 2D layout work, Solidworks is
useless.
> With Inventor you get Autocad with it.  My company had both and I made
the
> decision to dump Solidworks for that reason.  I'd go with Inventor.

If they already have Autocad what's it matter?  It lasts a lifetime.  8~)

"Jeff Howard" <jeff4136@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:i4THd.976$YD5.239@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Well, if you like to do any kind of 2D layout work, Solidworks is
> useless.
> > With Inventor you get Autocad with it.  My company had both and I made
> the
> > decision to dump Solidworks for that reason.  I'd go with Inventor.
>
> If they already have Autocad what's it matter?  It lasts a lifetime.  8~)


TRUE!

Oh, no man!  Both those middle o the roaders have gotten fat and complacent
milking you flatlanders that pop up.  Do yourself a favor and checkout
Alibre for the cheap n easy or Pro/Engineer if you have some really serious
work to do.

I just finished reading an article in the January issue of Cadalyst
Magazine entitled "Software Strategy: Midrange Modelers" by Joe Greco.

You might want to read it. It compares SolidWorks, SolidEdge and
Inventor.

Good article.

Does Inventor not support "top down" modelling techniques?  If so, I'd
consider that to be a major handicap.

The point about data translation could also be salient.  Check out what
SolidWorks has to offer there, both in terms of export and in terms of
import capabilities.  I generally have little or no trouble importing
from IGES, STEP, ACIS and other formats.  There's even a little separate
(but free) utility to export as 3D DXF.  eDrawings is another VERY
useful tool which may or may not support Inventor.  I wouldn't want to
be without that tool either.

Since you are a machine design firm you should do a careful comparison
of sheet metal tools as well.

'Sporky'

Jeff Howard wrote:
> 
> How large are the assemblies?
> 
> Do you intend to utilize "top down" design techniques or just assemble
> unrelated solids?
> 
> Will there be a need to interface with objects not of your design; e.g.
> will you need good data translation abilities?

Joe Greco was a real asset to the design community while he lived.  Even
so, some of his comparison articles only hit the high points and ignored
enough of the down-in-the-trenches functionality to make them dangerous
to take at face value.  DO read his article, but DON'T stop there, just
taking his word for things.

'Sporky'

scota@ghent.com wrote:
> 
> I just finished reading an article in the January issue of Cadalyst
> Magazine entitled "Software Strategy: Midrange Modelers" by Joe Greco.
> 
> You might want to read it. It compares SolidWorks, SolidEdge and
> Inventor.
> 
> Good article.

> Does Inventor not support "top down"
> modelling techniques?

Yes it does, but like so much of it there's just enough there so they don't
get taken to court for saying so.  It's lazy; gets tired of carrying the
baggage and looks for any excuse to shuck external references leaving you
with a lot of time consuming cleanup, and quickly loads the system until it
drops to its knees and crawls.  I don't honestly know how it compares to SW
but it's something that most 3D inductees don't learn about til way down
the road and should be considered early on.

One final tidbit....

Search groups for the respective systems for the string "can't open".

What public group is there for Inventor?  AutoDesk's own groups are so
"moderated" by Ann Brown that you can't get a true picture of any of AD
products' weaknesses.  That at least is ONE advantage of SolidWorks --
that it don't belong to the Evil Empire.

Jeff Howard wrote:
> 
> One final tidbit....
> 
> Search groups for the respective systems for the string "can't open".

"Juan Junglo" <juanj@spamme.not> wrote in message
news:khTHd.1167$r27.667@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Oh, no man!  Both those middle o the roaders have gotten fat and
complacent
> milking you flatlanders that pop up.  Do yourself a favor and checkout
> Alibre for the cheap n easy or Pro/Engineer if you have some really
serious
> work to do.


Man, I WISH we had the $$ for a real program like Pro-E or Catia.

> What public group is there for Inventor?  AutoDesk's own groups are so
> "moderated" by Ann Brown that you can't get a true picture of any of AD
> products' weaknesses.  That at least is ONE advantage of SolidWorks --
> that it don't belong to the Evil Empire.

It's not moderated to that point, really.  One thing about the IV group
that should be considered; about 70% of the regular "peer-to-peer users",
the ones that are first to respond to this kind of thead, are VARs or in
some other way connected to the company.

>  $$ ... Pro-E ....

Same price as IV or SW?.

Chris:

I used Autocad since 11? and still do, 2005 now.  I used ProE. We got
SW a year ago.

I would not use Autocad for 3-D. I would use SW for creating a 3-D
model with the least learning curve and many capabilities. ProE is
great but comes with baggage. With SW, you can create 2-D drawings of
your 3-D models easily.

I would keep ACAD for 2-d work or "extreme" 2-D detailing. That is what
we do here and I have seen many offices do that.

One last point to keep in mind is your supplier and customer base.  Who
do you interact with mostly, in the sense of design data exchange. Make
sure your choice will be compatible.  SW fits the bill for us.

Arif Oguz
Roselle, IL
__________________________
Chris Marley wrote:
> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an

> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>
> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting
hairs
> between the two.
>
> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another,
where
> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>
> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose
machinery.
> 
> Any help appreciated.

Although I don't know what Catia sells for, Pro/E is priced very close to 
both SolidWorks and Inventor.  I believe its around $4995 plus annual 
maintenance.  In fact, PTC is currently offering a nice add-on (ISDX - 
Interactive Surface Design Extension) at no additional cost if you buy Pro/E 
Foundation.  Pro/E with ISDX should be a nice package with alot of 
capabilities.

That said, I don't really understand what Tony means by "a real program". 
Having used both SolidWorks and Inventor, they are both serious CAD packages 
with merits and limitations (just like any CAD package).

-- 

 - John

John Eric Voltin
Mechanical Engineer
Agile Technology
512-633-0394

"tony kujawa" <tjktjk2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:35afv7F4j8avaU1@individual.net...
>
> "Juan Junglo" <juanj@spamme.not> wrote in message
> news:khTHd.1167$r27.667@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Oh, no man!  Both those middle o the roaders have gotten fat and
> complacent
>> milking you flatlanders that pop up.  Do yourself a favor and checkout
>> Alibre for the cheap n easy or Pro/Engineer if you have some really
> serious
>> work to do.
>
>
> Man, I WISH we had the $$ for a real program like Pro-E or Catia.
>
>
> 

"John Eric Voltin" <jevoltin@agile-technology.com> wrote in message
news:tvUHd.34400$_56.29705@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Although I don't know what Catia sells for, Pro/E is priced very close to
> both SolidWorks and Inventor.  I believe its around $4995 plus annual
> maintenance.  In fact, PTC is currently offering a nice add-on (ISDX -
> Interactive Surface Design Extension) at no additional cost if you buy
Pro/E
> Foundation.  Pro/E with ISDX should be a nice package with alot of
> capabilities.
>
> That said, I don't really understand what Tony means by "a real program".
> Having used both SolidWorks and Inventor, they are both serious CAD
packages
> with merits and limitations (just like any CAD package).


Didn't know Pro-E was that cheap, I'll have to look into it.  I know that
for what I am designing (drills/reamers) Inventor and SW are very tedious
and not worth the effort of trying to draw these things in them when I do
the volume of drawings that I do.  Dimensioning is a complete pain in the
ass and it is just quicker and easier to do it in ACAD.

My findings:

I moved into an Inventor (R8) environment after several years on 
Solidworks and I found that the IV top-down methods left a bit to be 
desired...

The worst offender is 'adaptivity' - nice idea, in practice a bit of a 
pain.  There's nothing like a load of cross part associations crashing 
down aroud your digital ears to ruin your day...   The warning from 
experienced hands that I should turn off adaptivity as soon as possible 
in an assembly, or face the consequencies, suggests that the method 
rather misses the point of top-down design.

I've done some fairly complex top-down assembly updates in SWX that I 
wouldn't have dared with IV

Or so I found, anyway.  The other designers seemed to manage reasonably 
well, so maybe I was having trouble thinking outside of my SWx mindset.

I would point out that I suffered from a remarkable number of corrupt 
files in such a short period - don't know if this has been fixed with R9.

Editing mates in IV is a lot more time-consuming than in SWx, and 
managing / retaining part visibilty settings in IV is a PITA.

Solidworks assembly configs are a joy to return to after IV.

It's not all bad, though - the interface pretty good*, although the 
dialog boxes are a little bit SWx98+, and large assembly speed is good. 
Detailing is generally good, too.

Didn't have an opportunity to play about with surfaces, alas.

If you do an evaluation of Inventor make sure that you have a look at 
Sean Dotson's tutorials - very useful.  And try to mooch around the IV 
user group too - the other users are really helpful, and you don't have 
to put up with JB/Cliffy bandwidth-chewing crud.


Twit


*Having said that, I'm reserving a special place in hell** for those 
that designed the 2d sketcher.  Constraint / relation editing I found to 
be remarkably irritating

** on second thoughts, they'll be sharing it with the design assistant team


Sporkman wrote:
> Does Inventor not support "top down" modelling techniques?  If so, I'd
> consider that to be a major handicap.
> 
> The point about data translation could also be salient.  Check out what
> SolidWorks has to offer there, both in terms of export and in terms of
> import capabilities.  I generally have little or no trouble importing
> from IGES, STEP, ACIS and other formats.  There's even a little separate
> (but free) utility to export as 3D DXF.  eDrawings is another VERY
> useful tool which may or may not support Inventor.  I wouldn't want to
> be without that tool either.
> 
> Since you are a machine design firm you should do a careful comparison
> of sheet metal tools as well.
> 
> 'Sporky'
> 
> Jeff Howard wrote:
> 
>>How large are the assemblies?
>>
>>Do you intend to utilize "top down" design techniques or just assemble
>>unrelated solids?
>>
>>Will there be a need to interface with objects not of your design; e.g.
>>will you need good data translation abilities?

Chris,

1)  You get the help and support of this group with SolidWorks
2)  What do your vendors use?  Where I work we don't make 2D drawings.
SolidWorks IMHO does them very well but when I need to send a part to
one of our vendors I like to send it native.  Things that are big for
this are tapped holes.  Cosmetic thread as far as I know does not come
through on an IGES and to not have to make a 2D print just for that
saves us a ton of time.

The best thing to do is to get eval version of both and try to create YOUR
parts with them.  See which you like the best, because to be honest they are
very similar packages.

I'd say SWX has the edge if you are doing "swoopy shapes" but for machine
design I honestly think it's probably a coin toss (some pros and cons on
both sides)

I use IV because I've been using it since R1.  No reason to think I couldn't
pick up SWX and be just as effective.

-- 
Sean Dotson, PE (AICE)
sdotson.com   mcadforums.com


"Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>
> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs
> between the two.
>
> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where
> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>
> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
>
> Any help appreciated.
>
>

Spork,

I think the moderation thing gets blown out of proportion.  Unless it's some
other VAR spewing on about how bad IV is then the messages aren't touched.
Normal criticism of the product is not touched.  Heck I'm one of the first
to point out the shortcomings and my messages aren't moderated.

I'll take a bit of moderation over the spam and useless postings that happen
in unmoderated groups anyday.

-- 
Sean Dotson, PE (AICE)
sdotson.com   mcadforums.com


"Sporkman" <sporkedUNDERLINEagainMUNGE@bigfootDOT.com> wrote in message
news:41F007A5.7EF00F9E@bigfootDOT.com...
> What public group is there for Inventor?  AutoDesk's own groups are so
> "moderated" by Ann Brown that you can't get a true picture of any of AD
> products' weaknesses.  That at least is ONE advantage of SolidWorks --
> that it don't belong to the Evil Empire.
>
> Jeff Howard wrote:
> >
> > One final tidbit....
> >
> > Search groups for the respective systems for the string "can't open".

tony kujawa wrote:
> The dimensioning is still a
> pain in the ass.

It is?  I've used both Solidworks and AutoCad and SolidWorks is by far
easier to use.  We have no problems using it to the ASME Y14.5M-1994
standards.

Among other things, we design machines with SolidWorks. Some with about
12,000 parts.  Let me know if you have any specific questions.

Deb

Been using SW since 2001 and now using SW2005 which IMHO is the
best/nicest release to date. The 2D detailing has improved and I prefer
it to AutoCAD which is only used for wiring/schematic diagrams and
generating artwork for silk screens which it is still the best tool
for.

I moved away from Autodesk products (MDT3.5/4.0 & WorkCentre) to SW in
2001, having evaluated SW2001+/Inventor 4 & Pro E (to costly).

Both SW & Inventor have improved dramatically since then but If I had
to choose again it would still  be SW over Inventor.

A visit to the Inventor discussion forum is worthwhile. Lots of great
guys offering plenty of help/workarounds, which begs the question, if
the programme is so good why are so many users having to seek help?

Sean Dotson wrote:
> 
> Spork,
> 
> I think the moderation thing gets blown out of proportion.  Unless it's some
> other VAR spewing on about how bad IV is then the messages aren't touched.
> Normal criticism of the product is not touched.  Heck I'm one of the first
> to point out the shortcomings and my messages aren't moderated.
> 
> I'll take a bit of moderation over the spam and useless postings that happen
> in unmoderated groups anyday.
> 
> --
> Sean Dotson, PE (AICE)
> sdotson.com   mcadforums.com

This may be true now.  Wasn't always the case.  I've had -- and seen --
many, many posts taken off of the AutoCAD group (I have no experience
with the IV group) for what would pass as just slight negativity in this
newsgroup.  Perhaps Ann Brown isn't around any longer, or perhaps
they've given her a different mandate.

Exactly!
Personally I still think it has to do with many of the old 2D users
having to re-think how they do things and having acad/mdt at their
disposal reduces their chances in moving forward.  It's like learning a
language and your environment still allows your native tongue to be
spoken,.. it's not a conducive learning environment, it's less
productive.
Can you imagine how much wasted time and energy is involved!?!?  Talk
about loss in productivity and revenues!!

I have to note this,.. in my experience, every company that I've known
which has gone through cad changes (mainly acad users but not just
acad), the guy or guys involved with holding up progress, that is
changing cad systems, were the last people left in the company before
they went out of business.  Just food for thought.

... 

Areva wrote:
> 
> 
> A visit to the Inventor discussion forum is worthwhile. Lots of great
> guys offering plenty of help/workarounds, which begs the question, if
> the programme is so good why are so many users having to seek help?

neil wrote:
> Well Tony since the man has just stated they want to move to 3d that's not a
> real helpful answer is it. It also shows that you aren't familiar with the
> capabilities of SW2005.
> 
> Chris,to me it sounds as if SW would be ideally suited to their type of work
> especially the handling of configurations which would be a feature of
> specialist machinery I would think.
> The only thing I would say is that it will take a while for users to migrate
> to 3d particularly away from the AutoCAD mentality so that the transition
> needs to be well managed.Presently SW2005 is really too young in its cycle
> to be ready for production however if you are coming to it in a few months
> you should be fine.
> I think I would be right in saying a lot of people find SW to be a company
> with a better attitude toward its customers.No doubt others will chime in
> with some opinion also.
> cheers
> neil

Not ready for prime time?  Really?  I've been using it for a couple of
months now for production work, and aside from quirkiness (do we EVER
get away from quirkiness), I don't really have any substantial
complaints.

'Sporky'

lucky for you....a lot of people have found it to be as buggy as any past 
new release as posts at the SW forum attest...and no I don't consider it 
ready...I definitely wouldn't recommend a whole office of new users jump in 
at this point..
neil 

"Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>
> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs
> between the two.
>
> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where
> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>
> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
>
> Any help appreciated.
>
>

Why was VX not considered ?

jon

"Sporkman" <sporkedUNDERLINEagainMUNGE@bigfootDOT.com> wrote in message
news:41F003B1.C9EB0F93@bigfootDOT.com...
> Joe Greco was a real asset to the design community while he lived.  Even
> so, some of his comparison articles only hit the high points and ignored
> enough of the down-in-the-trenches functionality to make them dangerous
> to take at face value.  DO read his article, but DON'T stop there, just
> taking his word for things.
>
> 'Sporky'
>

Might have been a real bitch for Joe Greco to try to do a comparison of say
thinkID Global Shape Modeling with the utter lack of tools to do the same
kinds of things in SolidWorks or Inventor.

Joe Greco had a very tough job to do and did it well.

If anything Joe was much too kind to SolidWorks but probably appreciated how
much SolidWorks did for users by giving them a choice over Autodesk.

jon

"Juan Junglo" <juanj@spamme.not> wrote in message
news:khTHd.1167$r27.667@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Oh, no man!  Both those middle o the roaders have gotten fat and
complacent
> milking you flatlanders that pop up.  Do yourself a favor and checkout
> Alibre for the cheap n easy or Pro/Engineer if you have some really
serious
> work to do.
>

VX if you want surface and solid modeling tools that work together
seamlessly.

Neither Inventor or SolidWorks even come close to how transparent the
approach is in VX.

jon

"Sean Dotson" <seanSPAMMENOT@NOSPAMsdotson.com> wrote in message
news:35amloF4jdb9uU1@individual.net...
> Spork,
>
> I think the moderation thing gets blown out of proportion.  Unless it's
some
> other VAR spewing on about how bad IV is then the messages aren't touched.
> Normal criticism of the product is not touched.  Heck I'm one of the first
> to point out the shortcomings and my messages aren't moderated.
>

As per usual you have no idea what your talking about. Any idea how many
posts of Tony Tanzillo's that Anne Brown censored / removed ? The list goes
on and on. Even Dominic Gallello called me to apologize for Anne Brown's
censorship tactics... on a Sunday morning.  :>)

The only good things I can say about Autodesk are that they hired Dominic
and they had a good woman in Brenda Discher. I found her to be very straight
forward in telling me the how and the why things were so fucked up with MDT.

jon

Tony,

I have been using AutoCAD since version 10 and have been using SW since 98
I actually prefer SW dimensioning and find it much more intuitive and every
bit as fast.  Most of the dimensioning commands are a mouse click away and
it frees up my other hand to hold my coffee cup.  It's great!

Kman


"tony kujawa" <tjktjk2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35aj7qF4htl88U1@individual.net...
>
Dimensioning is a complete pain in the ass and it is just quicker and easier
to do it in ACAD.
>
>

Second that

Kman


"Paul Salvador" <p.salvador@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41F04068.2D67DA90@verizon.net...

> I have to note this,.. in my experience, every company that I've known
> which has gone through cad changes (mainly acad users but not just
> acad), the guy or guys involved with holding up progress, that is
> changing cad systems, were the last people left in the company before
> they went out of business.  Just food for thought.

I would have to disagree with you on that.  Discussing SW in the newsgroup
is cause for censorship.  Or at least it was back when I used to follow the
group.

Kman


"Jeff Howard" <jeff4136@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:KVTHd.1194$r27.788@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> It's not moderated to that point, really.  One thing about the IV group
> that should be considered; about 70% of the regular "peer-to-peer users",
> the ones that are first to respond to this kind of thead, are VARs or in
> some other way connected to the company.
>

A euphimism was arrived at - the other SoftWare - that allowed general
discussion provided it did not turn into a feature-to-feature comparison.
Discussion of the 2 softwares is a poor substitute for test-driving them,
however. You can learn in 2 weeks of using what would take 2 months of
reading.

"Kman" <kengineering@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:_FZHd.2381$cZ1.2251@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I would have to disagree with you on that.  Discussing SW in the newsgroup
> is cause for censorship.  Or at least it was back when I used to follow
the
> group.
>
> Kman
>
>
> "Jeff Howard" <jeff4136@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:KVTHd.1194$r27.788@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > It's not moderated to that point, really.  One thing about the IV group
> > that should be considered; about 70% of the regular "peer-to-peer
users",
> > the ones that are first to respond to this kind of thead, are VARs or in
> > some other way connected to the company.
> >
>
>

For customer base and sheer volume of installs this was a good decision on
your part. Going with some off-the-wall also rans like VX or thinkICan would
put you into a bad situation when it came time to communicate with
clients/vendors and hiring competent employees. You'd have to hire from a
very small pool and perhaps wind up with a psycho employee like you know
who. Speaking of which, blocking has been a real blessing in the last few
days.


"Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>
> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs
> between the two.
>
> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where
> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>
> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
>
> Any help appreciated.
>
>

neil wrote:
> 
> lucky for you....a lot of people have found it to be as buggy as any past
> new release as posts at the SW forum attest...and no I don't consider it
> ready...I definitely wouldn't recommend a whole office of new users jump in
> at this point..
> neil

Well, OK -- maybe I'm just lucky.
That would be the FIRST time, though . . .

This one has been bugging me for a while, and this seems as good a time to 
delve into it as any.

One of the important issues to consider in evaluating mid-range solid 
modelers is industry acceptance. Right? So along those lines, we all know, 
Autodesk has tried in the past couple of years to claim victory in seat 
counts as having a larger base. We know that they arrive at some of their 
numbers by claiming an Inventor seat by simple virtue of customers who have 
received a copy, since they ~gave~ away more than 100,000 seats to 
Mechanical Desktop and Autocad users (heck, we have a version of Inventor on 
our shelf, still shrink wrapped).

So with these kind of fussy numbers out their, how do you get to the real 
numbers? One logical way is (and I didn't think this one up myself, even 
though I have cited the results) is do a Monster.com search against each of 
these software's. One would feel that this would be a fairly good way to 
find an unbiased rough estimate.

O.k. Old news. We've all seen some of the resulted quoted here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1CB2194A
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2DB2494A
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2EB1594A

So now that these results are being thrown at Autodesk salesman and in other 
MCAD forums, the Inventor folks are coming back with, "Well, just look how 
much of a lead in the industry Solidworks had over Autodesk Inventor".

This just doesn't hold water with me. They are trying to play themselves off 
like they are the underdogs Think3d or Rhino, a small new start-up company. 
No, this is AutoDesk, who has been around since the early 80's, with a 
user-base in the millions (I would guess).  True, Inventor, by that name, 
was released after Solidworks, but what about MDT and Designer. It was not 
like they were totally new to the whole mechanical design business. The 
Monster.com numbers may not be as skewed today as they were 2 or 3 years 
ago, but still very significant, around the 3:1 or 4:1 range.

As years have gone on, it's time they quite using the age and maturity of 
the product as an excuse for the skewed count.

Bill Coleman



"Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an 
> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>
> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs 
> between the two.
>
> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where 
> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>
> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
>
> Any help appreciated.
> 

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:46:21 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Why was VX not considered ?

  Because you are the Usenet idiot.

  Any more questions?

HTH
-- 
Cliff

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:07:48 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Sporkman" <sporkedUNDERLINEagainMUNGE@bigfootDOT.com> wrote in message
>news:41F003B1.C9EB0F93@bigfootDOT.com...
>> Joe Greco was a real asset to the design community while he lived.  Even
>> so, some of his comparison articles only hit the high points and ignored
>> enough of the down-in-the-trenches functionality to make them dangerous
>> to take at face value.  DO read his article, but DON'T stop there, just
>> taking his word for things.
>>
>> 'Sporky'
>>
>
>Might have been a real bitch for Joe Greco to try to do a comparison of say
>thinkID Global Shape Modeling with the utter lack of tools to do the same
>kinds of things in SolidWorks or Inventor.
>
>Joe Greco had a very tough job to do and did it well.
>
>If anything Joe was much too kind to SolidWorks but probably appreciated how
>much SolidWorks did for users by giving them a choice over Autodesk.
>
>jon

  And now that he's dead and unable to defend himself ......
  Hearing voices again are you?
-- 
Cliff

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:46:21 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
>> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
>> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>>
>> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs
>> between the two.
>>
>> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where
>> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>>
>> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
>>
>> Any help appreciated.
>>
>>
>
>Why was VX not considered ?

  You don't really have a clue what's involved in machinery design,
do you? Or even in making the parts that are not purchasesd.
-- 
Cliff

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:08:10 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>VX if you want surface and solid modeling tools that work together
>seamlessly.

  Nobody said you had any clues.
-- 
Cliff

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:18:12 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Sean Dotson" <seanSPAMMENOT@NOSPAMsdotson.com> wrote in message
>news:35amloF4jdb9uU1@individual.net...
>> Spork,
>>
>> I think the moderation thing gets blown out of proportion.  Unless it's
>some
>> other VAR spewing on about how bad IV is then the messages aren't touched.
>> Normal criticism of the product is not touched.  Heck I'm one of the first
>> to point out the shortcomings and my messages aren't moderated.
>>
>
>As per usual you have no idea what your talking about. Any idea how many
>posts of Tony Tanzillo's that Anne Brown censored / removed ? The list goes
>on and on. Even Dominic Gallello called me to apologize for Anne Brown's
>censorship tactics... on a Sunday morning.  :>)

  Why were you not in church begging forgivness for your
endless & ceaseless lies?

>The only good things I can say about Autodesk are that they hired Dominic
>and they had a good woman in Brenda Discher. I found her to be very straight
>forward in telling me the how and the why things were so fucked up with MDT.
>
>jon

  "Operator error" with an ad demo I assume.

  Do you even have a phone? LOL ....
-- 
Cliff

Looking back, I could not of made an informed decision just by test driving
the software for a couple of weeks or even months.  There is way to much to
discover and learn in such a short period of time.  A test drive by the
inexperienced user would be able to identify the mission critical features
of each application evaluated let alone all the subtle differences that
exist.

Test drive, magazine articles, newsgroups and lastly find someone that has
used both products extensively.  I have found that job shoppers often know
how to use multiple applications and are a good source of comparative
information.  The last place you want to ask for an objective opinion is in
these newsgroups.  It is like calling brand X automotive dealership and
asking the salesperson who's brand should I buy and why.

Kman




"jiml" <jiml1234@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:r4idnaT4H4lx9W3cRVn-jg@adelphia.com...
> A euphimism was arrived at - the other SoftWare - that allowed general
> discussion provided it did not turn into a feature-to-feature comparison.
> Discussion of the 2 softwares is a poor substitute for test-driving them,
> however. You can learn in 2 weeks of using what would take 2 months of
> reading.
>
> "Kman" <kengineering@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:_FZHd.2381$cZ1.2251@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > I would have to disagree with you on that.  Discussing SW in the
newsgroup
> > is cause for censorship.  Or at least it was back when I used to follow
> the
> > group.
> >
> > Kman
> >
> >
> > "Jeff Howard" <jeff4136@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:KVTHd.1194$r27.788@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > It's not moderated to that point, really.  One thing about the IV
group
> > > that should be considered; about 70% of the regular "peer-to-peer
> users",
> > > the ones that are first to respond to this kind of thead, are VARs or
in
> > > some other way connected to the company.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

> ...is cause for censorship.  Or at least it was back when
> I used to follow the group.

It's all pretty interesting if you look at what's really going on.

You have to start with the fact that it's a company owned and supported
forum.  I don't know who's budget pays for it but it is, first and
foremost, a marketing tool.  Trends, and the guidelines handed down to the
moderators, change but there has been a noticeable tendency to leave "off
topic" posts that portray the Product favorably and kill those that don't.
I relatively recently had a reply relating a very unfavorable observation
on drawing view generation speed, Inventor vs. Brand X, that stayed up for
about 10 minutes.  I don't remember how long the original question stayed
up before my reply, but ... well you get the picture.  It wasn't an
isolated incident.  Depends on the weather, though.  Trends and guidelines
change, judgement calls are made, etc.

In the end you can't really blame them, and while suppression of
information is always distasteful, I consider it to be less of a hindrance
(there's always an "appropriate" place to ask a question) to illumination
than the dissemination of misinformation that's common on all groups re
subjects like this.  In varying degrees we're all either salesmen or
wannabes.  The trick is to figure out who has an agenda and who doesn't
(no, that's not right; we all have some agenda or we wouldn't be here, so I
guess it's figuring out what the agenda is), and then you have to figure
out if they really know squat about what they are talking about.  Oh, well;
such is life.  8~)

FYI - I work for a SolidWorks VAR, and thought I would share the following.

A recent report (15 page "Condensed" / 44 Page "Full" version) written by
CAD/CAM Publishing, Inc., compares SolidWorks 2005 and Inventor R9, for use
in developing industrial equipment.

This report points out many of the SolidWorks advantages, that would be
difficult for a prospective purchaser fully appreciate during a typical
"demo / evaluation" phase.

As a long time SolidWorks user & supporter, I can appreciate the benefits
that these advantages offer.  Many aspects of the two products are
considered, including technical and business related issues.

To quote the summary, "The study found SolidWorks 2005 to be superior in
many respects to Autodesk Inventor R9 for design of industrial machinery".

CAD/CAM Publishing is headed up by Stephen Wolfe, one of the most respected
"independent" editors in the CAD industry.  Mr. Wolfe was presented with the
CAD Society "Industry Lifetime Achievement Award" last year for his
significant contributions (30+ years) to the CAD industry.  He is the
publisher of CADCAMNet, an online source for information regarding CAD,
product data management and rapid prototyping.

While I realize everyone has opinions, I have found Stephen's to be accurate
and valuable.

This report doesn't detail every topic that might be important to your
decision making process, but should provide some valuable insight into the
product differences.

To get a copy, contact your SolidWorks VAR.

Best regards,

John



"Bill Coleman" <BILLNMARE_no_spam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%P%Hd.1405$YD5.271@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This one has been bugging me for a while, and this seems as good a time to
> delve into it as any.
>
> One of the important issues to consider in evaluating mid-range solid
> modelers is industry acceptance. Right? So along those lines, we all know,
> Autodesk has tried in the past couple of years to claim victory in seat
> counts as having a larger base. We know that they arrive at some of their
> numbers by claiming an Inventor seat by simple virtue of customers who
have
> received a copy, since they ~gave~ away more than 100,000 seats to
> Mechanical Desktop and Autocad users (heck, we have a version of Inventor
on
> our shelf, still shrink wrapped).
>
> So with these kind of fussy numbers out their, how do you get to the real
> numbers? One logical way is (and I didn't think this one up myself, even
> though I have cited the results) is do a Monster.com search against each
of
> these software's. One would feel that this would be a fairly good way to
> find an unbiased rough estimate.
>
> O.k. Old news. We've all seen some of the resulted quoted here:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1CB2194A
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2DB2494A
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2EB1594A
>
> So now that these results are being thrown at Autodesk salesman and in
other
> MCAD forums, the Inventor folks are coming back with, "Well, just look how
> much of a lead in the industry Solidworks had over Autodesk Inventor".
>
> This just doesn't hold water with me. They are trying to play themselves
off
> like they are the underdogs Think3d or Rhino, a small new start-up
company.
> No, this is AutoDesk, who has been around since the early 80's, with a
> user-base in the millions (I would guess).  True, Inventor, by that name,
> was released after Solidworks, but what about MDT and Designer. It was not
> like they were totally new to the whole mechanical design business. The
> Monster.com numbers may not be as skewed today as they were 2 or 3 years
> ago, but still very significant, around the 3:1 or 4:1 range.
>
> As years have gone on, it's time they quite using the age and maturity of
> the product as an excuse for the skewed count.
>
> Bill Coleman
>
>
>
> "Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> > The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
> > upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
> >
> > It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs
> > between the two.
> >
> > Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another,
where
> > the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
> >
> > We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
> >
> > Any help appreciated.
> >
>
>

Go with neither and instead go with Solid Edge!

Seriously though, I hope you did give a serious look at Solid Edge.

Anyways, when evaluating CAD (and aside from the normal strength of the 
company, strength of their support, past records on product delivery) you 
need to thoroughly evaluate it using a typical and complete product design 
running it through a complete lifetime of changes (birth to death) to get an 
accurate portrayal of a products usefulness.  Demos and feature lists are 
great, but not any more useful than looking at a car in the showroom.  You 
need to drive it!

Ken
"Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an 
> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>
> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs 
> between the two.
>
> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where 
> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>
> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
>
> Any help appreciated.
> 

"jiml" <jiml1234@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hdadnUUq0uoC9G3cRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
> For customer base and sheer volume of installs this was a good decision on
> your part. Going with some off-the-wall also rans like VX or thinkICan
would
> put you into a bad situation when it came time to communicate with
> clients/vendors and hiring competent employees. You'd have to hire from a
> very small pool and perhaps wind up with a psycho employee like you know
> who. Speaking of which, blocking has been a real blessing in the last few
> days.


>Going with some off-the-wall also rans like VX

FACT:

VX develops their own kernel. SolidWorks does not.

"At the heart of VX is the second generation of a proprietary technology
called VX OVERDRIVE (TM). The VX OVERDRIVE (TM) kernel and
database are truly high performance in every sense of the word. In
independent benchmark tests of functionality, speed and robustness, VX
compares favorably against every CAD/CAM product available today ---
regardless of price."

"One key to the profound stability of VX OVERDRIVE (TM) is the methodology
we call Proximity Compliance Tolerancing. This unique technology is a
substantial improvement over other kernels that rely on a fixed, relative or
"adaptive" tolerancing scheme, and has the potential to eliminate tolerance
problems entirely. While obviously a significant advance, this is just one
example of the many groundbreaking technologies that characterize the VX
OVERDRIVE (TM) modeling kernel."

FACT:

Hybrid modeling is an afterthough in SolidWorks. SolidWorks was not
conceived as a hybrid modeler.

"The desire to address the full range of 3D modeling tasks, from industrial
design through mechanical engineering and on to mold and tool design, has
led experts to conclude that a comprehensive CAD/CAM system must
support a combination of solid, surface and wireframe modeling techniques.
This approach is known as hybrid modeling, a concept
pioneered by VX Corporation. No other company has more experience with this
technology than VX Corporationa and no other modeler has integrated solid,
surface, and wire frame geometry as seamlessly as VX. The integration is so
seamless, in fact, that it is totally transparent.

FACT:

"From the introduction of the first commercial PC-based B-rep solids modeler
in 1987, to the first true hybrid geometric modeler and process-oriented CAM
system in 1991, concepts pioneered by VX Corporation have helped shape
modern CAD/CAM and are integrated into it's very fabric.


FACT:

"Founded in 1985, VX Corporation has quietly established a tradition of
supplying powerful and innovative technology, both in our own commercial
products and as an OEM supplier to many CAD/CAM industry leaders."

jon

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Going with some off-the-wall also rans like VX
>
>FACT:
>
>VX develops their own kernel. SolidWorks does not.

  <snicker>

  ACIS was bad enough?

  Popped many kernels lately?
-- 
Cliff

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"One key to the profound stability of VX OVERDRIVE (TM) is the methodology
>we call Proximity Compliance Tolerancing. This unique technology is a
>substantial improvement over other kernels that rely on a fixed, relative or
>"adaptive" tolerancing scheme, and has the potential to eliminate tolerance
>problems entirely. While obviously a significant advance, this is just one
>example of the many groundbreaking technologies that characterize the VX
>OVERDRIVE (TM) modeling kernel."

  IOW It allows lots of slop in the tolerance, right?
  And what happens when you try to translate things to systems
or applications that require tighter tolerances?

  What an idiot.
-- 
Cliff

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>FACT:
>
>Hybrid modeling is an afterthough in SolidWorks. SolidWorks was not
>conceived as a hybrid modeler.
>
>"The desire to address the full range of 3D modeling tasks, from industrial
>design through mechanical engineering and on to mold and tool design, has
>led experts to conclude that a comprehensive CAD/CAM system must
>support a combination of solid, surface and wireframe modeling techniques.
>This approach is known as hybrid modeling, a concept
>pioneered by VX Corporation. No other company has more experience with this
>technology than VX Corporationa and no other modeler has integrated solid,
>surface, and wire frame geometry as seamlessly as VX. The integration is so
>seamless, in fact, that it is totally transparent.

  Ever heard of a parametric modeler, jb?

  LOL .....
-- 
Cliff

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

STOLEN MARKETING BLURB:

>"From the introduction of the first commercial PC-based B-rep solids modeler
>in 1987, to the first true hybrid geometric modeler and process-oriented CAM
>system in 1991, concepts pioneered by VX Corporation have helped shape
>modern CAD/CAM and are integrated into it's very fabric.
>

STOLEN MARKETING BLURB:

>"Founded in 1985, VX Corporation has quietly established a tradition of
>supplying powerful and innovative technology, both in our own commercial
>products and as an OEM supplier to many CAD/CAM industry leaders."

  You are on a roll today, jb.
-- 
Cliff

John,

I have a subscription to all of the Wolf publications, and I can't find this
report. Do you have any idea where (within the CADCAMnet site) it lives ???


Mark



"John Picinich" <johnNOSPAM@cadimensions.com> wrote in message
news:M59Id.36608$Xs6.19053@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> FYI - I work for a SolidWorks VAR, and thought I would share the
following.
>
> A recent report (15 page "Condensed" / 44 Page "Full" version) written by
> CAD/CAM Publishing, Inc., compares SolidWorks 2005 and Inventor R9, for
use
> in developing industrial equipment.
>
> This report points out many of the SolidWorks advantages, that would be
> difficult for a prospective purchaser fully appreciate during a typical
> "demo / evaluation" phase.
>
> As a long time SolidWorks user & supporter, I can appreciate the benefits
> that these advantages offer.  Many aspects of the two products are
> considered, including technical and business related issues.
>
> To quote the summary, "The study found SolidWorks 2005 to be superior in
> many respects to Autodesk Inventor R9 for design of industrial machinery".
>
> CAD/CAM Publishing is headed up by Stephen Wolfe, one of the most
respected
> "independent" editors in the CAD industry.  Mr. Wolfe was presented with
the
> CAD Society "Industry Lifetime Achievement Award" last year for his
> significant contributions (30+ years) to the CAD industry.  He is the
> publisher of CADCAMNet, an online source for information regarding CAD,
> product data management and rapid prototyping.
>
> While I realize everyone has opinions, I have found Stephen's to be
accurate
> and valuable.
>
> This report doesn't detail every topic that might be important to your
> decision making process, but should provide some valuable insight into the
> product differences.
>
> To get a copy, contact your SolidWorks VAR.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
> "Bill Coleman" <BILLNMARE_no_spam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%P%Hd.1405$YD5.271@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > This one has been bugging me for a while, and this seems as good a time
to
> > delve into it as any.
> >
> > One of the important issues to consider in evaluating mid-range solid
> > modelers is industry acceptance. Right? So along those lines, we all
know,
> > Autodesk has tried in the past couple of years to claim victory in seat
> > counts as having a larger base. We know that they arrive at some of
their
> > numbers by claiming an Inventor seat by simple virtue of customers who
> have
> > received a copy, since they ~gave~ away more than 100,000 seats to
> > Mechanical Desktop and Autocad users (heck, we have a version of
Inventor
> on
> > our shelf, still shrink wrapped).
> >
> > So with these kind of fussy numbers out their, how do you get to the
real
> > numbers? One logical way is (and I didn't think this one up myself, even
> > though I have cited the results) is do a Monster.com search against each
> of
> > these software's. One would feel that this would be a fairly good way to
> > find an unbiased rough estimate.
> >
> > O.k. Old news. We've all seen some of the resulted quoted here:
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1CB2194A
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2DB2494A
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2EB1594A
> >
> > So now that these results are being thrown at Autodesk salesman and in
> other
> > MCAD forums, the Inventor folks are coming back with, "Well, just look
how
> > much of a lead in the industry Solidworks had over Autodesk Inventor".
> >
> > This just doesn't hold water with me. They are trying to play themselves
> off
> > like they are the underdogs Think3d or Rhino, a small new start-up
> company.
> > No, this is AutoDesk, who has been around since the early 80's, with a
> > user-base in the millions (I would guess).  True, Inventor, by that
name,
> > was released after Solidworks, but what about MDT and Designer. It was
not
> > like they were totally new to the whole mechanical design business. The
> > Monster.com numbers may not be as skewed today as they were 2 or 3 years
> > ago, but still very significant, around the 3:1 or 4:1 range.
> >
> > As years have gone on, it's time they quite using the age and maturity
of
> > the product as an excuse for the skewed count.
> >
> > Bill Coleman
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
> > > upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
> > >
> > > It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting
hairs
> > > between the two.
> > >
> > > Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another,
> where
> > > the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
> > >
> > > We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose
machinery.
> > >
> > > Any help appreciated.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Cliff, give Jon a break.  He was out of junior high today because of
bad weather in the Rockies and didn't want to do his homework.

Bo

Cliff wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "jon banquer"
> <jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> STOLEN MARKETING BLURB:
>
> STOLEN MARKETING BLURB:
> 
>   You are on a roll today, jb.
> -- 
> Cliff

"Chris Marley" <chris.marley1@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:csor1t$jju$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> The  company I work for  is currently in the process of evaluating an
> upgrade from AutoCAD to 3D.
>
> It's down to Inventor and Solidworks, but we seem to be splitting hairs
> between the two.
>
> Can anyone provide any info that may help decide one way or another, where
> the strengths and weaknesses may be etc.
>
> We are an engineering company  manufacturing special purpose machinery.
>
> Any help appreciated.
>
>


Posted by me today to www.cadchat.com

"I would be happy to participate in such a forum.

Since VX allows anyone to download VX from their website for free (limited
save in demo mode )and since VX makes some very well written training .pdf
files available from their website for free, I believe it would be well
worth the effort to create such a forum.

VX is just to good of a product to ignore, especially because in my opinion
VX blows the doors of products like SolidWorks and Inventor."

Why settle for solid modelers that are now trying to become hybrid and
amount to kludged together hack and whack solutions ?

Why settle for surface modelers that can't fillet, have no construction
history and very limited solids ?


jon

"Ken" <kagrundey.no@spam.pella.com> wrote in message
news:41f13b56$1@usenet.ugs.com...
> Go with neither and instead go with Solid Edge!
>
> Seriously though, I hope you did give a serious look at Solid Edge.
>
> Anyways, when evaluating CAD (and aside from the normal strength of the
> company, strength of their support, past records on product delivery) you
> need to thoroughly evaluate it using a typical and complete product design
> running it through a complete lifetime of changes (birth to death) to get
an
> accurate portrayal of a products usefulness.  Demos and feature lists are
> great, but not any more useful than looking at a car in the showroom.  You
> need to drive it!
>

>Go with neither

Excellent advise.

jon

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:43:57 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Excellent advise.

  Have your spelling checker working again, do you?

  It's a real riot when it's busted <G>.
-- 
Cliff

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:42:35 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> www.cadchat.com

  You banned there (again ?) yet?
  Need some help?

>VX

> kludged together hack and whack solutions

  All done with 3dinkies & ACIS blurbs are you?

  It's not like you can actually use any of any of this
for anything at all ... or have a legal copy of any
of it either. Or even have the faintest of grasps of
the basics .....

  But keep up the hoots <G>.
-- 
Cliff

Jeff,
I think we all understand to some degree why AutoDesk censors information
and it surely is not for the benefit of its user base.  I want to believe
the majority of users themselves would take offense at being treated like
children and reprimanded for their actions and as if they were doing
something immoral.  It hasn't been evident to me in this newsgroup anyways
that users switch brands just because there were some negative comments
about the product.  And the majority here are very savvy when it comes to
sifting through all the sales BS and canned demos.  There are many examples
in this newsgroup of what started as a negative comment or software issue
that turned into an informative and useful discussion.  Some of these
discussions started with comparing another CAD program to SolidWorks.
Anyone that chooses censorship to open and critical discussion is analogous
to the three monkeys in my book.

Kman



"Jeff Howard" <jeff4136@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b%7Id.1740$r27.1612@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > ...is cause for censorship.  Or at least it was back when
> > I used to follow the group.
>
> It's all pretty interesting if you look at what's really going on.
>
> You have to start with the fact that it's a company owned and supported
> forum.  I don't know who's budget pays for it but it is, first and
> foremost, a marketing tool.  Trends, and the guidelines handed down to the
> moderators, change but there has been a noticeable tendency to leave "off
> topic" posts that portray the Product favorably and kill those that don't.
> I relatively recently had a reply relating a very unfavorable observation
> on drawing view generation speed, Inventor vs. Brand X, that stayed up for
> about 10 minutes.  I don't remember how long the original question stayed
> up before my reply, but ... well you get the picture.  It wasn't an
> isolated incident.  Depends on the weather, though.  Trends and guidelines
> change, judgement calls are made, etc.
>
> In the end you can't really blame them, and while suppression of
> information is always distasteful, I consider it to be less of a hindrance
> (there's always an "appropriate" place to ask a question) to illumination
> than the dissemination of misinformation that's common on all groups re
> subjects like this.  In varying degrees we're all either salesmen or
> wannabes.  The trick is to figure out who has an agenda and who doesn't
> (no, that's not right; we all have some agenda or we wouldn't be here, so
I
> guess it's figuring out what the agenda is), and then you have to figure
> out if they really know squat about what they are talking about.  Oh,
well;
> such is life.  8~)
>

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:42:35 -0700, "jon banquer"
<jonSeamlessUnifiedHybridbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Posted by me today to www.cadchat.com
>
>"I would be happy to participate in such a forum.

  Really funny.
  JB, in one post: "For those who have had enough of Cadkey /
KeyCreator I have requested a forum on CADChat for discussing VX. 
"
  In another: "I would be happy to participate in such a forum."
(Replies: 0)

  Looks like he's posting replies to himself ...... and bragging about
it here <G>.
  He's going to suggest that it replaces CadKey I expect .... another
place he's banned IIRC ....

HTH
-- 
Cliff

>....  And the majority here are very savvy when it
> comes to sifting through all the sales BS and canned
> demos. ....
> .....Anyone that chooses censorship to open and critical ...

Here's where we differ, or perhaps are talking different "points".   Mine
is that censorship is not the most insidious form of market manipulation.
A few are savvy, the majority rely on the advice of others, probably
weighting the value of that advice on whether it comes from a salesperson
or a "peer" and probably will assume that a "majority opinion" is closest
to a "truth".  Yeah, well ... maybe, maybe not.

Just to clear the air or avoid possible misunderstanding; what I say is
based on my experiences with Autodesk groups.  I'm not a SW user, don't
"know" the program, so have no opinion of value re its suitability for one
type job or another.  I have seen posts on this news group that I suspect
might mislead; that reek of salesman, wannabe, loyalist.

I enjoy open and critical discussion, it's informative or at least can be.
I really don't think there's a whole lot of value in these X vs. Y
discussions, though.  I see things (not necessarily this specific thread,
but in the genre) that I know to be true, that I know to be false, may
argue the point.  The initiate that asked the question isn't savvy and
doesn't know me.  My post is just more fog to them.  I'm a believer in
providing examples that at least seem to support my suppositions, opinion,
claims, what-have-you and will rarely argue a point where I can't.  I'm not
going to, and neither is anyone else, spend 40, 80, 120 hours going thru a
project to provide empirical evidence to compare.  The really telling
examples, assuming they're applicable, will take more time to demonstrate;
big, complicated assemblies, something that pushes the envelope of the
software.  These questions will never be resolved in news groups and it's
only the savvy can sift the information to glean anything useful at all.
What's really sad is that the respective software marketers (who too often
don't know jack about what they are selling,  know less about what their
competitors are selling, know little about what the customer really needs)
aren't better prepared or paid well enough to spend the time to effectively
demonstrate their wares.  A penny wise dollar foolish consumer shares the
blame; will let one or two thousand sway their decision, be unwilling to
invest in a reputable consultant (if there is such a thing) to evaluate
their needs, etc. resulting in many thousands annual loss.  I don't know
any good answers.  I do know (from personal experience) that putting value
on the advice put forth on news groups re this subject can be a big
mistake.  Especially beware those that want to talk about future this and
that, market share, what's good for the masses, etc.  They may be well
meaning, but are generally clueless.  Or, maybe I'm clueless.  I do know I
have a narrow perspective.  I really think that consulting some sort of
mystic is about as useful as asking this type of question on a news group
though.  Only difference is that this way we can all join in the fun.

I'm rambling on, talking over my own head and was gonna quit but there's
one more thing that gripes me.  The often offered and best advice to
follow; "test drive the software" is really a pretty crappy solution to the
problem and no solution at all to those making the transition from 2D to
3D.  I know, middlin' fluently,  four 3D CAD or design software packages.
The learning process gets easier with each one because some of the
accumulated knowledge is applicable to most programs.  I can pick up a new
one and probably become basically functional in it in a few day assuming
it's at all user friendly and well documented (that includes Pro/E which
was the last one).  It'll take weeks to months to learn enough about most
of them to get a glimpse of how far the software will take me when the
going gets tough or support me as I and my needs evolve.  I simply can't
imagine going thru that process starting with, presumably, little or no
knowledge of 3D or parametric / relational modeling, and evaluating several
programs.  I'd even go so far as to say that I think if a prospective
user's needs are so simple that such evaluation is meaningful they should
question the need to make the transition or simply not worry about what
software they use; virtually any will do nicely.  Dunno, but seems there
are questions (maybe only in my head) that need better answers than are
available today.

Well, enough of this.  Think I'll make another pot of coffee and go watch
the fog lift.  8~)

Hi Jeff

Let me make sure my flame suit and hard hat secure before making this 
post ;~)
See embedded.

"Jeff Howard" <jeff4136@mindspring.com> wrote in message 
news:b%7Id.1740$r27.1612@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> You have to start with the fact that it's a company owned and 
> supported
> forum.  I don't know who's budget pays for it but it is, first and
> foremost, a marketing tool.

I disagree.  To some extent it is true just because its focus is one 
product, but if you would talk to any of the developers that reply on 
the groups, they would all say they wish the group could be locked down 
to technical questions only. The only real marketing I see on the groups 
is between users and trolls.  (like me ;~) here)

Trends, and the guidelines handed down to the
> moderators, change but there has been a noticeable tendency to leave 
> "off
> topic" posts that portray the Product favorably and kill those that 
> don't.

I think you might be surprised at what the real guidelines are.  Being 
that it's charter is a Technical forum, I don't think you will see a lot 
of posts that are complaining about functionality or lack of being 
removed.  What you will see getting removed is posts that say Brand X 
does this function and Inventor doesn't so we should all jump ship. 
Basically anything that you wouldn't allow your competitor to stand in 
your doorway and tell your customers. I suppose to some extent that is 
censorship, but I find it funny that everyone things Autodesk should 
allow it on their server when none of you would allow the same basic 
thing to happen at your place of business.  So basically we are trying 
to keep the marketing down, and as you say the marketing type of 
argument... i.e. brand x is better than brand y is something that is 
never going to be won on a internet newsgroup or anywhere else for that 
matter, and it takes away from the technical discussion.    In my mind 
the group has two purposes.  For users of the software to have a place 
to get help that for various reasons they don't get from the Vars.  The 
second is for developers and Marketing to see where people are having 
trouble without having to sift through too much of the "I want Inventor 
to work just like Brand X".

>Depends on the weather, though.  Trends and guidelines
> change, judgment calls are made, etc.

You are very correct on the judgment call part of that.  That is all it 
can be, we are just human, and some days things are pulled that other 
days might slip through.  But I do know everyone tries to keep bias out 
of it as much as humanly possible.

I have scanned this group for years, just to try to keep up with what is 
out there, and personally I much prefer having some structure in the 
discussion rather than the constant waste of bandwidth banter between a 
few people.  Sifting through mindless banter to find good technical 
discussion or having the developers and product leads responding to some 
of my inquiries.... hmmm tough choice  ;~)

I am sure I will probably get blasted, but thought maybe it was time for 
the other point of view to be posted.  Having done that, I have no 
intention of continuing in this discussion, as it will not accomplish 
anything.

One of the bad guys  ;~)
Kent Keller 

"Jeff Howard" <jeff4136@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:JSuId.2521$r27.2484@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...



> Well, enough of this.  Think I'll make another pot of coffee and go watch
> the fog lift.  8~)
>

Starbucks House Blend?

I've been using Rhino...it was recommended by a guy over in the Inventor
group whom I found to be trustworthy and pretty well up to speed about what
he talks about. ;^)

Damn good software is Rhino, a helluva a value!

SB

> .... I am sure I will probably get blasted, but thought
> maybe it was time for the other point of view to
> be posted. .....

Well, Kent, far be it from *me* to think anyone should be "blasted" for
expressing an opinion or point of view.  8~)

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=2017753
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=689390

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=677366

On 23 Jan 2005 00:09:25 -0800, jmather@pct.edu wrote:

>http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=677366

  "Don't you love people who do reviews of products that they don't
know how to use...?"

  You've met jb I assume ....
-- 
Cliff