Solidworks vs. Inventor

[AlessioOvo]

hi to all I wanted to ask you an information, I recently finished attending an inventor course 2012, but maybe I have to do a period of internship in a company that uses solidworks from how I was told. I wanted to know: are the inventor and solidworks commands so different?
What is the latest version of solidworks that looks more like inventor 2012?
are there so many differences between these two programs?what?
or would you know how to explain and synthesize the pros and cons of solidworks?
Is there something you can't do?
for example what file can I open or save with solidworks? chargeable on autocad or on inventor directly?
thanks hi to all aspect answer

 

[re_solidworks]

hi to all I wanted to ask you an information, I recently finished attending an inventor course 2012, but maybe I have to do a period of internship in a company that uses solidworks from how I was told. I wanted to know: are the inventor and solidworks commands so different?
What is the latest version of solidworks that looks more like inventor 2012?
are there so many differences between these two programs?what?
or would you know how to explain and synthesize the pros and cons of solidworks?
Is there something you can't do?
for example what file can I open or save with solidworks? chargeable on autocad or on inventor directly?
thanks hi to all aspect answer

basic concepts are very similar, they are both parametric cads. each house then chose different strategies for the development of its product.
As far as I've seen that inventor is still a bit of pursuit because I find it not at the level of solidworks.
the problem is that for many things there are not just commands, even trivial functions but that in the daily help.
at the presentation of the product design suite 2012 I have seen all commands that in swx have been there for years.

returning to your questions the features are pressed the same, both in modeling and at the table.
I believe that the workflow in swx is more intuitive as the software offers you via proprety manager and pop menu one you need and you can do. at that moment.
swx has more strings and better management of entities via proprety manager
swx manages megli multibody environment and allows you to perform finished projects without passing through assembly, this in many cases saves time
the management of swx surfaces is much better and the surfaces do not only serve to make style.
swx manages better, especially from the graphic point of view, the great assemblies.
swx has more possibilities in joint couplings
swx does not bind to projects, all files of your archive are always available and immediately with the rights you set in windows. in case of projects with multiple users without pdm you will find a better management.
The swx table seems more complete, but I have not yet arrived at the bottom of the inventor's table.
Overall swx seems more stable to me, I have never had seriousness issues that my colleagues had with inventor.
swx allows an excellent management of topdown assemblies, inventor not quite.. .

inventor has graphics + eye-catching
inventor from an excellent library including cad
inventor costs less, if taken alone on 4500 against 6500 swx
inventor has a better vision of sketch constraints, there is a great possibility of filter absent in swx.
in inventor works well the command comes with which it is very simple to simplify asms, in swx a direct command comparable to this does not exist.

 

[marcof]

(cut)
at the presentation of the product design suite 2012 I have seen all commands that in swx have been there for years.
(cut)

You didn't mention it, but in inv how they are put with parts and assemblies configurations?

 

[re_solidworks]

You didn't mention it, but in inv how they are put with parts and assemblies configurations?

They don't exist as well as in swx and this is a big gap. in the traditional parts and assemblies there is only the equivalent of the display states.
to create configurations you only need to use iparts and iassembly with tables. I don't know how much these iparts and iassembly are then manageable, but I think they can be treated as normal parts and assemblies.
I will soon know why it is a topic that I must deepen to carry out a project.
if you want a parallel even with proes you can create config only through family table.
of shortcomings there are several others, for example when extruding there is no,condition of start as well as in swx, the management of space in asm is quite,more spartan, etc....

 

[AlessioOvo]

They don't exist as well as in swx and this is a big gap. in the traditional parts and assemblies there is only the equivalent of the display states.
to create configurations you only need to use iparts and iassembly with tables. I don't know how much these iparts and iassembly are then manageable, but I think they can be treated as normal parts and assemblies.
I will soon know why it is a topic that I must deepen to carry out a project.
if you want a parallel even with proes you can create config only through family table.
of shortcomings there are several others, for example when extruding there is no,condition of start as well as in swx, the management of space in asm is quite,more spartan, etc....

are very useful and easy to use the iparts and iassembly of inventor two clicks and change everything, are used little cmq only to change a few sizes if not then and very complicated to handle them. . .
vote 9 in inventor about mechanics, hydraulic 8, and 6 for electric, the tire is still unknown to me on inventor or at least in library there is no lack of an actuator etc... Then there is fusion try to use it if you happen that it is very fun for modeling, it seems to work blown glass. aaaahhh:

 

[AlessioOvo]

are very useful and easy to use the iparts and iassembly of inventor two clicks and change everything, are used little cmq only to change a few sizes if not then and very complicated to handle them. . .
vote 9 in inventor about mechanics, hydraulic 8, and 6 for electric, the tire is still unknown to me on inventor or at least in library there is no lack of an actuator etc... Then there is fusion try to use it if you happen that it is very fun for modeling, it seems to work blown glass. aaaahhh:

p.s. I already forgot that cmq are still the basis of inventor and solidworks would you have some pdf project to try them to create on both programs?
Like what I found on the web almost complete? I'll cheer if I can

 

[re_solidworks]

are very useful and easy to use the iparts and iassembly of inventor two clicks and change everything, are used little cmq only to change a few sizes if not then and very complicated to handle them. . .
vote 9 in inventor about mechanics, hydraulic 8, and 6 for electric, the tire is still unknown to me on inventor or at least in library there is no lack of an actuator etc... Then there is fusion try to use it if you happen that it is very fun for modeling, it seems to work blown glass. aaaahhh:

the point is that in swx or I create all parts and assemblies can be configured by table, you do not have to create a part on purpose.
In addition, swx configurations are very, very practical and you can often in 2 minutes create the variant on the flight without spending time in tables and reasoning.

the projects already made that I have are not my property, they are of my customers and therefore not discloseable.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

if you want a parallel even with proes you can create config only through family table.

In short, not really, in pro/e you have over the family tables, simplified representations, snapshots and also flexibility.:smile:

 

[maxopus]

In short, not really, in pro/e you have over the family tables, simplified representations, snapshots and also flexibility.:smile:

Let it go, it's a lost war, they're convinced they have a cad instead of a cax :biggrin:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Let it go, it's a lost war, they're convinced they have a cad instead of a cax :biggrin:

path cax!

 

[re_solidworks]

In short, not really, in pro/e you have over the family tables, simplified representations, snapshots and also flexibility.:smile:

Okay, but the most powerful and interesting part is that of the family in this case. that, as a precedent response, in inventor only creates on iparts and iassembly and not on parts and standard assemblies.

Let it go, it's a lost war, they're convinced they have a cad instead of a cax :biggrin:

I repeat my advice... do not use it too!:biggrin:

 

[Dave73]

They don't exist as well as in swx and this is a big gap. in the traditional parts and assemblies there is only the equivalent of the display states.
to create configurations you only need to use iparts and iassembly with tables. I don't know how much these iparts and iassembly are then manageable, but I think they can be treated as normal parts and assemblies.
I will soon know why it is a topic that I must deepen to carry out a project.
if you want a parallel even with proes you can create config only through family table.
of shortcomings there are several others, for example when extruding there is no,condition of start as well as in swx, the management of space in asm is quite,more spartan, etc....

hi to all guys....I apologize if I go to re-exhume such an old post, but it's a topic that interests me a lot, since as a sw user I could go to inventor (not for my will, but because I have to adapt to the office where I could go to work and where they have inventor). So the question is always the same, bigger differences? Are configurations still managed so different?

 

[cacciatorino]

hi to all guys....I apologize if I go to re-exhume such an old post, but it's a topic that interests me a lot, since as a sw user I could go to inventor (not for my will, but because I have to adapt to the office where I could go to work and where they have inventor). So the question is always the same, bigger differences? Are configurations still managed so different?

changes are always positive as they question us and open new perspectives.

for professional reasons I have made several changes in cad: I realized that everyone has its own peculiarities, its advantages and its sins. If I were you I wouldn't worry about what instrument you'll find to use, eventually the result takes home almost always.

 

[Dave73]

You're right! the important thing is to apply!

 

[re_solidworks]

You're right! the important thing is to apply!

I add a comment. If you use a cad because they impose it on you and this cad has limits you will find yourself with the same limits as your colleagues. That is why the problem does not exist. well different is to compete with other colleagues where everyone can use what they want and counts only the final result.

 

[Dave73]

every technical office chooses its own cad, everything is to learn and adapt quickly

 

[marcof]

every technical office chooses its own cad, everything is to learn and adapt quickly

J. de la palice makes you a moustache?

 

[Dave73]

J. de la palice makes you a moustache?

ah ah ah! little but sure.
Anyway I really care about the configuration speech. I consider them fundamental, and "to do without" it would disturb me

 

[cacciatorino]

ah ah ah! little but sure.
Anyway I really care about the configuration speech. I consider them fundamental, and "to do without" it would disturb me

there are companies that design plants from millions of euros and thousands of components using cad without constraints, without sketches and without features. they are on the market, they make useful and grow year after year. Take it easy.