differences between solidworks and inventor in sheet metal environment

[mistermaster]

...... .

ops, I forgot, inv is able to manage with the extrusion command Boolean operations (who knows rhino can understand ) with all the variables of extrusion, in practice it is an extruded cut, but much more powerful....

sw can do it with the matching command but it needs a multi-body part or part inserted inside another part, two parts to manage with the relative couplings during insertion with everything that follows in case of change of the reciprocal position between the parts, for me it is not the maximum of simplicity...

Have you written a bag of things, which I poor low-level user, I don't know all, then the plates have been unknown to me, but it has leaped in my eyes your non-knowledge of the booleans in swx, swx allows the cut extruded through sketch 3d, you don't know this me you question all the actors you wrote, I attach image and .............

 

[graziano-g]

Hi, you can't see what command you used, I don't think a boolean management, then maybe I'm wrong. you can widen the shot to the screenschot so as to see the command used, even if I have
already a half idea... Thank you.

 

[graziano-g]

.... but I was blinded by your unknowledgment of the boolean in swx, swx allows the extruded cut through sketch 3d, you don't know this me put the doubt on all the atres you wrote , allego image and ......................... can you make it inventor?

Hello, if I don't understand your tone: Don't you know this me? ) question all the others you have written, let's go further.
We're divading, but I think it can be tolerated, at least I hope.
not to disappoint you, but how can that be a boolean operation? the same that you write to be an extruded cut along one corner guide among other things, detail anything but negligible...., in fact else can not be.
Boolean operations are something else, a simple example is found in the attached image, which as I wrote can be done with matching command, not easy to use in my opinion.
sw does not allow operations of that type performed as in inv, it would be beautiful but unfortunately sw does not manage to make it, are operations much more articulated in sw. the only way to do a boolean operation, I repeat, is what I mentioned, made by the command insert >> > functions > pairs. here you will find a few examples:

this is the best example, the simplest.
in the two images the equivalent in inv of what nothing but in sw an extruded cut.
He does.
However, point in favor of sw, a similar result is obtained with the command much more powerful and flexible divides that engages a plane, or a more or less complex surface, as a cutting tool. This command allows you to always decide what to hold and what to remove, even after applying it, with the additional possibility of generating two bodies that you can save them with different names, in the inv instead will remain only one, like highlander, even if to say the true inv is able to generate two but not simultaneously as sw, 1/2 point in favor.... .
forgives punctuality: sw has no command within which the Boolean word appears.
Hi.

 

[mistermaster]

I believe that the hypotheses I know two or you do it on purpose or use bad swx, very badly so ingested we say not so, I use both swx and inv for years to create families for revit, the fact that you use them both is irrelevant for the purposes: it is better one or the other
There is no difference to use inv with extrusion along with boolean and use extruded swx or extrusion in sketch2d, if you are working on a single part if they automatically combine you see imm attached (where is the difference??????????) the cut extruded with sketch3d that I showed you earlier is another possibility in swx

 

[re_solidworks]

I believe that the hypotheses I know two or you do it on purpose or use bad swx, very badly so ingested we say not so, I use both swx and inv for years to create families for revit, the fact that you use them both is irrelevant for the purposes: it is better one or the other
There is no difference to use inv with extrusion along with boolean and use extruded swx or extrusion in sketch2d, if you are working on a single part if they automatically combine you see imm attached (where is the difference??????????) the cut extruded with sketch3d that I showed you earlier is another possibility in swx

I believe it is a nice limit in the way of reasoning of swx, even worse the impossibility of switching from solid to thin function when changing a function. But these are small things, in my view. Once we know we act accordingly.
In the past I tried to start using inventor, since I have 2 licenses in the studio, but during the course I slammed my nose against limits that made me choose to leave it aside.
when I did the course (it seems on 2016) there was no way to work reliably on a top-down project.
I don't want to dive, in this discussion the theme is another, but also for the plates, with swx I find myself very good because I get the geometries that I almost need finished for topdown modeling, then convert into sheet metal and sometimes I do some finishing. the true force of swx (in my view) is this way of working, I get the sheet often through the use of surfaces, in case of very complex forms this is a non-considerable change. or from multibody to one body and then convert it into sheet metal, or to a mixed solid/finished surface modeling and converted into sheet metal.
having some extra option in a flange is useful, but the real potential of a modeler are elsewhere (always in my way to see).
I make an example of a job. we make aesthetic sheeting, made of fold and/or rolling that serve as finishing on semi-trailers. to perform this work we develop a model that shows the geometry of the finished volume. It is a part that is easily managed and allows us to agree with the customer all the various aesthetic and functional aspects. Once we freeze this part we use it as a skeleton for the generation of various subgroups and sheets. the geometric bond works and follows the skeleton in case of changes, the plates have perfect coincidence and no interference, even in the corners with the most cramped geometries. I don't talk about 90° sheets, there are difficult finishing deviations to make without going through a 3d skeleton. when I evaluated inventor, this and other topdown methods were not viable and I discarded it.

 

[mistermaster]

I agree that they are small, but if these small things are underlined and emphasized, I have some suspicion about the "correctness" of opinion.
I almost wanted to "learn the environment" swx sheetmetal to refute:in a more effective way, but I won't, I don't want to.

 

[graziano-g]

Hi, in my first kilometric intervention I wrote clearly:
I will try to be as objective as possible without neglecting my judgment that will necessarily be subjective.

subjective = opinion, and opinions are like balls, each has its own....

I have listed the differences that seem more important to me, subjectively.

to someone I have raised doubts with examples regarding the normal cut through a fold, fold offset from the adjacent edges and from the edge of origin making comparisons between the two programs and other small in a subjective way and as much as possible objectively.

Last but not least the Boolean, which sw has never handled as inv until now, see the example videos in which they replicate them in an articulated way, the only of the rest for sw, then who knows....

your example is not a boolean, you yourself call it for what it is: extruded cut.

have you forgotten to specify that this operation is possible only if you assign a carrier (split) to follow with the cut, if you had entered the three solutions then, although not a boolean, it would have partially made sense the question: can it make inventor?

the three examples attached are feasible in sw but, with my knowledge, not inv.

But I don't know everything.

a last example to clarify what Boolean operations really are you see in the 8 images obtained from inv, for each operation you see the preview and the result. I used the glass as a material to highlight what happens inside.

It’s nice to read that you call yourself a poor low-level user (your words)

While you’re blinding my unknowledge of the Booleans in sw, my misuse of sw also ventilating the hypothesis that I’m having fun behind your back

I never wrote that one is better than the other, always opinions are....

Refer to the 8 inv images again: discover the differences.

re_solidworks fully understood the difference in approach between the two:

Once we know we act accordingly.

As for the description of his work experience, this is reflected in my statement: as far as I'm concerned is a kind of free hand.

Undeniable advantages in certain environments.

That said, as it is my opinion that you are moving the game on who has it bigger, I do not think it is appropriate to go further: to me I alibi and to you reasons.

remember what I wrote about opinions.

probably what previously written is not clear enough, it was so patience
And I'm sorry, but it was my fault if you went from the sheet to the solids.

Hi.

 

[baleritec]

Hello everyone, I can only update you now on the situation.

I passed 2 phases, the cognitive one (with technical questions) and the test that provided pure modeling of the sheet with solidworks, starting from a 2d.
I am now expecting a further phase which provides for the reading and interpretation of a mechanical drawing of sheet metal, practically the opposite of the previous phase, of what would happen in the task of the development of the same.
so where possibly do the folds etc.

I would need a basis to interpret the reading of these sheet drawings until the creation of the flat model, on the forum I read material:

Disegno piega lamiere

Sono a chiedere consiglio su un disegno per la piega di lamiere che ho ricevuto, dato che io non ho pratica con questo tipo di elaborati. Sotto vedete un’immagine del pezzo in assonometria, subito dopo lo sviluppo. Secondo voi le indicazioni dello sviluppo sono corrette? Io ho dubbi sui versi...

www.cad3d.it

Disegni lamiere per lamierista

Mi capita spesso di inviare delle richieste di produzione per lamiere piegate e forate a centri di produzione specializzati. E' mio desiderio, evitare incomprensioni, e produrre elaborati quanto più possibile aderenti alle norme. Sapreste indicarmi, perfavore, degli esmpi pratici, testi o...

www.cad3d.it

what advice do you have from reading these drawings?

edit*: premix, never dealt theoretically and never had experience in developing sheet metal

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I didn't understand the question.. .
the folds the decisions in the design phase based on what you need to get; in the first discussion you linked you have an omega sheet that will have 2 folds to 90° down and 2 to 90° upwards. but this any parametric cad does it automatically.
then come into play any materials that have a better surface than the other (such as satin stainless steel sheets or foil aluminum sheets) and therefore the indication of the folds is important.
all the speech of the retreats, punches and matrices is secondary because it depends on the equipment available.