AutoCAD vs. Inventor

[Gherkinman]

I was just intoduced to Inventor 10 in October last year and I have never used AutoCAD or any other CAD software.

I imagine that Inventor is the most "user-friendly" as was stated above, most of what I know I had to teach myself. Being a teenager I did not refer to any of those lame tutorials It went pretty well and I know enough to cheat the program into doing what I want it to most of the time.

However, I have noticed that Inventor doesn't like it when you organize your work into sub-folders. I like to keep my computers organized but inventor has trouble finding the path names when i put parts in subfolders. This leads to many whiny pop-ups demanding pathnames whenever I try to open my project and seems like an oversight on the designer's part : /

Another problem I noticed was the frequent errors and long pauses as the program does god knows what after I tell it to perform simple funtions like contraining two objects.

Overall I think i would be much happier using a pencil and a ruler than using this program and I probably wouldn't mind investing the time to learn a more "drawing oriented" program like AutoCADF or ProE which (I'm assuming) have more of a coordinate-plot / layering interface.

Basically, I can't imagine anything being "worse" than inventor. Alas, thats what they give us and I don't have a couple grand lying around to invest in a professional CAD program.

[Andrew Blair]

For FIRST, Inventor is king for a variety of legitimate reasons. It's easier for new kids to pick up and learn, it's more graphic, and especially when designing new parts and ideas, it's far, far easier to spit out a new design quickly and see how it meshes with everything else, without a sketch. As Tytus said also, it's very easy to change parameters once you've set up- something far harder to do with AutoCAD. Inventor is excellent for inventing.

That said, I do feel that AutoCAD is the top dog in industry right now, because it's been around, it's integrated, and it feels better to the people currently using the program. With an experienced person using it, I do feel that you can even be quicker than Inventor on some things.

Parametric programs have become very powerful, and I do believe that much of industry will merge in time. Inventor, SolidWorks, SolidEdge, and Pro-E are quickly gaining ground, and are used extensively in mold making and tool & die work, but they have not come into some larger, more monolithic business's yet. They may not ever, because some businesses simply do not need parametric, graphic programs. For FIRST though, Inventor provides an intuitive, powerful base with which to quickly propel your ideas. AutoCAD can't do that.

[Dan Zollman]

Originally Posted by Gherkinman

I was just intoduced to Inventor 10 in October last year and I have never used AutoCAD or any other CAD software.

I imagine that Inventor is the most "user-friendly" as was stated above, most of what I know I had to teach myself. Being a teenager I did not refer to any of those lame tutorials It went pretty well and I know enough to cheat the program into doing what I want it to most of the time.

However, I have noticed that Inventor doesn't like it when you organize your work into sub-folders. I like to keep my computers organized but inventor has trouble finding the path names when i put parts in subfolders. This leads to many whiny pop-ups demanding pathnames whenever I try to open my project and seems like an oversight on the designer's part : /

Another problem I noticed was the frequent errors and long pauses as the program does god knows what after I tell it to perform simple funtions like contraining two objects.

I have to disagree with most of this. If you aren't willing to spend time learning the software--if you don't want to use tutorials, "figuring out" how to use it isn't going to work well--you can't judge whether Inventor is a good program.

You certainly don't need to cheat the program into doing anything in order to do what you want. If you get frequent errors, you either have a bad installation, the computer is incompatible with the software, or you're doing things wrong. I can do anything I want with Inventor and I see an error a couple times a month.

Inventor doesn't know how to constrain objects all by itself. You have to know how to properly constain parts. When you understand constraints and degrees of freedom and you do it correctly, it works smoothly and correctly.

The software is set up to handle the use of subfolders. Once parts are added to assemblies, the Design Assistant can be used to change file paths and you won't get errors.

Basically, I can't imagine anything being "worse" than inventor. Alas, thats what they give us and I don't have a couple grand lying around to invest in a professional CAD program.

Inventor is a professional CAD program.

MSPaint is "worse" than Inventor, but you don't need any tutorials in order to use it.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Gherkinman

However, I have noticed that Inventor doesn't like it when you organize your work into sub-folders. I like to keep my computers organized but inventor has trouble finding the path names when i put parts in subfolders. This leads to many whiny pop-ups demanding pathnames whenever I try to open my project and seems like an oversight on the designer's part : /

The problem is not in the software in this instance, I'm afraid, but in what you are not telling us about HOW YOU make sub folders I have to believe.

In my profession (CAD Drafter/Designer) we have ISO standards that we have to follow that says where things are stored and how.

If I created an Assembly from parts laying on my Desktop, and then MOVE those parts, then yes, even the best software will complain about not finding my parts.

SolidWorks does it too, and any software that needs external references.

Where I work, we have set directories where we keep certain part files, and what not. If someone were to even rename every folder we have created in advance for this organizational purpose, it would definitely yell at me with some annoying errors.

The best thing I can tell someone who is starting to learn CAD and especially 3D cad with external references (ie: An assembly file that uses separate part files) is to set up an organized folder system in Windows BEFORE you start any modeling.

For Example, a robot could have a folder for hardware, chassis parts, arm parts, grabbers, ramps, and what not.

I have been using TRUE 3D Modeling softwares for 5 years now (Not Autocad's fake version of 3D using wireframes and what not, but softwares like Autocad Mechanical Desktop, Inventor, SolidWorks, and Pro-E.)
The biggest gripe I hear at work from the new 3D modeling users is that when they make parts, they forget to put something where it is supposed to go in the directory structure, realize it a week down the road, go to move it and all of a sudden now their assembly files yell at them for not being able to find the parts.

I wonder why.

And I agree 100% with what worldbringer said about Inventor being a professional CAD system. Search Careerbuilder, or Monster.com for CAD Jobs and see what softwares you see come up and the salaries for each. The more "professional" the software, the higher the pay rate. Programs like AutoCAD Inventor, and SolidWorks are at the low end of Professional CAD Softwares, that's true, but they are no MS Paint. Programs like Pro-Engineer Wildfire, Catia, and others are high end.
The true power and "professionalism" in a sotware lies not in what the print looks like at the end of the day, but what Engineering tools are available within the software. When GM makes the fully 3D model of your car, they probably use something similar to Catia, which has stress analyzation tools, and also many more Engineering tools built in.
Yes, for you SolidWorks users out there who are following along with me, even more high end than COSMOS.

Global companies do not use MS Paint to make a CAD Drawing, but it could suffice for a simple sketch to get an idea across, and that's about it. (And yes, I'll admit, I did that before at work for a quick and VERY dirty job.)

While my background in 3D is mostly in SolidWorks and I complained about the differences when attempting to help the students this year as to the intuitiveness of Inventor, it was not a complaint about now unpowerful the system was, but what I was used to as far as SolidWorks went..

If I was hired at a company, as a Drafter, and I was told to make actual drawings in MS Paint, I would deny that position right away, cause it's more trouble than it's worth and isn't that professional and would look like a joke on a resume'.

They shouldn't have a need for a CAD operator if they are using MS Paint.

Anyone can draw something in MS Paint. You may as well just use a napkin, or a piece of notebook paper, or as the machinist at my place calls that approach, AutoPAD.

[kramarczyk]

For reference GM uses NX (formerly unigraphics) which allows users to combine both parametric and direct modeling techniques as they see fit. It does combine, as speculated, a variety of embedded engineering tools including motion & a couple of varieties of strength analysis. Some of the tools are part of the base NX package, others, like the basic FEA package are third party softwares that retain full associativity with the base moodel. Designspace by Ansys is used for upfront analysis (order of magnitude results) by introductory users. It is very similar to the Inventor FEA, probably because it is made by the same people. There are even some homegrown tools that are created for specific things like driveline planning, suspension set-up, and occupant packaging.

One thing thing I have noticed is that for most people learning the second software is far more difficult than the first and they forever prefer the one they learned first. (I'm generalizing here, no flames required.) People seem to learn either direct modeling or parametrics first and then try to learn the other for thier second package and have difficulties because they are, well, different. Then they try to bin the packages into better or worse categories instead of acknowledging that they are just different and suited to different things.

In general, direct models, like AutoCAD ,allow you to get the first pass done quicker than parametrics, like inventor (especially if the used tried to capture 'design intent'). However, parametrics will generally get you to the second draft faster if the design intent remains consistent. If the design intent changes, through a major geometry change, then direct modeling probably goes back to winning.

It's all about knowing you process , designing it to your best benefit, and picking software that supports it.

[JD Mather]

Programs like AutoCAD Inventor, ...
The true power and "professionalism"...
...isn't that professional and would look like a joke on a resume'.

The correct name for the software is Autodesk Inventor.
AutoCAD is a completely different program. I suspect most of the head hunters on Monster don't know this distinction either.

J.D. Mather
Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert
Certified SolidWorks Expert
Not too bad at AutoCAD.
http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/content..._Tutorials.htm

[Molten]

I would like to note that what is and isn't professional is strictly dependent on who is judging. I personally believe that it just means that it is used in a real business setting. So, Inventor does qualify in my opinion. However, I would like to note that, though I do not know ProE. I do think it is amazing the wide variety of tests that can be ran on a part that seem to be missing in most other forms of CAD. Anyone know whether either Inventor or AutoCAD can test hydrodynamics, aerodynamics....?