Our company which has a LONG history with AutoCAD for drawing floor plans and 3D modeling for construction of trade show components is looking to move forward into true 3D modeling using either Solidworks or Inventor.
We are looking to move into the CIM-TECH router software suite for all of our CNC work. CIM-TECH is based off of AutoCAD products.
Does it make sense to move to Solidworks for our 3D modeling and still hold a license for straight AutoCAD to run the CIM-TECH software?
Has anyone else made this type of move?
What were your results? Feedback?
Does one 3D software package hold such a large advantage that it is a "no-brainer"?
It is my understanding that Cim Tech can extract data that it needs from 3D AutoCAD, as well as the other solid modeling solutions. My question would be why not utilize the 3D capabilities of AutoCAD or explore AutoCAD based design programs that can pass the necessary info on to your CAM solution.
Thanks, Todd. I was just having this conversation with another gentleman on Monday. I have to admit that I don't have much experience with Solidworks or Inventor. His explanation was that building parametric products that you could reuse wasn't the problem but that if he had to make a change, to a door size, for example, it messed with the component. SQL based programs that utililize AutoCAD allow for this kind of modification process at the job level without compromising the source data.
Unless I've completely missed your point. Which is entirely possible.
For some time we drew mostly in 3d AutoCad along with Smartlister to extrude the part information I need. Yet, I have also added a couple seats of Inventor as my thought is Inventor is a longer term solution to what I need. (Personally I have not used SolidWorks.)
I can do what I need in AutoCad, yet Inventor has plenty of features AutoCad does not. The reason I went with Inventor over SolidWorks, 1) I was comforable working with AutoDesk and their products. 2) With as much as I have done currently in 3d AutoCad the transfer of drawings / products from AutoCad to Inventor would be easier. 3) The additional software I use for the most part has support for Inventor.
One thing I quickly learned when I stared drawing in Inventor, was that drawing in Inventor has little in common with drawing in AutoCad. In the end the look may be the same, yet the processes are quite different. An AutoCad user cannot sit down and run Inventor efficiently without some training.
I also use Router-Cim for producing code for our machines, and have used Solid-Cim some jobs. Router-Cim does a good job processing parts and nesting.
I spoke with some people from HSM last week at AutoDesk training. From what I was told, HSM will produce code for woodworking machinery, yet does not support automatically nesting of parts. Nesting can be done by manually laying ot a nest in the HSM software. From what I was told, nesting for woodworking is not very high on the list of priorities at HSM. I wish it was because as an AutoDesk customer I can use HSM at no additional cost.
We have two aspects of our work as detailers where I work. One is the creation of construction drawings, the other is the creation of setup drawings and show floor plans for the trade show industry. We do all of our work in 3D solid models. When we draw trade shows an its necessary to create the models to show both the client and the show set up people. In the past we did not have a viable cnc, our company recently purchased a used cnc and now we are being asked to keep it running all day long. In the past, simple drawings would suffice, the bench guys would simply do take offs and go to the slider saw and cut what was necessary. We have two new detailers that have used SW in the store fixture industry...I, used Inventor back in 2007. We have a LOT of changes during the engineering portion of our business. Our designers use 3D Max to create some spectacular stuff. Our job is to create the real thing. Our department can't keep up with the high volume with the tools we currently have. That is why we are investing in the CIM-TECH package. We see our bottle neck after that being our 3D manufacturing software.
12/17 #10: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
When you design in SW and I you get a 3D model that can be controlled dimensionally. Associated parts move with things that are constrained. First savings in time (In AutoCAD using 3D there are no "smartness" to the parts and how they relate). Next SW and I allow you to quickly create drawings from 3D model in a matter of clicks. BOMs appear with a click. Exploded views are a few clicks away. If the client comes along and during the week of engineering review of the project and wants to add or change something to it we are simply changing the model and very simple tweaks to the final printout due to the features in SW and I. The following youtube video shows how flexible SW is in designing...and changes
12/17 #12: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
As you already have AutoCad and 3dsMax, you may want to look into the AutoDesk Product Design Suite, which includes AutoCad, 3dsMax and Inventor. The cost of the suite is much less than purchasing individual licenses for each piece of software.
There is a reasonably priced add on software for Inventor, called Woodworking for Inventor, which has some useful tools such as adding hardware with associated machining, edgebanding and cutlists. If you are using Router-Cim, Cim-Tech offers Solid-Cim which can take the Inventor or AutoCad parts and create the files needed for Router-Cim.
12/17 #13: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
For people who use Microvellum for their back-end manufacturing, we now have a new module that can take these solids and convert them into actual Microvellum products. This gives people the best of both worlds. They can have a library based solution for the typical stuff AND can use AutoCAD/Inventor/SolidWorks to make the custom one-off items. Then batch them all together for manufacturing.
12/17 #14: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
i think your Ford vs Chevy is pretty accurate for the Inventor vs Solid Works. Both products can be used to accomplish what you intend to accomplish. For you one may be better, for someone else another may be better. In addition for some Autocad may be the best solution.
As you mentioned, you are manufacture, trade booths. unfortunately there is not an out of the box solution for the products you produce. There is no one vendor which supplies complete package software which takes a product from design to manufacturing. A person, needs, a design software, manufacturing software to produce shop drawings, a rendering software for those customer presentations and a CAM software to generate code for your machine. Somehow you need to get all of these to work together as seemlessly and effortlessly as possible. From my experience it takes a lot of work to accomplish that.
Whichever way you go, I would suggest investigating all of the options thoroughly before making the jump. Try to take and discuss with people using the different softwares and look for honest feedback. Once you choose a path invest the time and effort to attain your return on investment.
12/18 #16: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
That is a great post. We are trying to look at all variations. The original reason for the post was to get some outside views on software. I want to thank everyone for the dialog. I know this board has a diverse set of users and is always a good resource.
We are currently pursuing a time and process study using the three software choices. AutoCAD 3D (current) vs SolidWorks vs Inventor.
We will be considering the overall ROI during our trials.
We are looking at how to handle legacy company drawings that were all done in AutoCAD. The licensing that we currently have across all of our different divisions. Training costs for those detailers that have never been exposed to the 3D modeling that is done within SW and I.
Again, thanks for the dialog...it was all helpful to gain a different perspective.
12/19 #17: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
I suggest you try Spaceclaim. ($2500) It exports 2D and 3D AutoCAD. It is a direct modeling program like sketchup that's so intuitive that you may find yourself modeling much faster than History/parametric programs like solidworks/Inventor. Parametrics are possible in spaceclaim with the free excel groups addin. It generates regular engineering views for Shop Drawings. Stretching groups of solids works the same way it would in 2d AutoCAD objects, while grouping works the same way it does in sketchup. You can try the free version which is called DesignSpark. Try it before you invest in big MCAD.
12/19 #18: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
Spaceclaim does look interesting. I have had a demo of it before but I am unsure how easy it is to extract DXF files for nesting. Is there a solution for that available? Or does it mean having RouterCIM and importing solid model into it and then generating files from there?
12/21 #19: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
For one thing, when drawing you are viewing your object from for vantage points. The screen is displayed in "top", "side", "back" and "axonometric". You can also switch the vantage points to "bottom" or any variation. This becomes useful as the drawing gets more complex.
As far as the intuitiveness, the icons seem to make more sense to me. This isnt to say it is intuitive to everyone.
The information from a drawing can be sent to CAM. There are a ton of online vids on you tube as well as lynda.com to give you a taste. Hope that helps.
12/31 #23: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch ...
I'm a die hard solidworks guy. To me, Inventor is not even in the same universe. We aren't a cabinet shop however, we are a display company and build different sorts of things. We are required to produce attractive renderings, produce complex and detailed shop drawings and even design the packaging around our designs. We use the Pathfinder 3D plugin with it and it works great. Inventor just feels like an also ran to me. My wife is a design engineer and has had experience with both professionally and also strongly prefers solidworks. That said, if I were only doing parametric cabinet stuff, solid modeling might be overkill.
SOLIDWORKS and Inventor, comparing these two platforms are like comparing apples vs apples. These two are the 3D CAD modeling platforms utilized in most of the industries today.
There is always a question on choosing from these platforms as each having its own differentiating factors. Design engineers use these models in different projects like sheet metal, solid modeling, large assemblies, design automation, and 3D rendering, but some important features can differentiate these two leading CAD modeling platforms.
Here are some of them which will help you to move on the right platform:
FORUM GUIDELINES: Please review the guidelines below before posting at WOODWEB's Interactive Message Boards(return to top)
WOODWEB is a professional industrial woodworking site. Hobbyist and homeowner woodworking questions are inappropriate.
Messages should be kept reasonably short and on topic, relating to the focus of the forum. Responses should relate to the original question.
A valid email return address must be included with each message.
Advertising is inappropriate. The only exceptions are the Classified Ads Exchange, Machinery Exchange, Lumber Exchange, and Job Opportunities and Services Exchange. When posting listings in these areas, review the posting instructions carefully.
Subject lines may be edited for length and clarity.
"Cross posting" is not permitted. Choose the best forum for your question, and post your question at one forum only.
Messages requesting private responses will be removed - Forums are designed to provide information and assistance for all of our visitors. Private response requests are appropriate at WOODWEB's Exchanges and Job Opportunities and Services.
Messages that accuse businesses or individuals of alleged negative actions or behavior are inappropriate since WOODWEB is unable to verify or substantiate the claims.
Posts with the intent of soliciting answers to surveys are not appropriate. Contact WOODWEB for more information on initiating a survey.
Excessive forum participation by an individual upsets the balance of a healthy forum atmosphere. Individuals who excessively post responses containing marginal content will be considered repeat forum abusers.
Responses that initiate or support inappropriate and off-topic discussion of general politics detract from the professional woodworking focus of WOODWEB, and will be removed.
Participants are encouraged to use their real name when posting. Intentionally using another persons name is prohibited, and posts of this nature will be removed at WOODWEB's discretion.
Carefully review your message before clicking on the "Send Message" button - you will not be able to revise the message once it has been sent.
You will be notified of responses to the message(s) you posted via email. Be sure to enter your email address correctly.
WOODWEB's forums are a highly regarded resource for professional woodworkers. Messages and responses that are crafted in a professional and civil manner strengthen this resource. Messages that do not reflect a professional tone reduce the value of our forums.
Messages are inappropriate when their content: is deemed libelous in nature or is based on rumor, fails to meet basic standards of decorum, contains blatant advertising or inappropriate emphasis on self promotion (return to top).
Libel: Posts which defame an individual or organization, or employ a tone which can be viewed as malicious in nature. Words, pictures, or cartoons which expose a person or organization to public hatred, shame, disgrace, or ridicule, or induce an ill opinion of a person or organization, are libelous.
Improper Decorum: Posts which are profane, inciting, disrespectful or uncivil in tone, or maliciously worded. This also includes the venting of unsubstantiated opinions. Such messages do little to illuminate a given topic, and often have the opposite effect. Constructive criticism is acceptable (return to top).
Advertising: The purpose of WOODWEB Forums is to provide answers, not an advertising venue. Companies participating in a Forum discussion should provide specific answers to posted questions. WOODWEB suggests that businesses include an appropriately crafted signature in order to identify their company. A well meaning post that seems to be on-topic but contains a product reference may do your business more harm than good in the Forum environment. Forum users may perceive your references to specific products as unsolicited advertising (spam) and consciously avoid your web site or services. A well-crafted signature is an appropriate way to advertise your services that will not offend potential customers. Signatures should be limited to 4-6 lines, and may contain information that identifies the type of business you're in, your URL and email address (return to top).
Repeated Forum Abuse:
Forum participants who repeatedly fail to follow WOODWEB's Forum Guidelines may encounter difficulty when attempting to post messages.
There are often situations when the original message asks for opinions: "What is the best widget for my type of shop?". To a certain extent, the person posting the message is responsible for including specific questions within the message. An open ended question (like the one above) invites responses that may read as sales pitches. WOODWEB suggests that companies responding to such a question provide detailed and substantive replies rather than responses that read as a one-sided product promotion. It has been WOODWEB's experience that substantive responses are held in higher regard by our readers (return to top).
The staff of WOODWEB assume no responsibility for the accuracy, content, or outcome of any posting transmitted at WOODWEB's Message Boards. Participants should undertake the use of machinery, materials and methods discussed at WOODWEB's Message Boards after considerate evaluation, and at their own risk. WOODWEB reserves the right to delete any messages it deems inappropriate. (return to top)
Forum Posting Form Guidelines
The name you enter in this field will be the name that appears with your post or response (return to form).
Personal or business website links must point to the author's website. Inappropriate links will be removed without notice, and at WOODWEB's sole discretion. WOODWEB reserves the right to delete any messages with links it deems inappropriate. (return to form)
Your e-mail address will not be publicly viewable. Forum participants will be able to contact you using a contact link (included with your post) that is substituted for your actual address. You must include a valid email address in this field. (return to form)
Subject may be edited for length and clarity. Subject lines should provide an indication of the content of your post. (return to form)
Thread Related Link and Image Guidelines
Thread Related Links posted at WOODWEB's Forums and Exchanges should point to locations that provide supporting information for the topic being discussed in the current message thread. The purpose of WOODWEB Forums is to provide answers, not to serve as an advertising venue. A Thread Related Link that directs visitors to an area with inappropriate content will be removed. WOODWEB reserves the right to delete any messages with links or images it deems inappropriate. (return to form)
Thread Related File Uploads
Thread Related Files posted at WOODWEB's Forums and Exchanges should provide supporting information for the topic being discussed in the current message thread. Video Files: acceptable video formats are: .MOV .AVI .WMV .MPEG .MPG .FLV .MP4 (Image Upload Tips) If you encounter any difficulty when uploading video files, E-mail WOODWEB for assistance. The purpose of WOODWEB Forums is to provide answers, not to serve as an advertising venue. A Thread Related File that contains inappropriate content will be removed, and uploaded files that are not directly related to the message thread will be removed. WOODWEB reserves the right to delete any messages with links, files, or images it deems inappropriate. (return to form)
The editors, writers, and staff at WOODWEB try to promote safe practices.
What is safe for one woodworker under certain conditions may not be safe
for others in different circumstances. Readers should undertake the use
of materials and methods discussed at WOODWEB after considerate evaluation,
and at their own risk.