Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
I've used Pro-E for 15 years now, and currently have WF5. I've owned my own company and this past year has been the worst. I have now downgraded my company to part time and 4 weeks ago I got a full time job for a company that uses only Inventor. They're probably running about 15 seats. OK, so now I've been using Inventor full time for 4 weeks.
There are a few things that stand out. Outside of the GUI, it to me feels like pre Wildfire. The sketcher supposedly constrains automatically, like to mid points and centers. you can check this be clicking on the button "dimensions required". If it says "0", your fully constrained. So, how come if I change a dimension from a feature prior to this sketch it breaks the constraints? Basically, Pro-E intent manager and stability are first rate. Pre intent manager I would get strange cryptic error messages on broken relationships and constraints, but post intent manager, I just don't see any cryptic error messages. I get plenty of these with Inventor.
Another thing, it's much slower. The computer seems to think a lot more more for simple tasks, as if it doesn't have efficient code. It is much less stable than WF5. At least twice a week Inventor would lock up on me, I'm not sure if it's Windows 7 or Inventor, or both, it just happens. My WF5 (on Solaris) is rock stable, it maybe locks up once per year for me, I'm not nervous about doing heavy tasks.
It appears WF5 is more compatible with opening up old AutoCad files then Inventor is, even though Inventor is made by Autodesk. To open a simple DWG file takes 5 minutes. WF5 it's instant. For a large assembly (again DWG) WF5 took 5 seconds while I was still waiting with Inventor for over an hour before I gave up, also, this was on the same file.
All in all, it feels like Pro-E 10 years ago in functionality, but the GUI is more intuitive and easier to stumble through with out formal education. I may be biased since I've been using Pro-E far longer, but on the other side, you can search all the Pro-E forums for me on ranting about the new WF5 Ribbon interface in drawings. So it may balance me.
If this thread is going on for a few months, I follow up with another post as I gain more experience with Inventor.
I've been using Pro/E since 2002, have now been using Inventor for 6 months at another company.
Inventor Pros: better polished GUI, more consistent, more Windows like. drawing mode is better, just more polished and easier to use, more intuitive.
Inventor cons: as radelectronics said: I dont like the sketcher, it has some cool features, but WF5 constraining is better. which leads to my biggest gripe:
You are discouraged from referencing other part geometry when creating new geometry in a different part in an assembly (what they call adaptivity) Their top down approach rely more on using skeleton features. if you've used other part geometry, make changes and update your assembly, the changes wont always follow through to the parts that rely on them. If you're used to this type of modeling, its a big change to make. I'm still learning how to get adaptive functionality to work, using other modeling methods.
I'd say Pro/E is more robust especially if you're used to modeling in it. Inventor has many, many great features though. I suspect if you only know Inventor or are forced to use it, you will find ways to make it work for you, while you can take advantage of some of its strengths.
I haven't used Inventor, but I have years of experience with both SW and Pro/E WF3: I have been using Pro/E since 1997, and SW since 1999. I much prefer SW to Pro/E, and I have heard good things about Inventor. The local SW sales guy here in the Silicon Valley says Inventor is their only real competition. Pro/E is dying a slow death here in the Silicon Valley: only a few big companies still use it. I work for a Big Company here that has used Pro/E for about a decade, and we are starting to make a serious shift to SW.
Has anyone looked at the union of Alias Studio and Inventor? I remember being at a presentation at Fisher-Price and everyone was there.... Autodesk, Rhino folks.... and I told the Inventor PLM that they should look to integrate Inventor and Alias Studio and he said they were on it.(I hate working with Inventors)
I've used both Inventor and SW in the past, andalthough between the two there were a few hiccups, I found both to be quite easy to use/learn and model parts/assemblies in, fairly quickly.
Recently I switched jobs and my current employer uses Pro/E Wildfire 4.0 for modelling, and autocad. I was excited to learnpro/E, I've heard good things about it, and I like learning new things, and so far I can say I see that's full of functionality;I really like the hole feature tool in comparison to IV/SW.
But the problem is in the presentation.the UI isarchaic and brutal to use/learn. Even after I've started feeling comfortable with howit operates and how I want to model and create drawings in it, it's still needlessly slow and cumbersome. Like doing something as simple as trying to add a centremark to a fillet in a drawing(a simple click in IV/SW;in pro/E it's a complete nightmare), orneeding to click 3 times to add a dia dimension in the sketcher, etc...
On a sidenote, there also seems to be much less support for it... if I have a problem in IV/SW a quick search of google usually produced several different websites, forums, videos, etc. that pertained to the question at hand. Whereas for pro/E it tends to bring up 1 or 2 things that give me the same basic information as the user manual on my desk, which doesn't answer my question...
. Company you work for has a database of 100 years.
in many cases our cars are only versions and make changes only some parts.
ProE is very stable, relatively few resources needs giving difficult to learn.
Inventor is easier has several useful modules, should respond better than any other software to import files from Acad
. I used intensive part,assembly,Ipart and I assembllies (part with versions), Weldment+ Machinning modules ,FEA, drawings modules
Of course i`m NOT an expert in Autodesk Inventor now after one single year of practiceBut I was hired for my experience because I know the previous 3d relatively good many CAD and machine, and believe me you do not need a year to see the limits of software
It is very easy on the math, it is beautiful as well as graphics.
It included many libraries making a lot of design
Does Frame Generator module which I think great
Stand the mechanisms poorly.
Sheet metal module has many errors
Well the truth is that:
Inventorul is very resource-intensive
It is fully compatible with Windows
Requires enormous resources
The ultimate goal is the fact that file is printed to the printer or in this Inventor is very far behind other software.
Imagine a factory a few hectares. for it is obvious that you will use AutoCAD.
We also try to use the latest enhancements in Inventor.
For those of trade requires a shell only need the equipment to make presentations to clients.
Well
this feature is very slow in Inventor, consume enormous resources and
if it breaks about all of the regeneration is often blocked.
But the icing on the cake is the Vault.
File management system is awfully wrong.
The
variety of assemblies and subassemblies choice we have NO once in which
a group working to restore the database and not have to fix them
Wow. Interesting thread. I'm always interested to see comments on Inventor that don't resemble any experience I've ever had with the software.
Machine Design is one of Inventor's finest strengths. Look into the Design Accelerators. They're a series of tools that leverage standard component tables (ala Machinery Handbook) to select components or generate components like Bearings, Gears, Shafts, and a very useful way of creating Bolted connections.
I'm interested inthe claim that referencing geometry from other parts is frowned upon in Inventor. It's simply inaccurate and it is particularlyinteresting in light of the fear in most Pro/E users have over accidental cross part relationships. Inventor's adaptivity can be switched on and off at will and this system was meant to be used to rough parts in. It's sometimes misunderstood by people who haven't had it explained to them.Additionaly any sketch or physical geometry (or parameters) can be referenced between component(s). Inventor was created to work from the assembly out which opens opportunities for flexibility that systems with older architecture can't use.
As for large assemblies; tools like Level of Detail Representations are easy to use and allow Inventor to manage ridiculously large assemblies. I've used them to have students on 2gb, 32bit, NT systems work in a 59,000 part assembly. That's larger than most people work with regularly. These representations allow components to be actively loaded or unloaded in memory and for a simple part model to stand in for a complex assembly without changing COG or BOM information.
I also recommend getting real training and please ask the training center to center the training on the portions of the software that you will use for your work. It will do you no good to spend an afternoon on Sheet Metal if you don't use it. It's the easiest way to get the most out of your investment. Based on some of the comments about Inventor or Vault it's obvious that a number of people who've commented here have neither gotten training or looked at the help system. If you do electrical controls you should also inquire about connections between AutoCAD electrical (schematics) and Inventor's 3D wire harness.
As a bonus Inventor can read in the Pro/E part and assembly files as "static" geometry.
Well I'm a engineer student, and I have a small experience
with ProE and Inventor. The first impression Inventor gave
to me is that it was made for simpler designs, while ProE
was a more professional tool. I taught myself to work with
both programs, and I feel that ProE is harder to master,
but much more responsible and easy to get to the result I'm
after, while Inventor didn't had a lot of resources ProE
have. I have to say though, Vault is a good resource. Edited by: AragornPE
Once again guys, help me out. Is Inventor true 3D modeling? I really should stay out of this thread, as I have a VERY jaundist view of ACAD. I was kept out of jobs in Denver in the '80's because I didn't have ACAD. "Oh, you don't have ACAD? Well, I guessyou're just not a designer." Ever want to smack someone?
I have been using Pro/E since '95, Pro/JUNIOR. Up to WF3.Over 13K hours. Mostly mechanical design. Love it.
We have both Inventor and Pro/E in our company, and I work directly with the guys who give support in those softwares to our engineering teams. We have over 1500 engineerswith Pro/E and a few hundreds with Inventor. I would like to share some of our thoughts about it:
First, Inventor is easier to learn and use for the unexperienced. Still, we get more support calls for Inventor issues than Pro/E
Inventor consumes more resources than Pro/E. We compared files created with both softwares, and even though it was the same geometry and made by the same designers, Inventor files were almost 60% larger. This, however, was just an informal analysis. Video memory also gets punished more heavily with Inventor. A medium asembly without simplified representations consumed more vramin Inventor when compared to Pro/E. Again, same workstation hardware in some Dell T3500 andM4400, and using thesame assembly. It got to the point where spinning the assembly on screen took a couple of seconds to respond with Inventor.
Comparing the vault with PDMLink would be simply unfair. The vault is simpler and it does the job, but it would be bullied with the capabilities of PDMLink. Yet, for small places that may not need but the basics, PDMLink would probably be too much.
If you plan on working with Sheetmetalor simulations... well, stick to Pro/E.
We consider Inventor to be a school software that is good for some light work, but our company is discontinuing the use of Inventor. In our case, it fits our needs better. Inventor may be good for quick prototyping of small to medium parts or mechanisms. I haven't used Inventor for CNC programming so I can't say about that. I guess it's something like the geo metro vs a BMW, the right choice really depends on your needs and budget. If you can afford it, I would reccommend to stick to one of the three high level design softwares, and particularly SW or Pro/E. But that's just my opinion.
I used to be long time Catia and SW user and also tried
Inventor for a while. Then i switched company and they
were Proe lovers since many years.
My personal conclusions:
SW is cool, sexy! and good modeler. But stops there. Do
not try surfacing, huge assys or drawings.
Inventor is a bad copy of SW and needs a lot of
resources. But i sometimes need acad.exe from autodesk...
Proe is an engineering tool. At my current company we
have to design, simulate and manufacture prototypes and
complex machines. Also we collaborate with people from
other countries. And our customers make inputs all the
time, it is a neverending cycle.
So to be able to do all the tasks with integrated tools
is fundamental for us. Fast design&simulate&manufacture
of CHANGES is vital. Before Proe i only could do with
Catia, suffering a lot more (i suppose its a lot better
with V5).
My company just made the switch from Inventor to Creo. The biggest reason we switched was surfacing. Inventor worked well for years, but we ran into an issue with bone plate geometry that Inventor could not create, but Pro/E could. We were also impressed with the helical sweep tool in Pro/E.
It's been a rocky upgrade (Inventor to WF5 (testig)to Creo in a few months), but I think it is for the best. We can make all the geometry we need to now, it just takes a LOT of training.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
