Continue to Site

Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

How come inventor sucks?


New member
I have started to learn inventor, to add another string to my bow. I'm basicaly a pro-e guy but I've also used solid works and catia.

Pro, SW and Catia all have pros and cons but I am finding Inventor complete pants. Does any one actualy use this outside of schools?
Yea, I use it to design aviation support equipment for the navy, doesn't that make you feel safe now?

Inventor hassome features solid works and pro-e doesn't have, I also use autoCAD and solid edge 16 to design in. What is your problem with Inventor? Maybe I can help.
goosemonster said:
Pro, SW and Catia all have pros and cons but I am finding Inventor complete pants.

What the heck does "Complete pants" mean?
Alright GM, At the moment me and my colleagues are running WildFire, but due to maintenance and support costs, our superiorsare proposing to move over to Inventor 9.

I've seen numerous demos and heard all the sales hype (from ex-PTC reps etc etc) but haven't had any 'Hands-on' experience with IV9. It clearly sounds like you re not happy with it, can you shed anymore light on it for us please, before/if we make the jump?

How would you relate Inventor to Solid Edge. I'm an SE-man myself, "forced" into Pro-E during daytime and may be thrown into Inventor in the future.

So far I have concluded that Pro-E is over-valued. It might havea fewoptions others don't have, but that's also true the other way around. And working with it is cumbersome : lots of interface overhead and delicate in parametric relations when design changes are made.

As to Autodesk, still have to see something intresting among the many things they produce.

After using Inventor 5.3, then 8 and 9 for 5 years, I would have to say that it depends on what you are trying to acomplish whether you use Solid Edge or Inventor to design in. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

I have found that SEtakes less effort, and doesn't crash, when making changes in the assembly and updating the rest of the parts that are associated with the change (update all feature). As for creating exploded animations, Inventor seems to beless taskingwhen creating the .avi and handling the sequence of animation through the use of a group/ungroup dialog box. SE requires you to enter into a render/animation mode while you are in an assembly file, where Inventor allows you to pull the assembly into a seperate presentation file created just for animations and renderings, kinda neat.

I work with aformer Pro-E/QA engineer that knows how arduous it is to work with some of the features in wildfire, although they are listening to feedback a little and making some changes.

We design in SE now, and most here like it, I guess it is what you get good at or use to. Aviation Equipment lends itself to the use of Solid Edge because of the center of gravity and mass properties features available, but Inventor is still being used to create alot of our presentation files for marketing for the military.
I have been using Solidworks, Pro-e, Solid Edge, Unigraphics, etc. for some time now. I have recently had Autodesk Inventor 10 inserted in me, and find it the most immature piece of 3d software int he industry. That cheap little knockoff Alibre Design outperfoms it four to one. Inventor should never be mentioned in the same breath as those other platforms, it's such complete sh**te.

I have a migrane from trying to get the hole command to work properly for four hours now. Run away from this software, run as fast as you can.
neanderpundit said:
I have been using Solidworks, Pro-e, Solid Edge, Unigraphics, etc. for some time now. I have recently had Autodesk Inventor 10 inserted in me, and find it the most immature piece of 3d software int he industry. That cheap little knockoff Alibre Design outperfoms it four to one. Inventor should never be mentioned in the same breath as those other platforms, it's such complete sh**te.

I have a migrane from trying to get the hole command to work properly for four hours now. Run away from this software, run as fast as you can.


I couldn't agree with you more! I'm back on WF2 now......thank God!


Our company has purchased 4 seats of Inventor 10 - we currently use ACAD2006 for 2D, 10% of our 3D parts and assemblies are STUCK in Mechanical Desktop, and 80% of 3Dparts/assemblies are in Pro 2001 ----- we have Wild fire, but have not installed it.

(My opinion) - Who copied who? The Pro-E and Solidworks folks will tell you not to buy RE-Inventor, because they copied the benefits from each other. They did enhance the pictorial representation of screw threads....

As I said - we haven't gone to WF yet - because that would probably be a 3-day or 1 week upgrade training for everyone from PTC. Remember - 1 week training for basic - 1 week for detailing, 1-week for advance, 3-days for sheet metal, one week mechanica, 3-days large assembly.......... To be proficient andproductive at what Cost? How many weeks of lost time for training instead of releasing projects? Plus $ for each module. Why go PDM or Intralink --when Vault comes with Inventor?

One week of Solidworksor Inventor training and you can be as dangerous in part modeling and assemblies as some of the us Pro Dinosours.

As for handling older files and to what formats..... you will need to re-do all of your drawings ----- you will have a transfered 3D part/assemblies that won't be associated to a drawing anymore.

It almost depends on the final customers (end users)needs. If they use Inventor, UG, Pro, Solidworks, SolidEdge, Catia.......

If you cross over to the Inventor, SolidWorks...... forums you read their rant & rave. To me - I don't care what platform the design is in - as long as it's in 3D, and has parametric associativity. Just remember that it was us old(Autodesk)Mechanical Desktop users that got stuck!

Depends on your application
Also Recall ...

PTC has its own kernel ... Granite

Solid Edge (Unigraphics)has its own kernel ... Parasolids and is actually UGS's midrange CAD

SolidWorks(Dassault) leases the Parasolids license from UGS and is midrange CAD under Catia.

MTD uses the ACIS kernel and to my knowledge, Inventor uses a modified ACIS kernel which AutoCADpurchased the code from ACIS(Spatial) beforeSpatial was sold to Dassault. Inventor was created due to the arrival of Solid Works because MTD could not compete at that 3d level.

If anyone wants to elaborate ... feel free!

What tools do the packages not share? What kernal does inventor use? I have never used Inventor. I hear is is simple and easy to learn. I guess from the activity on this board that there are not many users out there for it. What is the history of the tool?

I wonder how much of the merger between Autodesk and Alias
will actually include a melding software developers. Inventor and alias
could be a force to deal with if those tools somehow get integrated together.

Imagine Alias Studio with some solids tools?

Or Inventor with surfacing tools of Alias Studio or Sub'ds in Maya.

Anyone comment?

Edited by: design-engine
Why do i keep reading about Proe having a difficult interface or Proe requiring a big downtime for training is beyond me.

It took me a whole week to get proficient at Proe and i had never used a 3d package before. If you understand the basic principles of three dimensional geometry, as i assume everyone here does, than it's only a matter of getting familiar with the interface.

That should definately not take a long time, especially if start clicking everywhere, looking at every menu, or read the introductory pages on the proe interface help.

I mean, come on people, how hard could it really be. If you consider yourselves computer saavy people, then what is all this rant about interfaces.

Quit complaining, choose a package and spent a couple of hours familiarizing yourselves with the interaface, everything else is the same. The concept of a protrusion is the same no matter what package you're using.

navyenzo --- you're one of the few that has picked it up quickly. I have to look at my certificates but I guess you aced the Pro/Ficiency Test from PTC, and after your
To me it is not how simple to learn something is that makes me
choose one
package over another since when I do consulting... It is what
package does
the client use. The big money customers use Pro/E. Some
ones use other packages. To me it's how fast you learn and wow
fast can
you get up to speed on a particular software. My experience is
that if
you learn Solidworks first you find most of those people, designers,
engineers will remain intimidated by
Pro/E for life. Not everyone of course but most. For me it
is about how fast you can I
learn or how fast can I help someone learn. This is one reason I
choose to help people learn tools like Pro/E.
To show them how fast they can learn with the proper direction and
specific stress. I use stress to aid in learning which is
another story.<u1:p></u1:p>

I hear Inventor is very simple to get up to speed on with but that is coming from a Pro/E user
with over 20thousand hours. I suspect everything is easy when you
got that kind of experience.<u1:p></u1:p>

Often with me specifically it is not that the client does not have time to
make a modification it is more that they can't make a modification. For
example. A drill housing handle needs to be narrowed some to accommodate
a smaller hand say that of a woman. That requires some fancy foot
work or more specifically surfacing know how and quite frankly most packages
will not obtain that specific control. Solidworks can in most
cases. That kind of product is not going to be attempted in
Inventor. Not yet anyway.

Forgive me to imply that evrything revolves around industrial
design... In the past Industrial Designers have make the 'Pro/E Alias
Combo. Inventor may strike up a user base like Rhino/Solidworks
especially since Autodesk recent Acquisition of Alias
Pro/E is close to being a stand alone tool for designers since the ISDX
is mature.

Now there is a potential powerhouse. Alias Inventor/Alias Studio combo
could work well. And if the programming gets combined like that with
Pro/E and CDRS circa 1998 for PTC, I would say in 6 years or so they could
become AutoCAD dorks not including the Revit or Architecture folks) Think
of the potential new market for Autodesk. Remember when you first saw
Pro/ENGINEER? That is the way Autodesk is marketing the Inventor
and it is blowing some people away. And if autodesk is smart they will
allow the Inventor tool to be pirated by engineering students to make the user
base coming out from school. Those poor engineering students will be
intimidated by PTC products for life. That is kinda funny but true.

Now there is the race! Not those advanced Pro/E or Solidworks
dudes or 5 week mold burn for a multi pull injection part. It is with all
those mom and pop shops and new engineers that pirate the tool to complete
their school project and do it yourself 'inventors'. And I hate those inventors.
pun intended. Manyhigh schools are now into the Inventor
thing in drafting class to boot.<u1:p></u1:p>

Me personally? I would like to see the price of Mid to Hi end engineering
tools go up. But that is another story.

Edited by: design-engine
Used Pro-E for several years
and have used Inventor for some months

Can not belive why people buy this kind of software...

Assembly sucks related to ProE, part modus is easy to learn with few features, drawing module is simple. Inventor is OK for those with small assys and simple geometries.

ProE rules in every area
I have nothing personal against Inventor, but right now I'm spending some time on a help desk that supports both Inventor and Pro/E. Let me put it this way, comparing Inventor and Pro/e would be like comparing a Geo Metro and a large pick up; If all you want is a tool to take you from point A to point B then either one can do the job for you, but when you need to handle a heavy workload, well, that's where all that horsepower under the hood really makes a difference.


Articles From 3DCAD World