I have received a job invitation to the company which uses Inventor. Being only a SW user, I have decided to make myself an investigation of this program before the interview, as since now I have only formed my opinion about Inventor based on rumors on the internet.
Firstly, I found this in depth comparison of two products:
Autodesk Inventor Vs. Solidworks Review – Australian CAD Blog
Though being a fairly deep comparison of the overall possibilities, this article lacks the feature-to-feature comparison. I had access to some training courses of Inventor, so I decided to learn myself the basics, and to get the opinion about this CAD package, by comparing it to SW: scaling the strength of the exact functions which I use everyday, and which are essentially important to me as an industrial engineer.
A few statements:
1. I am not commercially (or in any other way) interested to represent Solidworks, I just use it for my work
2. I tried to be as objective as possible, and to avoid statements as "I like this more". Though, some places are obviously better in one package or another. I have consulted a colleague of mine for this article, who is a 1 year user of Inventor as daily driver, and also has strong basics of Solidworks. He confirmed my thoughts on topics "opinion based"
The conclusion is this: I am astonished of the popular opinion for these two packages being the same level. I have no idea how people can come up with this opinion and say that "they are different, but with similar possibilities". Comparing the functions I use daily, Solidworks is much, much stronger system.
Below is my feature-to-feature comparison of these two CAD packages. I hope this could help deciding which system to get into for people who haven't tried these packages (or not both of them) themselves. I would also like to encourage users of both packages to input their opinion to this topic.
So here is the comparison:
Solidworks 2016 and Inventor 2016
COMPARISON
If I think that the feature is better in Solidworks, then it is marked in red, if in Inventor – then it is in orange. If functions are equal, then it is in black.
- SKETCH:
- When you close a contour in Inventor, the command (e.g. Line) is automatically finished. In SW – you must press ESC
- Sketch patterns are better in Solidworks
- Solidworks has much more advance dimensioning tool: text formatting, additional symbols, additional comments, possibility to place comments under the dimension arrow. Inventor requires on additional click for aligned dimension
- In Inventor – if you change the size of the unconstrained sketch geometry, sometimes it floats away, in SW it always remains stable
- Sketch constrains are more user friendly to use in SW
2. FEATURES:
- Extrude:
- “To” (extrude ending condition): in Solidworks: can be Vertex, Surface, Offset from surface. In Inventor: must be surface
- “From” (extrude start condition): in Solidworks: can be Vertex, Surface, offset from surface. In Inventor: must be surface
- Direction2 – Fully separate control in Solidworks
- Direction of extrusion: available only in Solidworks
- Revolve:
- “To”: Inventor – can only be surface. In Solidworks – possible Vertex
- “From” no possibility to “Offset” in Inventor
- When chosen “Between” in Inventor – two surfaces must be chosen. Solidworks has two fully controllable directions “Direction1” and “Direction2”
- Fillet:
- Fillet in Solidworks is much more powerful, but I only use “Constant radius” fillet, so no big difference
- Chamfer:
- Similar in both programs
- Hole wizard:
- End condition:
- Inventor: Distance; Throuh all; To
- Solidworks: Blind; Through all; Up to next, Up to vertex; Up to surface; Offset from surface
- Threads: Inventor has the possibility to mark “LH thread”. SW - No
- Custom size holes:
- In solidworks: checkmark to enable
- Inventor: you can edit parameters, but no checkmark – so nobody will ever know if it is standard or changed
- Slots in Hole wizard:
- Solidworks: Yes; Inventor: No
- Hole coordinate placement:
- Solidworks: sketch with it’s full possibilities
- Inventor: limited to a few selections, or needs additional sketch
- Hole placement on curved face:
- Solidworks: yes, on any face
- Inventor: no, additional plane must be created for round or other kind of curved face
- Inventor has more standards for holes, more thread options. In SW you would have to create a custom hole size
- End condition:
- Shell:
- Doesn’t matter in my work. No analysis
- Sweep:
- Profile twist:
- Solidworks: huge possibilities
- Inventor: limited to overall degree. Basically useless
- Bidirectional swee:
- Solidworks: yes
- Inventor: no
- Profile twist:
- Patterns:
- Linear/Rectangular:
- Skip instances
- Solidworks: yes
- Inventor: no (though it can be independently suppressed in the Feature tree)
- Skip instances
- Circular:
- Skip instances
- Solidworks: yes
- Inventor: no
- Positioning method
- Solidworks: only linear
- Inventor: Incremental, Fited, Midplane
- Skip instances
- Other types of patterns:
- Sketch driven, Curve driven, Table driven, Fill pattern
- Solidworks: yes
- Inventor: none
- Sketch driven, Curve driven, Table driven, Fill pattern
- Linear/Rectangular:
- Loft: not important for me, not analyzed
- Sheet metal:
- Solidworks has better integration of sheet metal tools into overall part environment
- Other than that, all basic possibilities of both programs are similar. I haven’t done the in depth analysis as all my sheet metal parts are fairly simple
- Rollback bar is available only in SW
- SW is much more advanced in multi-body parts (feature appliance, mirrors, patterns)
3. ASSEMBLIES
- Mates/joints
- In Inventor – not possible to create mates upon selection of two objects without calling out mate interface (e.g. faces, edges etc.)
- Standard mates (coincident, parallel, perpendicular, concentric, distance, angle): similar in both applications
- Width mate: only exists in Solidworks
- Mechanical mates: more advanced in SW, though Inventor has some of them also
- Patterns
- Feature driven pattern
- Solidworks can pattern across Hole wizard instances
- Inventor can not
- Other pattern types: sketch driven, chain component pattern:
- Solidworks: yes
- Inventor: no
- Feature driven pattern
- Mirror: similar in both applications
- In reference modelling: similar in both applications
- Toolbox/Content Central: I do not use it, but looks like similar in both applications
- Assembly features (e.g. cut):
- Solidworks: possible to propagate features into parts
- Inventor: not possible
- Assembly inspection:
- Solidworks:
- Interference detection
- Clearance verification
- Hole alignment
- Inventor:
- Interference detection, but with much less possibilities than SW
- Solidworks:
- Linking model parameters (e.g. dimensions) in assembly level (part to part; or assembly to part): much more convenient in SW, though possible in Inventor
4. DRAWINGS:
- Inventor: sheets can be excluded from printing and/or from counting. SW – no possibility
- System settings at Drawing level: SW is much more customizable?
- Inventor: possibility to “Defer updates” to stop drawing updating from the model. SW – no possibility
- SW drawing views can be created from View pallet, by dragging in the model, or by menu. Inventor – only the menu. In SW - View pallet directly shows previews of all views.
- Possibility to add text under dimension line: only in SW
- Dimension favorites: only in SW
- BOM: similar possibilities in both programs
- Projected, Auxiliary, Section view: similar in both programs
- Model dimensions: general, baseline, ordinate dimensions: similar in both programs
- Annotations, notes, centermarks, centerlines, leaders: similar in both programs
5. OVERALL POSSIBILITES:
- Equation editor (in SW) and Parameter editor (Inventor): similar in both programs
- Measure tool is much stronger in Solidworks (e.g. when you have to measure the distance between circular edge to the line – SW can pick min/center/max). Plus, SW visually shows distances in graphics on x, y and z directions
- Material browser/Library – similar in both applications
- Features in which you have to select features (e.g. Mirror) are better in Solidworks, because you have the input box where selected features appear (e.g. box for selected bodies, faces, features e.g.). In Inventor they only get highlighted in Feature tree
- In Inventor - no operations are available for exact bodies. E.g. you can mirror ALL solids, but not exact solid body. In Solidworks, you can choose exact solid bodies to perform operations on
- In Inventor – no button on the window to move to right/left side/monitor
- Section view: much more powerful in SW
- Display states (SW) / Design views (Inventor): similar possibilities. Inventor can lock design states, SW can not
- Transparent component + quick hide:
- Solidworks: direct possibility (TAB key)
- Inventor: must select transparent appearance, or must set the visibility via RMB
- iFeatures, iParts, iAssemblies (Inventor) and Library features/Library parts/Configuration publisher (SW): similar possibilities
- Custom properties (SW)/custom iProperties (Inventor):
- In Solidworks, you can simply assign the property value (e.g. “Length”) to a certain dimension by clicking in the graphics area
- In Inventor, you must go to “Parameters”, mark certain parameter for export, then it gets copied to iProperties
- VBA macro programming: possible in both applications. I have not done an in-depth analysis on this
- Possibility for appearances, view modes, shadows: similar possibilities. Inventor is a little more advanced for this
- Large assemblies:
- Solidworks has 4 different loading modes: resolved, lightweight, large assembly mode and large design review. Inventor only has Resolved and Express
- In drawing files, Inventor has the possibility to optimize drawing view generation with “raster” functionality, drawing rebuild can also be paused from updating the drawing view from the model. No such functions in SW <Edit 2016-10-09> SW can disable automatic view updating by "RMB" on Drawing icon and selecting "Automatic view update
- Weldments:
- Overall logic
- Solidworks creates weldment profile bodies inside one part as multibody part
- Inventor creates weldment profiles in assembly environment, which is more logical and natural, as they are always manufactured as separate parts. Possibility to directly create separate part files for each member. This is a strong advantage.
- Corner treatment
- Solidworks: corner treatment available upon creation
- Inventor: separate Miter command needed
- Features preview:
- Solidworks instantly shows the result preview of the feature (e.g. Miter)
- Inventor: must perform a command to see the result
- Overall logic
- When the edge is selected, SW instantly shows it’s length/radius. In Inventor – measure tool must be used at all times
- SW: CTRL+TAB enables quick-switching between separate documents with thumbnail preview
- Fully customizable Heads-up menu is available in SW
- Inventor has more advance “Undo” function
- Flyout toolbars for mates, sketch constraints, hide/make part transperant etc. – only in SW
- Graphical glitches: similarly, sometimes happens in both applications
- “S menu” is only available in SW (additionally, SW has “Mouse gestures” and Inventor has “Right mouse quick menu”)
6. OTHER MODULES:
Not compared: surface modelling, simulations, motion simulation, PDM systems
ADDITIONAL NOTES for Inventor:
- It is possible to make direct rotation of the view by MMB with a program “Auto hot key”, script text:
MButton::+MButton
- Zoom speed can be changed (for me it is best with 0.7 value)
Sorry, must have missed that. The reason is next:
Usually I have been working with projects which had frameworks made of standard steel profiles: square/rect pipes, round pipes, HEBs, IPEs and other. Usually, in each project there were total of several hundreds different unique segments. Say you have 50 different rectangular pipes segments, 30 different HEB profile segments and so on (usually they are only different in length, but sometimes they have unique features like holes and other).
In order to make the purchase and manufacturing process easier, we used the following procedure:
1. Create custom property "Is it simple?".
Yes: means you only have to cut a certain length of the profile at 0 degrees (not at an angle) and you get a a final part. In other words, if the length of HEB is 1200 mm, you cut this length from standard say 6 meter beam, and the part is finished - you don't have to do anything else
No: means you need to cut an angle, or to drill holes, or to do any other work.
2. Create custom property "Length". Essentially this is a part length
3. Create custom property "Part is manufactured out of standard profile"
Yes: if part is based on HEB, IPE, rect pipe and any other standard profile
No: for turned, milled, machined, casted, laser cut sheet metal parts etc.
When the design stage is finished and it was time to order, I opened the complete project assembly, create a drawing, create parts-only BOM, and sorted it by custom property "Part is manufactured out of standard profile". This action gives the following result in the BOM
Column names:
Number -- Source for manufacturing -- Length -- Is it simple -- Is Other properties (not important for this example)
1 HEB 120 800 +
2 HEB 120 700 +
3 HEB 120 5500 -
4 HEB 120 2300 -
5 HEB 120 625 -
Now that we have this BOM, the purchase people can easily sum up the total length of each segment type, and order it.
Second thing is about manufacturing. When goods arrive, a machinist takes them to cut with bend saw. If the BOM property "Is it simple" says + this means he cuts a straight segment, and does not look for a drawing. If it says "-" that means there is a drawing for that segment, and he must cut it by the drawing (possibly at an angle) and process further with possibly drilling holes or other operations as per drawing.
Third thing: each segment, by our internal company rules, must have a drawing or a custom property "Is it simple" must be marked as "-", simple as that. With SW weldments you can not have separate drawing for each segment (theoretically you can, but in that case you must use different strategy than having each part file name represented by each drawing with the same name, for each actual physical part. A weldment structure is physically not a part, it is a multibody construction). Any other logic leads to a mess in file management, drawing management, revision management and so on.
These last 3 sections of my post represent reasons for having each segment as individual part. You can not do that with "Weldments" where one part file represent several physical element. Trust me, I have spent many many hours looking for a solution, you can not You may not see this this as a strong reason if you are dealing with a small framework of 10 segments. But if you have a structure with tens/hundreds of different profile based parts, then it is the only way to go.
To sum up - what are the reasons? Purchasing, manufacturing, drawing management, ERP system data management
PS you may also want to read this thread: Configurable rectangular tube profiles