[Species8472]

We started a new company from the ashes of the old one. We transferred the Autodesk software to the new company but could not afford the whole suit of Inventor/MDT. So we got AcadLT and InventorLT. I can't believe that they are giving away InventorLT for only 210.00 per seat. IMHO Inventor sucks bad almost as bad as SW2010. I'd love to get back to MDT.

Does the whole world also think the same as me about Inventor vs. MDT and is that why they giving it away for almost nothing?

[the4thseal]

you mean Mechanical Desk Top vs Inventor? are you comparing full versions vs LT versions?

[ger21]

The full version of Inventor is $5295.

Not sure what you got for $210, as even AutoCAD LT is $1200, and Inventor should be more, but I don't see an Inventor LT on their website.

[Species8472]

you mean Mechanical Desk Top vs Inventor? are you comparing full versions vs LT versions?

I mean Mechanical Desk Top vs Inventor the full versions.

In MDT I can do almost everything I need to do with 25 or 30 single letter alias'. Without a command line it's costing me 50% in productivity. With Inventor you are constantly interrupted for confirmation for every point, line and circle you draw.

This is not a flame post. I have used acad since v.9. If they would only clip on the classic Acad command line interface into Inventor it would be a usable program. As it stands now you might as well pick up SW2010 because you are basically starting over from scratch.

Which is why I wonder if Autodesk "jumped the shark" in trying to be more like SW. By flatting the leaning curve to spite productivity.


Gerry

We bought 3 seats of AcadLT at the normal price and got InventorLT 210.00 a seat.

[SPEEDRE]

I don't know if I qualify to comment here, but, as a hobbyist, who's a certified Auto CAD Operator, I tried out Inventor, just last month, and I too, thought is was time consuming. I liked MDT also. When I was in training, the school I was at switched to SW and I lost my vibe for MDT. I for one want it back. That was an easy, quick, practically foolproof software.

[stephenr]

Mechanical Desktop is no longer being developed. Inventor took it's place within Autodesk's lineup.

Stephen R.

[BobWarfield]

That command line is addictive, from a productivity standpoint. Funny thing is, I bet a lot of people just see it as an impediment or a quaint holdover from the past when they're learning.

I tell people evaluating CAD to spend a minimum of two weeks and do multiple models/drawings to be sure they've really gotten into the groove before they decide.

The command line capable UI is one of the main things I like about Rhino3D. The lack of command line and constant mouse interaction is a reason I won't use OneCNC's CAD functions.

Cheers,

BW

[lumberjack_jeff]

The command line is the reason I'm fast with General Cadd.

Strictly 2d though.

[stephenr]

Bob, 90% of my CAD time is with Inventor. The other 10% is with AutoCAD and sure enough I find myself reverting to the command line pretty often.

By the way great website. You have a lot of useful info. on there, thanks.

Stephen R.

[BobWarfield]

Thanks for the kind words, Stephen.

I've gotten a copy of Inventor, and I mean to learn it. I'm feeling less motivated after this thread, but I'm convinced I need to find a parameteric CAD I like. I really found Alibre to be unproductive compared to Rhino. If Inventor doesn't work out, I guess I'll have to find some way to try Solidworks.

I have always wondered if an Autodesk user wouldn't find Rhino a pretty easy thing to pick up. It sure has been great for me. I spent about a month using Alibre and could never even get close to being as productive, so went back to Rhino.

Cheers,

BW

[ger21]

Rhino's interface is a lot like AutoCAD, as McNeel started out writing AutoCAD plugins. A lot of the commands are even the same.

Once you go to parametric, it's a completely different way to work. I've played with Alibre, Solidworks, Inventor, and one other that had a short term free version a few years ago. They all work very, very similarly. If you're used to Rhino or AutoCAD, then you'll find it takes quite a while to get used to the parametric way. I've tried to use parametrics, but always seem to go back to AutoCAD because it's so much faster for me.

[BobWarfield]

I've tried to use parametrics, but always seem to go back to AutoCAD because it's so much faster for me.

Gerry, you're not the only one. There is a school of thinking that says parametric was only useful to a fairly small segment of the market, but it was such a great marketing gimick it got more than it deserved.

The CAD market is actually showing signs of interest in non-parametric approaches. Here is just one of many articles along those lines:

3-D Modeling Debate Spurs New Generation of CAD Tools - 2009-03-11 14:12:31 | Design News

There are many others talking about it along the same lines.

I may very well conclude I need to stick with a direct modeller, and that Rhino is it. My gut tells me it's very likely I will go that route.

But, I do like to check into as many new things as I can. CAD is such an essential tool that if I can find one that works better, I will make the investment of switching. And, I did stumble into a copy of Inventor that was a great deal, so I'm going to try it.

Cheers,

BW

[dshowalt]

I think were all trapped by our past. Since we all learned Autocad with the command line we feel more comfortable talking to it through the command line. I work at a local community college and the current students grew up on a graphical user interface. To them the command line is just a screen hog. They are faster with the icons and the mouse than anyone could type the commands. Inventor 2011 is even better since most of the work can be done in the Drawing area with context sensitive menues and icons. Parametric modeling is the way to go, it's just hard not to keep looking over your shoulder at the the good old days.

[JimBoyce]

Acad has an abbreviation file for commands called ACAD.PGP.
This file, as provided, is a useless bloated monstrosity. Luckily it can be edited in a text editor (like a CNC file). If the most common commands used are given single letter abbreviations, using the command line would be much faster than a mouse.

[BobWarfield]

Acad has an abbreviation file for commands called ACAD.PGP.
This file, as provided, is a useless bloated monstrosity. Luckily it can be edited in a text editor (like a CNC file). If the most common commands used are given single letter abbreviations, using the command line would be much faster than a mouse.

Absolutely.

Ease of Use and Ease of Learning are quite different things, but most people don't stop to consider that. I've written about it before on my blog:

Ease of Use and Ease of Learning are Quite Different Things « SmoothSpan Blog

We've gotten pretty good over the years at creating software that's easy to learn. You have to crack open a manual less and less. I will say that CAD programs in general are not up to the standards of most of the rest of the software world, but it's gotten better.

Ease of use is really about efficiency for power users. Casual users care about ease of learning because they may relearn a program every time they use it. But some apps, and CAD is a good example, require pretty deep mastery.

In many ways, the GUI mouse world forgot all about ease of use, thinking that ease of learning was better. I blame Microsoft (who wouldn't?). When they shipped their windows office apps, nobody really thought through very well how keyboard commands should work. How would we make them easier to remember? How would be make them easy to type? Having to take eyes off the screen to track down all the crazy keys to be pressed was a mess.

Ironically, most people know the Mac shortcuts (Ctrl-X/C/V for the clipboard, for example) moreso than Windows even if they don't own a Mac.

Don't sell the keyboard short. The mouse is great for getting into the neighborhood, but the keyboard is better for precision. "Bumping" your object into precise alignment or entering a measurement instead of trying to line it up with the grid somehow.

Cheers,

BW

[Species8472]

I just a hour long discussion with IMAGINiT Technologies. They came by to try and explain the GUI changes Adesk has made over the years and to get me to reconsider kicking them to the curb. He admitted that the gooey ribbon kludge was in fact less efficient and was only implemented to flatten the learning curve. Something I've been saying for years. I said that since I had to learn a new interface I might as well go with SW. He had no answer. I find it amazing that they would spend that much time over just one seat.

[CNC Lurker]

We started a new company from the ashes of the old one. We transferred the Autodesk software to the new company but could not afford the whole suit of Inventor/MDT. So we got AcadLT and InventorLT. I can't believe that they are giving away InventorLT for only 210.00 per seat. IMHO Inventor sucks bad almost as bad as SW2010. I'd love to get back to MDT.

Does the whole world also think the same as me about Inventor vs. MDT and is that why they giving it away for almost nothing?

Autodesk quit supporting MDT for about a decade, have you been under a rock? Just kidding, I used MDT before it was called Mechanical Desktop. It was called Mechanical Designer, or was it simply Designer? Anyway, many years ago I complained about the change from MDT to Inventor since Autodesk gave Inventor away for free because nobody wanted to convert to it.

After that, I switched jobs and have been using Solidworks for many years and there were times that I missed MDT. Namely the superior equations that MDT is capable of. I have a copy of MDT around here somewhere, and even the awesome AutoPol, which runs circles around the sheetmetal functionality in SW today even though AutoPol is very old.

That said, I wouldn't want to go back to MDT. Out of curiosity, how long did you use SW 2010? What didn't you like about it? Modeling is fast if you use mouse gestures and the "s" key, and if you don't want to use parametric modeling, you can turn on instant 3D and drag faces and features around.

[tlharris]

I've used ACAD starting with r2. Used to develop lots of DCL and LISP routines, then VB and C routines up until ACAD2004. My PGP was sacred, and I could draft circles around folks that were tied to screen icons.
Never needed/had a reason to use MDT. Dabbled with it now & then, but doing piping & steel design, MDT didn't seem to add much to my equation. Not bashing it, just never brought it into my workflow.

I switched to Inventor with IV9, and haven't looked back. It was a painful first year, trying to figure out ways to get back up as fast as I was with ACAD. The bottom line for me was learning to work with a parametric workflow. It's more than just a buzzword, it's being able to visualize which parameters will be key design elements, and then building a model that leverages those. Once you cross that hurdle, productivity begins to increase exponentially. 5 years after switching, I can't imagine having to go back to AutoCAD. Inventor also has single-key alias commands, as well as customizable confirmation messages - if they get in your way, turn them off Also, a programmable 3D controller in left hand and the mouse in the right makes a world of difference.

Re: Solidworks / Inventor / Alibre / WhateverCAD....
None of them 'suck'. They're all very powerful programs - frankly a bargain considering how much you get. Good God.... sheet metal? Stress analysis? Dynamic Simulation? Piping? Content libraries? Rendering? Animations? Drawings? Oh yeah, and they're pretty good at modeling, too. They all have their quirks, but if you pick any one of them and invest the time to become proficient, they'll be worth it. Yes, the ribbon interface is there for folks who don't want to become power users. But it doesn't need to get in your way it you want to move fast.

Lastly, with re: to rumors of Autodesk's terminal illness.... *shrug* I wouldn't say so, no. They continue to make phenomonal acquisitions, and incorporate new technologies and new products into their suites. So do other companies, but I'd say ADesk is pretty well positioned for the forseeable future. I'd like to see them simplify some of the product matrix a bit. MDT was a very capable product, but it was a chapter who's time has passed. I expect anything MDT could do, Inventor, SWX or Alibre could do better, given a chance.
Good luck

[CNC Lurker]

I think were all trapped by our past. Since we all learned Autocad with the command line we feel more comfortable talking to it through the command line. I work at a local community college and the current students grew up on a graphical user interface. To them the command line is just a screen hog. They are faster with the icons and the mouse than anyone could type the commands. Inventor 2011 is even better since most of the work can be done in the Drawing area with context sensitive menues and icons. Parametric modeling is the way to go, it's just hard not to keep looking over your shoulder at the the good old days.

I agree; to many who move to SW from ACAD, it is a difficult transition and they complain about how much faster the command line is. I've heard many complain about it, yet I also know some who never learned ACAD in college. They learned Solidedge or SW and if they had to do something in an ACAD clone, they complained how kludgy it was.

I guess it may be what tool you are more familiar with. By the way, SW DOES have a command line, which it has to help new users wean from ACAD. Keeping it off is the best way to learn SW though.

[ger21]

I guess it may be what tool you are more familiar with.

That's why I do all my modelling in AutoCAD. I only use a handful of aliases, and leave the command line off (although it's always on with Dynamic Input). I use a single custom toolbar, and an extensive right click menu.
Familiarity = Speed.