Back to basics

[Pontoon]

I tried a couple of searches, but I couldn't come up with what I really wanted to know on this.

What is what.
There is a whole load of folk talking about Revit??? and I know what a raster tool is, I've an idea what the architectual packages do, but is there somewhere on here which explains why there are so many different kinds of autocad and the differences between them?
ie. why is inventor better than AutoCAD mechanical for certain things?

If this into is about please point me at it. Otherwise could we have a wee beginners knowledge intro thing for curious folk like me?

[Beth Powell]

autodesk.com would be a good source of this

[jaberwok]

The basic programme code for AutoCAD (and all its derivitives) is over 25 years old. Although it was rewritten for R13, it was rewritten to (simplification >) do the same things more effectively.
Revit and Inventor are much newer programmes that do not rely on the acad code stream or even the acad way of doing things. Based on a different philosiphy, if you like.

HTH

[Mike.Perry]

Hi

Aimed at Autodesk Building Design solutions...

Get a personalized recommendation from Diana (http://www.adskhost.com/2005/11/BSD/)

:beer: Mike

[Pontoon]

Diana's telling me all about why Building systems is the one for me. :lol:

Talk about doing it the easy way. Going to checkout Autodesk where I probably should have started instead of being lazy and just trying to find stuff here :Oops:

Call myself an information worker... well I don't but my boss does.

Ta for pointers.

[Baron Blades]

Hi Pontoon. I should've explained some of this in our other posts. Among the Autodesk products, there are areas of specialization just like in industry. You could use most of the products interchangeably on a very basic level, but you wouldn't want to, it'd be terribly inefficient and cumbersome. Each of the products caters to the needs of professionals in the field it supports. For example Inventor is (depending on who you talk to) the for someone working in manufacturing, while ADT would be weapon of choice for folks in the architectural field, etc. You can use vanilla AutoCAD for just about anything, but there are bigger, better, faster rides out there. From what you've told me, the building systems stuff will be way more appropriate to your interests than the manufacturing programs. It doesn't hurt to learn them all though...;)
Diana's telling me all about why Building systems is the one for me. :lol:

Talk about doing it the easy way. Going to checkout Autodesk where I probably should have started instead of being lazy and just trying to find stuff here :Oops:

Call myself an information worker... well I don't but my boss does.

Ta for pointers.

[Comach]

The choice of software depends on the users intent.

There are a number of criteria that one should address to arrive an informed decision. Sure things are marginally complicated because of the different software options available from one company - you should see the Bentley options!!

The first thing you need to do is create a bullet list of criteria:

For example - "do you need interoperability with other cad applications", "do you work on shared projects with other design houses", "do you have fabrication data that can be shared with manufacturers", "Spatial Design criteria, "drawing deliverables" etc etc

The issue regarding Inventor v MDT is rather an old debate, both are similar products and I would not say one is better than the other - depends on the aforementioned. In our case we have recently adopted MDT because we require interoperability with other 3d Autodesk products.

The idea of utilizing data with a fabricator, as in the case of building services, there are manufacturers who can reuse model data if originated in Cad Duct for building HVAC and Autoplant for piping.

[Baron Blades]

Hughrjt, I'm just curious as to why you went with MDT instead of Inventor? MDT came as part of our Inventor package, so I was wondering what influenced your final decision since we're up for reorder in a month or so and I'd like your take on things. Thanks.
The choice of software depends on the users intent.

There are a number of criteria that one should address to arrive an informed decision. Sure things are marginally complicated because of the different software options available from one company - you should see the Bentley options!!

The first thing you need to do is create a bullet list of criteria:

For example - "do you need interoperability with other cad applications", "do you work on shared projects with other design houses", "do you have fabrication data that can be shared with manufacturers", "Spatial Design criteria, "drawing deliverables" etc etc

The issue regarding Inventor v MDT is rather an old debate, both are similar products and I would not say one is better than the other - depends on the aforementioned. In our case we have recently adopted MDT because we require interoperability with other 3d Autodesk products.

The idea of utilizing data with a fabricator, as in the case of building services, there are manufacturers who can reuse model data if originated in Cad Duct for building HVAC and Autoplant for piping.

[Comach]

We have a multi-discipline requirement - structural, mechanical and electrical as well as a need for data share with Civil 3D and Map 3D (GIS) users.

The projects are for sub-station design so we require location positioning according to real world coordinates - the survey data is translated from the GIS server via Map 3d to provide the Civil chaps with coordinate and orientation information. The Civil guys develop the site layout and devise a structural grid based on this info which is made available to the other disciplines as an xref.

This structural grid is the most important element in developing our sub-station layouts - so everything is aligned to this grid.

Working with 2d grid data, xrefs for work share data, multi-discipline content, open structural environment and a good flexible BOM were also primary considerations that MDT handled much better than IV10 - hopefully the latest version of IV10 handles 2d data much better and gives us some options for work share like xrefs.

One last point is that we can create structural sub assemblies of columns and beams complete with cleats and brackets all contained within single drawings instead of having a whole plethora of individual iPart files cluttering our system.

It is a really good solution and works very well - we had also considered Solid works, Microstation sub station products and PDS - few of them came close to what we needed but none had the feature content we needed except for MDT.