I wish it was because as an AutoDesk customer I can use HSM at no additional cost.ġ2/17/14 #9: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch. From what I was told, nesting for woodworking is not very high on the list of priorities at HSM. Nesting can be done by manually laying ot a nest in the HSM software. From what I was told, HSM will produce code for woodworking machinery, yet does not support automatically nesting of parts. I spoke with some people from HSM last week at AutoDesk training. Router-Cim does a good job processing parts and nesting. I also use Router-Cim for producing code for our machines, and have used Solid-Cim some jobs. An AutoCad user cannot sit down and run Inventor efficiently without some training. In the end the look may be the same, yet the processes are quite different. One thing I quickly learned when I stared drawing in Inventor, was that drawing in Inventor has little in common with drawing in AutoCad.
3) The additional software I use for the most part has support for Inventor. 2) With as much as I have done currently in 3d AutoCad the transfer of drawings / products from AutoCad to Inventor would be easier. The reason I went with Inventor over SolidWorks, 1) I was comforable working with AutoDesk and their products. I can do what I need in AutoCad, yet Inventor has plenty of features AutoCad does not. Yet, I have also added a couple seats of Inventor as my thought is Inventor is a longer term solution to what I need. įor some time we drew mostly in 3d AutoCad along with Smartlister to extrude the part information I need. 12/17/14 #7: Solidworks vs Inventor = Ford vs Ch.