Autodesk Inventor vs. Autodesk MeshMixer

Autodesk Inventor is well-suited for situations where you are creating 3D models of small, simple parts and assemblies. It is hands-down the fastest and most reliable way to get this done. When you are looking for a software that has many advanced features and controls to create an assembly of 20+ parts, you need to look for other software.

Incentivized

Autodesk MeshMixer is best for repairing STL files and basic modifications toward 3D printing. It is excellent for hollowing out models and adding escape holes for SLA printing or lost-wax casting. Its CSG (Boolean) functions to combine different meshes are good too and seldom cause the program to crash. There is even an integrated algorithm to optimize the layout of multiple files on a print bed in case of small-batch production. Autodesk MeshMixer's sculpting tools are there yet limited and there are a few better alternatives. Best of all, it is completely free.

• You can make designs (CAD) and you can also manufacture them (CAM) and do not need an interface like Solidworks to recognize it in a CNC.
• Inventor is very easy to use to create realistic, solid designs.
• The software allows you to design and see where problems are in real-time.

Incentivized

• Auto-repair function works fast, and if it does not completely cover all problem areas, manual fixes will work 99.5% of the time.
• Remeshing algorithm is fairly slow but does a wonderful job in creating meshes with homogeneous or adaptive triangulation.
• It contains a comprehensive set of tools to optimize and prepare STL files for 3D printing, such as hollowing and support generation.

• Inventor demonstrates a lack of fluidity in the process of transferring data between programs.
• Inventor shows some lack of sophistication that certain features that are readily available in other design software packages are limited in use in Inventor.
• Inventor can often have difficulty in creating models that show true color, as in blacks can come out as dark grays in certain renders, even when the material and appearance settings are the same from part to part.

Incentivized

• The remeshing tool needs to be faster, as in some cases it takes up to a day of waiting time.
• The sculpting tools need the addition of a proper brush for creating sharp creases and ridges.
• The standard shape library is rather limited. It would be nice to have this connected to online repositories such as Thingiverse, MyMiniFactory, or Cults3D.

Inventor continues to meet our enterprise needs. I don't see a need to change unless we change our business model significantly.

Incentivized

It is quite user-friendly as long as you have the computing power to download and use it. However, this makes it quite inconvenient if you are trying to access files on different devices, as Inventor has to be loaded on all of those devices. While the program itself works just fine, it would be much better for my application if it, or a version, were web-based and allowed users to access and modify projects from anywhere.

Incentivized

I'm giving the overall support rating a 5 only because I rarely have to use it. Trying to find the answer on the help pages hardly ever helps me because any problem I have is usually too deep for what the help offers. Given the popularity of Autodesk, I have always been able to find an answer online after doing enough looking!

Incentivized

I got the training during college, so mostly i learned on my own

Incentivized

ANSYS is far more expensive and has a steeper learning curve. Autodesk has many flexible and scale-able licensing options that adapt to our institutional needs and IT infrastructure. Furthermore, it allows our students to have free educational software running in their own personal computers, allowing them to work at home and be more productive with it.

Incentivized

Using Blender for STL file preparation is like swatting a mosquito with a wrecking ball, plus its boolean functionalities can be glitchy. ZBrushCoreMini proved too limiting as a sculpting tool, but so did Autodesk MeshMixer, so I am sticking to Sculptris. Materialise Magics and Netfabb are somewhat better at STL file repair and offer more advanced functionalities. But Magics does not remesh as well and Autodesk MeshMixer is far more compact and faster than Netfabb, so remains my weapon of choice.

• We are working toward full engineering integration with Autodesk Inventor. This will remove most of the human error in our current processes.
• Production team is moving away from physical samples to using Autodesk Inventor models. This is a cost savings and helps us manage change better.
• Autodesk Inventor iLogic is allowing us to automate some of our engineering. This is proving to make one job 20% faster to complete with fewer errors.

Incentivized

• It speeds up projects by streamlining the CAD-to-3D-printing workflow
• As an advanced user, I have written a few tutorials about it as well