Block A.

This is the first of my examples that I have deliberately done to draw a distinction between AutoCAD, Mechanical Desktop and Inventor from an entirely productivity point of view.  Productivity as measured in terms of how much more quickly, accurately or more Flexibly I can get my design or drawing done.  For it is in these areas alone that my profitability, and that of my customers, will be increased.  No where else, and without that increase the tool, be it MDT, Inventor or any other CAD software for that matter, has little value.

And remember ‘FLEXIBILTY’ always trumps ‘context restrictive’ command structures and menus.

Block A is simply an AutoCAD solid with two polylines drawn on two separate faces, then using only two MDT functions we have this as the end result.

I start here with this simple block and yes you may be saying but ‘what if’, and you are correct.  But experience has shown me more often than not in a great many situations in which 3D CAD is applicable ‘what if’ does not happen the way we would like it to and often the tools that make ‘what if’ usable create more work in defining the problems than solving them.

Block A, if you knew you were going to make ‘xxx’ or more iterations back to back or over a short period might be better done parametrically; MDT will still win over Inventor because you can do more with the results than Inventor can; analysing sections to name just one instance.

If you don’t want many changes or only a couple of variations use AutoCAD and MDT simultaneously and everyone can play or modify the end result, an AutoCAD solid.

R. Paul Waddington
cadWest.