Bernard Charles, CEO of Dassault, regarding SolidWorks: “We’re Going To Drop Parasolid.” (poll at the end)
Bernard Charles spoke at a Korean 3DEXPERIENCE conference back in May 2012. It has taken some time for this video to surface outside of that group. The video is over a half an hour long, but it might be enlightening to watch it.
At the 14:50 mark, Bernard Charles, the head of Dassault Systemmes and the defacto head of SolidWorks had the following to say:
SolidWorks is also expanding, and as you know we have announced clearly that SolidWorks will adopt the V6 technology everywhere, modeling included. We’re going to drop Parasolid. It’s going to be marginal. And we’re going to generalize the use of the power of modeling of Catia, for everything we use the power of V6 technology.
If you want to go directly to the quote about SolidWorks, follow this link.
Ok, so now who is spreading FUD? SolidWorks is simply trying to keep customers confused. The head of Dassault has clearly said that he plans to drop Parasolid, and that SolidWorks will use the power of Catia for modeling. It doesn’t get clearer than that. You can stop guessing about what it all means, and you can stop saying that my guesses are wrong. If you stick with SolidWorks, Dassault is going to move you to Catia and V6. Matt West, since you have such a way with words, I’d love to hear your spin on this. Have your competitors paid Charles to spread this FUD? How can this be misunderstood? Is this not your esteemed leader actually speaking at a DS conference? His statement seems very clear, much clearer than Jeff Rays bit on “pain”. It is not taken out of context, you can see the whole speech around it.
And if simply replacing Parasolid with V6 is not enough, if you want to know more about the overall direction of SolidWorks and Dassault Systemmes, he goes on. All we need now is Tim Burton to make a surreal Dassault Systemmes movie starring Johnny Depp, but animated in a Sims or Second Life type animation.
7:33 “The virtual world extends and improves the real world. We have formulated a dream. I think it’s also very important in every company to have a dream. It gives some freedom. It removes the limits of the daily constraints. And when you are lost, in any companies, you come back to what is your dream. You need a dream in your life, you need a dream in your family, you need a dream for any companies on any social structure. And our dream when it comes to Dassault Systemmes is to help through the usage of universe, 3DEXPERIENCE universe to harmonize product, nature, and life. It’s a very ambitious dream. …
8:33 We want to provide business and people with 3DEXPERIENCE universe to imagine sustainable innovation capable of harmonizing product, nature, and life. It’s a very clear statement.”
So. You see what’s coming, and businesses must make plans for the future.
[poll id=”12″]
@Roger Reid
Thanks for the info Roger.
Thanks for the comment Ryan.
I agree with you on the benefits of direct and parametric modellers and I think one should not replace the other as they serve different purposes. This thinking suggests that SW users should not worry much about loosing their beloved CAD software, however…
According to my findings they like to use the word ‘interoperability’ when they talk about the new CGM platform and the old parasolid based parametric SW.
Now, if this is achievable then I don’t see why Dessault would support the old SW system in a few years time especially. Which is not necessarily a problem for traditional design offices as they can get a nicer and better design package. But it is a problem for those who use configurators and parametric design automation tools.
The only way I see to come over this, as Ryan suggested, is to freeze our CAD and configurator software on the latest version. It is possible for a couple of years and then we start developing the configurator on another CAD platform if not on the new SW CGM platform.
I am saying that on the new SW V6 platform, because I am sure that the best 3rd party SW partner products will evolve with SW, but it will cost a lot for us users and will duplicate the development work on our automated design configurators as there certainly will be clear water between the new SW V6 system and the ‘old’ parasolid based traditional parametric SW models and configurations.
The logic and custom coding in the configurator will still applicable but we will have to redefine the CAD parameter references in DriveWorks or through the API for example, if you use a more advanced Engineer to Order configurator.
@Ryan
Ryan
I’ve watched some videos of Sync in NX but never used it.
What I find odd is the complete lack of discussion about sync within the NX forums – public or private. It leaves me with the feeling that the take up is incredibly low.
Any NX users around to comment??
Kris-
The company I am currently working for utilizes some unique functions and applications of the combined SW and DriveWorks solution.
In my opinion and I’m not speaking for my company, I am concerned with the future of SW and DW. We may have to look at freezing our version of SW+DW at one point in the future. I don’t see how the current DS system/vision fits with third-party add-ons that we currently use.
Ryan
Roger-
Have you taken a look at ST in the Siemens NX CAD product suite? There is always a lot of talk about ST in Solid Edge but it is also available in NX.
Ryan McVay
@Krisztian Bimbo
Kris
As far as i know Solid Edge is the only CAD system that incorporates a direct modeller that can be driven parametrically. However, it is my opinion that direct modellers are less suited to this type of thing and that Solid Edge Ordered or any of the other history parametric modellers will perform this task better.
I feel there are two shortcoming. Firstly, if I create a simple block with a cutout and then inadvertently change a dimension whereupon the cutout gets consumed, if I restore the dimension the cutout will not reappear. In theory you will have the cutout locked to move with the dimension but in practice it is easy to miss such things. I much prefer how history first shows an error and then allows a simple correction.
Secondly, I have found that on more complex models that have numerous locked dimensions, I’ve wasted a lot of time trying to get Sync models to solve. To compound this the solve time can be much longer than history (try building Anna Wood’s punch holder in Sync and drive it in a parametric manner).
I believe SW has differentiated their new product as “Conceptual” because direct modellers really shine for this type of work i.e. quickly developing ideas. History can’t compete here. But if this product remains direct only then I think it will struggle to replace SW. I realise they are claiming this is merely a complimentary product but if that is true then the product planning department are bonkers for building it on a different kernel.
To my mind the ideal situation is the ability to use direct and history together without restriction. Solid Edge w/Sync gets part way there but with significant restrictions. I’ve concluded that those restrictions are fundamental to the point of being unsolvable.
Solid Edge’s procedural features could be the solution but editability, reliability and performance isn’t there yet but is improving with eschew release.
@imics13
thanks, this is good stuff. This is pretty much the same method that we would do in normal parametric environment… (be it Creo, SW or Inventor, we tested them all)
SolidEdge ST series have grown beyond SolidWorks, what a shame that it is not realized on the market… I worked with V19 for a few years, it was well behind the corresponding SW versions.
@Krisztian Bimbo
You can make FOP from dumb model or synch model, here is a short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOnf_UZ88yg
Solid Edge has some KBE tools from 3rd party developer:
CADCustomization:
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/velocity/solidedge/applications/cadcustomization.shtml
CADECplus Configurator:
http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/velocity/solidedge/applications/cadec.shtml
BR,
Matt, Roger, thanks for replying.
Any furhter info will be much appreciated.
Roger, did you mean that it is better to do KBE automation in any old style Ordered CAD environment as opposed to in Solid Edge STx Sync (which is both parametric and direct in my understanding)?
What about other Direct Modeling packages? Can they be automated?
Thanks,
Kris
@Krisztian Bimbo
While it is possible to create parametric models in Sync, I wouldn’t recommend it for this situation. I’ve found this type of thing is still quicker and more reliable in Ordered.
Roger
@Krisztian Bimbo
Yes, KBE type of changes are available in Solid Edge. Not sure about other direct editors, but there’s not a systematic reason why it can’t be done. Solid Edge has an equivalent for SW configurations, and can also apply parametric dimensions and relations directly to the part geometry. So you could have a part with variable lengths, and have those lengths driven by programming or a table or an equation.
I’ll try to get more info on this for you.
I have been researching parametric vs direct modelling quiet some time now in order to get a better understanding of this kernel change issue in SolidWorks.
I do this because this is where I traced it all back, the two different Solid Modelling techniques that in my understanding are not supposed to substitute one the other.
So here is my question. Can we do design automation in Direct Modelling environment? We are about to start developing a parametric KBE type Product Confugurator using either Autodesk Inventor ETO or Solidworks with DriveWorks or with 3rd party Configurator.
Should the choice be SW then longevity is a big big question mark due to this kernel isuue… we don’t know how long the two SolidWorks products will be run parallel. (Creo and SolidEdge seem to provide Parametric and Direct modelling in one software under one umbrella)
So is it possible to automate design in Direct modelling?
Thanks,
Kris
MDT… EXACTLY! …funny how nobody talks about MDT but it is a very good example!
hmm,… Catia 3 and 4 and 5 and 6…
DS owns the script on effn up new releases!
Sad.
@matt
Alex…..
So much history from which -those ‘new’ to the business – need to learn from with respect to the planned obsolescence of CAD product. Those who choose to ingnore what has gone before condone a costly and wastefull process which is aimed at tinning developers pockets with their customers hard won earnings.
Your correct Matt: I can clearly remember – at the release of Inventor, in response to a very pointed question – Autodesk management said Inventor and Mechanical Desktop would be developed together. It was a lie and, it was known to be a lie at the time it was said. Mechanical Desktop remained a product for several releases but was not developed as indicated.
It will be a shame to see Solidworks go the same route; but, that does seem to be the apparent direction.
@Alex
Yeah, this is what I think is a naive point of view. Mechanical Conceptual is just an intermediate stop on the way to a full CAD product. “Complementing” SW is BS. They aren’t built on the same kernel, and SW’s interoperability with Catia has always been terrible. In order for Mechanical Conceptual to make much sense, you’re going to have to model in Mechanical Conceptual (Catia Lite Lite), and shuffle (with history) back to SolidWorks, and I just can’t see that happening. This has been one of the most problematic translations in modern CAD. All you’ve got at this point is a promise that won’t be fulfilled for another 9 months.
I’m very skeptical that Dassault will provide a better method for moving from Catia of any stripe to SolidWorks.
Saying that parasolid will become marginal can’t refer to new products because they won’t contain parasolid at all except as a translator to bring old files forward. It can only refer to the existing parasolid products. He’s referring to them fading away. I don’t think that the concept of current gen SolidWorks fading away is one that even SolidWorks employees would argue with. But they would have you believe in some hazy distant date in the future.
All I’m saying is that following a CAD tool down a blind alley does not sound like something I would do with my business. Same thing happened to Mechanical Desktop.
My comment here would be that Mr.Charles is referring to the NEW product “SolidWorks Mechanical Conceptual” as unveiled at SolidWorks World 2013. This product will run on the V6 platform.
Whereas the SolidWorks that we know today will continue to run into the future. SolidWorks Mechanical Conceptual will complement it.
Followed your link to the SW forum today. I am astonished that they let Jon Banquer on there. The only self anointed CAD authority in the world who can’t prove he uses anything and they let him drivel on and on.
@Toby
Yeah, it disappeared from the time line for a little while, but it’s back now. Here’s a link if they start playing games again: https://forum.solidworks.com/message/345225#345225
Funny how a thread about this just magically disappeared off the solidworks forums
“Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle.” – Abraham Lincoln
@Jackson1961
The video really told us nothing…how in the world could anyone vote anything other than wait and see what really happens.
This is being brought to you by the company that released a version of software called Catia 5 that could not directly read the prior version called Catia 4 and most of their larger customers have not moved the the latest version called Catia 6!!!
@Milimetro
“A weird way to promote a CAD company”
Yep indeed
I am perplexed.
For a moment I thought it wasn’t the Dassault’s CEO, but a regular marketing guy from a cosmetic company.
Talking about “to harmonize product, nature, and life” instead of profit and concrete projections (with numbers) of how to achieve this using the Dassault tools.
A weird way to promote a CAD company.
Northrop is switching the other direction. They are now using Catia and will be going to Seimens unigraphics. Some people at Aerovironment prefer to use Solidworks over Catia. The user interface is the complaint.
I think that Solidworks has done the top down mba thing and lost traction at the software engineer level. Executive but kissers do not produce.
It is amazing to me that even with constant negative-guessing, the gloom/doom faction can garner only 30% of the votes. I do wish that more clarity was shown in some of SW official statements. However, I still see room to believe both sides of the statements. It is possible that switching from Parasolid may result in more capabilities at some point and even (although I don’t see it now) may be able to be done securely in the cloud. I am not smart enough to be able to foresee those things happening but if it were, I don’t want to think about how many comments we will have to listen to from current users complaining how SW could have been so failed to not have moved forward. I still think there is room to believe that V6 may succeed while still being able to use Parasolid in a more traditional SW setting. If you don’t have confidence, exercise your right to switch. The fact is we don’t know what the future will bring but I highly doubt we will be left in the lurch to fend for ourselves.
It really baffles me how such an awesome bit of software can have such a great start and keep building on it by doing mostly the right things. Then it comes to the point in time where it needs a complete re-write. Something that is not uncommon and is quite benificial to users of the software and also the developers in that it gives users new direction to have something re-done… learning from all the mistakes previously and also getting a great deal of “better” that comes from a total re-write of something that had the basics nailed. Developers get that chances to create anew with all those lesson’s learned and a big dose of modern “everything”. Just do a well planned and thought out re-write with all the good stable stuff built in at its core. etc etc.
And then we have SolidWork’s… W… T… F .. happened???? Its a pretty simple equation! And one that i was totally pumped to have happen having been a user of all the bug’s since SW97+. “YESSS” i thought. We’ll get built in high-end CAD stability and feature depth/power all for the mid-range cost! pFTTtttt!@@
Now… 3 or 10 years later(so it seems!) they’ve basically killed the software off. Why would you do such a thing out of such a golden opportunity to have so many thousands of WILLING-TO-UPGRADE-FANs tossed down the chute? grrr
System translate as système in French, Matt. So that’s Dassault Systèmes, with a single M, not two. As for è it can be done with html tag è 😉
I wonder if the guys at HSMWorks saw this clip and if it was a part of their reason for selling out to Autodesk?
What is likely to happen?
1 SolidWorks as it is continues with minor changes for a few more years until you are forced to switch to something new because SolidWorks has lost the edge (or to Solid Edge)?
2 As a customer you will be rolled into V6 and have to say good bye to libraries and add ons?
3 SolidWorks employees buy SolidWorks and it lives happily ever after.
Maybe he is so divorced from real reality that he cannot tell the difference between a dream and reality.
Reliable geometry is important in virtual and real product designs. They still have to fix the geometry bugs.
We discussed these impending changes to Solidworks in a webinar back on January 29th, 2013. Have a look at the replay on our Edge Design Systems Youtube channel:
http://youtu.be/H13iH5v8PZM
Great find Matt………….
So, maybe they are doing the beta testing of V6 on the cloud in Korea????? Maybe they need the speed of South Korea’s extensive fiber optic bandwidth to have a successful demonstration. At least we are now about 95% sure that we are getting Catia Lite on the cloud. I suggest that they just call it Catia Conceptual-Lite. Sounds more catchy than SW Mechanical Conceptual.
Whoa, I did not see that coming, (insert laughter here) —– “Say it ain’t so, Matt…………………. Say it ain’t so………………….”
We have an upcoming webinar on February 20, 2013 pertaining to this subject. If you are interested in seeing what else is out there go to http://www.allyplm.com/bettercad and join us.
Way to dig this out Matt. Well there it is, clearly stated. Of course DASSAULT still has the right to change their minds and I suspect they will(about something anyway).
Wake me up when something concrete actually happens.
Meanwhile I’ll Intellectual Conceptual the Mechanical Conceptual…oh never mind!
Cheers, Devon
One of THE most badly managed, poorly executed software roll outs in the history of well, everything.