Build your ideal future CAD here
We tried this once before, and the results were kind of disappointing. Let’s give it another try, since the time seems to be ripe for building a new CAD system. There’s a lot of negative crap going on right now, and none of us can do anything to fix it, so let’s at least pretend to do something productive.
We’ve talked about the limitations of  “midrange” modelers as opposed to high-end. Midrange, I’ve decided since having written the Peter Principle piece, means that you are mediocre. It means you go part of the way and stop. Some people call it 80-20, and it might be ok for making money, but it’s not philosophically very satisfying. If you want to get your product geometry right, “midrange” CAD may not get you where you need to go. I’ve made a career the last several years making 80-20 software do stuff it doesn’t want to do. I’ve written books 
about wringing out as much of that last 20% as possible from a reluctant and underpowered tool. Maybe I’m wising up, but I’m gonna stop banging my head so hard, and just get a tool meant to do the job. The WHOLE job, rather than just a cheap bus ride to the bad side of town.
We talked a couple of posts ago about how you might rework sketching in a history-based modeling scheme so that it is less compartmentalized and makes more sense. I favor sketching that is history-free, but still associated to the faces of the 3D model, while the model itself has a list of ordered features. I’d like to see a tree that you can see either in a straight history list, or a parent/child indented list.
I also believe in the Synchronous way of combining history and direct modeling (store static body with ordered features added to it), although I might do it more like SolidThinking (build the history-based model, and then apply node changes to faces). This second method might not be the best method for performance, but it would be best for shape editing. My goal would be to create a general modeler that could create geometry for everything from machined parts to complex molded parts. Of course it would have to do assemblies and drawings.
Before you can have great rendering, or great mechatronics, or great cfd, or great file management, you have to have great geometry. I would hopefully be able to keep the focus on geometry. SolidWorks started that way, and gradually got further and further from the mark. The last time geometry was significantly improved was the addition of the Boundary surface, about 2008.
Here are the assumptions for this new software:
- first focus is power to create, edit, control, evaluate and document product geometry
- second is reliability
- third is speed
- fourth is usability
The target audience is engineers and designers. Gearheads to prettyboys. This is a tool, not a toy. It’s not a cosmetic Barbie playset. It’s not a Disney ride. It’s not Monkey Wrench Conspiracy or Gears of War. The important thing is the output – the geometric result, and the amount of time it takes you to achieve it. Not the “experience”. “Experience” is something you worry about when you’re selling an end product, like a video game. CAD is a tool. This is part of the reason why I have always considered the effed up analogy between CAD and video games to be a bit off the mark, and it has lead us into territory where someone obviously believes in that analogy a little too literally. Â “Experience” is another overused business chic fad term that has been somehow misapplied to CAD. I’m not at all concerned with my “experience” of using the software. I’m concerned with the results that I get. Â Although ease of use is implied in #4 above, it isn’t a blinding goal, or something to fall back on when you can’t do #1 or #2.
I’d like readers to also propose elements of a business plan that respects both developer and customer. Call me crazy, but I believe that mutual respect is still possible in business. Â How much does it cost? How is it sold? How is it supported? How are upgrades handled? How are bugs handled? What hardware platform(s) should it run on?
Just as an example, I’ll go first.
My ideal CAD system would be:
- Single history free 3D sketch environment
- sketch entities can be assigned, unassigned or reassigned to drive faces of the model. faces can also exist with nothing driving them (essentially you could save, delete or reassign the sketch and parameters of a feature used to make faces from sketches – if you delete the feature, the faces are just like imported “dumb” geometry)
- sketch can be parent or child of 3D geometry
- can use “primitive” shapes for common geometry – blocks, cylinders, spheres, cones, tori.
- “features” would be holders for parameters relating the sketch to the faces, stuff like draft, depth. these parameters could be accessed through an interface, or directly on the model
- Features like fillets, shell, ribs, holes, etc would be like Solid Edge ST3+, that is, ordered features – history based.
- You would be able to tug and pull control vertices on the 3D faces to shape the model
- Features could be moved between parts in assemblies – basically just regrouped in the feature tree
- Table-driven features and dimensions would exist (configurations)
- You should be able to numerically drive everything you can measure, for example spline curvature, and curvature of faces (specify min curvature, and max rate of change of curvature)
- I would want to consider combining mesh modeling for a couple of reasons: interface to MRI/CT and other medical data visualization needs, interface to laser scanning and reverse engineering, and allowing for simpler concept development tools
From Siemens CT Image contest - In the end, I think I would run this on Linux. Android is actually based on the Linux kernel. Mac OS is based on Linux. You can virtualize linux easily enough inside Windows. It seems to be the best solution. The future of Windows as the basis for technical computing is not as secure as it once was. Cloud delivery? No way, not for a long time. Not until it made sense.
- Of course capabilities for multitouch. Tablets 3 years from now might have enough firepower to run CAD, or displays large enough for real CAD use might be able to use multitouch and be positioned properly for good interface use.
- Complete file compatibility between versions would be assured. This may be a technical challenge, but in the end, it’s just a technical challenge like other technical challenges. It may have limitations, but it is definitely possible if you have the will to do it. Systems that include direct editing don’t have to worry about this as much, but I would like to be able to transfer as much data as possible up and down the software revision history. It would be great to base the file format on some sort of an open format so that more and more data would be native data, but finding something that supports static solids with history based features and CV tweaks might be a bit much.
- It would be sold direct, depending on the resources available, either using Webex type demos, or regional direct sales teams of a tech guy and an account manager.
- I think in today’s market, it would sell for about $5-7k. It would do less than SolidWorks does, but it would do it better and more reliably. There would be a higher bar on QA release to market, swifter action on bugs, and more action based on actual customer requests
- support would be optional, and would include video training, and complete documentation. Live training would be available as well, but would cost more. Tech support would be handled through remote desktop type app when available, or skype screen sharing, etc. Traditional email support would also be available, but I think it’s far less effective.
- bug fixes are free, regardless if you pay for support or not
- Upgrades are sold separately from support, or bundled for those who want both. new releases come out maybe annually to allow people to plan expenses, and are available to non-support customers at a reduced rate, with there being some reward for loyalty.
- It would be marketed as a tool for professionals – good concepting, detailed modeling for manufacturing, mechanism evaluation, and product documentation (drawings). It would not be marketed as a magic wand that makes you design better. Designs come from brains, not software.
Only Three Priorities: 1. 3D parametric 2. Part library with somewhat intuitive adding of bolts to holes 3. Under 500 dollars a seat with non-draconian update policy.
Disappointing that this discussion devolved into high-level cloud discussion.
The main one for me – no separate part/assembly files. You can have a multi-body part, switch to assembly mode and move the bodies about. You can still insert parts into parts for larger assemblies.
Also, no 2D/3D sketches – everything is 3D, but you can choose to sketch on planes.
Track revision/history within the file (or separately, but part of the program) – ability to revert to previous save states.
Years ago there was a movie of the Beverly Hillbillies, made after Granny had died. I only remember one scene of it, when Jed was showing someone a carving of Granny, and the guest asked how Jed had done it. His answer was that he’d just “carved away the bits that didn’t look like Granny”. I think that’s how to achieve your item 2. Any volume is defined by its faces, so the object is a solid that’s had faces subtracted. What that means is that you don’t build on primitives. You might subtract with them, but you don’t need as potentially extensive a variety to do that. Each subtracting face has a relationship with its bordering faces. Sketches drive each subtracted face, the host program manages the face border relationships. As a neutral format, a “dumb import” becomes a collection of subtracting objects, rather than the result. The subtractors are defined inwards from an “extents volume”, which gives more comprehensive datums and assembly alignment than a simple origin. Face border relationships can carry identifiers either as defined faces or fillet definitions depending on receiving app. Then there needs to be a feature identifier for bosses or protrusions, cutouts and holes, as they’re usually defined from ruled surface primitives rather than solids. If the receiving application isn’t capable of face border management, then the object could still be recognised as a STEP or IGES dummy.
Matt, it has been interesting following what you said, in this posting, and the comments. There are common components to your post and some of what Evan Yares has been putting out as food for thought.
You made the statement, “I’d like readers to also propose elements of a business plan that respects both developer and customer. Call me crazy, but believe that mutual respect is still possible in business. How much does it cost? How is it sold? How is it supported? How are upgrades handled? How are bugs handled? What hardware platform(s) should it run on?”
This immediately reminded me of an email I sent you (Feb’2011) outlining what I refered to as Co-operative CAD. Let me re-state part of that email; “Essentially if we are going to have to consider a new ‘paradigm’, maybe, we should consider a REAL ‘new’ paradigm. CAD users being the collective owners – and for those capable, developers – of their CAD tools. Unusual but not impossible. Large mutually owned business and co-operatives have long existed and web communication makes this suggestion ‘possible’. Now I don’t simply mean co-operation between CAD users in ‘the cloud’; what I mean is CAD software ‘owned’ by a co-operative of users?”
Ownership, of a product/business tool, by those who use it, could be an effective way to create a CAD tool, given todays communication capabilties. Complex – no doubt – particularly stating from scratch, but there are ways an existing “smaller” CAD software operation may be able to convert their business direction/plans to make co-operative CAD a possibility.
How best to achieve your, “respects (for) both developer and customer.” “Call me crazy, but I believe that mutual respect is still possible in business”. It is, especially if customers’ happen to also be the owners.
@Dave Ault
Dave, the one problem with a lot of the “direct edit” tools out there is that they shut down when it comes to working with non-prismatic parts. That’s why people who do product design, where you aren’t using mainly extrudes and revolves are pushed to NX. NX can actually do the direct edit on complex shapes. A $25k solution to a $4k problem.
@Mark Landsaat
Mark,
Isn’t this exact structure here in many ways allready with the Parasolid Kernal, which is licensed to many competitors, and direct editing which can work on anything I have ever recieved from other cad users excepting stl stuff. With direct editing I can work on your file faster than you can so the hostage taking is a lot harder to do now. I think there is allready a move to a “universal” translator format in the parasolid kernal with direct editing and the winner will be the company that best implements it.
I would like to see an app based model with low cost of entry and the ability to build it as big/expensive as you want/need. This could work with much of the same stuff that’s in place now. The apps or add-ins get activated just like they do now.
Here’s the big change I would like to see. This CAD vendor (SolidWorks or someone else) is not afraid of competition in fact they welcome it. Their code is accessible to anyone that wants to build an app for the basic package. Even if that app competes with one of their own apps. This will do two things in my opinion. Guarantee continued development in all areas of the software and competition in general tends to bring pricing down. There would be two basic entry level packages that you can build upon.
-Parametric CAD, with basic part/assembly/drawing
-Direct prismatic CAD, with basic part/assembly/drawing Spaceclaim style
Of course both of these would work as add-ins with each other, and a whole slew of apps
-Simulation (app that has scalable brick elements)
-Parametric surfacing (NX app that has conic sections for loft)
-SubD style NURBS sufacing (Tsplines app)
-Nurbs freeform surfacing (Rhino/Alias app that works inside SWX?)
-Assembly (This one allows you to perform any and all features at just the assembly level)
-Sheet metal
-PDM
-Rendering
-Electrical
PTC has made somewhat of on attempt at this, but really all they did was repackage their existing stuff and there really aren’t any 3rd party apps to speak of. The point of this is that you open up an app store that allows any CAD software supplier to build an app for your product. And the companies that build good apps come out on top.
Imagine this scenario, the model turns out to be so successful that other CAD companies follow suit and offer a basic modeling package that you can extend upon via apps and the apps will actually work with all of them. So when I’m not happy with my basic modeler that I purchased for relatively little money I can switch knowing that all my apps will work just as well in the other basic package.
Oh wait this flies directly in the face of the CAD supplier being able to hold you hostage by not making their product compatible with anything, not even their own versions.
I would like to see a cad system that can handle any type of data. Point clouds, sub-d, nurbs, voxels, whatever. I want to bring it all into my workspace and be able to work with it without having a bunch of different software tools to manipulate the data.
@Paul Salvador
Paul, a Jetson’s model?! Love it. Very cloudy. Can’t wait to see it.
@Neil
Neil, yeah, maybe I wasn’t taking this all that seriously. It’s my job to get people thinking and talking, and maybe to stir up an interesting conversation. I’m interested in seeing what people would like to see in a new CAD system if they were freed from their current one.
Don’t read anything into my inability to pass stuff to Mr. H. You can imagine I’m at about the same spot on their list of “people I really want to talk to today” as you are.
OK look forget contacting Jon with new tech ideas. You have conveyed your attitude to me. That’s fine. No bad feeling. Jon may be not the best person to implement such a thing anyway. I’m not even sure if he was anti cloud or not.
Here’s the deal with your post just so you aren’t disappointed with the response again.
In my mind there isn’t a lot of point in just listing things to have, like a wheel in each corner and that they must be round etc. This is quite true but what is needed is to jump ahead with the architecture because you want to be doing something that is unique and going to succeed in 3-5 years time when its ready for market and you want it to have a potential life of say 15 years or so.. A new CAD company is a substantial undertaking and needs substantial capital. It has to be worth doing. Ideally it has a killer implementation.
Sure its nice to clone this and that and reuse the bits you like today but you have to look at a better solution than the competition can provide and have outwitted them as they are stuck in the cloud or in ‘old’ linear tech. I don’t see the point of replacing SW or going after a market share with something essentially the same as we have available elsewhere although it can be more customer friendly.
What we are going to need is a leap ahead as SW was at the time. You need to consider hardware and software developments in the pipeline or likely to occur and do even smarter things than you have now. This needs fresh thinking, substantial innovation. A fundamentally better way of working. There has to be a bigger strategy than considering features…
@Rick I know people who don’t know their animals are going to look at this and think ‘Bernard’ is a prize ass but I think the intent was to convey DS eagerness to do the *donkey* work for their customers with the cloud? On reconsideration PR/marketing might have made a better choice of mascot…
@Matt I think Austin may be standing in a hole he made for himself. I think his sod was the first turned. Jon does have considerable stature in the industry though…head and shoulders?.. Hard to say… sometimes perspective can be misleading too. Btw its just a random photo from the internet 😉 bit of a laugh that’s all…..the donkey is fairly tall for its age…
Re me contacting SW and expecting a reply. You are joking surely…
I’ll see what I can put together first.
@Neil
Neil, both Jon and Austin are I believe in the neighborhood of 6’3″ (1.9+ m). Maybe you could doctor the photo a little.
Anyway, if you wanted to contact Jon, you might be able to get his email from a SW employee.
Neil,
Very funny. Nice Ass.
Jon and Austin pose with DS mascot ‘Bernard’ in a formal picture for the corporate album.
This was taken at the ground breaking for the new server farm in Ma. recently.
Snaps like this will form a priceless historical record of the evolution of the CAD industry one day.
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Judge_Sherryn.jpg[/img]
Nice goat LOL!
Matt if I were to put my ideas down as notes and sketches or whatever and email it to you are you in a position to forward it to Jon?
CAD on Mac and iPad
@ Cloud Man
Your first point is the exact area where developers currently fail to deliver updates both on the cloud and for apps on phones and are the source of constant frustration for users.
Developers NEVER sit there and test their code on every possible machine or configuration before sending out updates. It takes months of tiny fixes to make sure apps work on all devices on android phones. (and a lot of these apps don’t even have a single complex feature to them..)
The second point that it saves money to be able to constantly edit the code.. I am sure in the cause of android that developers are totally happy to waste time trying to support every incarnation of android device and in every language..
And, as a user I find it quite annoying to get a daily reminder to update 30+ apps with minor changes like adding languages I don’t speak or fixes for tablets and whatnot.
Just imagine trying to get a complete version of Solidworks to work on every single android device.
And here’s a little food for thought. If you use a download manager to download youtube movies; you get presented with a list of videos in 3 different formats (.mp4 , .flv , .webm) and multiple resolutions.
This means every time you upload a video, the system has to convert it into all these different versions, so that you can view videos on any device.
That is the solution for static content; solidworks on the cloud would be dynamic content and how on earth they make it work on all devices (and seamlessly like they promise) god only knows.
I think hell freezing over is more likely than a seamless experience on all devices for such a complex piece of software that serves highly dynamic content.
I like the feature tree representation. I would like to have full control of the feature tree, arranging sketches in folders with associated features, folders within folders. Features should not consume sketches or prevent other features from using sketches. Any folder should have a field for comments and desciptions. It would be nice to select a feature and have the folder indicate that the selection is inside. The feature tree should allow re-ordering if the parent child relationships do not cause a geometry change.
One thing that I would really like to see a better job of is the management of top down design. There is a big problem with either method that can be used currently for SolidWorks. If one models parts while in the assembly file, it become very buggy crashing frequently, if one uses multi-body parts, then they are trapped into a very long feature tree. I know that there has to be a better way, though it must be better though out. From what I can tell CATIA handles this better.
I too, support better unity between 2D sketching and 3D sketching. There should be no reason that the features that are created with 3D sketching be more limited than is possible with 2D. Not just that, the ability to perform the same sketch operations between 2D and 3D such as mirroring, scaling (along with scaling about a vector).
As for cross-compatibility, I would support something along a 3-4 year lifetime for full cross-compatibility. This would allow for a significant time frame for full compatibility. Partial compatibility would be done similar to the Microsoft office releases where it informs you of loss of fidelity, and replaces that component with dumb geometry.
This next one is a big one for me, better error messages/error checking. There is nothing more frustrating when you have the preview of the operation that you are trying to perform, and then hit the OK button and have it tell you that it cannot generate that geometry. Even when it cannot generate the geometry, there should be a dialogue box asking if you would like to see the faces/edges causing the numerical error, and what sort of error it is, but not in mathematicians terms, in designers terms, and then possible suggestions as to hoe to over come the issue.
Better documentation. I hate it when they put out a feature and have a bunch of check boxes, but do not tell you what they do. In this day and age, we are well past garage shop coding, there should be well defined documentation to give the engineer/designer information as to what is going on, not just guessing.
Lastly for the actual program, it must have a well thought out gui. This is not a nice to have, but a necessity. Programs like CATIA and ANSYS have rested too long on the fact that the underlying software is very powerful and does a lot. I heard a guy the other day complain about a customer that told him his program was awful, his comment back was, “Don’t you know all the things that it is doing behind the gui?” This is the wrong attitude, because the customers do not know what is going on underneath the gui, nor do they care, they just want to get the end result as fast and as easy as possible. This is one of the reasons that SolidWorks succeeded because it may not have had all the power of the other software that was out there, but you were able to get the most out of it because the user interface allowed more natural work flow.
As to the business side of things, I do not mind VAR’s as long as you do not lock me into using just the one in my area. I think that VAR’s should have to compete. My local VAR here for the Eastern Virginia area is awful, if there is one that offers better support on the West Coast, I should be able to use them.
I also agree that bug fixes, and security patches should be free.
As to the cloud, you may have it as an offering, but it should not be your main offering. There are times that our internet has gone out in storms, or a DNS server fails, but we still have power. These are on top of standard internet maintenance that gets done, as well as the major possibility of issues due to security. The PC revolution was considered a great thing back in the day because we did not have to rely on a mainframe, but we could have it locally, why in the world would we want to go back?
Adam
@Cloud Man
When the internet is pervasive, ultra reliable, ultra fast, and ultra affordable, then we may see the cloud thing usable. It’s far from there yet as those cannot be had together…
Not that it’s that important, but can this CAD system please have a website like that of http://www.comsol.com. No f’n “solutions” or “industry” suggestions, just a big list of modelling words that modellers understand, with a clear explanation under each link.
Thanks.
I also favor Synchronous and decided it was the future when first viewed. It is the best single thing in my current cad toolbox. Powerfull sketching capabilities and precise placement of these without having to fish around for points to start and end from and having to double check what was done would be nice. I would like to see a foolproof way of creating a solid and then taking this and turning it into sheet metal and subsequently unfolding it so I can fabricate from this.
I have a Faroarm. I would like to see my cad program be able to create geometry from this.
I hate all the interefence useless things like the ribbon bar interface created with having to learn AGAIN just to get back to where I once was with no benefit to me and my time wasted. So my vote for no stupid GUI changes and just leave what works alone. I am not a new for the sake of new zombie and would be quite content with an ancient ugly interface that never changed unless it brought increased efficiency because of a new feature.
I buy a cad program to create cad. Ancillary to that for many is FEA, PLM type stuff and rendering. I would like a choice as to what is bought however and would like my cad program sorted out seperately pricewise and let me choose from there what else is needed. Funny how so many of us pay for bundles and then end up having to buy after market programs that do the same things as the bundle features do in addition so we can actually do our jobs quickly and efficiently. Or we pay each year for things we don’t want or need because this is dictated to us.
Cloud man, could we see from you a clear cut example of a working program that has all this wonderfullness? I wait with bated breath for this.
Hey the Jetsons…neat 🙂
Everyone is entitled to their views but I think @Cloud Man is pushing s**t uphill posting here talking about the great future of CAD in the cloud…or anywhere else outside the DS boardroom for that matter.
Probably the most compelling reason to shun the cloud *is* exactly for the sake of our children and their children’s children. If we don’t make a stand here they will be caste as serfs and blighted with endemic disease like arthritis of the thumbs. They will ask what it was like in the old days when people owned stuff and thought for themselves…
>…can actually test the upgrade against every model in the cloud before releasing the software.
Sorry but DS can make their own test set. This is exactly what people don’t want – other people accessing their data. DS obviously feel free to look over anything they have on their servers and use it as they please…thanks for the tip off 😉 btw testing it is one thing fixing it is another…
> this leads to code being less expensive to maintain.
Yeah but I bet they still charge the same or more. Very profitable this rent scheme…
Less costs, less piracy, captive customers etc….I don’t think we missed noticing where the advantages lie.
…ok.. I’m working on something.. (image attached.)
,…cloud man… dude,.. it drizzled all day here today.. living in a cloud is just that.. living in a cloud. the current infrastructure is not good enough,.. maybe in the near future.. imho.. in ~10yrs we will see some serious structure to work within,… maybe?
..at this time,.. I don’t know any client of mine or any other clients willing to do this at ALL!
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/jetsons-zxys.png[/img]
@Mark Landsaat
“As a contract designer I work with several companies and there’s not one of them interested in seeing their intellectual property being stored offsite, much less being stored offsite in a data location managed but the CAD software vendor.”
Well stated Mark, I agree.
Devon
@ Cloud Man
CAD on the cloud is ideal for the vendor, not for the user. As a contract designer I work with several companies and there’s not one of them interested in seeing their intellectual property being stored offsite, much less being stored offsite in a data location managed but the CAD software vendor. Seriously does it get anymore dependent than that?
CAD vendors can do all they want to push customers to the cloud, but if the customers don’t adopt the technology then where will they go? I believe most of the SWX customers are small to medium sized businesses. If given the choice to upgrade to the cloud or nothing I would say most of them would drop the subscription model like a brick and just continue to use what they have now until they implement a non-cloud alternative.
I seriously don’t see the whole cloud thing happening and SWX can’t force me to do anything I don’t want. Like I have said many times before it’s just a tool that does a job. If it no longer performs that job to my satisfaction there’s nothing that will stop me from using it and replacing it. SWX having control over my data is a deal breaker for sure.
@Cloud Man
Wow, regressions are impossible, eh? That has to be the best one I’ve heard yet. I can see why you post anonymously.
So even by your own measure, CAD in the cloud doesn’t make sense for users, only for developers.
Remind me which side of the argument you are on again?
@matt
Two things make cad ideal for cloud – both are from the model data perspective
1. Software upgrades are seamless and regression free. Software developer can actually test the upgrade against every model in the cloud before releasing the software
2. Software maintenance is more efficient. Flaky portions of code can be fixed properly without fear of regressions #1 above. This leads to code being less expensive to maintain.
Ofcourse users rightly don’t care about the above two points
What they care is user experience which a pure cloud application (web based) cannot currently deliver.
Location of data / security is a common issue with the Internet in general.
OK well I guess I’ll sit this one out. Too many of my posts here lately anyway 🙂
@Rick McWilliams
Rick, actually, your list was the kind of stuff I was hoping to see. Your second comment cracked me up, though.
@Neil
Neil, If you had a bunch of CAD developers and venture capital guys following you around, you wouldn’t be posting here anyway. Think of a rough napkin sketch of a CAD system as being sort of a resume that maybe someone will read and like. The money is all in the details. You could give two sets of developers the same specs and get two completely different pieces of software.
I am sure I am in the minority but the experience is a part of why I choose a product. However, I typically find an efficient product to offer a great experience. The four assumptions listed above probably define what would make a great CAD experience for me. Unless you are gauging geometric productivity with speed of customer feedback; Real View has little to do with productivity in creating geometry but it surely has enhanced my experience.
Matt I would be willing to put some thought into it if I knew there *really* were people interested in and going to doing things with the info but I don’t think I would want to publish it here.
I might come up with quite original ideas, that is next generation stuff, that competitors might like to hear about as well…plus if you are going to spend a fair bit of your time thinking things through in detail you might want some sort of bounty for it.
What say I accidently provide a description of something that goes on to make multimillions for someone but I end up paying 5k for it when it comes out?…not that my ideas are usually considered seriously anyway but.. 😉
@Cloud Man
Instead of just asserting that the cloud is ideal because kids use it, why don’t you tell us what makes the cloud ideal for CAD software?
When your school kids are old enough to be the ones making decisions that affect businesses, then maybe the problems with the cloud will be solved. That is no reason for us all to run headlong off the cliff right now.
If you allow a bunch of adolescents to lead you around, all science will be fashion, vapid pop culture, and masturbation.
Have a happy future.
@Cloud Man
our Daughter (4th grade) keeps all her work on a 4GB thumb drive, backed up at home. Bandwidth is a problem at most schools around here.
@Ken
The cloud is inevitable. Eventually all vendors will migrate large customers to the cloud then the suppliers will fall in line. The last to migrate to the cloud will be small users and bloggers and the people who post comments on the blogs.
Think about the next generation of kids in school now. Almost every software they use is on the cloud …
I must have mis-understood the post. Sorry for the technical suggestions. I will revert to whining.
Vars suck. The cloud sucks. Solidworks does not listen to users. Solidworks does not fix geometry bugs. Geometry is unstable. Solidworks files are pigs. Solidworks first releases each year are full of bugs. Solidworks management listens only to butt kissers. SW V6 will fix everything.
Same here Devon. Telecommuting is the way to go. Why companies fight it (especially software companies) I’ll never understand.
@Cloud Man
Great idea! And we can call it SolidWorks V6!
Oh yeah, no resellers/VARs. In fact, no commission sales at all.
I envision Direct Sales (Downloadable) with Sales/Support in different time zones, working from their homes. On a decent salary.
Heck, I’ve got clients all over the world. I can sell/support all of them remotely. Some pay me to come on-site, but its their choice/dime.
Devon Sowell
PS or lease a multimillion dollar building and make 800 people drive into work everyday ;-0
How about a cloud solution – graphics done with WebGL. The application is fully hosted in the cloud and running in a browser?
Any updates to software are immediately available to user. User pays for the actual CPU used and the data (neutral format) can be downloaded to client side for archiving if customer decides to walk away.
I’d like to see a model similar to Adobe or Luxology in terms of upgrades. There is no subscription. When you purchase the cost is $?. When you want to upgrade the cost is $? There is no yearly fee. You can then choose to upgrade when you need to or when the enhancements warrant it.
Also I love the Luxology licensing policy. The software is licensed to you not a machine or company. You can install the software on as many machines as you like anywhere in the world but it only works on the number of machines you have licenses for at a given time. Also when you purchase a Luxology product it’s compatible on whatever OS they support. For example when you purchase modo your license(s) work on both MAC and PC. Unlike Adobe where you have to choose, do I want an Adobe product for the MAC or the PC.
Yes, I’d like this software to support both the MAC and the PC.
Matt- You and I have had a few telephone calls and I see many elements on your post that we’ve talked about.
I would like to see an 18-24 month upgrade cycle, sort of based upon the Microsoft Office upgrade release cycle. For example, this might eliminate the “change for the sake of change” and the “release it and fix it later” mentality we see now.
Great post, thanks.
Devon Sowell
Good sketching is essential. Most defining geometry is 2D sketches on planes. It is important for this to work well. Of course sketches are used to generate features or more sketches.
Sketch elements: points, lines, circles, splines, arcs, ellipse, formula, text outlines, tabulated points, projected entities, comments
Sketch combinations: rectange, fillet, chamfer, mirror, patterns, offset, copy, scale, polygon through points, spline through points.
Sketch modifiers: construction line, cut, extend
Sketch relations: horizontal, vertical, coincident, dimensions, tangent, parallel, midpoint coincident, centering
Sketch diagnostics: open, closed, overlapping, crossing, related sketches or features, curvature display
Sketch element grouping or blocks for use in other sketches.
Fillets need to be smart, not just a tangent cusp, but one with direction to join lines.
Splines need nice controllable handles, point and variable length tangency handle on each side.
Comments do not create geometry, they are documentation about the intent.
Dimensions are represented exactly as entered: 1/32, 1/3*pi, 1.00+1/16, 1.5+A, 30mm+.025″, 3/4mile, 93E6mi, 27000ft, -25°
formulas are always appropriate, units may be mixed.
Dimensions try to stay neat or as drawn.
Smooth spline modifier for continuous or smooth curvature.
Comments: there is no such thing as design intent that is too clear.
Sketches are durable, they do not disappear when a surface is deleted, they can be used by many features.