The democratization of 3D
In the past I’ve written about a few topics that I’d like now to pull together with a common thread. One topic is the difference between modeling and design. Another is the idea that artist types sometimes need a translator to get into digital 3D. Yet another is the new non-parametric CAD program SpaceClaim. The last concept I want to pull in with these others is that when you automate a task, often you simplify it, maybe even oversimplify it, and give up some control. The common thread that pulls all of these ideas together is the CAD Specialist.
The mid-90s saw a wave of mid-range 3D modelers flood the market, beginning to erode the share of the high-end systems, and bringing some folks up from the 2D flatlands. When the only people running 3D modelers were priviledged to do it because it cost nearly 6 figures to get into it with hardware and software, the level of the user tended to be pretty high. They were well trained and probably some of the brighter folks in their offices. This was when 3D CAD was a pretty exclusive club. These users tended to be full-time CAD specialists, because it was not a casual thing to pick up and start using these systems.
SolidWorks, Mechanical Desktop and Solid Edge all hit about the same time in 1995. This was when Windows NT 3.51 and 4.0 was trying to win some of the technical computing business away from Unix. These low-cost, modelers with a relatively low cost Windows based PC were attractive because the entry price was now about the same as a full license of AutoCAD. When the price point came down, and 3D started to be used by more users, the average user was no longer the well trained geometric whiz that was running $30k of software on a $40k Unix box, he was running about $4k of software on a $4k box, and in the same proportion, may have also had about 10% of the training of the high end users.
In order to dig deeper into the market in this way, the mid-range products had to be simpler to use and more automated. The interface had to be easy to navigate and pay more attention to details glossed over by the high end systems. The users were maybe only part time users. The price point had come down, the functionality had come down, but the usability had gone up.
I believe the CAD market is going through another one of these adjustments. We have seen the introduction of Alibre, a SolidWorks 95-ish product which has lowered the cost of getting into a parametric 3D modeler even further. And now, with SpaceClaim, both cost and the specialization bars have been lowered yet again. They are marketing this product to non-CAD specialists, and even non-CAD users. You think sending engineering jobs to India is a frightening prospect, imagine leaving the modeling to the machinist, manager or the marketing guy!
Unix CAD comprised the top one or two levels of the pyramid. Mid-range CAD started out in the second and third levels, but has recently been pushing up into the top level as well. Products like Alibre push down into the Ocasional user level. Pushing CAD down further yet into the non-user market vastly increases the number of potential customers, but it also demands less specialization of knowledge (to say it differently, it has to be “dumbed down”). SpaceClaim is aiming at the Ocasional Users and Non-user Technical levels. Non-user Non-technical is reserved for products like Sketchup, although Sketchup is also used higher in the pyramid for fast and easy concepting where final detail is not crucial.
Maybe I’m just protecting my livelihood when saying this, but what happens when you take a tool that can do some pretty complicated things, and you make it very automatic, which enables you to do the work without much forethought, planning or insight. This must be what went through the minds of contract FEA analysts when CosmosExpress became available – allowing anyone with a SolidWorks license to do “analysis”. The Express tool is so dumbed down that literally anyone can get results out of it. Stress analysis, formerly the exclusive domain of specialists, has now been opened to all. The curtain of the Holy of Holies has been rent.
Still, is it really analysis if you’re just going through the motions, not understanding what is going on? How much value is in the answer if you don’t even understand the question? I think the same question is valid when talking about “dumbing down” the controls to editing a CAD model. Sure, SpaceClaim enables machinists to edit models from any CAD package as if they were native SpaceClaim data, but should they? (There’s that awful word again.)
Anyway, your assignment for next time is to think about this. Think about where you are on the pyramid. If you’re high on the pyramid, all of your eggs are in one basket, and in a market which wants to do away with specialists, you are a marked man. If you are low on the pyramid, do you enjoy the other tasks that generalization allows you to be involved with? Wherever you are, are you able to get the job done with the tools you have? Would you trade some control for simpler, more automated tools, or is it the other way around for you?
Comments?
I have a real tough time with questions like these. I was amazed that I agreed with the mainstream on both. That doesn’t happen much with me!
Unlike Matt, I don’t suffer much from a need to try out the latest and greatest. I don’t load even a service pack if I don’t feel a crying need. I willingly skipped several major releases between 2001+ and 2006 when I didn’t see enough benefits to make up for the pain. I’ve been on the treadmill since 2006 because the surfacing seems to be getting significantly better with each release. The irony is that most of my pain is caused by fillets, feature scope problems and surface trim problems that don’t seem to be getting fixed, probably because the people who can fix them are too busy working on boundary surfaces and other new features.
The conflict between new features and bullet-proof features is never going to be easy, so the guys writing code at SW have my sympathy. I’m glad that the managers seem to be reacting to the request for more robust features, but I haven’t noticed any increased stoutness yet. In fact, the graphics for 08 are giving me more trouble than I ever remember having. I’m hoping that the new direction hasn’t had a chance to work its way through the system yet and that 09 will show the benefits.
Jerry Steiger
****
Jerry,
Yes, I’m kind of surprised by the results as well. In a good way, I guess. I thought more people would be more of the optimistic point of view, but it looks like the average is somewhere between 18 and 24 months, if you consider that “sp5” means probably more than 18 months and less than 24. Again, I hope that SW looks at this not necessarily as a scientifically accurate poll, but as a reality check.
Hmm interesting. I’m a bit unsure about the responses. Reason being… i’m not quite sure how things really work so this is all judgments based on speculation or guestimation. I remember hearing someone say that the length of time for the developers to put in the “New Features” was only something like 6 weeks… the rest of the time was fixing them/the bugs. Does that mean 6 weeks… then 46 weeks of fixing? Or are we talking 6 weeks new stuff… then only the couple of months (or whatevr it is) of public beta to get it halfway decent… THEN… 6 months to get SP5-ness?
I’d be happy with 1.5 year turn-around. Provided its with MUCH MORE THOROUGH AND PROFESSIONAL FEATURES and not this bloatware simple-crap-for-none-CAD-user-“features”.
I’ve been checking out NX more and more as time goes on. And i’m more and more impressed with it. Today i was touching on looking at the tables/BOM side of things and hot-damn… there were no “Damn it why cant i just do this logical task” moments like with SW gives in so many ways. yeah they are different range of CAD software granted. But still… such a key factor of CAD software and it be lacking is just so absurd. And it does this not just with BOMs/Tables but in many areas.Hmm guess i’d just like to see the key areas done really good.
Sorry about the long rant, its late! 😛
PS. voting much better. 🙂
****
Wow, stuff that works the way you think it should? I thought that was just a fantasy. Of course NX has other drawbacks, but it is one of the packages I’ve had respect for for a long time.
Matt, your second poll here should have been obvious, or at least obvious to us users, anyway.
Steve
****
I agree, it should be obvious, but at least a few people disagree, along with the SW development guys.
This poll is a first for me. I have never found myself so thoroughly in agreemnt with the other voters.
Matt-
I hope SolidWorks is looking at this.
I demand 🙂 bug free software, just like my clients demand bug free designs.
I do some Alpha/Beta testing for people/departments I respect. And I do it gladly.
I prefer that SolidWorks create a business model where Experts are paid to completly test the software.
Cheers,
Devon
Yes, polling much better.
Oh, the polling is obviously much improved.
It’s kinda amusing really. On one hand I would prefer they slow the new release train down a bit, but on the other I can’t wait to get 2009. I think that speaks more about 2008 than it does my desire to get “something new”.