A Summary of Summaries
At SolidWorks World, people were looking for some clarification about the future of the SolidWorks product, company, and name. Somehow, SolidWorks seemed to deliver different messages to different people. I’m not sure what this is going to do to boost customer’s confidence, but you can make your mind up for yourself. Read these three different takes on the future of SolidWorks:
Evan Yares. Evan has taken a position I held for a short time writing for Design World. I have to say he’s doing a much better job than I did. In his article called “SolidWorks V6 is not SolidWorks”, he calls out the distinction between SolidWorks the company and SolidWorks the software. There is another SolidWorks – SolidWorks the platform. SolidWorks V6 (according to Matt West) is the name of the next generation platform. The software products on that platform will have names that are not yet determined. n!Fuze is the first such product. Live Buildings sounds like it will be another. And there will be a CAD product in there at some point. Read the article. It’s short. I agree with everything Evan says, particularly the part where he says that SolidWorks could have avoided a lot of confusion if they had not used the SolidWorks brand to identify the new product. His point is that it’s not SolidWorks. And he’s right.
Randall Newton. Randall takes a different point of view, looking at largely the same facts. He says that SolidWorks 2013 will launch as legacy software. He also makes a statement that may turn out to be controversial, that ” it will most likely be the last release of SolidWorks using the Parasolid 3D kernel.” He makes another point about O’Malley falling on his sword due to the V6 project not going as planned, which I hadn’t heard put so directly before. Randall goes on to say that SolidWorks branching into V1 and V6 may be similar to Autodesk branching into AutoCAD and Inventor. This is interesting, and I’d like to believe it is true, but if it becomes true, I don’t think it will be because DS planned it that way. The plan seems to be that SolidWorks V1 is at end-of-life. It hasn’t seen significant development since 2007, and that may continue into the future. Microsoft “supported” Windows XP for a long time after Vista and even 7 were released. That doesn’t mean they spent any energy developing it.
Roopinder Tara. Roopinder seems to have gotten stuck on the semantics of “kernel change”. He allows Bassi to get away with delivering a rose-colored doosey – “The user sees no effect with a kernel change”. Then he contradicts what Randall said “There will be a SolidWorks 2013 with Parasolid. And a SolidWorks 2014 with Parasolid. And a SolidWorks 2015.” And finally he gets to the point “But the V6 kernel will be the engine of the future. It will be where the development will be. It is where Dassault’s heart is.” If that’s not change, I’m not sure what is. The change might be good in the end, but it’s still change.
Rob Rodriguez. Rob wrote a lot about the SWW12 event, and then followed it up with SW2013, and finally V6. He said ” I got the sense it was going to be 2-3 years before we will be able to purchase the SolidWorks V6 product”, but from what I heard at the general sessions, it sounded like the next generation was arriving in 2013.
SolidWorks seems to be making an attempt at corking the genie that Jeff Ray unleashed, but they’re trying to do it without offering any details.
You would have to look at the list of new functionality and this delated backward compatibility and think it means static feature code going forward. Either that or SW has a very short life expectancy and has been granted a notional deathbed wish.
Possibly the new capability *is* just a macro to strip out the feature tree to a dumb solid. If the code is static though that means there is actually no reason not to be able to import the whole tree except of course to protect DS and their VAR’s interests in respect of sales, upgrades and subs, and that further it is a deliberately self serving strategy to arbitarily limit the capability to sp5 of a release. Of course following on that line it wouldnt be a good idea to allow the full deal anyway because that might substantiate suspicions of abandonned development and pending compelled migration. All in all it looks like they have succeeded in giving us everything and nothing while protecting their interests and having something *big* to advertise in the What’s New. Just don’t read the small print or think too hard.
Then again at least SW has some info even if it is dis-info, SWv6 has none, and probably for good reason.
I wonder does anyone think SWv6 will have backward compatibility or have a translator for Catia even if the code is much the same or identical? 😉
@Neil
Yeah, Lou seems to be saying that it’s a dumb solid. Better than a graphics body, not as good as a featured model. Well, that certainly wasn’t what came to mind with that announcement.
He didn’t mention a source for the new information, however. Would be interesting to know.
In Lou Gallo’s latest podcast http://solidworksheard.com/blog/2012/2/16/replay-solidworks-world-2012.html I believe he says you can’t do anything with the model content that comes back a release. Apparently its sort of like the case of a graphic body of an imported mesh. Possibly even its just the opengl tessellation coming back then? If thats so then as far as most people are concerned it isn’t backward compatible. If you want to work with the geometry you’ll still have to go the step/iges route I think.
It made an exciter/filler for the SWW stage but its another marketing exaggeration or management deception. SW forfill their promise to deliver something but conceal that they didn’t deliver what was wanted or didn’t actually have any resources to do it.
Really it falls into the same zone as opening up more search engine capability for documentation that doesn’t exist, or holding over Freeze a release to work on it but the result looks the same.
Say it quickly and with enthusiasm and you might get away with it.
Really I wonder how long they think they can keep this act going.
SW2013 is going to be one empty release. Even the most loyal fans are going to have a hard time believing DS assurances about the future of SW. I would say DS has about four coders working on SW or eight doing it by their usual over-produced methods.
The question people ought to be asking as they observe the space opening up between old and new is ‘What is the hold up with SWv6 if its a stipped down Catia with a new face?’ At this stage it seems like CAD in the cloud is a bridge too far for coders and customers alike.
@Vajrang Parvate
Wow, I was hoping for something there, but I guess not. Don’t care to elaborate, I guess? So the only thing you can take from it will be that 2012 sp5 will be compatible with 2013, and 2013 sp5 compatible with 2014?
I’m just asking the questions that are on people’s minds. “No change in data format” was not a misquote. If you can’t take the CEO’s words at face value, who can you believe?
And just for the record, no one believes this bullshit any more.
For the record: the file format of SW2013 is not the same as SW2012. As with every new release, there are new features in SW2013 (some of which were shown at SW World) that require the format changes.
Ergo, any conclusions based on this presumption should be re-examined.
Solid Works made a wise choice when they chose the Parasolid (owned by Siemens) and they also use the D-Cubed Constraint Manager (owned also by Siemens). It is often said that “everyone uses everyone’s technology), but I don’t see Siemens using any of Dassault’s technology. That being said, it is a major move going from a kernel you have been using for years, to a kernel that will require translation (regardless of what is said, we all know about kernel changes) – Could V6 (?) be a completely different product? – absolutely – with minor functionality changes to SW over the last 3-4 years (with a lot of the technology prior to that being purchased and integrated into SW) – Dassault may have simply “run out of functionality to purchase” and is now being driven to do something their CEO said they “would never do” – have CATIA and SW working similiar to what Siemens (UGS) did with NX (UG) and Solid Edge. Siemens improved marketing has (in my opinion) made Solid Edge a force to be dealt with in the market. Synchronous Technology is the first real “paradigm shift” since we went from 2D to 3D when Solid Modeling was introduced. Solid Edge has been steadily improving their product with “customer driven enhancements” and stayed on course with developement “in house” – not purchasing add-on technology. Is Solid Works a good product – absolutely (with the Parasolid kernel and the D-Cubed Constraint Manager from Siemens) it has probably better than 60% of it’s core technology being purchased from what Dassault finally has to admit is a “major competitor”. The way we continue to be successful is to check out new options to what we currently use – to bury our heads in the sand and say “this is the best and I’m not changing” is to accept what the market gives us and the hype they throw at us with all the sophisticated messaging. Remember – we once thought AutoCAD was the best. Since Dassault is pitching a “major technology” change within the product – we will have to make changes in how we do business – a good time (I believe) to compare Synchronous Technology to Dassault’s new offering. They have always followed UGS (and now Siemens) with functionality in SW that was in Solid Edge a couple of years earlier – where Dassault was “in the lead” was in marketing – not technology. The prolem this presents is you will gain market share based on marketing – it will become difficult to retain marketshare when the user community becomes “open minded” enough to compare other technology to what they currently use.
@Devon Sowell
That’s the same concerns I have. It’s not that DS is going to a new platform, but why do they keep acquiring these useless companies. I would think the cloud based V6 is going to be fast, especially if it’s installed on a local intranet. PDM is a super broken workflow. The data with a PDM is always out of date and never current. A cloud based solution would address this.
I just wish they would finalize the plan and give users a clue on the direction, meanwhile my company is building tons of data that may end up being legacy if SW screws the pooch on the grand scheme. We went from Mechanical Desktop to Pro/E to SW and I surely don’t want to switch to something else that ends up being bloatware with social networking and etc.
I think SolidWorks V6 its going to be similar to MS Office365 apps online.
Has anyone used MS Office365 online?
Microsoft have Word and Excel etc. (natively) online in the cloud as part of Office365. These online applications can open docx, xlsx files etc, and allow you to edit them. However these online MS apps don’t have the depth of functionality that MS Office installed on your on your computer has (i.e. for inserting a Table of Contents in Word for example).
I think SolidWorks V6 will only run on the cloud, and allow you open your SolidWorks files and have a certain percentage of the functionality that SolidWorks on your Workstation will have.
@John Jones
Let me summarize the last couple years of discussion on the topic.
The development has been largely non-CAD. That’s the main beef. Read the PDFs and point out the usable CAD developments. If you want to know why I personally am annoyed, point out the complex shape modeling developments that have improved things.
For my last project in 2012, I could not bill 25% of the time I had into the project because that amount of time was devoted only to wrangling software problems. Bugs. Troubleshooting. Weird stuff that doesn’t make sense. Time and effort and about $1500 out of my pocket that was just flushed, no benefit to anyone.
The deal with the new product is that I think there are people who don’t trust SolidWorks. They haven’t delivered much useful stuff recently, so if they re-architect the software, there is some doubt that they will do it in such a way that I will get any benefit. Plus, if it is a cloud only implementation, there will be a lot of resistance. People like me need more developed tools, not more infrastructure. Some people see the development going in the wrong direction.
With all of that, a lot of folks have a lot invested in the current product. The learning, the expertise, the experience, the familiarity – the advantages of the new software will have to be pretty compelling to just zero out the value of all that and convince people to start over again from ground zero.
“So. The only thing that remains is to see the software. Like Charles said, they need end users banging on the software. They need to hear from critics, not just yes-men. They need to be able to act on critical input. Fewer egos, more brains connected to ears.”
I completely agree with this.
@Matt
“no significant development since 2007”? My what’s new pdfs say differently.
@Everyone else.
I have been following this V6 debacle with a passing interest. What I don’t understand is why people are finding it hard to understand the distinction between the current product which will always run on parasolid and continue to be developed (I believe), and a brand new totally unconnected product running on something else. When you’ve been running your trusty gas-guzzling motor and the company comes out with a new all electric car, do they force you to change? No, they continue to make cars running on gas because that’s what most people want. But a significant number of new and existing customers will see the benefit of switching. Don’t try and pick holes in my analogy, I just thought of it.
@Rob Rodriguez
transcript starting at 17:38
No change in data format. Sounds like this means that SP5 of SW2012 will be compatible with every remaining release of the SolidWorks software. They’ve stopped protecting your data from you. This is an end-of-life move. What else could you call it?
I guess it comes down to if you believe what he is saying or not.
We see our next generation as the way moving forward. Another end-of-life nail in the coffin for the current product.
It comes down to a couple of things for me:
– if this is implemented only on the web, I won’t use it. Period.
– if it is only sold on a rental basis, I won’t pay for it.
– if it is delivered 80% ready (20% bugs) there will be a lot of noise from people who paid money for it
– if the data format makes real world tasks difficult or a workaround, acceptance will suffer
– if the functionality is not clearly improved over what we have now, there is no point. I don’t give a rip about your “new technology” if it doesn’t benefit what I can deliver.
I can totally see that there is at least the possibility of getting great new functionality in this new product. I don’t and won’t trust DS employee’s evaluation of their own product. I really don’t think they understand what end users need. They’ve proved that in every release since 2008.
So. The only thing that remains is to see the software. Like Charles said, they need end users banging on the software. They need to hear from critics, not just yes-men. They need to be able to act on critical input. Fewer egos, more brains connected to ears.
At best, we might get some cool functionality and prolong DS/SW’s lead for a while. At worst, this has the potential to go badly wrong. The first two years so far have created few believers, with n!Fuze flopping, and Live Buildings not really having much application to the current user base, it’s not a good start. It remains to be seen what is delivered as the next gen CAD tool.
@Rob,
Well a policy is one thing, what actually happens is another.
SW have often been ostriches in a time of crisis and open for marketing purposes but more or less closed when it comes to customer input having real influence on what arrives.
I would actually rate them fairly low for customer responsiveness. Sure they collect information via surveys, ER and so forth but as astute observers realise its largely a pointless exercise contributing.
Over the years SW have become less and less engaged with seat of the pants users until you might regard them as looking through mirror glass. As frustrating and annoying as this is at least it is a familiar approach. Basically I think it has to do with scale factors and being enmeshed in the corporate matrix.
One the other hand DS having taken over don’t seem to have any real rapport with SW customers, love bites and all. Appearing on a SWW stage and being upbeat about something people can see is not being developed isn’t helpful. People know lies of convenience when they hear them.
There is too an aspect of arse covering distance and hauteur that is unwelcome. DS make the decisions and the CAD peasants must wait until what ever it is is ready. At this point however ‘when its ready’ would seem to be a cover for ‘whenever we get the damn thing working’. SWv6 so far looks like a bad idea executed badly.
SWv6 is rapidly becoming a credibility problem for DS but ultimately it is a serious problem to be born by customers. When it comes right down to it people use this CAD tool for their own business not to keep DS in business. If DS expect to have a CAD business in the midrange in the future they had better get out and make details known before the whole thing goes permanently sour and their customers go somewhere else. I think we are nearing the tipping point of DS fortunes.
@Matt
The problem I have with it is nothing I design is prismatic. We design a product from castings and those have drafted and radiused faces all over the place. We would literally have to start over to make updates to those parts because the software would forget that it created that filleted edge or conically drafted surface. So if Solidworks V6 will let me update 80% of my old designs over its lifecycle then I’m ahead of where I’d be with anything else I’ve seen.
Full disclosure we used CoCreate.
I don’t think it will. They just need to find some middle ground. Personally I prefer the “open” policy.
I just went and checked the video from Bertrand’s keynote on Monday. Go here youtu.be/BQYe9Au5l4I and start at about 18:15 and listen to 19:00. He does say the next generation tools will be available next year. He then talks about releases 3-4 years down the road. The second part is where the confusion was for me. Looks like we will see something in 2013 based on the “V6” platform.
@Mark Russell
Mark, it’s the CGM geometry kernel, as a part of the V6 platform, as I understand it. V6 is larger than just the geometry. There’s a lot of “wait and see” stuff going on here.
@Mike Ramsey
Mike, for prismatic shapes, direct edit is plenty powerful. Do you have specific examples of things you had trouble with? I’d really like to see that. I have some examples, like when fillets have to collide or tear apart in certain ways, or when topology has to be added (for example a flat tangent to a cylinder). This is why I believe mostly in the combination of direct and history. What direct modeler were you unsatisfied with?
@Rob Rodriguez
Rob, thanks for the comments. I hope the internal struggles between the remnants of the SolidWorks company and DS don’t totally destroy things.
Hi Matt,
An actual time line for “V6” was never really clearly laid out in my opinion at World. Bertrand was on stage Monday morning and in the span of about 1 minute I heard, summer of 2013, 3 years and 5 years all said about the V6 product. It confused me as to when it was actually showing up and I have to think others where confused as well since when I asked the people sitting next to me if they understood what was just said they replied no.
In the press conference the only answer I heard about when “V6” would be available was, “when it’s ready”.
The thing I find the most frustrating is the lack of information being given to the user base about “V6” both in terms of time line and just general overall knowledge. In the press conference Wednesday Fielder did say there where two different policies trying to work together. DS has a “closed” policy and “SW has always had an “open” policy. I’m not actually sure he used the word “policy” but something to that effect. Either way, looks like the DS policy is winning at this point.
Ok maybe I’m missing something here but how is running to SolidEdge or some other CAD package going to be any different than riding this switch out? Your models are worthless going from one system to another, and no I don’t buy the direct edit will solve that arguement. I spent two years with a direct edit software before moving back to solidworks because it was absolutely worthless. If we see an 80% conversion rate going from parasolid solidworks to V6 solidworks that’s quite a bit better than the 0% conversion you’ll get moving to another system.
Did anyone say it is the CGM kernel or are they going to call it V6? I am quite amazed at DS’s corporate behaviour. Maybe the CEO is actually a stooge from either Autodesk or Siemens and his real goal IS TO DESTROY Solidworks. Just joking, but he is going to NOT TAKE THE BLAME. It will be all the many customers who weren’t loyal. Customers like Neil and Matt will have to simply relearn 50% of what they know. Just think of of everything from customised toolbars thru to macro’s and years of learning – useless and in the bin. Did anyone mention what the success rate for conversion to the new kernel? I think I heard they were going to be happy with an 80% success rate. In my job as a SWX drafter I saw about 2% of my models fail to convert to IGES. It was usually a fillet that caused this.
My advice is “run, run as fast and as far away as you can”.
Today I used Exalead and I searched for something. Next, I looked at Netvibes and I thought about making a dashboard, but then I asked myself what for?
After many years designing and manufacturing, I don’t understand what I’m supposed to do with Exalead and Netvibes.
Dassault spent $206 million USD on these two applications.
Devon
Today I’ve been messing with the SW API trying to write a macro. Really its the first time I’ve tried to do something complex. It takes a bit of hunting in the API help and MS VB help but I’m getting there, I think.
Thousands of users must have learned to write macros over the years. I am grateful quite a few have kindly shared some with the community and there is a lot of info on the internet about the SW API.
Reflecting on this, there is a depth to SW that isn’t considered when DS decide Solidworks will be killed off.
What about the redundant know-how, books ,training etc, etc? Will I be able to run macros for SWv6? I presume everything I have learned and collected is trash and will need to be redone.
Leaving aside the probable difficult transition re kernels, the inconvenience and dislocation factor is enormous. Can you bill for that?
I really wonder if DS have any idea what an imposition this migration will be for their customers. There hasnt been a lot of noise yet but as the time draws closer to when peoples work tool gets buried maybe we’ll see rioting outside the new SW palace in Ma.
How can you plan ahead for your business with no details?
No details = total contempt for customers.
No details = corporate self interest of DS.
@Charles
Yeah, they’re going to need a lot of testing. I hope with a new guy in charge of development they are able to look at problems more constructively.
My understanding of the timeline is that we will see an official announcement of the SolidWorks V6 product(s) in 2013.
I’m a fan of extended beta testing, and I hope for a new product like this, so is Dassault.
DS SolidWorks is “dazed & confused”
DS SolidWorks = General Motors circa 1980 – 1990, lost and misguided
SolidWorks V6 development = GM Saturn electric car development
Devon