Examining V6 Roots
I got a note from a friend directing me to a site that has been source of good information and opinion on CAD industry goings-on, GraphicSpeak. This time the author is Stephen Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe has been around the industry a long time, and is well qualified to speak on the topic of product development software. He’s a consulting analyst with Jon Peddie Research, in which capacity he wrote an article for the GraphicSpeak blog.
I was fortunate enough to meet Mr. Wolfe one time. We shared an elevator at a CAD conference a few years ago. We talked about some topic I don’t remember, although it was important to me at the time. I was impressed with the insight he offered to a stranger who accosted him in an elevator.
I’ve only written about him once before on Dezignstuff, which was in reference to some comments he made at a press conference in Barcelona asking that a FEA demo’s boundary conditions be made more realistic. He’s not just a press guy, and not just another industry wonk. He’s a real engineer, and one of the few guys in the industry who deserves real respect. At least to me.
Real info from real Catia V6 users has been hard to come by. There has been very little that helps SolidWorks users to get a real vision into what the “next generation” product is going to look like, or how it will be to work with.So when I read this article entitled “Is Catia V6 over the hump?”, I knew this wasn’t just another hot-headed knee-jerk reaction. Anyway, you need to read the whole article, and I’ll add some comments here.
This article sees things mainly from an administrator’s point of view, which is valuable, because that’s where most of the work will be if you have to switch. Notice also that Wolfe mainly avoids the cloud issue. The cloud should really just be a solution for people who need it: Companies with widely distributed design facilities need it.
Although SolidWorks and Catia don’t have much in common right now, if you plan to move forward with the “next generation” of SolidWorks software, you are going to be affected by the current state of the Catia universe. It is well established by now that the “next generation” of SolidWorks will be announced in 2013, and will be based on the Enovia V6 backbone (database) and the Catia CGM V6 geometry kernel. This means of course that the “next generation” of SolidWorks will look much more like Catia than SolidWorks. Next generation SolidWorks may not have the same problems that the current version of Catia has, but the article spells out the difficulties of DS customers who are changing from V5 to V6. I would be willing to bet that customers changing from SolidWorks to V6 have even more problems than V5 users.
There is very little good news in this article for SolidWorks users. Your subscription money for the last 4 years has been going into this V6 project. I’m all for forward movement and improvement, but I also realize that design and manufacturing cannot just gut their process whenever the CAD vendor has a new idea. CAD providers have to find a way to make their changes within their customer’s processes. Making the switch from what you do today to what DS is asking you to do next year will be more of a disruption with less benefit than switching to some other brand of CAD.
To me the jury is still out on the whole “database” thing, but it sounds a bit awkward. The fact that users had to suggest a “work space” area is worrying, because that would seem to be something very basic that should be baked right in. The file sharing bits and “copying” and “propagation” are again awkward. It may be true that the database approach has some real benefits, but it is also going to have some real drawbacks. Dassault might have done better to make this a research project rather than trying to force-feed this as a “next generation” line of products. They are using an aircraft manufacturer to debug the software. I’m surprised that Bell and Cessna agreed to be the guinea pigs, they must have received a big financial incentive, otherwise, the risk would just be for someone else’s gain.
There is a lot of doubt coming from people who are at the sweet spot for this software: Complex product, complex organization behind the product. How is Dassault going to take a system like Catia and transform it into something it was not originally meant to do for organizations that are not in that corporate sweet spot, when it does not seem to be able to deliver success for optimal customers? I think this “next generation” of SolidWorks threatens to upset the entire apple cart. The more I see of this, the less I think it is going to thrive in the wild. The idea that DS thinks that this type of product can be fed to typical SolidWorks users shows that DS doesn’t understand what the SolidWorks product and company used to be, nor SolidWorks customers.
Interesting discussion guys. Lots of take away from it.
@ Jeff,
I guess I have answered all your technical queries!
You may shoot any technical query if you need to be answered.
Above comment only includes Marketing, strategy & Sales stuff.
You love old SW it’s fine it is there and will be there. Strategy is not hurting your business.
As already told I was here for technical stuff.
Rest we both are intellect to defend own point in a year long debate.
SO no point in debating 😉
It was nice meeting you & also all you guys over there.
Regards,
Himanshu
@himanshu
Thanks for the reply, again.
“Relax you won’t be bothered by the new product of SW if you don’t want to get bothered.”
I’m really not too sure about that. SolidWorks has released very little information in this regard, and much of it seems contrary. Obviously, many are already bothered by “new” SolidWorks (somewhat feature-dead in the last few releases, many-year requests ignored continually, etc.). So a further stop of non-cloud-based development would certainly be a bother.
“Dude engine was parasolid (SEIMENS) 😉
DS has a in house engine is better and powerful one.
Even we have the same mentally here “no one want to rent but own at lower cost”
So no-one can criticize DS for the change to better.”
Yes, you bring up mixed points here. But keep in mind for small shops like many of us who comment here, “better at any cost” isn’t necessarily better. In fact, it might be a deal-killer. The cost will increase along all foreseeable lines in the future. What matters here is value, not “better” and not simply cost—but how much “better” for how much cost. That ratio is value, and SolidWorks has excellent value as it is now (nobody can compete). Catia—for small shops—has almost no value. Truly. That’s why small shops never use Catia unless they have high-dollar contracts with the big guys requiring use of the Catia format (which is quite rare). We’re in a depression, so higher costs and lower revenues aren’t good for this sort of business model. I’ve got to purchase my software myself, so something as absurd as Catia (for what I do) is never going to happen.
You may find, also, that most people who use SolidWorks use it because they like using it—as SolidWorks.
“I guess you are referring to the “V4 to V5 migration”
Agreed was pretty much pain area for DS.”
Whichever. Version incompatibility—ever—is a deal-killer. We must spend our time on things that generate income (design), not in attempting to support legacy files (busy-work).
But it is not an “non-factory engine but just an super car engine”
I think you’ve demonstrated my point. Drop a super-car engine into a Jeep and see how well that goes. The two are simply not compatible in such an idealistic drag-and-drop means.
“Also manufactured by the experts.”
The experts are almost solely to blame for all the speculation on the future of SolidWorks.
The experts are almost solely to blame for the resulting expressions of malcontent.
The experts are almost solely to blame for our economic malaise.
The experts are almost solely to blame for the upcoming financial/political crisis.
The experts are almost solely to blame for new and continued wars.
The experts seem to do a great job in driving things into the ground—perhaps much more efficiently than the non-experts. (Maybe they’re all more concerned with power than in stated goals/solutions?)
Look, I can see you’re an optimist, and I’m sure you can see I’m not. I’ve got a very long history with SolidWorks—love the product—but don’t see the proposed direction (whatever it really is) as moving toward the best interests of most of the users. Would I really spend this much time on blogs and forums if I didn’t care? I definitely care. But when you care about something, it makes the mistakes that much more painful. The point is to help correct the direction of out-of-touch DS/SolidWorks leadership toward optimal value for the majority of users. I want the next version of SolidWorks—which I pay for—to pay for itself and get off my bookshelf. This treading-water nonsense must end or there’s not really any point for me to upgrade. And if there’s no point for me to upgrade, there’s no point for me to pay for subscription service.
And I know I’m not the only one riding in this Jeep.
moderation seems create a big delay here 🙁
Guys a good news for you all!
Relax you won’t be bothered by the new product of SW if you don’t want to get bothered.
As per my information they don’t have any plans to role out your favorite SW till any foreseeable time.
There will be new development and also SW will also be supported.
Target audience of SW V6 is for those who are hurt by old SW & new customers.
@ Jeff,
I totally understand misconception.
Well let point out direct misconception.
Someone pointed out he want to have “iteration for conceptual design.”
He don’t think he would be comfortable with database (db).
Very busy today so don’t have time to go through this entire movie script.
Dude engine was parasolid (SEIMENS) 😉
DS has a in house engine is better and powerful one.
Even we have the same mentally here “no one want to rent but own at lower cost”
So no-one can criticize DS for the change to better.
Car engine analogy:
I am not denying new transmission change.
In fact that is what they are doing, keeping the same UI that you guys like so much”
This is what this change is all about. Key point “UI remains same user friendly”.
To get the idea “Same interiors of your car but with a better performance”
Had the don’t need to do that the launch would have been 10 years back.
“Files won’t update from SW v2013 to V6, just as CATIA files don’t update from V5 to V6.”
I am sorry but don’t know were did you get this statement from? Is it DS official statement.
Frankly speaking I am not a SW guy, but in case of CATIA it is false.
New update mechanism for CATIA V5 to V6 “V6 had an architectural change a far more better to remove many known restrictions of V5. So if we consider a case where V5 data ask an update and is not needed in V6 it is removed during the transition phase only. Second case V5 data need update and V6 also needs an update, V6 will ask of the update”
Wooo you converted the strength into weakness dude!
I guess you are referring to the “V4 to V5 migration”
Agreed was pretty much pain area for DS.
I guess they had their lesson and hence they have “co-existence in place”
Well I am not an expert on this topic 🙁
“So back to the engine analogy, it’s actually not a bad analogy quite so much as a marketing-based retelling of the horrors and difficulties of placing a non-factory engine into a factory-component automobile. Try it in real life sometime and you’ll wonder why you ever thought it was a good idea. Sort of like CAD software.”- good one, I like those words 😉
But it is not an “non-factory engine but just an super car engine”
Also manufactured by the experts.
@himanshu
Thanks for the reply.
You mentioned there were misconceptions of Catia V6. Can you spell those out? I didn’t notice any misconceptions, so much as thinly-veiled hostility against hosing SolidWorks in favor of Catia Lite. Keep in mind a disagreement over the value of a given aspect of software really isn’t a “misconception” (unless you work in marketing).
I get your car-engine analogy, but it’s sloppy for several reasons (that matter). Because the car’s engine has interfaces specific to the rest of the components of the car. So it’s really never a matter of simply swapping out the engine, since you need an engine that will hook up properly with the transmission (for example)—so you may also require a new transmission, requiring potentially different user controls (interface), differential, and you get the idea. A change of kernel is a major change. Files won’t update from SW v2013 to V6, just as Catia files don’t update from V5 to V6. To think this is a simple matter is (again) fading into the realm of marketing, where everything is so easy to do as long as you’re buying. Legacy data, however, must be dealt with by the users/owners of that data and software companies are notorious for leaving those users/owners hanging with poor (if any) solutions to tackle the problem. Catia, specifically, has a terrible reputation in this regard, since a migration from one version of software to another won’t even work. So back to the engine analogy, it’s actually not a bad analogy quite so much as a marketing-based retelling of the horrors and difficulties of placing a non-factory engine into a factory-component automobile. Try it in real life sometime and you’ll wonder why you ever thought it was a good idea. Sort of like CAD software.
Wow 🙂 I have so many friends here.
The main problem that I see over here is the cost of the SW for small entrepreneur!
@Matt
I partially agree with you on the cost perspective. In fact am also inquiring on the strategy front for the cost model and SW promotion keeping in mind the small entrepreneurs. I will get back to you as soon as I am answered 🙂
I am a technical guy and just commented the blog coz there were some misconception on CATIA V6.
@Soildworm
Let me try to justify a bit more.
CATIA V6 = CATIA thin client + Server (ENOVIA\ENOVIA V6 cloud).
Data is saved on the server.
You can search your data on a client, then you have two option two work in CATIA V6.
Work with graphical rep (VPM navigator). You can have a lots of edition facility to play with assembly architecture and PLM properties, in fact if you don’t need to specifically work on the geometrical design you can work over here.
Secondly if you need to work in the design mode you can open the assembly in the Authoring window.
What I meant was you can load a single assembly as big as of size 16 GB in both the modes.
@Jeff
Dude as specified I am a technical guy let me address you on technical front.
DS is changing the kernel for SW and not the application itself.
Just like many cars runs on same engine.
If the engine is replaced by a better one better one you would get an better output 🙂
Take my million dollar will be on CGM against parasolid.
@Neil
As addressed it’s just an kernel change!
CATIA and Solidworks are both build with different approach.
Moreover we cannot criticize if the current restrictions of SW due to parasolid are removed with CGM.
Nothing to discuss more as you have already made up your mind.
@Rick
Even When I saw SW UI quit impressed me.
“They are forced to use Catia because lofts in Solidworks are not sufficiently accurate”
There is were CGM takes the cake. Improved for years and used by the best.
Actually that is what the main vision of V6 as a platform comes into play.
“DS want’s it’s product to be build on the similar architecture so that the advantage of one can be used by other. Same is even valid in case of workebnches”
Jeff and Matt will get back to you if I get info on cost model.
@Rick McWilliams
I think that Dassault will always categorize the advanced surfacing and conics features that you need to design aircraft parts as a Catia market. Has not aircraft always been the most significant market for Catia? And if this is your business, why would you not want to be using the industry standard tools for that business? I guess it comes down to user preference vs. industry standard.
I fully apprecaite your points. As an example I have a supplier of axial fan blades that are designed in SW. They have airfoil shapes and even sickle-airfoil shapes. But when I simulate their performance in Flow, there is about a 20% differential from their computer generated data which is test performance based. I can only imagine that their SW surfaces are creating that 20+% deviation. But I don’t think that because they manufacture fans they should have to use Catia to create theri product. But I suspect the fan blades are not true to the model they provide me.
I bought SolidWorks in 1997 because it was CHEAP. For me it has been super for sheet metal parts, weldments and even Routing (to a point), but I don’t design fan blades, I just buy them. Perhaps a STEP file of a Catia generated fan blade would generate better Flow simulation results?
Your difficulties with airfoil type surfaces caused me to relate to the problems I have with airfoil surfaces that are clearly demonstrated in a Flow analysis. And I’m going to suggest to my fan supplier that they be designed in Catia.
But Dassault should absolutely offer an upgrade path from SW to Catia for faithful customers like you where they will never offer the capabilities you need for the products that you design.
I have some friends who use both Solidworks and Catia. They prefer to use Solidworks because the user interface is less cumbersome. They are forced to use Catia because lofts in Solidworks are not sufficiently accurate. These were ruled surfaces of an airplane wing. Should be easy. Would it have been different if they had used boundary surface??
I am really pissed that solidworks does not support conic surfaces. These are the best choice for aircraft design. Low order surfaces are controllable and never have wrinkles. I can import conics from iges and then use them. I am using GW3D an add in that gives me conic surfaces and nice blended surfaces.
Catia lite is likely to only have the functionality of SW2007+++ or they would undermine Catia sales and be needlessly out front of the midrange competition.
Most likely they wont allow direct file translation for the same reason as before. Imagine though defending not allowing files produced by the same kernal to be compatible. At least they had some thin excuse before…. Still we can probably live with that limitation in reality.
Life is still going to have a glass ceiling as far as existing SW users are concerned. No cool technology will arrive in new SW unless it had been in Catia for a few years already or it has been stripped down to be about useful enough for our purposes and no more. Midrange users will have to accept thats their lot in life as second tier users with lesser needs and a smaller budget. The alternative might be to allow 3rd parties to provide missing capability or their own creative solutions.
In short Dassault have wasted, I guess, about $100m to get back to where we were before except they managed to mangle their repute and upset their user base in the process.
At this stage why not replace Mr Charles? Have the new suit candidly admit the cloud initiative was a misadventure and say development has been discontinued in favour of the well established Catia functionality bringing all customers under the same proprietary technology roof.
You can honestly put a positive spin on that. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. All past sins will be forgiven and expunged with the exile of Mr Charles, as is the French custom….Both sets of users can be united in one big global family and SW users can be confident of transitioning to something proven and stable derived from an industrial strength product.
While we are at it I think its time they gave Catia lite a name, perhaps Solidworks II or Catia Essentials and started promoting the benefits. Stick with much the same marketing/publicity model as SW already had and was familiar and successful. Dassault CAD solutions can be related and yet have their own personality befitting their customers preference/habit/needs. If Catia is pitched at larger projects and Essentials at smaller ones that’s logical and consistent.
Unfortunately though if Catia is the base technology then they can probably sack all but say 100-150 or so old SW staff once the downsize and reskin is done and thereby also recoup that $100m. Thats quite a sad outcome after all the effort that went into SW but I suppose they can be heartened it was a job well done for as long as it lasted, and of course nothing lasts forever. Certainly Dassault made a lot of money out of it and customers did a lot of good work with it over the years. Those lucky remaining staff can all move into one floor of the Concord palace and Dassault can try to let out the rest although there probably won’t be a lot of demand for office space in the US for a good while to come. This wrong direction needn’t have extreme or lasting penalties.
Really though the time has come to take some decisive and positive steps and move on and up. The cloud is a dead idea for CAD and it always was.
@himanshu
Himanshu, can you tell us how any of the things you lauded above are of benefit to the small business users like many of those posting here? I’ve never designed a passenger aircraft for Boeing, but I’ve done many, many consumer/medical/industrial products.
There seems to be a terribly hazardous disconnect with you (and D’Assault) between product offerings and the ideal settings/uses/customers of those offerings. I’ve never heard SolidWorks users whine that if only SolidWorks was actually Catia, all their CAD frustrations would suddenly evaporate. Never. And perhaps the most probable reason why is that SolidWorks—as SolidWorks, and not any other application—generally meets their needs better than any other application. If that most probable reason is also fact, then it makes no sense to change the very nature of SolidWorks into the nature of Catia-Lite. This is what you (and D’Assault) are failing to address. Convince me that Catia-Lite, with all its undesired features and undesired cost models, will actually meet my needs better than SolidWorks 2007. Do that, and you may be able to demonstrate this is a viable business direction. Fail, and you offer a preview of the disaster to soon hit SolidWorks.
@himanshu
I’m interested to know more about ” I can open a complex say 16GB assembly and work on it!”, Do you mean the assembly loads on a central cloud server and you only work with a graphical representation in a browser for example? V6 doesn’t work that way, as far as i know. Could you elaborate more on this?
@himanshu
I don’t deny that there are some cool and very useful things about what V6 may have to offer. I don’t deny that a Bugatti Veyron is a cool car, yet I don’t own one.
And if I want an experience, I’ll go to Disneyworld.
As far as the file size, I’ve never needed to work on anything that large. I’d guess that the Catia db sizes are quite a bit larger than equivalent SW files. File size is not what slows SW down so much as inefficient handling of the history tree.
The fact that you use the software but don’t know what it costs is key. Most of the people who rant here, and in fact the author of the blog, are all people who buy their own software. This is kind of key to my argument. SolidWorks users are generally not as far removed from the decision making process as Catia users. Catia is sold on golf courses. SolidWorks (was anyway) sold in the engineering department, or in a single user’s office (typically). Trying to replace a decidedly mid-range product in the mid-range market with Catia’s little brother is I think a mistake. You can’t implement mid-range in the same way that you implement something like Catia.
The market that would buy a SolidWorks 2007-like product is very different from the market that will buy a Catia V6-like product. It was positioned from the very beginning as a replacement, but if it works in the market at all, it will not be as a replacement.
Some more delight on CGM
http://www.spatial.com/blog/leveraging-multi-core-hardware
Guys lucky to share my thought with you 🙂
Is this a DS hatered club 😉 Ny way I am a big fan of DS products but never used SW.
Guys I am a CATIA V5 and V6 user for years now!
Trust me CGM rocks in surfacing! Not only creation and modification are easy but the final touch, analysis is even more better 🙂
And this is already proved to the world with it’s Class A surface design.
I know you guys have been facing issues with Solidwork Kernel (parasolid).
DS is just integrating the new kernel for better!
Regarding database problem, I would like all my data at one place!
Well it’s a long discussion some one asked abut the trial on concept design.
With V6 it’s not at all an problem. As an end user I would Just like to say
“In the start you won’t like it, search a DB, explore & open a file. I must say in comparison to all PLM soft it is lightening fast! But once you get into V6 flow you will love it”.
““Currently after 14 years, I have approximately 2.5TB of SolidWorks design files. How exactly would I edit/convert those files for use in V6?”
I would say that is quite a small data for a database!
To extend I can open a complex say 16GB assembly and work on it! DOes any CAD soft has this ability of loading capability. As you guys are very experienced please correct my knowledge if I am wrong.
Cost wise I am not very sure. But the day I need to collaborate, design, simulate, manufacture, validate quickly I do have a product to work “CATIA V6”
Nokia 3010 still works but why do we need a I-Phone.
Cause I-Phone is not an phone it is an experience
Big things do cost more. Same way I feel V6 is an experience.
@Andy Reily — Where were you all these years !
LOL 😀
http://hoxdna.org/draid/source/sounds/ambient_crickets.wav
Thanks for the reply, Andy. I was afraid you’d say that.
Enter the crickets.
Hi Jeff, the simple answer is that the Solidworks team need to be the people to answer your Solidworks V6 questions. The reason I joined the discussion was because the original post was based on the comments of Stephen Wolfe about CATIA V6. From that point my aim has been to ensure that the questions about CATIA V6 were answered and the strength of the CGM kernel was defended becasue it is at the heart of CATIA – and SOLIDWORKS V6!
Regards
Andy Reilly
How can I sow the seed for ANOTHER break-away Company like how SolidWorks started?
If we get enough Votes, surely the programmers will get the idea to join/create their own Start-up Company and maintain the SolidWorks AMAZING philosophy of developing “What the users want”
It saddens me that SolidWorks has been eaten up (aka bought out) & soon to be dismantled by DS who appear to be hell bent on rolling SolidWorks into their own Catia (Cloud) suite (how’s THAT going work for YOU?)
I feel your pain Matt – every time I read your latest blogs I sense your disappointment that SolidWorks as we know it “will be no more”
How about we assign YOU Matt as the new head of a Company so that you can chew the ear off a number of SolidWorks programmers and join us in a SolidBanana republic (I think I just an intelligent statement without fully understanding it – but who doesn’t nowadays?) Software Company where users OWN (have shares in) the Software?
Well; that’s my 2c worth (and starting share) in an amazing new CAD Design suite of the future
@Andy Reilly
Andy, I guess I’m still unclear as to the connection between ongoing SolidWorks development and V6. From your reply, I understand you’re more of a Catia guy and less of a SolidWorks guy, but as I mentioned previously, SolidWorks users are near hypoxia within the vacuum surrounding this SolidWorks/V6 connection. We get lots of marketing spin that, when questioned, has no real answers, no real details. After all, it’s “not yet released”. That’s slick. We hear about the amazing benefits, but the topic of costs/liabilities is deftly avoided. Maybe there are no costs/liabilities whatsoever, and I’m tilting at windmills?
Is there anyone who can provide any details with the SolidWorks/V6 connection? I guess I had my hopes up a bit when Andy first commented here. No, I’m not requesting a regurgitation of past marketing articles or quotes—I’m quite familiar with their carefully-vacuous phrasing. I’m interested in follow-up details from the SolidWorks/DS bunker regarding the connection between SolidWorks and V6. Andy, can you help with this?
All i want is for my SWv6 to be the same old SolidWorks i know and love. Minus the bugs in geometry. Minus the bugs and inconsistency in the UI. Minus the “web noddles” in all of their half-assed useless existence. And with a focus on enhancing the core and essence of the CAD (yes thats right.. CCAADD!!!) software its actually meant to be…
For the love of GOD there are so many missed opportunities within SW if only the core feature ideas were well planned / designed and then implemented/enhanced over a number of releases. but ultimately ending in one feature-full, integrated piece of software!
GOSH HOW OLD AND CRAP ARE SO MANY OF THE DIALOG BOXES! You can’t even copy/paste in so many scenarios when SW was CREATED on and FOR Windows!
OMG WHY is it that we have to create seperate files for Weldment Profiles when we have (wait for it….) CONFIGURATIONS! Surely the smart guys at SW Corp could have seen a gain in that one? ffs…
*sigh*
If SWv6 promised the grass to be green in these areas.. i’d be happy to wait and see if it delivers. But at this point in time (and for about 4yrs now) i’ve got zero confidence it’ll even be software i’ll feel is fun to use and that i’ll continue to use even if it sh*ts me to tears due to the inevitable bugs it’ll have!
But they don’t seem to be doing a “full re-write”. They seem to be ditching SW’s core design (which is what made it so good and what isnt broke) and inventing some other BS that no one cares about. WE don’t even know if it’ll have a similar UI philosophy.. be actually 10x faster in raw graphics power.. run on DirectX and not OGL so we arent limited to paying for “professional drivers” that really do diddley squat but people never admit as they are to scared of UN-justifying their expensive “pro” graphics cards….
Hi Matt
Thanks for level setting the discussion, both in terms of my geographic location and where I am in DS! As you say, I am a CATIA person and my goal is to make sure that you guys have a clear picture on what CATIA is, the scale of capabilities and costs so that you are able to make up your own minds about the different topics.
Inside DS there is a very, very clear view about the difference between a CATIA and SOLIDWORKs experience and the very significant differences in what the users and customers expect. This is not just because the SOLIDWORKS R&D team think differently it is because the business is different! As you will have seen from the pricing I have shared about the V6 Online solution, CATIA is not cheap but there is a reason that thousands of users pay that price and are able to make more money for their businesses having paid it.
At the heart of that value is the modelling engine, which is CGM, and when I see your questions about surface quality and the time you spend modelling and fixing I know the difference it makes to have a powerful modelling kernel and enough geometry control and analysis tools to make the process easier. There is a question in my own mind about how many of you guys are “riding the wheels of your bicycle when you should just go out and buy a motorbike” -I hope that translates! Since our discussions have started, I have been looking at how we could showcase some of the CATIA V6 surfacing proof points so that people see its power.
Later in the thread David raises the question about a migration from SOLIDWORKS to CATIA – this a bit like chasing your brothers girlfriend while he is still going out with her – once again I hope that translates! As I guess we all know, there have been users that have moved in both directions from CATIA to Solidworks and Solidworks to CATIA but there is no formal program in place because there is a significant business impact for VARs etc plus the functional profile of SOLIDWORKS is completely different to the CATIA packaging approach and therefore the proposal for one SOLIDWORKS users will not look the same as another that focuses on a different part of a design process. The same logic applies with CATIA users going in the other direction.
The last point I would cover is about my knowledge of SOLIDWORKS V6. I have no formal knowledge of the approach the team is taking but I have worked with nearly all of them over the years and I know that they will fight for the best solution possible for their SOLIDWORKs users.
Have a good weekend
Andy Reilly
@Andy Reilly
Given that it will be possible to own Catia V5 or V6, as opposed to a rental license, perhaps you might explain why there exists no “upgrade path” for SolidWorks users to migrate to Catia if their needs so dictate. There are many posters on this blog that are seriously considering migration to SolidEdge or NX, or maybe even SpaceClaim, etc. And they all seem to have many valid reasons for doing so, but starting over with a new CAD system is going to cost $5,000 to $20,000 and their SW investment is abandonded. DS could retain a lot of these customers if they only offered a migration path to Catia, possibly. Or will SW V6 just be a free migration path to many Catia benefits??
Andy,
It is good to know that DS actually understands surfacing geometry. It is perplexing that they have ignored Solidworks surface geometry bugs for 8 years. Maybe SW V6 will make me happy.
We all know that the CAD price quotation for an inscrutable set of software items is a scam to avoid prosecution under price fixing laws.
I am using an add-in, Geometry Works, $1000, to get conic surfaces in Solidworks. It is kind of clunky but the shapes are beautiful.
@Andy Reilly
Andy, as Matt just said, I think there is some confusion over what turf you’re discussing—and I can say I’m not entirely sure myself. My comment above was directed at the concept that V6 will move SolidWorks (generally) in the direction of Catia, perhaps in as much detail as the interface (difficulty to learn, high click-rate per function, etc.), features, and cost. Is this a misunderstanding or perhaps is it still unknown?
SolidWorks users have cried out for details of the upcoming kernel/name/cloud change since the day all this was brought up. And so far, the only real details is that there are no real details—yet (years after the subject was brought up at SWW). As you can imagine, users are diligently requesting and seeking information of this sort since their livelihoods could be seriously affected by a misguided strong-arm decision from DS brass. Year after year in this situation is driving many of us to an odd, manic state of anxiety.
Given that the Wolfe article was centered on V6 (Catia), perhaps your comments are more to that point and less to the V6 (SolidWorks) that viewers of this blog tend to follow? If so, do you have any insight into the SolidWorks flavor of V6? That’s what I’d like to know more about, if available, and I may have mistakenly assumed you were discussing the SolidWorks side of the coin in the comments you’ve posted in this thread. Can you clarify? Thanks.
@Andy… sorry dude.. (as Matt said) my sarcasm meter is pegged (hmm, that could be misconstrued.. or not,.. if you’re annually subscribing to SW at the moment?). 8^)
btw,.. (thanks for the info) I do think it’s very interesting we are getting pricing on Catia from the UK.. that is, getting info from a US Var is not at all easy. (poor guys need to make sure they’re getting their fair cut $$$ before they bend us over.)
@Andy Reilly
Andy, you may find a touch of sarcasm from time to time on this blog. Fannie and Freddie are US home mortgage agencies. For everyone else, Andy is from UK.
One thing you could say that would help here is if you are generally talking about Catia V6 or SolidWorks V6? I don’t think anyone here is seriously interested in Catia aside from a general curiosity, and frankly, there is a lot of hostility toward SolidWorks V6.
If your main mission is with Catia, it would be good to know that. If your mission includes repairing the major fuck up that DS has created around SolidWorks v6, you’re several years late, but what you have to say might be interesting.
I think you will find that SolidWorks users are typically much different from Catia users. If DS doesn’t already know this, then SWV6 was a failure before it began.
@Andy Reilly
You know, what I’d really like is the next version of SolidWorks—that’s actually SolidWorks. If I needed/wanted Catia, I’d have taken out a mortgage to purchase it.
You said:
“•The only skills and infrastructure I need are the ability to know the email addresses and 3 option boxes per user to setup their connection to the servers, data and collaboration environment.”
From the Wolfe article, it seems you cannot jump/switch established users within a 30-day period. Is this true? How is this flexible enough for a small design firm to use when whole projects may come in and leave the shop within less time? This simply doesn’t seem directed at anyone in my shoes. SolidWorks—with v2007 and earlier—really seemed to target my market. Unfortunately they’re focus has devolved quite a lot since then, but it’s still certainly a usable tool.
You said:
“•If I wish to setup and environment in house then I can setup the dataserver and clients within a couple of hours and I will have a completely operational system that can be managed just from an options panel.”
A couple of hours? I’m not sure that’s something to brag about—and certainly isn’t for the scale of use I require.
You said:
“•For small customers that either want flexible payment terms or don’t want to manage an infrastructure then V6 Online offers a very good fit.”
The pricing you gave Devon above is abominable. (No offense.) SolidWorks is much less expensive per hour of use than the V6 offering. Why pay for what isn’t desired/needed/beneficial? Lots of us have enough difficulty justifying the relatively inexpensive one-size-fits-all “maintenance” pricing for SolidWorks for exactly the same reason. Cui bono?
You said:
“•For customers that want to have full flexibility, integration and customization then full V6 is ideal.
In all cases there is scalability between all these options and you can bet that this range of options will be used within the supply chain solutions to allow the largest OEMs to work with a one man specialist designer of widgets.”
Is SolidWorks not ideal? Though I’ve looked around and scoured reviews in trade magazines, I’ve not yet found a suitable replacement. And thus far, the benefits you tout with V6 here and on Wolfe’s blog are expensive solutions to problems I don’t have.
From your comment on Wolfe’s blog:
“V6 is heavily focused on concurrent working and therefore the impact “saving” work has on other people, processes and downstream activities is much more than just saving a document on your local disk and then sending it to the team as an attachment at a later time. The lifecycle, locking and ownership aspects of parts is pretty transparent to users and reflects the behaviour that people will be familiar with when working with a CAD plus PDM solution. You mention the Workspace in your article. The idea of the workspace came from the Smarteam days, and when the concept was then shared with RVI and they, rightly, said “that’s what we need!!” Since that time there have been a number of methodologies developed to perform that function and now there are some unique tools to do that in ENOVIA. Essentially these are tools that allow users to perform design studies without impacting the global data set.”
I’m concerned that it’s the “much more” that will require “much more” of my time in management/overhead with V6. I run a very efficient design gig here, and already have non-PLM solutions for file management that are, frankly, superior to the software-based solutions on the market being sold so CAD development is no longer necessary. I’m not within your target market. If, however, you can deliver solutions to the longstanding bugs and geometry-creation limits of SolidWorks, I’ll be first in line (as would many of the “negative” folks commenting on this blog—often very experienced long-time users of SolidWorks, I’m sure).
How does a user like myself opt out of higher costs or cloud-based file/database hosting with software that is moving forward in development under the DS umbrella? I’m not sure I see a viable exit. Except, of course, by sticking with what I’ve got. But that just seems so—backwards.
@Andy Reilly
Andy, again thanks for the information, I appreciate it. In just a few days I’ve gotten more information than in the past 4 years.
Devon
@Devon Sowell
“Currently after 14 years, I have approximately 2.5TB of SolidWorks design files. How exactly would I edit/convert those files for use in V6?”
I don’t know how you would use it in V6, but why don’t you try out Solid Edge and let Synch Technology edit those files? Just see how it goes. Anyway, it’s all parasolid…
Hi, I have put the replies together
1. Rick – it is hard to know what was in a quote for $35K but depending on what was found it could have been $9K to $65K for a single seat. I do appreciate that the way the products are described to you was more not optimal but I can only apologise. In terms of geometry – CATIA creates excellent geometry! It is very robust, accurate and is the real advantage that Solidworks V6 modelling users will get compared to Solidworks V1. The way your friends are working will be even easier when they have Solidworks and CATIA with the same geometry kernel. You mention the strength of shell operations is interesting because CATIA is very, very strong in this and the productivity of these points compared to competition with customers like TMC, Nokia, Sony.
2. David -to certain extent you are right about the focus of CATIA V6 being on how people work together because our customers want to get some much of their processes to be concurrent. In terms of financing the solution, we still sell 90% of our solutions as outright purchases but the trend for time limited or rented software is increasing in our customers because people may only want a solution while they have a project or because there is an overall project budget and the project manager only wants to pay for the solution for the life of the project and is not interested in having a longer term asset.
3. Devon – the solution I proposed was minimizing the initial cost and maximising the flexibility so I would propose a different solution for a different term. The current crossover point between renting and buying is around 3 years and therefore you would certainly find it much cheaper to buy. As you can imagine, the transfer between SOLIDWORKS V1 and the V6 world will be addressed by the Spatial team.
4. Rick – your points about the logistics are completely fair but I cannot do much about that this week. But your comments about geometry quality are very interesting and makes me ask the question about why there is so much reluctance about the SOLIDWORKS V6 when sweep, loft, trims etc are kernel operators and these are the proven strengths of the CGM kernel!
5. Paul -sorry but I don’t understand the colloquialism
What a great price on Catia!! Who do I contact,.. Fannie or Freddie?? 8^)
Andy
“•I can buy the V6 Online solution and implement a solution with users distributed across Europe, US or Asia within 20 mins.”
You might be able to buy it in 20 minutes, if you get a quotation in 5 minutes. Your credit might have a high enough limit to buy it. I would need 10 minutes to do a wire transfer. Maybe the transfer will go through instantly. Maybe the VAR will respond instantly. If it can be downloaded and authenticated in 20 minutes you must have a very fast connection.
Most users do not enjoy such a fine direct connection to DS.
Since you have such a direct connection to DS please let them know that Solidworks Lofts, sweeps, boundary surface, trims, curves, and splines geometry sucks.
@Andy Reilly
Thanks for the information Andy.
So At $7,200.00/year, if I continued for another 14 years I’m looking at $100,800.00 for the software. I’d have to charge(income) about double that just to pay for the software only after taxes & expenses, that = $201,600.00.
Now I’m looking at Rick McWilliams quote and at $34,700.00 plus 18% maintenance ($6,246.00)/year, 14 years = $122,144.00 cost for the software meaning I’d have to charge(income) $244,288.00 to pay just for the software only, again after expenses & taxes.
Currently after 14 years, I have approximately 2.5TB of SolidWorks design files. How exactly would I edit/convert those files for use in V6?
Devon
@Andy Reilly
CAD’s evolution has been from main frame computers to UNIX based computers and then to PC’s. V6 Catia or V6 SW(future) seems to be at it’s heart a mainframe based solution. The advantages you describe are not novel, they are simply the advantages of any mainframe system from an administrative standpoint. These advantages would also seem to turn users that own the software into users that rent the software. When SolidWorks was introduced to the market it gave users a chance to own the software, and I think that concept was a great factor in SolidWor\k’s success in the market.
We shall see how the market will accept SW V6, but it would be interesting to know how many Catia users have adopted V6 on a percentage basis.
Devon,
I got a quote on CATIA V6 from a VAR. It took them 3 weeks to do it. $34,700.00 It is composed of inscrutable modules so the VAR can make the price add up to anything they think you can pay.
Does V6 do good geometry? Do surfaces have the usual Solidworks defects; tits, rolls, butt cracks, hogbacks, and brocolli shapes? Do lofts actually contact the defining sections? Do shells and thicken always work?
I have a few friends that use both Catia and Solidworks. They find Solidworks much easier to use and use it for small parts. Catia is used for the critical outer mold lines because Solidworks sweeps have dimensional errors.
@matt
I participated in the original beta test (of N!Fuze) and was quite active in it. At the time they did not say much about it being V6 based…they sort of kept that quite (or at least I completely missed any declaration that it was V6 at the time). I really did not like much of anything that I saw in it and was very vocal at the time of letting them know just how disappointed I was.
So here we are now many months later after it pretty much failed. It is now quite obvious that it was V6-based, and the article makes it clear just how close to ENOVIA V6 it really was…which is why I made the suggestion that the whole thing was really an experiment to see how well SolidWorks users accepted it. And the answer is…not very well at all!
Hi Devon, it seems that the moderation on the graphicspeak blog is taking a long time for some reason but I am sure my original post will appear soon.
In answer to your qustions:
1) CATIA is a big product with many capabilities but if you were to say that the realistic starting point is the V6 Online solution with a reasonable mechanical/surface and sheetmetal capbility then you should budget on $600 per month with a minimum of a 3 month agreement. There are lower price packages but I think this is where you would be. The price includes the CATIA, ENOVIA, manintenance and support costs.
2) Any of theDS Valus solutions partners can sell it to you but I don’t know where you are located so I would suggest you look at http://www.3ds.com/partners/plm-solutions-partnership/partner-list/. If you would prefer a better recomendation then please let me know where you are located.
3) If you are purchasing the software and using it on premise then there is a recuring license andsupport charge of 18% of the list price of the software.
4) As I said, CATIA is a big product and it has specialist capabilities for many things. Therefore there is a high chance that if you contact a VAR and speak about what you do,he will want to get a specialist to talk to you. That person may be from the VAR or it may be a DS person that is supporting the partners.
I’m really just fed up with Dassault Systèmes’. Their attitude and actions make no sense to me what so ever.
Devon
Well, still no information at all about SolidWorks V6; same spin, different day.
OK Andy how about these simple CATIA/ENOVIA questions?
1. How much does CATAI/ENVOIA V6 cost?
2. Who exactly can sell it to me?
3. Who are the resellers that can support CATIA/ENOVIA V6 in my area?
4. Is Subscription Maintenance mandatory? How much is CATIA/ENOVIA V6 Subscription Maintenance?
5. Will someone “have to get back to me?”
Devon Sowell
Hi Matt.
There seems to be some delay with the moderation of the post I made on the gfxspeak blog but sorry for not introducing myself more thoroughly but I wanted to connect you guys to the response on Stephen Wolfes page (who does know me). I work as part of the CATIA headquarters team and I have, in the past, been responsible for creating the CATIA V5 Express, V6 PLM Express and the V6 Online solutions plus some of the supplychain solutions that have been deployed over the past years. I have also worked with many customers and with many of the CATIA VARs around the world. I have been an end user, a system administrator for CATIA V3, a competitor and now a working as a vendor I still try to think about the impact for CATIA customers and create solutions that can be used and sold. My latest mission is to create a forum and connection point for users to get information and exchange experience about CATIA from across the world. This is quite a new venture for CATIA but it is already proving to be quite fun.
The primary reason that I commented on the post from Stephen Wolfe was because he was speaking about customer experiences and a solution that is on the market today. My feeling about many of the questions and hypothesis about SOLIDWORKS V6 is that it is not really possible to speak about something that is not released. The point that I can make today and prove with the CATIA V6 solutions that are on the market are:
• I can buy the V6 Online solution and implement a solution with users distributed across Europe, US or Asia within 20 mins.
• The only skills and infrastructure I need are the ability to know the email addresses and 3 option boxes per user to setup their connection to the servers, data and collaboration environment.
• If I wish to setup and environment in house then I can setup the dataserver and clients within a couple of hours and I will have a completely operational system that can be managed just from an options panel.
• CATIA V6 is a comprehensive solution, that is not the same style as SOLIDWORKS, but it delivers incredible capability on a scale of data and scenarios that will amaze.
So if we go back to some of the comments made by others on the blog:
• For small customers that either want flexible payment terms or don’t want to manage an infrastructure then V6 Online offers a very good fit.
• For small or medium customers that want to manage their own environment but don’t want to have to be I.T experts then V6 PLM Express would work well.
• For customers that want to have full flexibility, integration and customization then full V6 is ideal.
In all cases there is scalability between all these options and you can bet that this range of options will be used within the supply chain solutions to allow the largest OEMs to work with a one man specialist designer of widgets.
I appreciate that we need to improve the level of knowledge in the market place about our CATIA V6 solution rather than just focusing on our users but, I think you would agree, that current users and customers have to be a priority. So in terms of what was written by Stephen, there are number of areas where CATIA need to explain what is happening and why it makes sense for users.
Andy Reilly
It seems like he has been posting at Deelip.com rather than GraphicSpeak….I guess blogs are all pretty much the same when you are employed by Dassault to talk at people rather than to them?…dunno…
@Andy Reilly
Andy, well, thanks. Catia has been around for how long, and you don’t have a user forum? Your comment on the GraphicSpeak blog is not visible, at least not to me.
You ought to check out who your audience is here. The vocal ones are mainly independent contractors, and usually folks from smaller shops using SolidWorks in CAD-centric workflows, although there are readers from other demographics. Very few of us need anything for multi-national offices.
Odds are anything Dassault are going to say about SWv6 is going to be pretty superficial rather than the sort of info users want to hear about. Actually after all this time with nothing to say about it when asked for details I don’t know I’m really that interested in giving them a hearing. Sorta like having a vacuum cleaner salesman come knocking at the door when you are just settling with a can or two to watch the big game…..
The early releases of Windows stored the settings of programs in INI files, which could be edited with Notepad, and could easily be moved to another computer.
Then Microsoft replaced independent INI files with the all-encompassing Registry, a single database to rule over them all. And we know well that turned out. Not.
Now Dassault wants to put all model data into a single database. Ugh.
@Jeff Mowry
I cannot give more details, but if you whatch closely this picture, and read the text from desktop engineering
http://www.deskeng.com/virtual_desktop/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120508-015323.jpg
“…Also in the future of Solid Edge is a new version of Insight, dubbed Solid Edge Insight XT (stands for extended technology). Insight, which debut in 2001, serves as a product data management (PDM) platform for tracking, storing, sharing, and managing Solid Edge files. Insight XT, deployable on Microsoft SharePoint, will include, among other things, support for Office documents, displaying multiple revisions and their statuses (released, still in edit, and so on), and a relationship browser (a diagram showing relationships among subassemblies). No official pricing is available yet, but Insight XT is aimed at small and midsize businesses, according to McClure.
The official launch of Solid Edge with ST5 will take place at Solid Edge University, a user event in Nashville, TN (June 11-13)….”
you might find interesting information for those looking for managment solution for those small shop or one man company.
Hi Matt.
Sorry for not introducing myself more thoroughly but I wanted to connect you guys to the response on Stephen Wolfes page (who does know me). I work as part of the CATIA headquarters team and I have, in the past, been responsible for creating the CATIA V5 Express, V6 PLM Express and the V6 Online solutions plus some of the supplychain solutions that have been deployed over the past years. I have also worked with many customers and with many of the CATIA VARs around the world. I have been an end user, a system administrator for CATIA V3, a competitor and now a working as a vendor I still try to think about the impact for CATIA customers and create solutions that can be used and sold. My latest mission is to create a forum and connection point for users to get information and exchange experience about CATIA from across the world. This is quite a new venture for CATIA but it is already proving to be quite fun.
The primary reason that I commented on the post from Stephen Wolfe was because he was speaking about customer experiences and a solution that is on the market today. My feeling about many of the questions and hypothesis about SOLIDWORKS V6 is that it is not really possible to speak about something that is not released. The point that I can make today and prove with the CATIA V6 solutions that are on the market are:
•I can buy the V6 Online solution and implement a solution with users distributed across Europe, US or Asia within 20 mins.
•The only skills and infrastructure I need are the ability to know the email addresses and 3 option boxes per user to setup their connection to the servers, data and collaboration environment.
•If I wish to setup and environment in house then I can setup the dataserver and clients within a couple of hours and I will have a completely operational system that can be managed just from an options panel.
•CATIA V6 is a comprehensive solution, that is not the same style as SOLIDWORKS, but it delivers incredible capability on a scale of data and scenarios that will amaze.
So if we go back to some of the comments made by others on the blog:
•For small customers that either want flexible payment terms or don’t want to manage an infrastructure then V6 Online offers a very good fit.
•For small or medium customers that want to manage their own environment but don’t want to have to be I.T experts then V6 PLM Express would work well.
•For customers that want to have full flexibility, integration and customization then full V6 is ideal.
In all cases there is scalability between all these options and you can bet that this range of options will be used within the supply chain solutions to allow the largest OEMs to work with a one man specialist designer of widgets.
I appreciate that we need to improve the level of knowledge in the market place about our CATIA V6 solution rather than just focusing on our users but, I think you would agree, that current users and customers have to be a priority. So in terms of what was written by Stephen, there are number of areas where CATIA need to explain what is happening and why it makes sense for users.
Andy Reilly
@Andy Reilly
Go ahead and start explaining. As a SolidWorks Solution Partner, I’ve been asking for information about SolidWorks V6 for 4 years now. Everyone from Dassault Systèmes’ says they’ll get back to me with that…OK 4 years later I’m still waiting.
SolidWorks V6 roll out, the worst software roll out I’ve ever seen.
The ball’s in your court, whatcha’ got?
Devon Sowell
@Troy
Troy, n!Fuze was the first installment in the SolidWorks V6 thing. As far as I know, it has pretty much failed. I’m not hearing anything about it.
@Andy Reilly
Andy, yeah, the first question would be “who are you?”. Obviously seem to be a DS employee. Second question is “are you serious?”. I mean this blog is full of little else but questions on SolidWorks and V6. You could start explaining any time you like, and I’m sure you’d have an audience that wanted to listen. I can’t guarantee they will like what you have to say, but I can guarantee they would listen once. So consider that an invitation if you have any record-setting-straight you would like to do.
@Jeff Mowry
Yeah, this is developed for big business, and I don’t see a way to sell it to the little guys. They were at one time touting SW V6 as a “reduced administration” scenario, but it sounds like an administration nightmare on top of a database administration task.
I’m sure the SW V6 implementation will be somewhat different, since it is taking them 6 years to get into a presentable form. I’m like you, though. I don’t see any value for me in all of this administration.
From this article, I’m missing the incentive for “small” shops like my own to make a switch. Everything seems geared to the Boeings of the world:
According to Dassault Systèmes’ executive vice president, Etienne Droit, the principal advantages of V6 over Catia V5 and all other CAD systems are:
Improved performance, especially when designing complex products with geographically distributed teams.
Improved reliability. Mean time between failure (MTBF) is between 120 and 150 hours, compared with 80 to 100 hours for Catia V5. Droit expects MTBF to reach 200 hours by the end of 2012.
This first item isn’t something that will explicitly help me in any way—and in fact, seems more likely to get in my way. As seen here:
Managing CAD models in a relational database has a different set of complexities from historical CAD and PLM. For instance, in typical CAD and PDM systems, designers can check out models, make copies, and change them to try new ideas. Throughout this process, the designers save their models to their desktops or file folders on their hard drives. If they come up with a design they like better, they can rename it and check it into their PDM systems.
With Catia V6, there are no files and no places to store designs while one tries them out. To “propagate” a part, it must have a unique name and be part of a project. According to Laurent Gascon of PCO Innovation, French automaker Renault persuaded Dassault to create the concept of a “work space” in Catia V6 R2012x that would enable designers to try new concepts without cluttering up the main product structure of their car models. The workspaces also provide useful ways to share with suppliers only those portions of a vehicle relevant to the parts they might supply.
Well, that’s an instant deal-killer for me. I make continual try-out iterative tweaks to parts, naming them with sequential names. If something doesn’t work (or ends in grievous catastrophe) I simply revert to a former version of the part and continue. How would I do this in a database environment as described above?
My point here isn’t to be negative, but to simply ask—has anyone considered the true needs of the small guys out there in all this development? It seems we’re being overlooked. Again. Time will tell, of course, in how the finished product trickles down to the SolidWorks platform. But if this article is any sort of preview, it’s not looking good.
Hi Matt.
I have just posted a response to Stephens’ article that elaborates on a number of the points he makes and corrects a few points as well.
It would take a series of articles to explain the logic and advantages of the CATIA V6 approach and I hope to be able to share these with you soon.
If youhave any further questions then please contact me.
Kind regards
Andy Reilly
Automation, isn’t it wonderful,..
MTBF,… I can’t help but digress,.. over 20 years ago, I helped create (I’m sure many of you have done this as well) and launch database(s) which had no geometry, just attributes, for hundreds of multiple configurations. It worked great!… unfortunately, it removed two designers from the payroll (and probably more people later?).
But,.. to whose benefit? (bourgeoisie)
..increased efficiency of the database over multiple locations and vendors finding ways for management too cut cost and increase revenues,… (touche)
Oh no,.. the French Socialist Party is now in charge now…. run!!!
..and DS seem to be doing what they want to do, using ALL of your subscription $$$$$. (it’s good to be King)
I regress,.. can’t we all just “Coexistence”? 8^)
btw,.. I had a dream (we were all in Vegas) and the “V7” version was going to be a really lucky version and it will solve SW and DS issues..,.. but it got me thinking (in my dream).. I think we should wait for the “V8” upgrade!??!?!?… it sounds so much better and faster… yeah, everything should work better with “V8”.. !? Just add more $$$$$… into the DS slot machine! 8^)
Thanks for bringing attention to that article. That is some good information of the sort I’ve searching for a while to find.
What really struck me as oddly familiar yet very uncomfortable was the description of working with the database…”unique names”,”propagating changes”,”owning”, “locking”, “administrative rights”, “users” “workspaces”,”copying and duplication issues”…
All of this sounds eerily like…N!FUZE!
Was N!fuse really a Dassault science experiment meant to see if any of us were ready or accepting of the oddities/limitations/deficiencies of this V6 database workflow?