Jeff Ray Killed SolidWorks, Bertrand Sicot Embalms It
I know a lot of people think I’m crazy, but I’m not. My mother had me checked, as Sheldon Cooper says. People more level headed than me are now writing more about the abandonment of SolidWorks current product, and about real problems with the DS hail mary pass to the cloud, betting everything on one crazy blind toss into the ether.
There are a lot of end users and prospective users out there who still don’t have any idea about the severity with which the SolidWorks world is about to change. Even at CAD conferences I get asked if its really true that SolidWorks is going to change kernels. It’s true there is a way of looking at it where SW is not changing kernels. But that’s an incomplete story. Kernel change is not what this blog post is about, you can read about that in a lot of other places. In the end, SolidWorks is going to try to sell you a kernel change, and the new software would be more aptly named Catia Lite than SolidWorks [anything], because it will be built on Enovia V6, which is what Catia is built on.
The real point of this post is that SolidWorks may already be dead, and no one knows it. Jeff Ray was maybe a little too effective in letting the cat out of the bag that it was intended to be killed. By the time he said that publicly, it was already fait accompli. And I’m thinking that what appears to be a recent development of renewed interest in SolidWorks by employees looking like they are asking questions is not in fact a resurgence, like I originally thought (hoped), but indeed a preparation for burial – an embalming, possibly better seen as a “mummification”. Let me explain.
The reference to Jeff Ray “killing” SolidWorks is well documented across the web, and comes from Jeff actually discussing how to kill SolidWorks with a next-gen product before the competition did that for them. The next-gen product was intended to be this still-nameless development project referred to as alternately SolidWorks V6 or maybe more descriptively, Catia Lite. This was all public, and the only thing you can dispute about it is if he meant literally to kill SolidWorks, or if it were more of a metaphor for developing great stuff. In either case, Jeff was first “promoted” to a previously unknown position in France, and has since been promoted right out of the company. Or as we used to say in the Navy, “transferred to CivLant Command”.
Several people have commented on the lack of meaningful CAD-related development in recent versions of SolidWorks. There’s a lot of fluff, and little that interests guys like me. The most ambitious development projects in the last several years has certainly not been CAD or geometry related. The reason for that is not difficult to guess – they are working on something else. I don’t care what they say about the size of the development team, or the number of enhancements, the proof is in the pudding. Very few CAD or geometry related enhancements.
But in the last couple of weeks, I started to feel a little more optimistic. Don Van Zile, a guy who I had a lot of respect for as a user, turns up with a SolidWorks name badge and starts asking for pet peeves on the forum. Although skeptical that anything would come of it, I thought this was the most optimistic thing that I’ve seen from SolidWorks in a long time. I thought that maybe someone in France heard that customers weren’t crazy about moving their CAD to the cloud, and maybe they were hedging their bets somewhat and maybe reverting to develop the current SolidWorks a little more.
But no. That’s not what it is. If this were a real effort, they would have put some senior people in front of users to try to regain confidence. No one is doing that. They’ve got someone new and expendable. Nothing against Don, but Don is not controlling this situation. In fact, common consensus seems to say that SolidWorks is not controlling the situation.
I think that SolidWorks is simply interested in fixing up the software for long term storage. They want to really make it something to be proud of before switching it off. This is like Service Pack 5 for the entire SolidWorks software. Making the corpse look as good as possible before laying it to rest permanently. Embalming, mummification. Is this off-the-rails-crazy? Is it really? The future is the cloud, DS makes that clear. The desktop is going to vanish. They believe this. They are working to make it happen. The only people they have to convince are the people writing the checks.
Is it really possible that Dassault would really kill off SolidWorks? I didn’t think so originally, but the more time goes by, the more I think this is the way they are headed. I’d be willing to bet that development for CAD/geometry will continue to slow. It sounds stupid to a guy like me, but it looks like Dassault is really going to put the whole basket of eggs in the cloud. This will happen until they see a general downturn in DS mid-range money and someone yanks the reins from the suicidal maniac running the team off a cliff, or maybe I’m just dead wrong and they really win. I would guess they are headed for a PTC style implosion in a few years. I’m not sure if the Catia business is going to snuff it in the same way, throwing it all to NX. I don’t really follow that side of it well enough to have much opinion there.
Is it still reversible? Probably. I mean, it’s reversible until it isn’t. I would think they could recover from this sort of blunder until the general CAD public becomes aware. You can’t steer something this size, not quickly anyway. By the time you see concrete signs that there’s a problem, it’s already too late. If SW V6 ships next year, it might take a while for customers to understand that they are being pushed in that direction, and that the cost to move is going to be more than just maintenance.
@Kevin Quigley
Kevin, I wasn’t suggesting you weren’t correct, just that there is a bit more to this whole thing than is immediately obvious.
There is no question that the re-structuring of the VAR channel was handled badly by Siemens and by that I mean zero communication with the customer about what they were doing. When a letter did eventually arrive (a month after my maintenance contract had expired!) it was typical “Big Corp”, impersonal and said absolutely nothing. So I’d not be at all surprised if Siemens got their nose bloodied over this.
Quite the opposite IMO. While the implementation may have been poor, I believe the business strategy that Siemens is driving through is a good one, in that they are choosing to work only with VARs that can prove a commitment to actively growing both the SE business and the SE community. So far, the service from my new VAR has been very good, they advertise and they are running a series of productivity events around the country. I can’t argue with that.
Roger
@roger reid
I was responding only to @Imics13 and his totally inaccurate comment. Solid Solutions have not, as far as I am aware advertised that they have bought out any Solid Edge VAR. I am aware of some Solid Edge VARs now switching to resell SolidWorks. Basically all this means is the UK SolidEdge market is a total shambles right now.
@Kevin Quigley
True but not quite the whole story. The SE VAR that was dumped has largely been “absorbed” by Solid Solutions, ie many of the senior staff have gone to work for them. I guess this is where this all comes from.
@Imics13
Solid Solutions Management who advertised the 300 seats thing have never been a SolidEdge reseller. They have nothing to do with Seimens. They are and always have been SolidWorks resellers (since the 90s) and are currently one of the largest in Europe.
@Ryan McVay
Adobe spun the technology out to Tetra4D. http://www.tetra4d.com
It’s good stuff.
@Ryan McVay
Copied from your Adobe link;
“SolidWorks SLDASM, SLDPRT Up to 2009 ”
uhhh…
@Devon Sowell
Why not just buy Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended and use 3D Reviewer and its tools…that’s a really cheap way to get a translator! Granted it looks like Adobe hasn’t update the product in awhile but hey you can’t beat the investment. http://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/kb/supported-file-formats-acrobat-reader.html scroll down to the 2D-3D formats.
@Jeff Mowry
I recently got the same message from two different VARs on a buy-one-get-one free offer from SE. Is that a 50% discount? 😉
@Glenn S.
I’ve asked my friend about this info!
Here is his answer:
“About this advert, This company used to be a Solid Edge reseller, Siemens took their reseller license off them for lying to customers and are already going to court with them for trying to pretend they were a reseller after losing their license. Solid Edge has better growth than Works and Autodesk in the UK over the last 12 months so I am not sure where they got their figures from. I think it is just desperate strategy from a company in financial trouble.”
He is close to the fire! 🙂
This is the old Solidworks sales technic!….. 🙁
BR,
Imics
Worth to mention; PTC is really doing good job with their Creo release. Watched a demo this week. Some amazing features are there. Looks very cool interface.
@Alessandro
Cat 5 part and assembly translator free in SE and swoopy curvy on the way. I was going to put a screen capture of the translators with SE Classic but it did not attach.Perhaps Matt could do so
@Devon Sowell
Well, since most of the pieces of info have been already disclosed by SolidSmack here’s more:
“As of this SolidWorks 2012 Sp2 it is best suited for prismatic designs, multi‐body parts and designs with limited surfaced conditions.”
“SolidWorks uses the actual CATIA dll’s which result in a better translation experience”
They look like contradictory pieces of information….
@Alessandro
look here at the SolidSmack site
http://solidsmack.com/resources/the-official-catia-to-solidworks-translator-it-does-exist-its-not-cheap/
Well, it seems that SolidWorks can make possible the impossible. Do you know that you can open Catia V5 files in SolidWorks 2012 (at an additional charge) ? Check this:
http://solidworkseducation.blogspot.it/2012/04/aprire-file-catia-in-solidworks.html
Ask your reseller because no official information has been disclosed about it online.
Anyway, by doing an analogy, on the basis the pieces of info I have about this converter, I think that if they make a good job they won’t have any trouble with kernel change from parasolid to CGM when simple shapes are involved.
They could have a hard time with curved complex shapes, but maybe I’m wrong because they will be so primitive respect to the nice shapes that you’ll be able to model with the new kernel.
@Glenn S.
Glenn, the person in that post is correct, from what I’ve seen of SE. I couldn’t possibly switch to SE until they get robust means of creating swoopy, organic surfaces (since I design plastic and metal parts of this type every day). If that’s the sort of thing you do, I don’t know why anyone would try out SE and decide to purchase it—I don’t see SE claiming to master complex/compound surfacing tools, even in their marketing (particularly with regard to their ST features). So that’s a deal-killer for me.
However, that doesn’t mean SE isn’t actively working on bringing those tools into availability. In fact, if I were them, I’d see robust surfacing—both with history and ST modes—as a primary goal to add to the software. With the Catia-Lite debacle from D’assault, this is an open-door invitation to relieve SolidWorks of some unhappy customers. Why not be ready for those customers to walk into your business? You don’t even need a marketing department for this sort of opportunity! So the swoopy-geometry creation (and editing) is absolutely critical for SE to bring to their software—and in doing so, they obtain opportunity to the remainder of the market share that SolidWorks seems so eager to give up.
Now, combine this with their ST stuff. If they keep improving ST then it’s entirely credible to see future versions of SE working with legacy SolidWorks files better than SolidWorks itself (or, Catia Lite)! That’s simply outrageous! It looks to me that if SE maintains their current trajectory, adding complex surface-creation tools along the way, they have a good chance of rising to the top in a very sudden, unexpected way. This is easily foreseeable, so I have no reason to believe this isn’t the active plan of SE. (It would certainly be mine.) The trick is now a technical one—how to bring complex surfacing into SE with compatibility with the whole ST realm. Do that, and win the contest.
As an incentive, we might even see a “trade in your seat of SolidWorks for a 50% discount off SE” offer. Might be the last nail in the coffin.
Mirror bodies worked in SW2007. It was then broken and fixed. Definite progress. Surface knit is improved in 2011. The root cause of inaccurate curves was not addressed. Definite BandAid.
Surfacing is still seriously messed up. Lofts are a miserable. Sweeps are un reliable. convert entity seems to lose the entity. Tangency constraint still flips to cusps. Fillets work most of the time on machine parts and are very flaky with surfaced shapes.
Solidworks is probably the best medium priced CAD. They fix very few bugs. They add features that I do not want. They do not care about geometry. Solidworks employees do not have other options so they spew the official drivel.
Matt,
So, what’s our alternative to SW? Have you seen this post: (https://forum.solidworks.com/message/298863#298863)
on the SW forum? Apparently the folks at SE aren’t immune to questionable decisions either.
And while I’m also quick to criticize SW when I think they deserve it, and have done so (don’t get me started about that note combining “enhancement”), I also believe in giving credit where it’s due. You said in a response above that SW hasn’t had any significant improvements in 4 years. Maybe we define significant differently, but in my opinion there were 3 big improvements in SW2010. The Mirror Components feature, while still not perfect, was vastly improved. It was so bad before that I had quit using it. The mid-plane option when creating new planes was a nice addition, and the Select Bodies button is a big help for those of us who detail multi-body parts.
@ralphg
If this is what the exec told you, not mentioning that the “subset of tools” will expand over time, isn’t a “subset of tools” what we will get? In my ears this sounds like a product that will not match Solidworks. Perhaps on bugs and instability, but on (claimed) functionality? No!
And who get to decide what the needs of the persons potentially using V6 is?? I hope they ask someone like Matt and others equally accomplished.
So put it out there, in the clouds, so my mom can model a nice coffee table. Because she could probably be one of the “person using V6”
With the time spent since they officially announced that SolidWorks was to “die”, someone speculate that this decision could have been taken back in 2007, should I not expect a full blown cad package? It’s not like they were starting from scratch, and I guess a lot of the code will be copies of existing Catia code? So what is taking so long, and why are they so quiet? The cat is out zig-zagging the road trying to stay alive.
@Ken
yep LOL!
@Devon Sowell
They did so well translating data between Catia V4 to V5, and V5 to V6 (sarcasm), and that was their flagship product with their high dollar paying customers… I’m sure they will do better for their SolidWorks customers (more sarcasm).
@ralphg
Ralph- you bring up many good points that I agree with. However, “This makes sense, because you cannot launch a full-blown CAD package in version 1.0.” I disagree with this statement.
CAD companies don’t test their products fully prior to release. They cover up their sloppy work with “Service Packs”. So, you pay for the software and then you pay again for their mistakes via Subscription Maintenance, a total rip off!
There’s a big difference between leaving out CAD geometry creating functions and hot patches to correct code syntax errors. I abhor the Subscription Maintenance business model as it rewards poor, sloppy work.
Devon
@Knut F
When I asked this question at a SolidWorks media event last year, a DSSW exec told me that V6 would have a subset of tools “suitable for the needs” of the person using V6.
This makes sense, because you cannot launch a full-blown CAD package in version 1.0. Even SpaceClaim gets annual updates that fill in missing features. OTOH, if V6 is less capable than SolidWorks 2013, then V6 will look like an immediate failure, along the lines of that n!Software (whatever it was called).
The other issue is pricing. For Dassault to give V6 a chance at success, it needs to price it free initially, by making it part of the SolidWorks annual maintenance fee. However, Dassault won’t, and the extra monthly/annual fee (on top of the SW annual fee) will allow it to fade from view like n!Software (whatever it was called).
..just thinking about the lack of communication,.. (feeling like a Basque nationalist?).. maybe we need to learn French!? Let’s try… “revoir adieu!” 8^)
@SolidWorks
Welcome to the fhe forum. While those of us that post on this forum and share a meaningful discussion of SolidWorks and it’s place in the CAD Universe, your post provided absolutely no information regarding SW V6 that we did not know 3-4 years ago. We understand that SW will continue with a Parasolid based kernal. We “assume” that you will base V6 on the CGM kernal that DS has huge experience with in Catia? But to develop a SW V6 based upon the CGM kernal should have been easy work, not 4-5 years of work.
What many of us fear the most is that you have yet to be able to develop a translator that will easily and automatically convert SW files to V6 files to Catia files. Obviously, if you cannot master the translation process, be it local or on the cloud, market acceptance of V6 will be limited to those clients making a fundamental change in their CAD system.
Or perhaps you have come to realize that the CGM kernal is getting a little long in tooth (1998?) as well and does not have the ability to optimize new hardware that can have 8-16 processors and will soon have the capability of hundreds of processors. Some of us say BS when you reply that SW is a fundamentally single threaded process…………when you know that IS the problem. You might want to check out the performance difference between the “Cheetah Solver” vs. the Creo Parametric solver at the following link:
http://www.cloud-invent.com/Vision.aspx
I hope that your lack of committing SW V6 to the CGM kernal in your post reveals the hope that 4-5 years of development work will not be just a re-hash of old kernal solver technology.
I don’t think SolidWorks is for real. Just because he/she has got the same communication skills of an Dassault, doesn’t make you one. It’s just regurgitating the same senseless and condescending bs that Dassault feeds us.
But let’s say that everything works out just fine (for sake of the argument), and there is a bug free SWv6 available from day one. I’m curious about what level of functionality will be available in SWv6. I fear that some of the functionality that I use will not be available in SWv6. I’m sure that DS will not allow SW to compete with Catia and use any opportunity to force an upgrade to Catia to get certain functions. Lofts?? thats advanced modelling – you’ll need catia for that!
I think there comes a time when you just can’t do any more to a piece of software like Solidworks and someone needs to keep their job. So, let’s change everything.
We all know the problems with the cloud. It isn’t ours anymore, we’ve lost complete control.
Sorry I’ve been away working and forgot to check up with my friends in the CAD world. This is a great dicussion Matt, keep it going.
I know I shouldn’t but I find these anonymous little posts from Solidworks to be very funny indeed. 😀
@Jeff Mowry
Jeff, I’ve got a tablet that’s got something like an optical trackball/left button that falls under the right thumb. The makers call it “easy find”, and that’s pretty much what it does. It’s not a desktop with spacemouse and 10-button, but it’s not difficult or frustrating, even with your example, when mobile. The other advantage that tablets have is IPS screens, still very uncommon in laptops. Wide viewing angles make a bigger difference to usability than you’d credit.
Evan,
I do not think that parasolid is the root cause of Solidworks surface
problems. I think that Solidworks has some bad ideas on how to drive
parasolid. I get excellent conic surfaces that are robust and work in
all of the normal ways. I think that Solidworks drives splines in a bad
way with hidden knots that make curls just off the visible part.
They do not try to do something sensible near singulairities. The
miserable fit spline is just solidworks doing a poor wiggly fit.
Simplify spline will make me scream. I can fit an airfoil shape with
just 5 knots with excellent curvature continuity and fit.
I have just recently tried NX. Nasty user interface, Slow on my machine
but surfaces were quite smooth.
If you loft a wing in solidworks; it is a matter of loft and verify at
several stations. I have bad propeller that resulted from lofts that
ignored sections. An expensive nasty reminder. Inspect every surface
with curvature color to expose wrong gradients.
I think parasolid is a fine kernel. I think history based is a good
paradigm. I want control over all surfaces.
@SolidWorks
SolidWorks says, “The existing SolidWorks tools will continue to be actively developed (not just supported) until customers no longer express a need for them,”
Oh how often have we each heard this comment or ones similar coming from marketing and sales trying – very stupidly – to mislead existing customers?
“UNTIL CUSTOMERS NO LONGER EXPRESS A NEED FOR THEM” simply means, when WE (SolidWorks) choose to stop shipping and support I (SolidWorks) will. I (SolidWorks) know full well if I gave users the choice they will never express they no longer need the existing tools; therefore I (SolidWorks) will and must make that decision for them!
There is a fine line between misleading and lying to customers. Misleading a customer is inexcusably unconscionable behavior and lying is downright fraud. Furthermore SolidWorks needs to very careful “UNTIL CUSTOMERS NO LONGER EXPRESS A NEED FOR THEM” could be taken as a promise and could be used, against them, should a group chose to take action at a latter date.
SolidWorks? SolidWorks WHO? Who can take seriously any person who HIDES behind a company name in this way? You have a name SolidWorks be man/woman enough to use it so what you say has the weight of authority and legal standing – or is that what you’re afraid of?
@Rick McWilliams
I have a hard time believing that SolidWorks surface quality problems are inherent in Parasolid. After all, this is a modeling kernel that’s used for car bodies and turbine engines.
Could you drop me an email, at eyares@wtwhmedia.com? I’d like to explore this issue a bit more, and see if I can’t get some insight as to what’s happening.
Some years ago I complained about Solidworks files being much larger than necessary. Someone at Solidworks posted back that the larger files contained information that made the models load and build faster. I must have been a fan boy as I believed them. Then I looked at the files. Solidworks part files are full of shit. Every feature that was ever deleted is still there, the features and functions are represented in a very inefficient manner. Every subdirectory that the file has ever been save in is represented. Every version of SW that has been used is represented. It may function as spyware. None of the file actually makes the rebuild any faster.
The file sizes could be reduced by at least 1200X. There will be no argument from Solidworks as their files are just awful.
Evan,
There was considerable improvement in SW from 2003 to 2007. When I look closely at the curvature and rate of change of curvature of “smooth” shapes there are almost always problems. These will show up later with extend, shell, thicken, combine, and knit features.
I do some complex aircraft shapes. It is very difficult to get smooth and continuous shapes. The curve through points does some especially imaginative wiggles in curvature.
I would love to see Matt’s new surfacing book: “How to Dance Through the Solidworks Landmines.”
The work arounds can be painful. Sometimes I have to delete a bunch of features and re-do surfaces in a better order with the right curves converted to 3D sketches. And then sometimes it will not knit. I would be screwed without the GW3D add in that gives me conic surfaces and some nice blend surfaces.
SolidWorks used to be more interested in geometry than they are now. Bugs are around for years. I do not believe that SolidWorks is interested in fixing them.
Dassault could be the life of the party IF they provide a reliable, low cost translator; bidirectional SolidWorks to/from SolidWorks V6. That could ease the pain. Will they?
Actually a “low cost, reliable” translator isn’t good enough; it should be a “FREE, reliable” translator. Yep.
Murray, I disagree on this one. In selecting “an edge among many,” using a tiny touch-screen interface would be truly miserable. Sure, it can be done—but it cannot be done competitively. I’m thinking of adding a small radius to the inside vertexes of the v-shaped grooves around the periphery of a bottle cap or adding radii to an intricate pattern of ribs in a molded plastic part. It’s not just selecting a single edge of a cube, it’s the requirement of rotating the part for a good view of the edge, selection of the proper edge, and doing this over and over. No thanks.
Which customers? Any of them? Could I kindly request the “advanced” features that Evan mentioned above, as well as the should-already-have-it features Rick mentioned? (That was easy. Why didn’t I think of that before?)
It’s so strange to see SolidWorks comments here, immediately followed by a talk-to-the-hand sort of comment when asked about things that matter to users. Why bother? From this comment thread it seems as though the V6-based release will be suddenly released next year with no details available until it’s released. Sounds sort of like our wonderfully-popular “health care reform” bill that was passed into law.
Think SolidWorks Resellers will push existing users to purchase BOTH versions of SolidWorks? Since they’re all on commission, you bet they will. And then once your vendor, supplier, or contractor starts using both versions, guess what? You’ll be forced to purchase it too.
Will Subscription Maintenance be mandatory for SolidWorks V6? What do you think? 😉
@Rick McWilliams
#1 is tough… especially if they go to a new version of Parasolid, and it doesn’t provide forward compatibility. Though, they may serialize the algorithms in Parasolid. I
Curious… is there a repository of images/lists of known SW geometric flaws & instabilities?
Did these problems first start getting serious in SW2007, or were they there before then?
@mxrz
Unfortunately, we can’t provide any potential licensing information right now. We will release those kinds of details next year.
@SolidWorks
Hey SolidWorks,
I love this response:
that came right after this response:
So, what you really meant to say was “we’ll talk about future development when it effing suits us, and who cares what you (customers) think”, right?
Oh, and if your “future development” is anything like the development of the last 4 years, it isn’t going to mean much. The software is static where it should be improving, and keeps changing where it should be static.
Your free pass is up. Even fans will only tolerate a lack of communication for so long.
Solidworks,
I need more reliable geometry. I do not know any designer that wants lofts that miss the profiles, or surfaces with ripples, wrinkles, edge curls, tits, butt cracks, hogbacks, or brocolli shapes. Does anyone like the fact that Solidworks files are 1200 times larger than necessary? How about the surface trims that flip and destroy dozens of features downstream. Is there really anyone who wants projected curves that wander off aimlessly near a common point of the planar curves?
Solidworks has only fixed one geometry bug that I care about in the last 5 years.
There are three easy things that SW can do to make me happier:
1. allow older versions to read files from newer versions.
2. conic surfaces, these satisfy most needs for smooth shapes.
3. remove the spyware history stored in the files.
SolidWorks users; prepare to make important decisions next year
jeff
Coud not agree with you more fingers on touch screen are not good for cad authoring. CAD/Drawing/painting interface pointing device will be avialable since there is a demand for them. for example Wacom Bamboo Stylus . in fact new devices are itroduced daily .
http://gfxspeak.com/2012/05/24/perceptive-pixel-introduces-27-inch-screen-with-stylus/
http://gfxspeak.com/2012/05/22/leap-motion-says-get-ready-to-toss-your-mouse-keyboard-and-kinect/
when I said mobile I ment generaly “anydevice” “anywhere” it could alse be smart TV or eyeglasses a touchpad or … any thing that can display virtual images and pluged to the internet.
dudi
@SolidWorks
So is V6 going to be a separate product that I won’t be able to download having only an active subscription for current SolidWorks?
@Evan Yares
Sorry, but we cannot provide details on features or functionality to be included in future versions at this time.
@SolidWorks
Will you be incorporating advanced technologies into the SolidWorks 2014, 2015, 2016 etc. products? For example, SubD surface modeling, FT&A, direct (non-history) modeling, multi-core support, etc.?
The existing SolidWorks tools will continue to be actively developed (not just supported) until customers no longer express a need for them, and will continue to be based on the Parasolid kernel. Only the new V6 applications (coming next year) will use a different kernel. There will be a Parasolid-based SolidWorks 2014, 2015, 2016, etc. that include new features and functionality based on user requests.
@Jeff Mowry
How do you select an edge with a finger on a tiny screen? Pinch zoom and selection filter. It’s not so painful.
Hi
Matt.
It is true current desktop is much stronger and more fit to cad right now . but if you are planning for the next 10 years. which operating system you think is going to dominate the market.Would it still be windows something. Maybe, I don’t know . do you remember when cad like SolidWorks was introduced on a PC. People where still buying horribly expensive UNIX machines saying that PC is not suitable for real cad.The main reason for PC popularity was the ability to run uncontrolled(unlike on mac) children games.So when there were PC’ s anywhere there was a lot of money and development. right now the money goes mobile.
You are right and so are Evan and Jeff. working on small screen for long is a nightmare and without proper input device it is not going to be a cad tool .but I can always plug it to a TV screen size monitor or projector at work,at home, and it could still be possible for me to do some work on the train to work or at customers site without having to worry of my heavy application eating the battery.I don’t know what will happen to desktop and laptop prices when they are not as mess produced as now.
the whole computing market is going to evolve.By going to a server that can serve multiple lean clients you are no longer limited to or by their operating system. a compatible browser could do the job.The cloud is here and it is driven by suppliers like Google ,Amazon, Facebook and other service providers and from the side of customers by large corporation who wants to reduce cost of hardware and in house maintenance. (for the long run it will reduce cost only if there are enough competition and the ability to switch supplier is easy enough) I know we have been there in the time of the main frame and it wasn’t chip at all but this is the fashion now and the expectation sometimes fulfilled themselves.
I am not sure what drove Dassault to this move with SolidWorks. Maybe they thought this way the can fight better piracy or make their customer more dependent on them and like you I don’t see any immediate benefit for the users. but in the long run if the general market go for cloud it can.
As to viewer . It is right that viewing and authoring are different things.However servers have no problem running heavy application either ,the problem was until these days ,remotely push the heavy graphics over the internet and this is progressing very rapidly as seen by current state of the art viewers.the new problem might be how remote, as for very long distance the limitation could be the speed of light.
Going for the cloud has it’s logic. it maybe to soon , it may take too long to complete but it has it’s logic.As users we have to watch carefully and see.we have to make sure we can get the data and move it easily as file to other systems otherwise we shall be hostage.
we have to know what happen if we want to freeze the contract/project and stop paying . (like staying with a fixed version if we can’t afford moving on and still own and have access to the data)
Evan, moving solidWorks data to new solidWorks doesn’t have to be 100% although as a customer that’s what I would like to have. They (3ds) Only Have to do it better then their competitors . I agree it is going to be a huge job I don’t expect feature to feature mapping since the whole paradigm of editing is going to change, however drawing to model associativity with original dimensions annotation intact and associative that’s alone is a big task.
dudi
Please forgive me for my English it’s late
and it not my native languish
“Everything is just a few hundred clicks away.”
Nice video—gotta love the Onion for getting to the heart of things. That reminds me of the similarly-sickening no-button mouse, another great enhancement to interface efficiency:
http://pictureisunrelated.memebase.com/2012/06/07/wtf-photos-videos-well-if-youre-a-mutant/
The minimalist interfaces look cool. But that cool-factor frequently dissolves upon actual use (or attempted use). Tactile feedback with keys, knobs, and buttons (and their respective shapes) is useful and shouldn’t be ignored unless necessary.
Great reply Jeff. I agree with you and find the current touch interface/mobile device fascination shallow.
I think this video is quite relevant.
http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
I’m not sure why a software re-write would require the drastic problems of kernel swap (file incompatibility, legacy nightmares, rework, unknown shifts of geometry from algorithm tweaks, etc.). A full re-write might keep as much intact as possible while trimming the software of detritus. Regardless, that’s really more of a benefit to DS/SolidWorks than it is to me as a user. So I’ve little reason to care, other than bug-fixes.
And regarding the next point, I see Matt already addressed it—and he’s correct. The push of competition (in software, in design, in manufacturing, in life itself) is toward greater efficiency. In this regard, user interfaces matter greatly. Claiming touch-screen interfaces with these little hand-held widgets is something that increases productivity is simply ludicrous. In fact, the opposite is generally true. I just saw an ad by Cadillac touting their new all-in-one touch-screen interface for some new model of car. That’s a horrendous idea! I design interfaces all the time. Let’s think about this instance of fit-in-with-the-fad marketing. Touch-screen interfaces require one sense (vision) to the exclusion of all others (tactile, in this case). While driving, why cut out the tactile feedback when vision is best dedicated to driving? Could it get more foolish? The interface in my old pick-up truck is superior in this regard, since I can operate all of it almost entirely without need of my dedicated vision—I can navigate everything by what I feel, muscle memory, etc. So Cadillac made a cost and fad-based decision that will prove to be a dud (unless I’m overlooking some other means of implementing this decision, such as a corresponding HUD).
Bringing this back to the CAD scene, how might you select an edge among many edges using a finger-based touch interface on a tiny screen? The inefficiency is horrendous, and therefore not viable for production work. Yes, you can meddle with a model while on a commuter train, but you really won’t accomplish much. Why not? Because I’m your competition and I use a ten-button mouse, full-size keyboard, and giant means of display (21″+ monitor or monitors) and can quite fairly kick your ass at CAD operation if only because of the interface efficiency (saying nothing of my CAD skills).
So—why, again, is writing software for desktops crazy? There is no better interface available, and therefore no better efficiency to be gained elsewhere. It seems a great fit, remaining superior to laptops, too (which still have a ~4:1 hit in cost:performance). Dispute these facts if you like, but any sort of benchmark will confirm what I say. Hardware matters. Processor speed alone is not the only bottle-neck faced by those using CAD. And, of course, not everyone has 12Gb Internet access (or any at all). Ever suffered through the latency of satellite-based Internet? How would anyone possibly keep track of their own interface over the cloud via satellite Internet?
No, this cloud stuff is narrow-niche. Yes, maybe I’ll have access to CAD on an iPad. But why would I want that, and how would I compete with those operating out-of-date dinosaur desktops with their superior interface?
@Dudi
It’s pretty good, but still has problems (I’m told by some of my PhD friends.) It’s hard to argue that it’s fundamentally better at mainstream NURBS-based solid modeling than ACIS or Parasolid.
Spatial has been working like mad on CGM, to get it ready for prime-time. As originally designed, it was intended to be an integrated part of CATIA V5. (It wasn’t a merchant kernel, and wasn’t even originally called CGM.) It was missing things that would have been included, had it been originally designed as a standalone kernel.
Yea, that’s a biggie. If they can’t get 100% upwards compatibility, it’s going to be a mess. There are a few geometric modeling kernels out there (you’ve not heard of them, and their developers don’t really talk about them) that were developed with interoperability in mind. In any event, CGM isn’t one of them. It was designed to serve the needs of CATIA V5. It’s going to be really interesting to see if they try to shoehorn Parasolid compatibility into CGM, or possibly use some of Spatial’s translator expertise, possibly along with model healing and validation tools.
Let’s not forget that SolidWorks uses D-Cubed constraint management (also from Siemens.) I don’t know if DS’s constraint manager — which, if I understand right, was developed by Ledas — is all that compatible with D-Cubed. That could affect their ability to evaluate SolidWorks feature trees.
I’m sitting here looking at a new HP Z1 desktop. I don’t think its days are over. As for mobile: That’s a whole different conversation. In the context of CAD, I think the trend will be towards GPU virtualization (e.g., nVidia Kepler/Citrix Xenserver), which will not necessarily require any major architecture changes for CAD vendors. (Boeing is already doing CAD virtualization, where they’re using remote desktops at their factory connected to servers running CATIA several thousand miles away. They’re getting quite good performance.)
Cloud computing is really only delivery model. If you’re looking for a gain in performance with cloud CAD, the important technical issues that need to be solved are mostly the same ones that need to be solved to take advantage of multicore processors with desktop CAD: parallelism and concurrency. The additional thing that is required for really good cloud CAD (at least, to do it well) is a way to deal with distributed data/memory.
SolidWorks V6 may designed to support cloud deployment, but DS could easily deliver it in exactly the same fashion that CATIA V6 is currently delivered: as a client/server app. Technically, SolidWorks V6 could even use a local database server instance, in which case it would look exactly like a desktop application.
My point here is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to get too tied up with talking about “cloud” as a technology. Yes, DS has previewed the software running on the cloud, in a SaaS model. And I’m betting they’d love to sell it that way — because it creates a phenomenal annuity income stream, and really locks customers in. But, a technical matter, there shouldn’t be any reason why DS won’t be able to deliver SolidWorks V6 as a desktop app…. *IF* they want to.
Depends on what you mean by “successfully.” Siemens has done rewrites a few times (NX was a biggie), and managed to maintain backwards compatibility to versions of Unigraphics that are now about 30 years old. Autodesk did it, and maintained backwards compatibility back to their first few versions (At least version 1.4… about 29 or 30 years old now.) PTC did it, and merely maintained backward compatibility to versions about 25 years old (I haven’t double checked with them, but I think this is right.) Oh… and MCS (the CAD company founded by Pat Hanratty, the man considered the father of CAD) did, I think, 4 major rewrites over time, and maintained compatibility to their first versions of software, which are now over 40 years old.
What about DS? They did rewrites of CATIA at least twice. With V5, they broke backwards compatibility with V4. It was one of the most expensive interoperability disasters in the history of the CAD industry. Third party translator vendors made a fortune selling tools to deal with V4/V5 translation.
As for CAD companies that didn’t survive large rewrites: not sure which ones you mean. ComputerVision, Calma, Applicon, Auto-trol, and a bunch of others died for a variety of reasons. Mostly self-inflicted wounds due to management hubris.
If I could get a big charge out of kissing a bunch of French butts, i might get aligned with this cloud shit. It is a scam to Claim permanent control over your design data: pay to keep access or we will flush it. Extortion by another name.
Solidworks seems to think that geometry definition is not very important. BUT if the geometry is not right nothing else matters. Solidworks shapes are primitive and full of geometric defects. They may not show but they will have consequences. Fix 2D splines would be a good beginning. I just bought GW3D to get conic surfaces and blend surfaces. The shapes are so much smoother and reliable than Solidworks lofts or boundary surfaces. IDIOTIC to not have CONIC SURFACES.
Does SE have conic surfaces. How many ways are they defined? I want smooth and reliable. Forget this other silly stuff. Flush the cloud.
The technology that would kill SW, SE, Pro/E, CATIA, Inventor, etc. would be a system to write and read parametric 3D CAD data without regard for which software or release wrote it. The cloud can apparently do that with respect to release. The cloud would also cut anybody not on it out.
Ray came to a user group a couple years back and announced the cloud approach. His announcement sounded hollow, cut from whole cloth.
There are a couple of things I just don’t buy.
I don’t believe this at all. CAD is not like blogging software. You need dedicated hardware for CAD, big monitors if nothing else. Giving your CAD data to someone else and then renting it back from them is idiotic. The price of powerful hardware is coming down, and there is no reason not to have a powerful desktop computer. The arguments people are using to defend CAD in the cloud apply to a very small group of customers, and are not general problems. Another way to say that is that the market for CAD in the cloud is tiny.
There is a huge difference between a viewer and authoring.
This is one of the problems with big companies. They solve their own problems, and don’t worry about what problem that causes for their customers. This is a great opportunity for another company to solve the problems CAD in the cloud is going to cause for a number of users. If DS really follows through with this, someone or several someones are going to eat their lunch.
The issue of the scale of the program and the scale of the data are going to prevent CAD in the cloud from being practical for most users. The claim is that CAD in the cloud will unlock the limitations, when in fact it simply imposes a different set of limitations which are beyond the customer’s control.
The idea may be practical in 10 or 20 years, but by then there will be some other change. The personal computing revolution away from Unix and centralized mainframes made sense. Reconsolidating does not.
@Paul. Yes, I did get a closed SPR e-mail last week. This was from 2005. I can’t even remember what the problem was.
Hi Matt
SolidWorks Software is more then 17 years old. It has started development in the mid 90’s ,days of windows 95 .Although most parts of it were constantly updated. It is done usually by patch after patch and in relatively small chunks. The software needed to be completely rewritten as was evident from the time it took to fix bugs , the number of bugs introduced each version, and the performance issues.
When you are about to rewrite your cad software you have to consider whether to rewrite the kernel or use the previous one.
The
Parasolid kernel although not new is ok it keeps updating and very stable. However some of the recent development in this kernel a well as in D-Cubed as seen in ST are part of Siemens technology advantage, and I am not sure it’s offered to rival cad companies.
So Dassault has to decide whether to switch kernels or stay with the one controlled by their rival. This time unlike the startup SolidWorks they have their Owen kernel and it is a good one. The only problem is (and not a minor one) conversion of customer’s data is not going to be easy. And some of it night not be converted 100%.
So any decision they will take will have it plus and minus. There is not a clear cut. In my opinion they have to do the switch. This will also enable them to advance at their on pace and make it easier to have compatibility with Catia.
Writing the software (completely new) itself for desktop these days is crazy. The days of traditional desktop are over. We are entering the era of mobile computing whether we like it or not and whether it is good for customers or not. Cloud computing is here and although immature. This is the entire computing market anticipation.
Look what is happening recently in the cad viewers industry.
The Problem is that this entire rewrite could take longer then expected. Because you are limited with advances in new unproved and changed technology. Most companies in the cad business in the past didn’t survive a large rewrite. (Dassault System’ by the way ‘is one of the few that has done it twice successfully) In the meanwhile if you are not updating your current software your customers might leave you if they have good alternative.
Unlike large accounts aka Boeing and alike it is easier to typical SolidWorks customer to switch programs
If I have to decide what to do with my software I think I would have made the same decision as Dasault. I.e. change kernel and go for the cloud .As I see it all other choices are worse.
Dassault has the money to spend both on new software and on keeping the current software in pace with the others .However they have neglected direct editing in the current SolidWorks, counting on new SolidWorks to deliver that technology.
If there is a grater delay in delivering the new software they might find themselves inferior to their rival. It is not currently the case but this will happen if they won’t wake up.
Another problem is more a political one. A new SolidWorks base on v6 compatible with Catia . will give sub contactor of the big companies a lower price alternative to Catia which might reduce cash flow from Catia dealers. They might enter the same marketing problem that Solid edge has.
My advice to SolidWorks is keep current SolidWorks updated to latest development until you have something solid to offer your customers in the new version. It will cost you more but you will retain your customers.
If they fix my favorite 10 Solidworks bugs and then stop. I will upgrade one more time and stop. It is all of the fake development that adds bugs and useless features that bugs me.
I hear you loud and clear!!
btw,.. have any of you been getting closed SPR emails from SW from waaaayyyy back?
I received a bunch from 2007!?!?
What a freaking joke!!
Unusually open comments from you Matt but still a little hedged I’d say.
Don got a walk on part coming from pantomime without being aware it was the Phantom of the Opera that was playing. Still quite a few of the audience called out ‘oh no it isnt’ anyway being a good natured lot….
Reversible? Probably not, a bit like the world economy, too late now to do anything rational I’m afraid. She’s going down… Oh yes it is! Boooooo! the villians….
The last SW labs project to come out of Boston http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=mXI4WWhPn-U
I believe this incorporates another search engine.
The final marketing polished solution ready for launch. The future of SW and Catia lite hangs in the balance…. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=QqkvuVIIQso