Medical manufacturer dumps SolidWorks for Solid Edge citing uncertain future
Read the original article from the Siemens PLM customer case study blog. The customer cites the uncertainty of SolidWorks future as his reason to switch. One of the great things about moving to software with direct-edit capabilities is that your translated data opens up in the new software ready to go – fully editable because of the direct-edit capabilites.
[pullquote] Helena switched to Solid Edge software. Helena now achieves 100 percent conversion of its SolidWorks and CADKEY software wireframe designs into Solid Edge and preserves its valuable data[/pullquote]
Synchronous Technology is more than just direct-edit, it is also the live rules for selection and the fact that you can use direct edit in conjunction with history modeling. You would never think of trying to edit featureless data in SolidWorks, but in Solid Edge there is no such thing as non-native data.
Manufacturers using mid-range CAD these days need a little peace of mind.
Yea, is so good to hear that DS is right on top of those geometry bugs that have been around for more than 5 years.
@Neil
thanks for the laugh, Neil! 8^)
The whole discussion goes into a wrong way in my belief. It is not a discussion about Kernels and Migrations, it is a discussion about future technologies. Let us have a look at the Automotive Industry. Since decades we are using combustion engines but since a few years electric engines are becoming more and more attractive. For the intermediate time people are able to use both technologies in parallel, the hybrid technology. So what should force a software vendor to not investigating new technologies? If they will not be able to catch up others will do and whole products will disappear (e.g. Computervision in the 90´s not able to see PC´s as a platform). Once technology is ready to be used (clouds with enough bandwidth or company clouds) as a vendor you need to be ready to deliver, otherwise others will do. The Kernel discussion is not real since a lot of C-level statements from both DS and SW made very clear that desktop SW will be further developed for years to come and in parallel a new product is developed to leverage new and future technical possibilities. Innovation AND innovation speed are key in today´s economy. Especially designers feel this pressure day in and day out. I am unable to understand why this should not be true for software vendors. Sometimes this does in fact mean that this new technology will not be compatible with old one. This is the nature of every brand new technology. If you are using PAD´s today you are not able to run any kind of desktop software or product you have purchased before and compatibility with documents really is disappointing. Worries? No since we are aware that change nowadays is not a surprise it happens daily. The only thing I want to have is an option When and How I change, and I personally think that DS and SW management are aware of this.
@Alin
From Alin, “I just wanted to know if you based your decisions on blogs articles or on the information received from the source directly. Now I know”
To Alin
My decision based on all the above. Blogs, SW speak from corp, SW speak from SWW’s, and discussions with SW and SW Vars, and looking at the history of the CAD industry, talking with other companies using various CAD and data management systems, and talking to all of the major CAD companies (PTC, Siemens, Dassult Systems, SpaceClaim, Autodesk, Alibre, Kubotek). Basically looking at the CAD industry today as a whole and where everyone in the industry is at.
The most important reason to stay or to “go-go”. Is how staying or “go-go-ing” affects our business over the next 5 to 10 years. I now know how our company is going to design and manage all of our engineering data with a “definitive” expansion path. With SW at this moment I could not say the same both for CAD and data management. They are in flux (noun – continuous change, passage, or movement) now with their data management and CAD tools.
Now from data management thru creating a drawing for the shop we have stability, today, not next year or 5 years from now, today.
It is not an easy decision to make to switch. For a one man shop, or a mid-sized company, to a multi-national corp.
When I looked into my crystal ball at SW, it was cloudy, or hazy (input your personal list here – there are many to list), etc. I really could not see with clarity what was going on.
When I looked into my crystal ball at SE, I could clearly see what it was today and had a clear idea of the direction it is heading.
Perhaps the most meaningful thing that I definitely know and can say with clarity. “Jeff Ray……., I feel NO pain!!!!!!”. 🙂
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Stingisomid.jpg[/img]
@Neil Regardless of your opinions (many of which I agree with as it happens) you are a blast to read. Your shipwreck, the meteorite — never a dull read in Neil-land. Keep it coming…
Shares in DS? I wish 🙂
I don’t buy it for a second. Shops change Solid modellers for one of two reasons, because the current modeller falls down on a job once too often or because the engineering department orgchart has been churned up or turned over. Upper management and IT usually don’t have any role in the decision to switch software titles. Hell, upper management usually doesn’t know what software they use for their email, let alone design.
Kevin I’m sure you have DS shares or something… 😉
I agree its a beautiful day right up to the instant you are actually hit by the meteorite. Spectators to the event can probably erase their memory with a similar outlook.
If you dont see it coming or cant move out of the way not worrying about it is a splendid bottom line.
Does your outlook change when cars are no longer British made… no you can still buy the same car made in China for less and ring a pleasant lady at a call centre in Thailand to book your local service..
If you stop thinking about the consequences you can shop till you have no money, no job, no house, no credit, no sovereignty…and no way back.
Personally I’m focused on positioning my business to minimise the effects of an even worse economic time than the Great Depression and also avoiding total vendor lock in by the would be cloud bandits..
@Neil
Could not fool you, Neil. 🙂 At least I tried… 🙂
@matt
My take was that SolidWorks, the way we know, it is not going away anytime soon. Hopefully we will get a more detailed clarification in the near future.
In regards to n!Fuze, I do not have any personal opinion because, so far, I had not found any time to play with it. Too busy playing with SolidWorks and its other friends.
A friend of mine played for a bit with Post3D and his results are quite good. We modeled our office, he transferred it in Post3D and anyone can walk now through it in 3D. Of course, the fact that we have a state of the art 3D theatre helps a lot with the appearance of reality.
Regarding the reseller thing, I have not gotten too much “crap” so far. It might be a bit different here, but I do not mind. Hopefully we can debate ideas not people. 🙂
Billy, just some clarification on the situation with DraftSight and PhotoView 360. Neither was introduced to align more to CATIA. Draftsight is a totally standalone product and has nothing whatsoever to do with SolidWorks. PhotoView 360 used the render kernel licensed from Luxology and in the first instance was developed for SolidWorks – I am not aware that it has been adopted in CATIA yet. Luxology also license the same kernel to Bentley for use in Microstation products. PhotoView 360 was introduced to enhance and improve and simplify rendering in SolidWorks – which I think it does, and to replace PhotoWorks which was based on the MentalRay render engine. As far as I am aware CATIA v6 still uses Mental Ray.
My interpretation of the CGM/Parasolid thing is that SolidWorks v6 is/will be a totally new platform – think new app. I’ve not seen anywhere, anyone saying they will offer full backwards compatibility on a history tree level. I have seen comments saying they will offer compatibility on a topological level. I have seen comments that say the new product will need to be so compelling that it offers features never seen before.
I think what we are facing is a period of transition over a several years period. I have not seen this new version anymore than most others, and I have my own opinions on what “cloud” actually means, but the bottom line is we don’t know. So should we worry? Personally, I’m focussed on building my business and getting value from the tools I use right now rather than being obsessed with FUD being spread by other CAD vendors and blogs. The fact is most SolidWorks users are happy enough and have no real desire to change ships. When the SolidWorks v6 system hits the streets we can make an informed decision and assess things from a platform of knowledge. Really, its like buying a car. Does your outlook change on your Chrysler purchase if Chrysler changes hands and is now Fiat and starts selling rebadged Lancias? Or do you drive the car you bought, go to your dealer for servicing and when it comes to upgrade you look at the shiny Fords or stick with a company you know? OK maybe not quite that simple but a lot of CAD is about what you are used to and the ability to do the job you need it to do. SolidWorks does that for most people pretty well. I have no doubt SolidWorks v6 will do the same. As I have no doubt SolidEdge and Pro/E do for their users.
Alin,
LMAO. You know you are here as a VAR to *straighten* perceptions if you can manage it.
I bet you are saying to DS privately though “what the hell is this? give us something to sell that our customers want to buy and without having to discount it”.
@Alin
Alin,
Thanks to the link to the article. Do you think Bertrand’s comment you quoted cleared anything up? It was a contradiction. First he said it’s not a choice, then he said it was a choice. I don’t understand what he meant to say.
After the debut of n!Fuze, do you really have any optimism left for cloud products? Even Post3D sounds only marginally different from n!Fuze. Will the first two V6 products both be flops?
About the reseller/user thing, yeah, I hear you. I straddled that line for years, and I took a lot of crap for being a reseller. It just comes with the territory.
Matt, I believe “the fear” was justified somewhat in 2010. Not anymore after SWW 2011. I wrote about my perception of this issue here: http://dpn.clbmedia.dgtlpub.com/2011/2011-03-31/home.php (page 14).
BTW, good observation on splitting hairs. I will stop doing that now, that I got the clarifications I was looking for. 🙂
Just for the record, I am not writing as a reseller, but as a user. It would be great if that can be accepted by you and my fellow readers of your blog. 🙂
@Alin
Alin,
Don’t you think that it’s splitting hairs to argue that SolidWorks is not changing kernels? They clearly intend that the path forward is V6. For someone to take data from SW 2012 and move to V6, they will have to go through the kernel change. There are no guarantees that Parasolid based SolidWorks is going to exist 3 years from now.
As a reseller, I know you want to protect your customers from insane fear. But don’t you think the fear is more than a little justified? As a customer, there’s nothing for you to hold on to, except some slippery phrases meant to not really communicate anything.
@Billy Oliver
Billy, thanks for the long comment and the time you took to put all those links together. I have not contested at any time that SolidWorks announced in 2010 that they were working on a product to run on the V6 kernel and also that this created a lot of confusion in the SolidWorks community, including the blogs you mentioned. I was quite confused myself until the clarifications received at SWW 2011.
That being said I have not heard of any kernel change in SolidWorks itself. When I read the article from Siemens, I was quite surprised seeing that the author stated that you received such a confirmation directly from SolidWorks. That was my only question – did you get such a confirmation or not?
In your previous comment you said that you did not get such a confirmation. I hope you would not mind if I quote you: “SWV6 is a whole new platform entirely. The kernel is not changing in the current SW windows based desktop parasolid modeler SWV1 that everyone uses today. SW has licensed it for years to come it is not going away.”
And no, it was not my intention to bug you on the private details of your conversations. You are right, they are yours to keep. Also I am not SolidWorks, so in no way is SolidWorks asking you to disclose anything. It was just me asking for a clarification that you were kind enough to provide. At that time, I just wanted to know if you based your decisions on blogs articles or on the information received from the source directly. Now I know.
Thanks! 🙂
@Alin
From Alin
“So looks like the author of the article from Siemens is the one who misunderstood your statements. As you say now, there is not going to be any kernel change for SolidWorks as a product.”
I think that you are mincing works maybe it is the ENGLISH to FRENCH translation.
Alin, your statement “As you say now, there is not going to be any kernel change for SolidWorks as a product.” —— IS NOT what I am saying.
There IS a kernel change happening right now. SOLIDWORKS is moving to their new platform from SOLIDWORKS V1 (parasolid) to SOLIDWORKS V6 which is the (CGM) kernel.
As to the statement, “The kernel change is going to be long and painful.” Is a valid statement, via moving from DSS – SOLIDWORKS V1(parasolid) to DSS – SOLIDWORKS V6(CGM ?).
I’m just listening to what Jeff Ray said about “they” and “pain” and “Status quo”.
THEY = Us the SOLIDWORKS user and PAIN = PAIN and STATUS QUO = SOLIDWORKS-V1 (parasolid).
LONG is relative to how far away is a bug free stable usable SOLIDWORKS -V6 and is PAIN relative to how LONG users keep using the SOLIDWORKS-V1 (parasolid desktop software on your PC right now?)
The issue is will SOLIDWORKS achieve 100% data conversion of legacy SOLIDWORKS -V1 (parasolid) data to SOLIDWORKS -V6 (CGM?) data? SOLIDWORKS-V1 is morphing right now , (in DS lingo see below.. ” To better align with the Dassault Systèmes “) .
-> Jeff Ray: When the pain of the status quo becomes greater than changing, then they will.<-
source: Ralph Grabowski’s UpFronteZine
http://www.upfrontezine.com/2010/upf-634.htm
Well to Jeff Ray…. I don't want silly CAD software to cause me pain.
As to the conversation I had with SOLIDWORKS it was in early 2010 when everyone was in the clouds. I was told a lot of things that I have not and will not disclose. Everything that was discussed is old news anyway that now has come to pass. Why does SOLIDWORKS want me to disclose details of a private conversation? Let them start disclosing.
Their Funny.
After the tease of SOLIDWORKS -V6 at SOLIDWORKS World 2010 and while all the cloud talk was going on.
SOLIDWORKS is here a cloud, there a cloud everywhere a cloud cloud, O my SOLIDWORKS is going into the cloud, what's my desktop to do. Here a cloud, there a cloud everywhe re a cloud cloud. E I E I O
When no one knew what V6 really meant. At the time (early 2010) I believe most people thought V6 was going to be SOLIDWORKS Parasolid in the Clouds. Who knows. That lasted a year till SWW 2011 when they showed Live Buildings and POST3D which inspired all the jokes about avatars with blonde hair everyone was saying it was CATIA products with SOLIDWORKS name on them.
2011 January 24 Solidsmack — POST3D Next Stop, Reality
http://www.solidsmack.com/cad-design-news/solidworks-world-post3d-brings-immersive-3d-to-product-design-sww11/
2011 January 27 — Solidworks Live Buildings
http://www.deelip.com/?p=5487
Everything they have done as far as I can tell has been to gain more compatibility with the CGM kernel. Two off the top of my head, DraftSight and PhotoView 360. Oh that includes all of the Appearance changes also.
—————————————-
From SolidWorks 2011 Release Notes SolidWorks 2D Editor
http://files.solidworks.com/Supportfiles/Release_Notes/2011/English/relnotes.htm
To better align with the Dassault Systèmes new 2D product – DraftSight™, DS SolidWorks Corp. will retire the SolidWorks 2D Editor. The SolidWorks 2D Editor download is planned to be available through the Service Pack cycle of SolidWorks 2011 (October, 2010 through October, 2011), after which time the download link on the SolidWorks Customer Portal will be removed.
——————————————
Photoworks replaced by Photoview 360 due to Luxology CATIA link
2010 February — Robrodriguez.com – PhotoView 360 2011
http://robrodriguez.com/wordpress/?p=980
The links around the web have been talking about it for years.
What is SOLIDWORKS V1? (Windows based Siemens Parasolid kernel)
Look at your computer screen right now.
What is SOLIDWORKS V6? We really don't know. (Windows based Dassault Systèmes Spatial CGM (convergence geometric modeler))????
2009 May 22 — SolidSmack
http://www.solidsmack.com/cad-design-news/solidworks-direct-editing-inventor-fusion-ptc-cocreate-craziness/
2010 February 15 — Develop 3D – Solidworks-world-2010-next-generation-picture-starts-to-clear
http://develop3d.com/blog/2010/02/solidworks-world-2010-next-generation-picture-starts-to-clear
2010 March 5 — Develop 3D – Solidworks: The next generation
http://develop3d.com/features/solidworks-the-next-generation
2010 July 5 — Designstuff – Of CAD, clouds, and iPads
http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/?p=779
2010 October –Deelip.com – Jeff Ray Clarifies SolidWorks Stand On The Cloud
http://www.deelip.com/?p=3528
2011 January 6 — Develop 3D – The death of SolidWorks?
http://develop3d.com/features/the-death-of-solidworks
2011 June 9 — Solidsmack – Behind CATIA V6. Single Interface, Multiple Workbenches. Glimpse of Future SolidWorks?
http://www.solidsmack.com/?s=solidworks+v6
Too many to list????
Bottom Line.
Uncertainty. How can these articles mean that SOLIDWORKS is NOT changing to CGM kernel.
Hey Neil,
Thats not just DS that is any CAD program out there and when I switched from VX to SE I went through the same learning curve. I always chuckle at sales people who are mystified at why you might need more than 30 days to check a program out. I will say that direct editing is a big change from parametric for sure and think faces here for how you work in ST.
Yes it does mean I am so used to SW its stuffing up learning SE but it is also apparent SE may not have the capability I need and I will have to keep looking. Hence my moan about the inconvenience caused by DS.
Had an email from my SW VAR today offering ‘massive’ discounts for a short time. Wonder if other parts of the world are getting that too?
Bit cryptic there Neil – does this mean that you are so used to SolidWorks that you find SolidEdge hard to get into, or are you implying something else?
I spent some time messin’ around with SE this afternoon again and one thing is apparent. Thanks to DS I am going to be seriously inconvenienced auditioning other software and learning to use it well enough so my work isnt affected. Thanks guys… 🙁
While this video is really a “what’ new in ST4” demo, it is pretty good for seeing how sync/live rules actually works in a workflow and give some insight into how sync is different from “move face” command.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY4b122IK-U
@Dan Staples
Dan, Thank you for this information. When I said that Solid Edge did not seem to have too much trouble with the switching of kernels, I meant that I did not hear anything from Solid Edge customers about any troubles with their legacy models after the switch. See, at the time I was with a SolidWorks VAR and was spreading the FUD. I do commend you and your team on doing a good job on the switch.
@Dan Staples
The number 1 concern is legacy data migration from Parasolid to CGM.
Preserving legacy data, with a 100% data conversion rate.
Ask Airbus how that Catia V4 to Catia V5 thing worked out on the 380.
So how will SWV1 migrate to SWV6?
@Wayne
I won’t comment on the “will they or won’t they” swap out the kernel thing, but I am REALLY well qualified to comment on the “they [Solid Edge] didn’t seem to have too much trouble [swapping out the kernel]” comment, since I was Solid Edge development manager at the time we did it.
It is of course an enormous amount of work, but that is not the really relevant part. The important thing is what users will experience (IF the kernel is changed). I think people somehow forget that the end model is the result of the feature tree recipe — I mean I think people get this at a high level — but what that really means is that EVERY feature in your feature tree has to compute EXACTLY the same as it did last time or your solid will not be the same. Even the most minor change at any point in the tree can cause a cascade throughout the rest of the tree.
This means the math has to be exactly the same and the number of edges produced and their direction and etc. It is really a very fragile machinery that ALL of us invest in (Solid Edge included in its Ordered environment) to ensure the result is exactly the same. We even go so far as to “version” algorithms, so that even if we improve an algorithm, we have to use the old one during recompute or your result could be different.
So why does this matter? Well, the math between the two kernels is of course different as written by two completely different teams over a period of years. So the software team has to do a lot of adjusting, tweaking and working around to try to ensure the feature tree gives the same final answer after computing in the new system.
I remember distinctly that we (Intergraph) worked very hard to get to 95% reliability in feature tree conversion and had an automatic checker where we’d salvage the body if we couldn’t produce the same result on recompute of the tree. So basically you were going to lose 5% of your feature trees. Getting from 95% to 96% to 97% is a logarithmic kind of investment, so you have to cut and run at some point, because it just becomes untenable. Back when we did this in 1997 (released in 98) we had been shipping for about 2 years and our customers numbered in the low thousands, so this level of reliability was workable.
Fast forward 15 years to hundreds of thousands of customers and millions of files. Again, not commenting on will they or wont there — there seems to be plenty of info out there on that — but IF they did, you can do the math…
@Norm C.
We’ve been asking for better surfacing support in SE for years. There are some tools (and very powerful like Blue Surf/Blue dots) but there’s plenty of room to grow in the surfacing area in Solid Edge. We’ve heard some rumors that surfaces may be one of the strong areas in ST5. Let’s hope they’re confirmed.
@Neil
In SW explode view you cannot rotate assy components…. Only xyz moves… We had a need in a recent product to show parts in an exploded view rotated. Our SW var said no you cannot do that in SW, you need to by 3DVIA to rotate components for a lot of $$$$$$.
During our SE demo one of the questions asked was… can you rotate exploded components… he said yes… and he did it.
@Billy Oliver
Billy, thanks for the clarification. You are right, this is exactly what I understood reading the article – the fact that you requested and received confirmation of a kernel change for SolidWorks.
They state in the article: “But recent press and blog posts from SolidWorks users that Dassault planned to remove the Parasolid® software modeling kernel from its SolidWorks product worried Helena.”
“So I called (SolidWorks); I needed to know. They confirmed the kernel change.”
“The kernel change is going to be long and painful.”
So looks like the author of the article from Siemens is the one who misunderstood your statements. As you say now, there is not going to be any kernel change for SolidWorks as a product.
Thank you also for correcting my wrong assumption about your team’s training. You are again right, it seems like an arrogant statement, but it was based only on the information from the article (the tutorials as a sole base for training).
I will not dispute the rest of your comments, since everybody is entitled to choose the tool that fits him or his company best. That is a subject we can discuss in the CAD Olympics section.
So again Billy, please accept my apologies for the wrong choice of words in my first comment. I just hope that this last comment clarifies the cause of my wrong assumptions for you, as much as your last comment corrected the wrong information shown in the actual article.
BTW, I really liked seeing your pictures.
It is very unfortunate that Siemens PLM has chosen not to develop the surfacing tools further in Solid Edge. There are some nice tools, BlueSurf for example which is like a loft/sweep hybrid. But the current toolset (disclaimer: the latest version I’ve used is ST, and in “traditional” mode) dates back V14 from 2004. Surface evaluation tools are lacking. They clearly target the machine design market.
Is 3dvia mid-range? I think it came down/across from the Catia world. Its certainly priced beyond my pocket and I recall other people saying the same. Maybe if you are a fairly large company it pays its way but I think they could have offered something more appropriate for typical SW users. Another example of DS generously imposing a grand solution on SW users without regard of their real interests/needs. Slightly unique because it was something that wasn’t restricted by the glass ceiling but fell through it.
I guess with a cloud version you could rent some time if you can’t afford it. Probably that would have been a much better thing to pursue than n!Fuze or SWv6 itself.
@Alin
Alin
I think that you have misunderstood what I said about the kernel issue.
SWV6 is a whole new platform entirely.
The kernel is not changing in the current SW windows based desktop parasolid modeler SWV1 that everyone uses today. SW has licensed it for years to come it is not going away.
In answer to you statement:
“””1. Lack of training for sure. I can’t believe they will be successful with SolidEdge either without training their users. Remember – any upgrade has 3 components equally important: upgrade the software, the hardware and the users. Looks like they forgot to “upgrade” their users when moving to SolidWorks. Hopefully they will invest in training for the other platform.”””
That’s a pretty arrogant statement. Our users here had classroom training. I have been using SW since 95. So training them to use history based modeling was not the issue. The issue arose when they started asking questions of why they had to do things a certain way. And why they could not modify multiple parts at the same time in assemblies. And why they could not just grab faces and pull them. Why did they have to go back to the sketch, etc, etc, etc.
My answer to them was they were asking for ‘direct modeling’ techniques. And SW does not do that.
When they saw the demo how SolidEdge with Synchronous worked for sheet metal, weldments and machined parts. And the functionality in the assembly of interrelation of parts etc …….. they liked what they saw EOS.
Pick of one of my old disks and pick of some of my work from the 96-98 timeframe in SW
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Solidworks95disk.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ScorpFrontEnd.jpg[/img]
@Dan
Dan,
that brings up a question, though. Why does Siemens not have mid-range solutions in those spaces? I know you have TeamCenter Express, but is there an equivalent mid-range for 3dVia?
I’m personally most interested in a mid-range surfacing product.
What SolidWorks PDM Enterprise and 3DVia means to this discussion? I though this was about Solid Edge x Solidworks. If we start to compare other tools between Siemens and Solidworks coorps it will go in the wrong way. SolidWorks PDM Enterprise x Teamcenter (mid-range x high end), 3DVia x Cortona3D (again mid-range x high end) it is not a fair comparisson.
cubalibre,
What is a CGM kernel? Is there anything specific known about the capability? What kind of shapes can it generate? How accurate are the shapes generated where surfaces intersect? Will lofts actually fit every section? Will ruled surfaces actually be ruled surfaces? Will sketch curves accurately project to surfaces? Will tangents flip to cusps in sketches? Will boundary surfaces go al the way to the boundary? Have we seen the last brocolli surface?
In the early days of Solid Edge, when it was an Intergraph product, it used the ACIS kernel. They did not seem to have too much trouble when they switched to Parasolids. I do remember when they did, SolidWorks used it against them. I guess turnaround is fair game.
It’s true that ST is very useful in some cases and SW Corp. had lacks many opportunities a cause of DS, but SW is better in modeling, SM, assembly and tool for validate the design.
For the Teamcenter, is very hard to use and personalize.
SolidWorks PDM Enterprise is a very good PDM, simple and complete, without package as in all Siemens suite.
Siemens doesn’t have 3DVia Composer that is the best in class for documentation.
@Rick McWilliams
Ricky, SolidWorks from some years use to create some feature ACIS kernel.
SolidWorks V6 will have CGM kernel, but some Parasolid dll will be present in the installation for legacy file use.
SolidWorks Corp. has good programmers and I’m sure will do a good V6 revolution CAD, without or lot less problems.
SolidWorks Corp. is not like DS.
@Billy Oliver
Billy, please accept my apologies for the wrong of words. I was under the impression that Siemens misquoted you.
Can you tell me who you talked to at SolidWorks? The reason I’m asking is because I asked the same question recently and I got a completely different answer. They were actually wondering who would have said that to you.
Wow, a confirmed comittment to a kernel change. It could be a very good thing. They will have full understanding of the inner workings. Something that they clearly did not have with parasolid. It will be very painful and the bugs will be numerous. They will most likely provide the bugs for free when they roll it out.
The peculiar geometry generated by SW lofts and sweeps will never be reproducable by the new kernel. That may be good. The curves that are not quite on a surface will not be reproducable. That may be good. The gaps between boundarys and boundary surfaces may go away. Lofts may actually exactly include every section. Lofts may not get all twisted out of shape. Trims may not get confused. Models may rebuild reliably. Thicken may be reliable. Equations may be evaluated in real time like other constraints. The models may rebuild so quickly that the file size will be 1200 times smaller.
I was just getting optimistic. Since they have not tried any little piece of V6 in current solidworks releases, I do not believe that much of it will work. They have not described any of the new geometry capability that actually defines geometry. I think that Solidworks will fail. I think that the software will be released as a maimed combination of old and new the will not function well in either form. If I must be on line to use it, I will use the old version until I bail entirely.
@Rick McWilliams
We R running SW 2010 and have 2011 but did not load it.
@Alin
One thing I don’t like being called is a liar. Yes I called SW and they confirmed the kernel change and said that they have leased the Parasolid kernel for many years to come to take care of the legacy folks. You should call them too and I’m sure that they will tell you the same.
Matt, this is just marketing. I am pretty sure you spotted the weak points of the “story”.
1. Lack of training for sure. I can’t believe they will be successful with SolidEdge either without training their users. Remember – any upgrade has 3 components equally important: upgrade the software, the hardware and the users. Looks like they forgot to “upgrade” their users when moving to SolidWorks. Hopefully they will invest in training for the other platform.
2. The fact that they called SolidWorks and they confirmed a kernel change is most likely a lie. I am very curious who answered their call at SolidWorks.
Also thanks all for the feedback. The reality is, as many have stated, that the decision of what CAD/CAM/PLM package an individual or company uses is not soley based off “hard facts” of what is the best overall tool. Budget, politics, personal preference, customer support, all play a role.
My own personal opinion. I’ve used NX for about a year, and even if we upgraded to the ST versions, I would still feel like it was a difficult cad system to use, and expensive. It’s hardcore for sure; not for the “intuitive” crowd. But honestly, the GTAC’s phone support second to none. Unfortunately, you’ll be calling it often, because there are just some things you’ll realize that you’re over your head on.
As badly as many feel SolidWorks have treated them, I just can’t seem to get past what a great “value” SolidWorks is. It’s relatively affordable, and is indeed quite powerful. I’m always amazed at how quickly I’m able to create things, and if I have an issue, find SOME type of workaround or fix that will meet my needs and let me move on. Where SW has continued to disappoint me is in large-assembly performance and management. Even with super-computer hardware and “best practices” and lightweight this/that, it just doesn’t deliver the experience we need to make 3D design workflow viable in the type of work we do.
Thanks for exposing some of the details. One wonders why they did not update SW. Maybe the SW2008 update was too disturbing?
I know a medium size company that designed a very complex product entirely in SW2004. They held off change until SW2010. All kinds of models were badly broken. The engineer who suggested that they update was roundly abused.
I am a happy SolidWorks user. I am not pleased with the direction the company seems headed.
The large companies seem to have management select the software based on the entertainment provided by the CAD sales people.
@Kevin
You are right about vendors playing up their product and dumping on their competitors. This is how the marketing and publicity game is usually played.
I dont recall that reading a case study figured in my own decision to buy or not buy but maybe for some it does.
I think Matt was just drawing attention to the uncertainty aspect of SW and that it appears to be having a real impact on customers strategic decisions.
Probably had the first story to emerge been one of 200 seats being dumped you would have found some way to minimise that too.
I would have thought 200 seats was the exception rather than the norm for SW (< 10 seats?) but…
I wonder how many cases and how many seats at a time you would consider to be enough to overcome the BS aspect and constitute a real threat? What if this is the start of something serious like occured with ProE?
I am sure DS will bring out all the counter propoganda tricks in that case but they ought to be doing something now to avoid a critical meltdown.
This is what Matt was alluding to in recent posts.
Its not actually that A is better than B or C although it could well be that one solution is more suited to your business than another.
The relative strengths and suitability of other CAD may have changed since a company went with SW for their purposes.
The difficulty is that A, which people have a commitment to, seems like it is soon to be a dead end and the question arises what is best to move off to.
Migration of data issues are part of that.
For some companies a change might even be a bonus or relief. For others it will involve distress and grudging resentment.
I am sure the final decision for individual business would be arrived at for a mix of reasons.
It might even be that it comes down to the guy who makes the decision having never having 'got it'. Never the less it is a decision.
While there are thousands of happy users for SW – well we hope all 1.5 million and not just a few thousand of those – they may not be so happy in the future. They might already be unhappy depending how switched on they are.
I wouldnt like to be in the position of having 200 seats and trying to decide what to do about DS 'killing' SW.
Is upgrading to SW2012 a sound investment for them? Perhaps they have a need for walk throughs of large assys and stuff like that..dunno.
Perhaps the cloud – which they cant find anything out about – is just the ticket and they will go where ever DS lead them…
Small companies have ties and dependencies with SW that are every bit as important and potentially disruptive to them as a large one. I dont think a decision to move away from SW would be any less difficult.
Thanks, all, for further answering my questions, and thanks also to Solid DNA for the videos. Good to get a glimpse of work-flow. Looks like I’ll still need to wait and see how the compound surfacing (generation and parametrized editing) tools evolve.
I’ve just read the case study myself now….and there are a few choice extracts that put a slightly different slant on the story.
1. They bought SolidWorks in 2007 (how many seats?)
2. Most of their legacy data is in Cadkey wireframe format (so it was not converted to SW)
3. Some engineers did not like history based modelling (being users of CadKey I can see how the move from anything goes to a more rigid workflow would be tricky – but it does not say it is wrong and 9 times out of 10 not “getting” it is a training issue. Which is kind of alluded to by the comments on “working through online tutorials”. If you have a complete new start from an old system to a modern CAD system you need classroom based training and ongoing support from your VAR.
My point is that this is as much marketing BS as anything else that is churned out by the CAD vendors – you can take a different slant on anything if you look hard enough. This is just (another) FUD piece. Frankly it is getting boring. If companies want to go on record as slamming another then it says a lot for the company in my opinion – wonder how much discount they got for changing to SolidEdge.
The fact is there are thousands of happy SolidWorks users out there, just as there are thousands of happy SolidEdge users, and thousands of happy Inventor and Pro/E users. They all have pros and cons. What I want to do is learn how to use the system I have now to the best of my ability, not have to buy a new system and learn all that again.
I’ve not seen many case studies that say Company XYZ bought SolidWorks in 2001 and in 2011 switched their 200 licenses to SolidEdge because it was better. Likewise I’ve not seen the same for Inventor or Pro E (in recent years). Companies like mine can chop and change CAD easily. Put in 200 seats and it is a different story. Sure the auto guys change things around occasionally but a lot of that is political rather than down to necessity, or due to company mergers where the biggest boy gets to choose.
Ouch…… Just read the Case Study. No mincing words there.
I can’t say I disagree. DS SolidWorks has painted itself into a very dark corner.
Bruce
(update ..sorry Matt for the video link i just paste the link and they come out a little bit too big)
I see two side to your question
The management – PLM side
The part – geometry side
Check this video to give you a small glimpse of an answer for the PLM system where the JT format is being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOPTAShZe8E
Jt format has more options compare to step and parasolid when it come times to use it in a PLM ( meaning control environment)
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/JTOptions.png[/img]
Has for the part, here a quick video i made where i import a neutral file ( could have been a SW part) and i can quickly rebuild the surface.
OK i agree this is a simple part easy to manipulate, but it is to show some of the basic workflow that can be implement and that can evolve as you master the the functionality.
http://soliddna.wordpress.com/?s=grand
Hope it helps answer few of your interrogations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOryQdsq71Y
Apparently, Dassault Systèmes decided to spend 28 minutes discussing the PAST 20 YEARS at the SolidWorks 2012 Media Roll Out. That is their current focus, the past. I’m more interested in the future and it appears SolidEdge is too. I’d like to learn more about SolidEdge.
@Neil
IROTGLMAO!
@Bruce Buck
Solid Edge can pull the Parasolid directly out of SolidWorks files. By “natively” is meant that Solid Edge ST4 can edit imported data using direct edit techniques as if the data were built in Solid Edge.
Kevin is right about the spline based shapes, though. NX is required for that kind of work. If anyone – Siemens, Dassault, PTC, hell, even Autodesk could create a mid-range priced full-featured CAD program that could also edit NURBS spline based shapes, they would get a lot of consumer product money.
What I don’t get is why Siemens seems to equate complex surfacing with PLM bookkeeping. This is the one thing about their current position in the market that doesn’t make sense to me.
But if you look at it from the point of view of Solid Edge’s current strengths (prismatic parts), the “natively” comment is accurate. Most CAD users make mostly prismatic parts.
@Bruce Buck
Yes it can open the SolidWorks part file natively. No you cannot interrogate the history tree. You need to use the SolidEdge tools to make edits by selecting faces, edges etc, setting up rules and so on. When you save the file you save it as a SolidEdge file format to be able to retain all these “features” you have added, so in that respect your linkages to your PLM system are changed.
The ability to open and edit native part files is frankly mainly marketing speak and of little actual value. Most 3D systems have had this ability for donkeys years – SolidWorks opens a range of native formats, as does Inventor, pro/E, and the minor players.
You still have to invest the time in setting up the model to make the edits you require – ST still takes time to set up rules and depending on your part design it may or may not be easy to do (for example if you have a surface heavy ID type part where you have set up the surfaces by drive curves in the host app, making changes in the imported part in SolidEdge is not easy as you might need to rebuild the surface. Hence why most demos on this stuff show prismatic parts.
The only way to really see this is to try it on your parts. If it works then great. I tried it on some of my typical work and it was a dismal failure for the kinds of shape tweaks I need to do. For moving a few ribs around it works great, but try editing a G2 fillet – different story. The tech I need is in a very expensive add on module to NX 7.5 apparently – surprise surprise.
Bruce has a good question to which I’d be interested in knowing the answer.
SolidEdge will look more attractive if they can show me some great swoopy-surface generation (and ability to edit).
Last version I kicked the tires on was version 20. Pre-ST, I’m pretty sure. So my memory is a little shaky. Perhaps you can clarify a few things. By “preserve valuable data”, are they saying that you can open up a .sldprt up and edit it NATIVELY? w/out having to first “convert” to a SolidEdge format? What implications does this have to those with large legacy stuff in a PLM system? Will they need to rev-up each Item/dataset for a SolidEdge version, or can release items stay as SW/CADkey/whatever, with only new parts/assemblies being saved as SE file formats?
I’m trying to understand the difference between what they’re saying, and importing legacy/different data as parasolid/step/etc and using direct editing tools? Is it just that you have more control/options with ST and live rules?
I think a bigger view is we have moved beyond uncertainty for SW passengers into a realisation that the good ship DS is stranded on a sand bar and some of them are anticipating they might need to get out the lifeboats.
Originally while everyone was partying on the poop deck a few intoxicated crew invaded the bridge to demonstrate some slick manouvers. Shortly after this there was a rather disconcerting lurch to the right and general confusion. People were reassured there was nothing to worry about. The captain did come right out and say she was holed but he was quicky thrown overboard by the owner who was thinking about his liabilities and share price.
Announcements that the ship would continue on making top knots with both engines calmed a few but it became evident that it was nearly impossible to make controlled headway because one engine was running at 90% power and the other was near idling on 10%. More passengers noticed this when they passed the Appearances lighthouse twice.
Travelling in ever decreasing circles the ship with the owner still proclaiming deviation by design they struck bottom at Freeze Bar with the rudder on full lock. The owner is contemplating reversing the 10% engine but they run the risk of spinning on the spot and throwing everyone dizzy into the water.
Despite the passengers best suggestions to solve the problem the crew are steadfast in their determination to get to port and keep everyone amused with a count down timer of days to go until they pass Appearances lighthouse again or party again which ever comes sooner.
So here they sit.