Using Solidworks 2013
There’s a big difference between using CAD software and kvetching about CAD companies. The part of my job that I actually get paid for is the former. I really miss the “good ole days” when all we had to complain about was bugs. I would gladly go back to just talking about the software rather than the company that makes it. Dassault is like a Spanish station soap opera – way, WAY over the top. Just for nostalgia, let’s talk a little about the software.
I’ve had a couple of projects going for the first part of this year, and one of them has been using SolidWorks 2010. I’ve got 5 versions of SolidWorks installed on my main machine, just so I’m ready. When you’ve had a chance to run 2013, going back to 2010 is a real chore. 2010 had a lot of body-related bugs, and a steady flow of color related bugs. One time I used the Draft Analysis tool, and my models are now randomly red and green. If you fix it and then roll the model back, it will be randomly red and green again. Color was BADLY broken in 2010.
The other project is using 2013. 2013 does have several bugs that have been there for a long time, but it also has a lot of little details that have been fixed. The bug where reordering any feature in a tree that has a failed shell feature results in a message about break lines or something is still there. The fact that you can insert an open part into an assembly, but not into another part is still a head-scratcher. And then there are the persistent bugs where if you use an undocked PropertyManager on another monitor, tooltips seem to just automatically show up over the controls. A convenience obscuring a necessity. Now if that doesn’t sum up the DS approach to dealing with SolidWorks customers, nothing does.
Something new that’s broken is what in the hell they’ve done with the Measure tool. This is one of those tools that gets gutted every few years whether it needs it or not. I had just started thinking the last thing they did was productive, when they have suddenly “fixed” it. You no longer have the X, Y and Z distances on screen, and you’ve got some bewildering options now. It took me 2 days to figure out why I couldn’t measure center to center. And I still can’t measure from temp axes of transparent parts. The Modify box always seems to have something hanging down over a button that you need to click. This shows that people aren’t paying attention. It’s just sloppy. There was never any shortage of things that legitimately needed fixing, I just can’t understand why they chose to fix stuff that pretty much worked.
On the other hand, there are some things in 2013 that really improve the productivity of the software. For example, try to make a fillet and change the radius with the PropertyManager. Then change it again. And again. Again, Again, Again. You can do it. You used to have to swipe with your mouse to do it again, but somebody must have read a beginning programming book where they talk about cursor focus. Basic, basic stuff. You don’t need a freaking cognitive psychologist to tell you if the focus isn’t on a number, you can’t type over it. Only took 18 years to figure that one out.
Here’s another one that’s genuinely brilliant. I know that sounds sarcastic, but I mean it. If you are placing a dimension that requires two selections and a placement click, you can press ESC and SW backs you up one step, instead of getting you out of the entire command. Ok, you want to talk about “productivity”???!?!? THAT’s the kind of thing we need. Simple, effective, intuitive. Not another gutted renderer. Not a tool that automatically disects all your parts starting at 8 pm. Not a new name for colors, or shiny backgrounds, or FeatureManager skins (remember those?). And certainly not the promise of a whole bunch of IT development that has nothing at all to do with getting my DESIGN job done.
Anyway, I just wanted to check in with people who still use the software. Msr Charles’ belated proclamation was a bit of a spoiler, knowing the end of the story – that development of this software is a dead end.
@alex
You certainly have become the lightning rod on this forum. From your posts I would understand that you have been very happy with SW for a number of years. I share your viewpoint from SW1997 to SW2009. There are bugs, and there are limitations, but the overall experience is very good.
At question is the direction of the platform. While I sometimes think that SW2009 is all that I will ever need, at the least for relatively simple modelling, I have a much greater need to do engineering simulation with CFD and sometimes FEA. My future is how products work, not so much how they look. For me, integration of Flow into SW was a HUGE accomplishment.
But from a basic focus on computer applications, hardware development always precedes software developement. I think that all CAD kernals were developed based upon PC one core technology. At this moment in time they are all obsolete. There will be game changing advantages to leveraging the latest is computer hardware.
Perhaps we will all want to transition to the newer technology. But it could be that the new technology will not run on a PC….. And now, if you get the drift of users on this forum, is the change in concept of owning your software to the concept of renting your software. Probably most of the posters on this forum value ownership to renting.
Please address the idea of owning versus renting your software.
@ All participants,
I am sorry I have ever dared to confront your prophet. You can go and dump SolidWorks now.
Peace.
@Alex
Alex you said,
“Trouble is, that there is NO alternative to SolidWorks” then “An adequate replacement that is.” I found those statements very interesting. Why? Because, in moving from drawing boards and instruments to CAD just short of thirty year ago and I have never (professionally) applied Solidworks.
“Trouble is”, the truth is, both your statements have validity only when measured against known conditions. For you and yours they may be true but for me they do not apply.
Furthermore, as an example, Cubify Invent is a very useful modeler and, for some persons and applications, would be a more than a suitable alternative to Solidworks, Solidedge and or Inventor.
I run an Autodesk product focused house and really appreciate the ability the internet provides to access Matt’s blog, additional knowledge & alternate viewpoints.
What has/is been of considerable value to all of us is the fact Matt tackles not just issues relating to CAD software (good & bad) but also issues relating to business. In the early years of CAD it was understandable the focus was mostly on CAD software functionality and we ‘early adopters’ understood the business risks we were taking. However we all have progressed and the huge investment many have made to CAD products now, more than before, makes it imperative for CAD vendors to ensure they provide truthful information which allows us to make SAFE business decisions in a timely manner.
Both Autodesk and Dassault have failed miserably in this area. They hide behind their business confidentially blankets (very old fashion) and pay little regard (publicly) to the fact we – their customers – have to make similarly important business decisions.
I have enjoyed being able to use AutoCAD to model some of Matt’s challenges (thus demonstrating the alternative(s)) and thank him for having the courage to highlight the importance of knowing what direction a CAD vendor(s) may be going. You may see it as wasteful philosophizing, indicating, to me, you may not need to make critical business decisions. However, for those of us who do, whether we agree or not, at least we have the smarts to listen to alternative views and participate sensibly.
What have I learned, over a number of years, in Matt’s blog and this thread: absolutely heaps. Have I learned much from your participation in the thread > nothing. I am sure you have something of value and factual to say, if so, why not do so?
I picked wait and see because I want to see what Jon Hirschtick will come out with.
Alex, I have to disagree re a replacement with adequate modelling capabilities. I’ve been using SW and ProE for a number of years and always feel hamstrung by SW when surfacing. If anything it is inadequate for modelling complex objects – where is the flexibility? No re-routing of references, limited sketch entity replacement, they expect you to delete features to change the design then offer no way to detach child features, only delete. IMO
@Alex i think you are probably a person who stands on the beach with a camcorder marveling at how the tide just went out in a few minutes… paying attention to whats going on and using your brains is slightly different from the FUD scenario you are promoting. Really I suspect your mission here is on behalf of Dassault or VARS who would be keen to have the reality obfuscated for as long as possible. It is generous of Matt to let you go on some but I think the number of people hanging out for a beach party is going to be relatively few… cheers 😉
@ James,
it doesn’t matter whether we agree or not…I am not trying to win an argument here. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that every single person reading Matt’s blog deeply cares or did care about our beloved software. Just look at the number of replies. Twice as many compare to the rest of the topics Matt had ever written about.
I’ve been using SW for about as long as you are and I love it as much you do regardless of its bugs or shortcomings. What I don’t like is when someone trustworthy is trying to play a prophet and predict the future. Remember the end of the world coming in May 21st, 2012? I am still waiting for it to happen…
Looks like I have a large post unposted… I’ll try again momentarily..
@Alex
To clarify my point, with you… We disagree, that’s fine with me. I’m just here to understand what the different arguments are for and against SolidWorks, and this is one of the few places where the curators agenda is not oblique.
To further add to this conversation thread. I have used SolidWorks since ’98. Still in love with that golden glow from the parts against the sublimely blue background.
I have strayed in the past and used other CAD packages.. I was unfaithful, but never again. I have invested years of my life to be a very good designer, and I work best with SolidWorks. I am not just staying with SolidWorks, I am investing further into what SolidWorks WILL become, and my interest here is to know and understand that future with as much balanced informed opinion as possible.
I have also said before, I own the SolidWorks Bibles HUGE fan of the way in which they are written.. That respect has passed on to Matt in his writings and opinions here and I come here to learn. I deal with people ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ SolidWorks every day as a contractor, it is an inherent part of my job to learn how to deal with persons, both informed and uninformed educated and uneducated making decisions about CAD and departmental policy, based on hearsay baseless political agenda… I am here simply to learn what is said and why, and how to understand and rationalise with as many differences of opinion as I can.
Matt sometimes does have an axe to grind, and quite rightly given the way he was treated by SolidWorks representatives (I’m sorry to @Matt to keep bringing this up). But he does balance what he says and still is passionate about SolidWorks to say the good as well. I do not agree with what Matt says, but I try and understand his opinions and why he says what he sais. Because he expresses his opinions in a direct and uncomplicated way, doesn’t look for the indirect attack, or personal slight to quell someone… he taps into a barrel of experience and pulls out, examples, quotes, interviews, direct histories of SolidWOrks and functionalities… EVEN an interview from a year ago which contradicts the current rhetoric of the marketing circus… Incidentally it does highlight that there was less than a year ago from the top of D’Assult (?) a clear mission statement and heavy commitment and investment to move SolidWorks to V6. What has happened since has happened.. but in ADDITION to what has happened.
There’s probably a question coming ‘how old am I’ if not then I’m the one blowing smoke up my ass, now 🙂 I’m 37, I’ve been a CAD Munkie since I went to Uni in ’98, and before that I was a scientist working in my white coat in Laboratories… this Engineering thing was a cataclysmic accident, but an unbelievably happy one 🙂 I love my job, 🙂 I love designing and I love SolidWorks 🙂
Long and rambling again.. I am sorry everyone.. As I said before If i was good with words I’d be paid to write words, but I draw pictures and colour them in 😉
Enjoy your days
Sincerely
James
@Alex…
How old are you? I mean really :o)
James
@ Dylan,
how old are you? I mean really…
Key word being “opinion”, Alex…….
Anyone with an opinion and the drive to do so can start a blog. If you don’t like the views here, why not start your own? I’m sure it will be totally unbiased, feature viewpoints from other software, talk about the total lack of bugs in Solidworks, and generally blow smoke where the sun don’t shine and make you a much happier man.
@ Andrew,
An adequate replacement that is. There are CAD platforms out there ofcource. However, to move away from SW and maintain the same level of modeling capabilities under one platform would be very difficult
IMO.
@alex
I’m torn. 8^/
@alex
Plenty of people prefer the misery they know to the unknown. That’s true with jobs, relationships… 😉
No alternative to SW? What does that mean? Feature to feature match, or software that is capable of producing similar geometry? There are plenty of alternative packages…
@ Paul,
my feelings are really hurting now. I am just going to go and shoot my self.
@ CAD Munkie,
I don’t agree with you…There are different ways to retaliate and the method that Matt has chosen certainly isn’t my favorite…
Trouble is, that there is NO alternative to SolidWorks at the moment. I don’t care who says what. It simply does not exist… Yet…
Will SolidWorks completely disappear in the next 5 years? I think not…Many things can change in 5 years. People are strange creatures and they do strange things. They change their minds, get sick and die occasionally. I don’t have balls as big as Matt’s to come out in to the open and start making definitive statements about the company future he neither owns nor have any relationship with. No one knows for sure what will happen. Fact is, none of you can guarantee they be alive tomorrow… Things just happen to us whether we like it or not.
Look at the poll results in this blog. Interestingly enough, majority of responders have decided to sit and wait. How do you explain that?
@Alex
Matt has made no attempt to hide is affiliation to SolidEdge. for the purpose of these conversations, it adds perspective, that adds to the conversation. He has deliberately gone out of his way to broaden his experience, instead of sitting entrenched in his rhetoric and stale opinions, and shouting mindless abuse at the ‘different’. I have to say again, I don’t always agree with his opinions. I don’t like the way SolidWorks treated Matt, and I understand how this set Matt on … an interesting trajectory …
You are being offered an opinion, one which substantiated with references.
Also his involvement in BOTH companies demonstrates an openness to accepting new ideas. I will be honest and say I am not so open… I am sticking with SolidWorks. But I am here because I want to understand what other opinions there are… Understand, not to hear and rebuke, but to look through the statement and see that there is reasoning behind what is said.
Altruism, all too often mistaken for just plain common courtesy or respect nower days. Now be clear, why are you asking me if I know what it means? Are you implying the antonym to me?
James
@Alex
ahm,….that be u dude, congrats!
Well I’m not back, I just didn’t like the tone of what I was reading here. 😉
@matt
Matt,
I don’t model products that have complex surfaces and features so additional modeling capabilities will have a fairly low ROI for me. But analyzinfg something that is simple to model like a heat exchanger in Flow will benefit from all of the processing cores that you can use. Flow 2009 will use maybe 4 cores effectively, but analyzing enhanced heat exchange surfaces can take 1-2 days CPU time with four cores, and that is a model scaled down to just one heat exchanger tube. Hardware that has 16 cores is not that expensive anymore, but the application has to be multithreaded. I have seen demos of CFD programs using GPU’s that will do an external flow analysis of a Porsche in real time.
I think that direct edit may also benefit from multiple cores, but not sure. And maybe an interactive assistant like Siri embedded into SW could also use the cores that are currently available on most usedrs computers. The Siri name is protected by Trademark, so maybe we could just call the interactive assistant Matt???
@Neil
Welcome back Neil 🙂
@ Maciej Stanislawski
In your post #42 you wrote your friend had not serious problem with bugs.
I do not dispute your friend’s “EXPERIENCE” but for me they are a nightmare.
Many times this blog have wrote about how hard is to get the right shapes using surfaces, especially using the defective loft command.
[url=http://www.pixhost.org/show/3095/16112880_clipboard03.jpg][img]http://t3.pixhost.org/thumbs/3095/16112880_clipboard03.jpg[/img][/url]
Also how models perfectly fine in version X got broken in version Y.
[url=http://www.pixhost.org/show/3095/16112879_clipboard01.jpg][img]http://t3.pixhost.org/thumbs/3095/16112879_clipboard01.jpg[/img][/url]
This couple of examples are just to try to help you understand, at least one of many facets, of what is the rant about.
Meantime I am looking for a replacement but sadly the contenders are not pretty (of course is my personal opinion).
Catia: absolutely a no go.
NX: (tried v7.5) I liked very much its workflow but is extremely expensive and cumbersome (too many steps to achieve something simple) also it has a crappy sketcher and disorderly interface.
SE: (tried ST4) Obnoxious workflow and rigid interface. All the time I was guessing the purpose of icons that look the same on the floating bar. Also austere surface abilities.
Creo: … I will see.
@Normand C.
I think Matt is correct and the MakeCurrVer.exe no longer works with recent versions. While setting up a VM is a pain, it is probably the safest way to run multiple versions of any software.
FYI Matt, you actually can install more than one version of Solid Edge on the same computer, although it is trickier than SolidWorks, and Siemens PLM doesn’t recommend it. The VAR at which I had my training course had laptops with multiple versions on them.
At one time I had V20 and ST v100 (first release of Sync Tech) both on my work PC. The trick when switching version is to remember to first run the MakeCurrVer.exe tool which can be found in Program Files\Solid Edge Vxxx\Program. I was told that if you don’t, it will wreak havoc on both SE installations. They will run, but be plagued with bugs.
It’s been a long time, but I believe the instructions on installing more than one version can be found on the DVD in some text file.
@matt
Why did I write this post? Do I need a reason? Do I answer to you? I just wrote it to write about the software. Good and bad. I know when I write good and bad there are some people who only see the bad. I’ll never be able to understand that. Some people think if you aren’t a blind optimist, you must be a pessimist.
Do 5 installed versions cause bugs? If it does, it’s a bug. I think the problems I report are problems regardless of how many versions you have installed. I’ve got several computers, I only have 5 versions installed on one. Because of the whole version incompatibility thing that SolidWorks enforces, I have to have multiple versions. I have active projects on 2010 and 2013. If I weren’t able to do this, I’d have to do different projects on different computers.
Solid Edge can’t install multiple versions on the same computer, by the way. Their method of dealing with it is to install a virtual machine.
Some Polish guy wrote a book and doesn’t find any bugs. Looks like a skinny book. Well, hooray for him. Just because he wrote a skinny book and didn’t find any bugs doesn’t mean they aren’t there. What are you implying? Next time you’re by my house, stop in, and I’ll show you some bugs. I’ll show you some bugs that have been there for 10 years or more. I’ll show you bugs that any software developer should be ashamed of. What do I need to do, publish Youtube videos of all bugs?
You guys are wearing me out. I don’t get the point of the questions, and I don’t think you have an argument at all.
@Maciej Stanislawski
I think you are looking at this from a logical standpoint relative to what you are familiar with which is SolidWorks. The fact is that everything that you know about SolidWorks is changing over to something you are unfamiliar with which is Dassault and CATIA. This is what I believe is different:
SolidWorks is no longer running independently of Dassault, this is why the old SolidWorks guard has abandoned ship.
A new product is being focused on to supplant SolidWorks position in the mid-range market which means SolidWorks is not being focused on.
The new product is based on the V6 technology platform so you must use either a internal or external cloud running Enovia to use it.
The V6 technology platform is currently incompatible with SolidWorks files as well as V5 and V4 technology files.
SolidWorks will die a slow painful death as more and more focus is put on the V6 product and less and less customers continue to use SolidWorks.
Whether this happens in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc… is still to be seen, but it will happen.
So this is what I believe you have to decide:
Can I afford a private cloud of Enovia or can I afford to put my IP into the almost public domain with no gaurantee of security or up time with no remediation upon it’s failure?
Can I risk a bet on being able to move legacy data to a new V6 platform when the company has shown over and over it doesn’t care to make that happen even on it’s flagship product?
Can I afford to wait for a useable V6 product while the current product languishes in neglect with only cosmetic enhancements to make it look like something has been changed?
What happens to all my third part application vendors?
These are my opinions on the subject and like all opinions each has their own, but you still need to base them on logic and experience. If you’re basing them on hope, then a hearth “good luck” to you.
@matt
Matthew, it is in post #42. There were three questions…
@matt
Do I want Mechanical Conceptual? If it is really just a complementary solution – I mean another “first step” aplication in PLM – why not? Having of course still newest version of “original” Parasolid based SolidWorks.
And I trurly don’t understand, why you are so sure about SW dies… Still I cannot see the reason for DS to doing something like this. Parasolid kernel belongs to the other company? For me it is not enough, but it is the only thing that I got on mind at this point.
And another thing: If like you wrote in the post you’ve linked above, each V6 based application launch failed, it is another reason, why DS should still working on SolidWorks. And what they really do.
There was a moment a few years ago, that in each new release of SolidWorks we cannot find anything really new in modelling, surfacing, sketching etc. Since two years it has really changed, in my opinion it looks like DS SolidWorks gets back on the previous road – to become better and better in each new release… And many users are saying the same – I talked with people during SWW 2013…
And I just feel confused when the SW Bible’s Author saying something completely different 😐
@Maciej Stanislawski
@alex
Ok, I’ve lost track of what you guys are arguing about. It seems we agree on everything, once you figure out your terminology.
1) SolidWorks will remain Parasolid based (Mechanical Desktop type death)
2) Mechanical Conceptual will be Catia based, and will represent the new products going forward
3) SolidWorks resellers are going to start selling Catia based products in 2013
So remind me what it is that you are arguing about?
@Maciej Stanislawski
No, SolidWorks is not going to change kernels. SolidWorks will continue with Parasolid until it dies. Nobody is saying SolidWorks is going to change kernels. SolidWorks is going to die the death of Mechanical Desktop. Read about it: http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/?p=8244
Your reseller is going to try to sell you something based on Catia within a year. Something with a new name, and a new kernel.
Is it a real problem? Depends. Do you want Mechanical Conceptual? MC is going to be based on Catia. Saves to the cloud. In a database. Is that what you want? Do you need what it does?
SW and MC are not going to “become similar”. SolidWorks is going to remain SolidWorks, and MC is going to remain Catia. You might be able to share data between them, but to this point, the one CAD program SolidWorks cannot share data with reliably is Catia. How would this magically become possible all of the sudden? Well, who knows how, but it IS going to become magically possible all of the sudden. They you will have to ask yourself why was it NOT possible for all those years? Dassault has been working against their customers is the answer. Why do business with a company that actively hobbles your tools?
@matt
Matthew, you are right at that point: Mechanical Conceptual is made on V6/3DExperience platform.
But it doesn’t mean, that original, “regular” SolidWorks gonna change the kernel also.
Saying “original” I mean SolidWorks Mechanical CAD, not SW Mechanical Conceptual (and that’s in fact what @Alex wrote).
Like I was wondering in my earlier post – is it a real problem, even if someday the SolidWorks and SW Mechanical Conceptual became as similar to each other, that it will be no difference from end user’s point of view, which one to choose?
“Everybody’s happy now.”
—Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
Geez.
and…
I assume you read first part of my last response…
@alex
Ok, this is why I want you to post details. Because you’re 100% wrong on Mechanical Conceptual being based on Parasolid. First, you don’t even know the name of it, which is telling. I really don’t care if you believe me. It’s actually to my advantage if people who don’t know what they are talking about are the ones trying to shout me down. Just saying something doesn’t make it true. Please tell me who is disproving, how are they doing it, and what are they disproving? I don’t even think you know what you’re arguing about.
Show me ANY industry or press reference that Mechanical Conceptual is based on Parasolid, and I’ll concede the point.
3DEXPERIENCE = V6= Catia
http://gfxspeak.com/2013/01/25/solidworks-mechanical-conceptual-introduced-but-not-delivered/
http://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworksblog/2013/01/introducing-solid.html
http://www.deskeng.com/virtual_desktop/?p=6583
http://solidsmack.com/cad-design-news/solidworks-announces-mechanical-conceptual-database-driven-concept-design-tool-sww13-swmc/
I’d like to point out that the video that Mat has in his post is almost a year old. Bernard (along with Bertrand) during SW World 2013 affirmed that SolidWorks Mechanical CAD would continue to be based on Parasolid.
@ CAD Munkie,
Altruism – unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. If I didn’t know Matt’s affiliation with Siemens, perhaps I would have believed that his motivations were pure. However, being that there is a relationship between Matt and above stated corporation, I have reasons to believe otherwise. I am sorry, but there are just as many trustworthy people out there that have made statements that disprove his.
Anyone cares to convince me as to why I should believe what Matt is saying?
@Alex
It is about CAD if you want to talk the nuances of politics, and a blow by blow of who did what to whom, your insight is wasted here.
Now, to the nay Sayers and yay sayers; this is a forum curated by Matt… Through one way or another we CHOOSE to read these opinions. But they are just that, opinions, so read and take inboard the fact they represent ONE persons learnings, from their point of view.
I am a SolidWorks fan. I am a Matt Lombard fan. I do not always agree with what Matt says. I have a huge amount of respect for the work Matt has done, I have a huge amount of respect for anything Matt takes the time to say. But I learn from it. It is an opinion different to my own, from a perspective different from my own, expressed for reasons different to my own.
@Alex what relevance has altruism got in this discussion? For the record, my one interest is in getting CAD right. It is one of the few things that you can remove personal agenda from, politics, religion cannot make you a better CAD Munkie… Just lines splines circles and arcs. My agenda, is to learn enough to make the CAD I do better, and help the people I know who design, design better. @Alex… Do you have anything to say on the topic at hand?
To the rest of you, seriously; What kind of degenerate retard would just launch mindlessly into a personal attack just because something is expressed which they don’t agree with?
sincerely.
James
Give it up Matt. Alex J. Banquer is not here to debate in an honest fashion the merits of your post. He has yet to provide any verifiable or credible sources for his opinions and then challenges you for yours which are verifiable. I doubt this guy is even a CAD user but rather just a basement dweller looking to entertain himself. There is an amusing aspect to letting him rant though I have to admit.
What’s the saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, I’ll cancel my maintenance contract. That’s what I did with my ProE seat. The reseller pulled the heart strings with crap about who will I call when I have an issue, when the reality is the online community are far more useful. After so many releases of SW with the same bugs, inconsistencies and shortcomings, why don’t some of you vote with your feet? Make DS suffer a little financially.
Clearly, Matt is not ignoring the “right” things in the minds of Alex and others. THEIR sources tell them differently…..
Ever step back and realize how ridiculous it is to have to defend the future of your choice software with secret, unconfirmed sources rather than information and press releases from the software company themselves? There should be lightbulbs going on in your head when you have to say, “don’t pay attention to X, because I HEARD Y, and Y sounds a lot more positive about the future than X.”
Dassault marketing is a joke right now. It’s their own doing, and it stems from videos like the one Matt recently posted. I’d be pissed beyond belief if my maintenance dollars were paying for expensive corporate fiasco’s rather than bug fixes for stuff I use every day.
Wow, what an entertaining read! Matt, you certainly have kicked the hornets nest this time… or at least showed Mr. Charles kicking it 🙂
It’s amazing the denial and angst you get from some when all you you do is post material that comes directly from the source, and for some reason it’s your fault that it exists and you are the one to attack.
May not be logical, but I guess it’s not supposed to be when it’s the psychotic mind of fanbois in denial…
Come on Matt the smear campaign landing here has been let run on too long already. It annoys me that people are trying to characterise you as the problem. I would consider it libelous in a public domain. Dassault have done this injury to themselves. No one else is responsible.
LOL
oh boy, the arrogance soap box channel is on,… wait, I’ll be right back,… I need to pop some popcorn! 8^)
@ralphg,
this blog isn’t about the economy, capitalism or socialism. And I am not about to start a debate with someone who evidently knows SO VERY little about the topic. You can hate your government all you want, and blindly believe that big corporations (I am generalizing) are bunch of innocent harmless easter bunnies.
@alex
The reason there is an economic problem today is because western governments acted like they were socialist. The US, UK, and others should have allowed the banks to go under. The financial problems are precisely because capitalism was not allowed to work its beneficial magic on the marketplace.
In Canada, we took the opposite approach: the government guaranteed deposits to $100,000 per account for banks and 100% for credit unions, but did not protect the banks. Canada essentially avoided the world-wide recession and today (along with Germany) is one of the only remaining AAA-rated countries in the world.
The source of the 2008 problems is when years earlier the Democrats forced American banks to give home loans to people who otherwise would not be eligible for them. Of course they could not repay them, and the banks had to deal with bad loans on their books, bundling them with good loans to minimize the risk. Eventually, the bundling turned into a house of cards that fell in September 2008.
Socialists are blind to the problems created by government; to stay in business and keep providing jobs, corporations are forced to work around the problems created by unelected bureaucrats.
Hi folks. Looks like things are getting worse and worse here. Anyway, somehow I have to agree (I’ve never expected that :)) with our “socialist” @Alex. About scaring people – SW users.
Especially, when the posts and comments are coming from well known „SW Bible” Author.
Listen: when I saw the Matt’s post about what DS CEO said I was astonish: how is it possible to say something like that couple a weeks after SWW 2013 conference? Then I realise, that the video was from May last year. Many things have changed from that time. On September we had official release of SolidWorks 2013. In my opinion – it was one of the best of SolidWorks till now.
And in fact the question is: Matt, why you decided to post something like this? I don’t understand.
The second thing: I wonder, how it is possible, that – like you said Matt – you have „5 versions of SolidWorks installed on your main machine” – and SW still works! Something you cannot imagine when working with other vendors’ software. Maybe some of bugs you have found during the SW sessions was becouse of those 5 version installed togehther?
The third and the last one thing: I got a book in my hand (see the attached foto) written by friend of mine (Polish SWUG Leader, by the way, who is working outside SW company – he has got his own business). This book I already called “Polish SolidWorks Bible” – so you should know, what I mean. It’s based on SW 2013 version. I talked with author about „bugs, hudge and minor problems” etc., which we can expect in this SolidWorks’ release. He told me, that he has no serious problems with bugs (this guy has 13’th years of experience with SW)…
So if someone ask me, what to do: „buy a SW or not buy”, what I am supposed to say? Try it and decide by yourself? That’s what I’m always saying. No matter, what CEOs are saying during the shows…
Believe me, Matt, I’m just trying to understand, what it is all about.
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/PSWBible_SW2013-2.jpg[/img]
@Alex
I’m not trying to prove that SolidWorks is bad. I’m just saying that the Dassault management is taking the company and the product in a direction which some existing customers are not going to find useful. This change of direction is out of character with the existing product and existing customer base, and is going to start taking effect in the next year when resellers are going to start selling software based on Catia. “Resellers selling product based on Catia” is fact, Mechanical Conceptual is going to limited customers in May, and everyone else in Fall 2013, according to DS brass at SWWorld, if you want to look it up.
If customers want to make the jump to Catia, that’s fine. But I’m betting that most existing SolidWorks customers are not going to want to move to Catia based software. I want to make sure people know that what is coming is basically Catia. I don’t think there is any argument on this front.
If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time, you know that more than anything, this is a customer advocate site. I just hate it when a large sales organization takes advantage of little guys. Dassault has only offered little crumbs of information because of people asking questions. I think if they could make this transition without saying anything at all about it, they would do that, with the Jeff Ray “pain” experience in hindsight.
Funny that after I’ve been writing for 3 years about this, now you ask me to be explicit. I think I’ve said all of this a number of times.
What is it that you are trying to prove that Solid Works is bad? Ok, you’ve said it a number of times already. Now what? What is it that you are after and while you at it tell me why? C’mon be as explicit as possible, eh.
@Alex
My beef is that you are making accusations that you cannot back up. I’m backing up what I write, to the extent possible, and trying to mention when there isn’t any information available to the best of my knowledge.
I don’t have to… You are the one cralling out of your skin here. What is your beef anyway?
@Alex
When you get an argument that you can back up, please come back.
Whatever dude. I am done here.
@Alex
You offer nothing to back up anything you say. I’m pointing to what the CEO of Dassault said, and the reference is obviously genuine. Do your “insiders” outrank Mr. Charles? Are they associated with sales/marketing? Your comments are going to start falling in the spam bin unless you have something concrete and substantiated.
Matt, you like bad weather man trying to scare everyone…
I’ve had conversations with a number of SW insiders, including people from the top echelon of Dassault Corp. about this. Note the word I N S I D E R S. And was told that all this rubbish that you are so “selflessly” preaching from your pulpit is nothing less of a fantasy.
@Alex
I’m going to put an end to this. What do you claim to be baseless? Say it explicitly, or crawl back in your troll hole.
@ CADMunkie, LOL.
I am not anything man.
What ticks me off is that some well respected members of CAD community making bold baseless statements. Do you believe in altruism?!?!
AND WHY DOES MY AVATAR LOOK SO ANGRY????
Why do I look so grim? I assure you all I am a happy CAD
James
@Alex
“Using Solidworks 2013” remember? You are a perplexing personality.
We are talking about SolidWorks and you are railing at … something. DO you really feel that strongly about SolidWorks?
To come back on to conversation, what do you want from SW14? What would help aleviate some of your stresses here?
James
@Alex_SW,
sorry dude, blindness is not curable…and yea, America is the greatest country in the world!
@ Matt,
juvenile is what you’ve been doing since you went with Siemens. Running around and trashing Solid Works left and right. If you hate it so much, why not turn away and do something else. Start writing Solid Edge Bible and keep brown nosing Siemens until you find something to hate Siemens for. You are just bored out of your gourd man. Drink some cool-aid or something…
@Alex_SW
I already have. He left one comment that went further than the others, and started name calling. Getting off topic is one thing, calling names is kind of juvenile, and doesn’t add to the discussion.
Matt
Can you please treat Alex in a “socialist way” and censor/remove his posts?
This way he can feel like home here.
Thanks!
Since the comments are going in the gutters, I just want to remind US commenters that by your generally not very informed definition of socialism, about every country from the Western world except yours is socialist. 😉
There are different levels of “socialism”, but for so many of you it’s either black or white… (insert rolling eyes here)
– Norm, from the Socialist Confederation of Canada.
Alex = troll I fear. Maybe Jon Banquer has a new name.
To all those ppl saying everyone is hysterical or saying bad things for the sake of it or that v6 is only a good thing… you are all missing the point that we are making..
The question is …. “if” v6 will be a good thing. The outlook isn’t great. Given the current (and recent) handling of things by this company now.. the odds of the “right” things being focused on are slim.. or IMO.. next to ZERO chance of happening!! We see a good product going down hill. We don’t want that.. we like it! But most genuine users of SW are ones that have half a clue and dont just rest on their laurels because it doesn’t pay to NOT look ahead.
There is nothing more i’d like then to be pleasantly surprised and v6 be the re-written SolidWorks without the bugs (of every variant), flaws, and mis-direction. Its just not likely given the Marketing Team /Web Noddles driven company it now seems to be.
@ Maciej,
funny you should ask. I am VERY familiar with the situation in Poland during that time…And yea, capitalism is why economically we are in the deep hole right now. Remember 2008? Capitalism is the reason why people are forced to file bankruptcy due to the colossal medical bills and students are end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in students loans which they will pass on to their children. Capitalism is the reason why all manufacturing has disappeared from US and you talk to a person in India when you call your bank. Capitalism is the reason why Walmart employees are paid minimum wage and have no medical insurance and their employers are at the top of the Forbes millionaire list. I can go on and on…
@Alex,
I guess you should spend some time in Poland, especially during the 80’s and early 90’s. Becouse of socialism, comunism etc. we still got so hudge problems you cannot even imagine. So please don’t tell to anybody, that “there is nothing wrong with socialism”… Let’s stay focused on CAD 😉
@CAD Munkie,
Yes, that is the interesting idea. “V6 happens… Is it REALLY a bad thing?”
Let’s think about it. On September/October this year we can expect to see both of new DS products: SolidWorks Mechanical Conceptual based on V6/3DExperience platform and a new realese SolidWorks 2014, still based on Parasolid. At the moment it looks like DS gonna work on both of them, making new improvements, giving new features inside the core program, making it closer and closer. Maybe after a couple of years users cannot see any differents between this Parasolid based CAD and a new one, made on 3DExperience platform? If that so, what’s the problem?
But in the other way – what if V6 not really happens?
They can keep working on Mechanical Conceptual and “regular” SolidWorks independent. This is what we can really see since the SW 2010/2011 version – new features in modelling etc.
Parasolid kernel got a hudge potential, this is what other company did with their Synchronous Technology. And they solve the problem with data transfer, didn’t they? As I remember, SW team during SWW 2013 clearly explained, that even in Alfa version Mechanical Conceptual is able to transfer files with SolidWorks 2013…
I cannot see the reason to drop Parasolid. Even when the owner of this kernel is one of main competitors :).
Short resume: In my opinion, nobody gonna be forced to change the software he already use. And even if in a future SolidWorks become some kind of CATIA software, this gonna be on evolution way, not revolution.
Alex, about this ” Perhaps, you should take a fight to Sweden or Finland and see for your self. ” part of your grammar police reply. Did you mean he should go fight about it there or take a flight there?
Ok… Lets have the discussion. V6 happens… Is it REALLY a bad thing?
Why not have the constructive conversation; maybe Matt you can start this as a new thread?
Lets turn this ‘negativity’ around… Say for instance we do go V6. There is a pain penalty YES, your files are no longer backward compatible (so go open a SW’09 file in SW’03 PLUS oh didn’t that work?)… ;o)
Multi-core, stable platform, better curve generation… CATIA ‘paired down’ with the familiar SolidWorks interface.
I’m struggling to see that bad here… I use SolidWorks. I love SolidWorks. I AM a SolidWorks FANBoy. I WANT V6 last year!
Sorry this is a little disorganized, but if i was good with words I would have been a journalist ;o)
@ Goody Two-shoes (Dave Ault),
I am not going to waste a single minute of my time!
@Alex
Alex, since you know what is going on could you please fill us all in on this? Please use in your response language that would pass muster with the Internet Grammar Police Association as I know you want to use the correct syntax to convey your ideas by. By the way it is RUT and not RAT;-)
@Alex
Alex,
It’s not hysteria. What do you call it when the guy in charge gets up and says something? That’s as close to telling the future as you can get in the business world. Wouldn’t it be disrespectful to not believe him? If you can’t see what it means when that happens, then I don’t think I have anything for you. It is starting in May. This “Conceptual” thing is a limping move to the V6 kernel. Since it’s just going to be Catia, I’m not sure what’s taking so long, except that maybe Mr. Charles sees that they are going to lose a lot of customers just moving SW users to Catia in a straight line. Dropping Parasolid means moving to Catia. That’s not a guess. That’s what’s going to happen. You heard him say it. If your business or career can deal with that reality, then continuing on is the best thing for you. If not, now is the time to start making or executing plans.
@Jeff Holliday
Jeff,
Yes, I remember the good old days, and I do miss them, in some ways. And I do appreciate the people who supported me along the way. But Mr. Charles erected a road sign along the SolidWorks highway which says he’s building a new road and you have to get a different car to drive on it, and the old road is going to be left to decay. If you’re ok with that, then that’s ok. I’m not.
I hate this thing about negativity. I’m making a change because I see more value over here than over there. In any decision, there is a winner and a loser. If that’s negativity, then I guess you’re right. But If you look at this from the perspective of what ever software I wind up switching to, then it’s not negative at all, it’s all positive. So my negativity turns out to be dependent on your point of view. I don’t see anything negative at all in making a change for my own best interest.
About “facts” – if you wait until something happens in order to react to it, you may come to the party late. The “facts” that we have to work with are some comments from Jeff Ray, and some comments from Bernard Charles. These are from people at the top and should be the most reliable information we could possibly get about the future.
The answer to your hopeful request is to make a change, unless you like Catia. What do you change to? Depends on your business. For really simple stuff get Alibre, Spaceclaim, or Inventor. For machine design, I’d change to Solid Edge. For swoopy surfaces, I’m not sure. Maybe Creo. Maybe Autodesk Fusion 360. Maybe Solid Edge V6 if you have to stay with mid-range products. If you have a big company and want to integrate design with everything else in the company, get NX with Teamcenter, or go the Catia/Enovia route. I don’t know enough about that stuff to say much. You’ll have to make a decision yourself that someone will not like and call “negative”.
Matt, I have attended several of your presentations a number of years ago and was very happy when you accepted an invite to present at one of my User Group meetings. I have always respected your frank, honest opinions when you found things that did not work as expected or intended. Your comments were delivered with either a work-around or a hopeful request to get the problem solved.
This is indeed your blog. You are entitled to express opinions of your own on your choice of subjects. I am not going to agree with some of them. At this point I still choose to keep you on the “must-read” list every day.
I would make one request. If possible, please try to keep in mind my “hopeful request” comment above. Feel free to point out problems and give alternate solutions (even if it is in the form of a recommendation for other software) but let’s all try to stick to facts and refrain from excessive negativity. I will change from my established methods if/when there is a demonstrated need but not because of someone else’s personal opinion and suppositions.
Please keep up the good work!
@David Paulson
DP, multithread is kind of a narrow IT topic to hang your hopes on, isn’t it? Don’t you have design related issues that trump IT?
2013 is better than the rest of the releases only because they haven’t broken anything new (aside from Measure and Modify) that I’m aware of. 2010 is awful. In 2009 they were still fixing things they broke in 2008. 2007 is the last version I would go back to, if I had to go back.
@Charles
Charles,
I tend to forget about 2012, because I skipped updating the book about that release. Thanks for the clarification.
Matt,
I especially appreciate your opinion on SW2013 as I have yet to decide whether I will ever upgrade from SW2009 to SW2013 (or+) or just wait for a more compelling platform that will exploit multicore processing. I don’t hold my breath on this issue because I am pretty sure that there are no native CAD kernals that support multicore processing to any great extent, and that would include Catia and NX. Single core processing is still the de facto standard in the obsolescing CAD business, and can can only wait for the next generation kernal, be it from SW, SE, DS or XX. With the exception of XX, they all utilize kernals developed when processing was only single core on PC’s.
In the mean time I have “Sequestered” my subscription fees to fund investment in the next generation platform, whenever that may happen. I would advocate a user base rebellion that also sequesters their subscription fees until the next generation kernal is introduced.
@Billy,
please don’t not use the words you cannot explain nor understand a full meaning of. Besides, there is nothing wrong with socialism. Too bad, you will never get to experience it.
You are way too brain washed and scared of it. Perhaps, you should take a fight to Sweden or Finland and see for your self. And yea, those people have freedom of speech too.
@ Matt,
I am not stuck in the rat and I do see what is going on…Trouble is that no one, and I mean no one can say with 100% certainty as to what will become of Solid Works in the near future. So please, stop the hysteria!
@Billy Oliver
Billy,
Well put. Lots of people over the years were excited about SolidWorks for a lot of different reasons. And the life cycle of a CAD product’s popularity only lasts so long. SolidWorks was on top longer than most. It was a fun ride, and now it’s time to move on.
And Alex, if you pay attention, you will probably within the next year, start to see SolidWorks promoting things like direct edit, and saying cautiously disparaging things about history. That’s because the next incarnation will look more like Synch Tech or Fusion than SolidWorks. So you think you’re doing your duty as a good SolidWorks fanboy, but they are about to turn on you, and join the anti-history movement. It’s not a question of “if”, that’s a given. It’s just a question of “when”, and “how cautiously” to avoid upsetting people clinging to the past. No pun intended.
@alex
Alex, there is no one here against their will. And I should point out that the post about Bernard Charles generated immense interest, 3-4x normal.
Here’s the thing. I was excited about SolidWorks when they were the underdog and making good decisions. But now they are not the underdog, and are not making good decisions, so I’m fishing for something else to be excited about. If you’re stuck in a rut and can’t see what’s going on, I’m sorry about that, but please don’t require that from the rest of us.
@Jason
Jason,
Well, of course I was doing other things in those two days;o). Since Measure is something you should know how to do intuitively, I didn’t dedicate any time to figuring out what was going on with the interface. The Center-to-Center thing was grayed out because of the point to point, which took a while to figure out, and the temp axis of a transparent part bug was also getting in the way of understanding it without a dedicated investigation. Given all that, I think it’s easy to not figure it out right away.
@Dave Ault
Dave,
Yeah, my perception of the Solid Edge software definitely changed between ST1 and ST3. Part of it was that combining history and direct just struck a chord with me. Perfect idea. Another thing was that I learned more about the strengths of direct and the weaknesses of history. And of course third was needing a new team to cheer for.
I still use SW to make a living, but as a business, I’m seeing the writing on the wall. I’ve paid for two years of subscription, and when it’s done, it’s done. There is no shortage of SW work right now, I turn a fair amount of it away. But it’s not the only tool out there, and I pay attention to the attitude of companies I do business with.
@alex
Alex,
You should start you own Solidworks blog. And spew your own opinions about a product that it owners had pronounced dead on several occasions already and you could spew your opinions on all of the new cool things that they do in maintenance mode of the product, right up until it no longer ships.
Matt just like myself were huge Solidworks fans. It is not that Matt or myself have changed, we are still the same, the product changed. Not only the product but the company behind the product changed. A company is made up of people, people that put their heart and souls into a product. Just as Matt has done over the years in the Solidworks books that he has produced and the designs that he works on. The people made Solidworks the company that it was, and that made the software what it was, are gone. Now the product, the software, is just an asset that the company that owns it and thay are is retiring it. All of the emotional contact people have with Solidworks the software really need to be reevaluated, if you cannot do it alone seek professional help.
Cause basically you are all getting the bait and switch. That hot sexy girlfriend you all loved with the cool name ‘Solidworks’ is now being replaced right in front of your eyes with yet an unknown and unnamed ‘thing-a-migiggy’.
Being objective and expressing honest opinions is what this country is founded on. Asking someone to STOP expressing their opinion is very Un-American. Kind of sounds like something they would do in a socialist (or other political system) country.
Matt has put untold time, “man”-years of his life into promoting Solidworks, time he could have spent fishing. But his passion for design and his passion for knowledge and his passion to ‘DESIGN BETTER’ propelled him on his Solidworks journey.
However, now, that path is no longer the adventurous windy road though the hill country that you would want to take on your 1000cc sport bike with a brand new set of the stickiest tires you can find on the planet, never getting below 100 MPH and the whole time dragging a knee round every corner.
The raw truth to the matter the Solidworks path has just come to “it’s” own dead end.
And any and all of the excitement and expectations are gone.
And that’s just the facts.
Billy Oliver
[img]http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/drag-a-knee50.jpg[/img]
It is kind of funny and sad at the same time how people react to getting their favorite ox gored. I remember back a few years ago just before the launch of ST3 finding out Matt was coming to Huntsville to see ST3 and agreed to meet with me and Ricky Jordan. Now when he posted on it the guys on the Siemens BBS forums commented and these were basically what is Dave doing consorting with the enemy type comments. Matt had also been to Huntsville just prior to the release of ST1 and what he had to say at that time was that ST was garbage and he could see no benefit to direct editing. Look it up and see. This is the same guy who made a living with SW and wrote manuals many of you spoke highly of. Perhaps the detractors here might ask themselves if Matt’s reasons for looking into something different might have justification rather than looking at things with blinders on. It happened to PTC and it is happening to SW for all the same reasons.
Maybe there is a reason this progression has happened to him over the last five years. There are more effective ways to create geometry and edit geometry from anywhere than what exists in SW and after the release of ST6 yes that will include complex surfacing for the maybe 10 or 15% I would guess of CAD users who actually need this. And as an added bonus the people who run Siemens SE actually ask, listen and deploy what their customers want instead of top down edicts from disconnected “C” suite types.
Solid Edge and Siemens did not pay me to write this though I am a satisfied customer and willing to say so.
Hi Matt
I like that you are bringing the product back into discussion again. We are back on subscription and updating from 2010 to ? I actually liked 2010 but would like to try some of the 12 or 13 enhancements like magnetic lines and i understand Routing has changed a fair bit. I know you are not a big user of routing but in general would you go from 2010 to 12 or 13?
Thanks
I also agree the 2010 color thing is a pain
Come on Matt, there’s no way it took 2 days to figure out the center to center measure in 2013. They didn’t change much, they added a “Point to Point” option which may throw people off at first util you understand what it does. The XYZ is still there if you have the icon toggled which is the same as previous versions.
And you now have additional options for arc centers and min/max conditions that are welcome.
@alex
If Matt only heaped praises on SolidWorks, would you denounce him for turning into “Dassault’s owned [sic] terminator-puppet” and call him “cool”?
It’s up to pr departments to hand out the Kool-Aid, not users.
Matt,
be a gentleman and just step aside…Let the people draw their own conclusion and form their own opinions rather than spewing negativity and trashing the very same software that once propelled you to the top of the game.
I have always considered you one of the top sources of expert opinion regarding SolidWorks. But I can’t help noticing how quickly you are turning into Siemens’ owned terminator-puppet.
Not cool man!
I’m happy that we can link a balloon to a component’s BOM name ($PartNumber). If I’d been in charge it would have been a note instead of a balloon, but it’s improvement. And we can now edit individual lines of text (change font size for the scale, add a line, etc.) in a Detail View callout. They did this for Section Views in SW2012 but for some reason they didn’t do Detail Views then. But be sure that you have everything set like you want in the Detail View PropertyManager before editing the text. If you make changes there then the text will revert to default.
I am grumpy about the large number of Solidworks bugs tha do not get fixed for years. Cursing about it does not make me feel better and has no effect. I have learned how to work around most SW bugs. I still spend half of my time working around bugs that I bump into. I am now recording each bug in five categories: hang and crash, failed geometry, difficult geometry, stupid, bad user interface.
Stupid is in the lead followed by failed geometry. I only record the problem when I am doing actual work and am trying to avoid bugs. Otherwise I can find bugs in every feature type.
I think that I encounter more problems than most users because I am doing aerodynamic surfacing and will not accept a shape that is not fully fair and with a precise shape in the flow direction. I will not accept surfaces with poor geometry. Tits, curls, ripples, butt cracks, hogbacks, and brocolli shapes are not ok. The closer I look the worse solidworks shapes are. I now use mostly GW3D surfaces. The user interface is not as good as built in features but the surfaces are fair.
ESC to back out of each click in dimensioning was 2012.