|
upFront.eZine |
|
|
a
publication from |
|
|
Issue #447 : : October 18, 2005 |
|
|
C o n t e n t s Computer-Aided
Discipline Is it Time to Regulate
Software Licensing? Below
the Radar, and other
regular columns. |
Write the Editor. Donate to upFront.eZine with Paypal. Access nearly-daily CAD commentary at our blog: WorldCAD Access. |
|
|
|
|
Guest Editorial by Leo Schlosberg When CAD was introduced, it offered the identical [to BIM] promise of "coordination and consistency." My business requires me to transform information from construction documents into drawings that are instructions for manufacturing and installing project-specific materials that will be compliant with the contract construction drawings (architectural, structural, etc). My criteria for "coordinated" is physical and more stringent than the criteria of those whose output is only intent: the pieces fit, relate correctly to surrounding material, and do not fail structurally. Dispassionate observation tells me that CAD did not deliver on that promise in a consistent manner. I base this on three observations: 1. My own direct observation over many projects over many years: large and small, public and private, big name and near-anonymous architects, high-end and simple projects. 2. Informal surveys of other subcontractors, who are contractually required to deliver material that complies with both architectural and structural drawings. When I offer them 10% as the fraction that is actually "consistent and coordinated" I am uniformly told I am too high and that it is closer to 1%. 3. Historic restoration work in which we work off or carefully study contract drawings from the early decades of the 20th century and learn that they are typically better coordinated than current drawings. My central assertion, based on observations of technology in many business settings, is that the first "D" must be discipline and that without it one cannot reap the myriad promised benefits of technology. To use a simple example, scanning UPCs would be of no use without 100% discipline to assign unique codes to products. Promoters and sellers of technology typically overstate the benefits, and disregard the many hidden implementation costs. The more extensive and complete the building model, the higher the cost of creating the model. Fee structures do not encourage designers to build complete models, whether such models are 3D models or implicit models expressed in 2D. None of this is to argue that 3D is not a useful technology; only that it is not a panacea. A drawing-centric perspective disregards the fact that ultimately the thing must be built. To my limited knowledge, the greatest successes with data-base driven models have been in the E/P/C [engineer/procure/construct] sector, where those that design take greater responsibility for their the model and "eat their own dog food." In commercial construction, designers are severely limited in the responsibility they take for the detailed correctness and constructability of their drawings. This is a business, not technology issue and it affects the business benefits that can be reaped from new technologies. Is It Time to Regulate Software Licensing? Guest Editorial by Paul Hawco For 20 years, I have felt that many software license agreements we must agree to in the business world would not hold up in court. But who wants to go to court to find out? Being in engineering/IT, I have read some of the agreements. Over the years, I just shook my head, hit "Accept," and loaded the software. Recently, however, my attitude changed. The effort to stamp out software piracy is one thing, but the heavy handedness and open contempt that the software industry shows for users is unacceptable; they can change the rules at any time and if you don't know about it, too bad for you. From Microsoft: "We may change this contract at any time. You must review this contract on a regular basis. The changed contract is in effect right away." There have been many discussions about Autodesk's changing licensing and software support policy. My comment is that it is extremely one-sided in Autodesk's favor. Recently, we decided to drop maintenance coverage on some of our CAD software, because the five-year-old version was all we needed to run the plant design add-on. Newer versions of the CAD software are incompatible with the add-on. We received a tersely-worded fax from the CAD vendor saying, Give us back our software. We had paid the CAD vendor about US$5,000 a copy, and paid maintenance fees for years further, even though they had effectively stopped developing the add-on. We had entered into an agreement with this company in good faith for a product which we happily use. They, in turn, took their development down a road that was of no benefit to us at this time. Is it right that they demand that we continue to pay maintenance to use a static version of their product? I think it's time to ask the government to regulate the sale and licensing of software. The rules should be the same across the board. As companies, we make significant investments in software "purchases" and employee training. Surely we should have some rights which cannot be arbitrarily changed. (Paul Hawco is a mechanical engineer.)
A summary of CAD industry news you may not have read elsewhere, or that I found interesting:
LinkTek updates LinkFixerPlus for fixing broken links in AutoCAD 2006 drawing files. More info about this plug-in at http://www.linkfixerplus.com/autocad/autocad-overview.htm
Randall Newton alerted me to the software link between Google and @Last Software. It allows 3D SketchUp models to be placed in Google World's 3D mapping. Read his report at aecnews.com/news/2005/10/09/1221.aspx Mr Newton also notes that @Last Software has selected Ruby as the new scripting language for SketchUp. One script, for example copies objects to pre-selected destinations, a way to automate the placing of a hundred trees on a digital terrain model. See aecnews.com/news/2005/10/06/1207.aspx Abvent releases Artlantis R, with new Selective Display Acceleration, Postcards, RayBooster, and Fast Radiosity engine. www.graphisoft.com/community/envisions/2005_10_artlantis.html Informative Graphics is releasing a whack of software, now or next quarter. The .NET version of Brava Enterprise is integrated with Sharepoint. The Net-It and Brava software now work with Microsoft RMS [rights management server]. A new version of Brava Desktop has a compare feature and dux PDFout. And ProjectDox for AEC projects is apparently a Buzzsaw-like software that you buy, not an ASP service. www.infograph.com - - - These news items were posted during the last week at the WorldCAD Access blog <worldcadaccess.typepad.com>:
Seminars & Conferences IntelliCAD World Meeting 2005 takes place next week, Oct 19-20, in Leiden, The Netherlands. I'm attending to speak on "Understanding the Bigger Picture." www.intellicad.com/WorldMeeting2005 Autodesk University 2005 is Nov 28-Dec 1 in Orlando FL USA. (I'm attending for a couple of days.) www.autodesk.com/au Magazine/eZine/Weblog Updates Joćo Brogueira is runing a Portuguese-language CAD blog at http://cad.blogs.com . Revware launhces http://www.revware.net for creating a repository on reverse engineering.
People/Companies on the Move CoCreate Software celebrates its 5th year of independence from Hewlett-Packard. The software began as ME/10 (I think) some 23 years ago, mechanical design software that HP wrote in-house for creating sheetmetal designs for its products, like laser printers. (This last sentence you won't read in CoCreate's press release on the subject.)
WorthWhile Web www.iso10s.net/main.htm
www.acura.com/rsxinstitute
- Thanks to Stefan Grabowski for finding the links above.
Letters to the Editor Re: Orange County Choppers "I love OCC and thought it was funny that Lee Teschler from 'Machine Design' magazine said OCC don't use CAD two years ago. "The OCC guys started using SolidWorks recently. Paul Sr, Paul Jr, and even Mikey came to SolidWorks World in last January, and to give us the chopper they built using SolidWorks. My experience from meeting them is that in real life they are pretty much the same as on TV, except now they are using 3D CAD and CAM to do things like design and cut their own custom wheels and more. Some photos of the bike are here: www.boxxtech.com/applications/dassault_solidworks.asp and www.caddigest.com/subjects/solidworks/select/tara_chopper.htm "They do mention SolidWorks in a couple episodes (Web Bike
1 & 2)."
Re: Ultra-cheap AutoCAD "I came across these guys in a Google ad < countysoft.com/category.php?category=9
>. They seem to offer downloads of all sorts of software in some
off-beat formats with a bit of unzipping complexity. Can they really
sell a legal copy of AutoCAD 2004 for $40?" The editor replies: "Clearly these are offering pirated software (copies made on CD or direct download), yet Google accepts their $$$. I've tried to track down these $40 AutoCAD offers, but the sites always seems broken, so I don't get the point."
Re: File Formats "File formats are doomed to continually modifying standards until hardware ceases evolving. As long as Moore's law applies to hardware, software, and their standard file formats (in which information is written) will continue to keep pace. "When hardware processing and storage capabilities finally top-out, so will the ability to add features, and therefore the ability to blithely alter the standard. There will be a 'mine's a better standard' period following that top-out, but after that the focus will be on interface. "Pretty much where the auto market is now. Ask yourself,
how many people really look under the hood when buying a car. Maybe
to see what a clean engine looks like, but certainly not to evaluate
the engine -- they're all the same. You pick features from a brochure,
color from a pallette and expect it to run." The editor replies: "I'm starting to think computers should be like cars: get a new one every seven years or so, and it still works on the same road and fuel system."
Spin Doctor of the Moment "The extraordinarily extensive testing they did makes a
show-stopping bug a pretty unlikely occurrence."
Copyright 2005 by upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. All rights reserved worldwide Article reprint fee US$250.00.
All trademarks belong to their respective holders. "upFront.eZine,"
"Talking About CAD," and "On your desktop every Tuesday morning"
are trademarks of upFront.eZinePublishing, Ltd. |
|
|
|
|