Monday, November 15, 2021

Readers Respond: Our readers write the best letters

Issue #1,113 | Inside the Business of CAD | 15 November 2021

 

Re: The State of STEP

Man, that first paragraph was an eye-opener for me!

I worked in the field of MCAD for US Navy surface fleet (new construction and overhaul) starting around 1984. Most general design was still 2D on Mylar film mostly using E0 mechanical pencils. The Navy would not allow any contracts to be done on MCAD until 1985, which were relegated to very specific pilot projects. In 1986 they expanded that to CADAM, Autotrol, and about two others. By 1987, they added Intergraph, Computervision and a few UNIX workstation platforms ( before then, it was all mainframe).

Around the time AutoCAD Release 10 shipped in 1988, the folks in NAVSEA issued a letter to contractors that IBM PC-based systems were not considered accurate or reliable enough for modeling design. But they would allow its use for non-design work, such as title sheets, BOM lists, and notes. After a year of that stupidity, they relented, and by 1990-91 we couldn’t move to PC-based AutoCAD fast enough. As we routinely shared model data with other contracts (forcibly by the Navy, and for good reason), we were all in the same situation.

The period from 1996 to 2004 was a fun time. Writing custom apps to run on AutoCAD to automate things was one of the best times of my career. The old “wild west” of CAD is now a suburban subdivision with shopping centers. I left the field in 2004 to transition to Windows systems admin work and Web development.

Oh, and about IGES and STEP. I remember when all the buzz was around STEP support for each of the MCAD products. They would “support” it alright, but almost always made sure to have some feature or data that was so specific to their product that STEP would lose it when importing into competing products.

I was on a committee once for a government agency doing round-trip integrity testing. We would build a reference model in 2D and another in 3D, then export/import through everything they had at the time — IGES, STEP, DXF, and so on — and then score the results to rank products as being most compatible. That era seems like the 1800s now.
            - David Stein

- - -

Interesting about STEP. In the ’90s I worked for the Industrial Technology Institute in Ann Arbor MI. Its Center for Electronic Commerce did early STEP work and built early tools for conformance testing of CAD systems to STEP.

Famously, one of my colleagues authored a report citing a Detroit-based automotive supplier that had to manage 17 or 18 different CAD systems to deal with all of their customer relationships.

The number of solutions is fewer today, but the problems remain and it is a tough problem. It is hard to innovate within the bounds of standards, which often lag technology and business process.
            - Stan Przybylinski, vice president
            CIMdata

- - -

In the construction industry, we have the same problem of data transfer, with possibly a wider range of conflicting needs (or maybe I am just more familiar with construction than mechanical).

While IFC has ruled the roost for the last decade, it is showing its limitations. It is optimized for transferring physical data and some metadata, especially architectural, but has proved hopeless for transferring engineering design data. Yes, it could be extended, but it has taken two decades of argument and compromise to get to its current state and we cannot afford to wait.

Any transfer of data is done so that it can be enriched, but also (invariably) some data must be left behind. The CNC machine, for example, has no interest in the wind pressure on the facade that led to the design of the bracing, only the resulting number and locations of bolt holes.

Similarly, each program has its specialties, which a neutral file can not be expected to handle. Neither IFC nor STEP can possibly handle all project data, ever, without bloating to an impractical size, and without decades of more committees. They will always be behind what the industry needs, and can only be expected to transfer most of the data, not all.

Due to the limitations of IFC and because most engineering design programs now have an API [application programming interface], data exchange systems are being used more and more, especially by the bigger consulting companies. At Arup, we helped to produce Speckle [for exchanging AEC data in real-time], which is open source so that it is free to grow as needed. There are other, similar offerings.

The BIM [building information modeling] ideal of a centralized database is becoming a reality, but is not centered on IFC, as that, by necessity, can never store everything. Instead we now have federated databases, where each product stores its specific data, and then products like Speckle transfer and coordinate what data is needed between the individual consultant models.

IFC might still be used for transferring data to models outside the system. What was BIM is now becoming digital workflows.
            - Peter Debney, senior consultant
            Arup Digital Technology

The editor replies: When Autodesk released AutoCAD Release 13, they added the ability to create custom (user-defined) objects. This made AutoCAD incompatible with itself, and so Autodesk provided two solutions:

  • Object enablers, which understand what custom objects are. This approach failed to catch on industry-wide, as every DWG editor would conceivably need every object enabler ever written.

  • IFC, which transmits data between incompatible AutoCAD drawings in the form of neutral format. Autodesk quickly handed responsibility for maintaining IFC to an industry group, and then in a reversal earlier this year joined the IFC part of the Open Design Alliance.

- - -

I was gobsmacked by the upFront.eZine article on STEP files. I write a monthly column for The Fabricator that dances around CAD topics. Your article with Martin and Neil on STEP is a gold mine of interesting and possibly useful trivia regarding same.

I remain devoted to Solidworks. It’s been the tool I’ve know for a quarter-century. Scanning heresy of other brands of CADs is useful and keeps me humble.
            - Gerald Davis, owner
            GLD Designs

The editor replies: My entry into the world of CAD was AutoCAD v1.4, and then writing about it in CADalyst magazine, starting in 1985. When Intergraph ran an ad with CADalyst headlined “Follow the Leader,” we were gobsmacked. Other CAD dare say that? As you note, it is important to peer above the ramparts from time to time.

Mr Davis responds: We punched paper tape with a PDP-8. My first CAM was OptiPlot running on a Textronix vectorscope. My first CAD was AutoCAD v2.5 running on a Tandy 2000. Color! Luxury. When I saw Solidworks 98 my love of wireframes vanished. My excellent keyboard shortcut skills gave way to yanking a 3D puck.

- - -

Isicad has translated your recent posts about STEP and the ODA Summit into Russian:

            - David Levin, ceo
              isicad.net

- - -

I have been dealing with CAD conversion for over 40 years and for many years was a member of the IGES/PDES Organization. I led the development of the IGES converter for CATIA V5 as a joint Boeing/Dassault project in 1986.

In those days we referred to IGES and other formats as “write-only formats,” because converters from CAD companies were good about writing proper IGES (or PDES) files but were horrible at reading other CAD systems IGES files.

The marketing groups of the various CAD companies liked to talk about how good their “round trip” conversions were — going from CAD system A to IGES and then back to the same CAD system A. What they were bad at was going from CAD system A to IGES to CAD system B.

That was infinitely more important, and they were usually pretty poor at that job. At times, it seemed intentional. When I formed Tailor Made Software in 1990, most of our business for the first several years was in IGES flavoring: taking the flavor of IGES produced by CAD system A and massaging it so CAD system B could read it properly.
            - Scott Taylor, president
            Tailor Made Software

 

Re: From Facets to Solids to Facets

The period of time that I was at Evans & Sutherland (’81-’91) really could be seen as the golden years of the computer graphics industry. So much technology was being developed that never really saw the light of day (at least not at E&S). I’m sure this is true with many other companies, but E&S barely gets a mention in most histories of computer graphics or modeling systems.

Dave Evans should really be considered the Father of the Digital Twin. His vision for E&S was to create digital models that would allow you to do things that you normally couldn’t do in real life cost-effectively, like pilot training, mechanical design and analysis, and molecular modeling.

E&S’s graphics systems were only developed because there were no systems capable of displaying the various models. There was a famous ‘Fireside Chat with Dave’ where he announced to the company that “E&S was not a computer graphics company,” totally confusing most employees. He later explained to me his vision of creating digital models, which totally jives with his statement.
            - John Callen, Director of eTools Marketing
            Lutron Electronics

 

== Converting 3D CAD & DCC to Virtual/ Augmented Reality ==

With the explosive growth of VR/AR, the ultra-massive 3D datasets produced by CAD and DCC programs need efficient conversion to the popular Unity and Unreal development platforms. Okino of Toronto is the long-time provider of the PolyTrans|CAD translator, which easily handles the interactive datasets required by VR and AR for Microsoft HoloLens, HTC VIVE, Oculus Rift, Meta, and other VR headsets.

PolyTrans provides you with

  • Massive dataset handling

  • Node compression

  • Adaptive CAD tessellation

  • Intelligent polygon reduction

Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at [email protected].

www.okino.com

And in Other News

EngineeringPaper.xyz solves complex mathematical expressions through documentation cells and math cells, while keeping track of units conversion. To display results in different units, specify them in square brackets. Also, it plots.

You can share your sheets with others through shareable links. Try it out free at engineeringpaper.xyz.

- - -

Agacad comes up with Panel Packer in Revit 2020-2021 for sorting, packing, and loading trucks with prefabricated wood and metal panels. Free demo at agacad.com/products/tools4bim/dock/download.

- - -

IronCAD LLC ships IronCAD 2022 today, and here is some of what’s been added:

  • Place multiple ordinate dimension at once, and edit more than one dimension at a time

  • Specify snap increments on parts, and set limits to sizes

  • Generate structured bills of materials with collapse/expand sections

  • Make videos by recording the screen

IronCAD 2022 supports Windows 11 and and touch screens. Get the full list of what’s new from ironcad.com/blog/whats-new-in-2022.

This 3D design software pioneered concepts common today, such as drag and drop smart parts and 3D at-cursor interactions. IronCAD is most popular among metal fabricators and custom machinery manufacturers. A free trial version is available, following registration, from ironcad.com/free-online-trial.

- - -

The Spatial division of Dassault Systems announced the general availability of Release 2022 1.0 of its geometric kernels. Just skimming the surface, here is one thing new for each module:

  • 3D ACIS Modeler extracts sheet bodies at mid-surfaces between faces of solid bodies

  • CGM Polyhedra smoothly blends between boundaries of two meshes

  • CGM Modeler automatically detect cylindrical bends and then unbends them

  • 3D InterOp imports large-scale models whose dimensions range from 1 to 100km

  • 3D Precise Mesh’s Hybrid CFD mixes prismatic and hexahedral elements in boundary layers

Get the details from blog.spatial.com/news/2022-1-0.

- - -

SimScale, the first engineering simulation cloud platform, lands an extra €25 million in Series C funding (now totaling US$60 million) so as to add rotating machinery, electronics, and automotive simulations. The press release says the firm has 300,000+ users. www.simscale.com

- - -

Here are some of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:

You can subscribe to the WorldCAD Access blog’s RSS feed through Feed Burner at feeds.feedburner.com/WorldcadAccess.

 

Notable Quotable

“Once you have the information, you are responsible for it, and either must act or create a delusion that allows you to ignore it.”
     - Bert Terson

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • Denis Senkinc

  • Joel Gregory (small business donation)

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of [email protected].

Or ask [email protected] about making a direct bank transfer through Wise (Transferwise).

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

 

*4700

 

 

Posted at 05:00 AM in Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Monday, February 22, 2021

Readers React to "Autodesk Wants to Kill the File"

Issue # 1,084  |  The Business of CAD | 22 February 2021

 

Our readers had much to say about Autodesk’s statement that “a file is a dead thing working.” Here is what you wrote.

- - -

About ten years ago I sat in a meeting with a CAFM software developer who insisted that his product didn’t have files or a language. “It’s written in data!” He repeated this at least a dozen times. We moved on to use another product.
            -RetroCAD Official (@Retro_CAD on Twitter)

 

- - -

You wrote, “APIs [application programming interfaces] can enable tools to talk to each other, passing data around without the need for files.”

This is actually quite silly. An API is a tool that lets you pass data between systems. That data must be formatted in a certain way:

  • Some standard structured format; for a couple decades we all used XML [expanded markup language], but now we all use JSON [JavaScript object notation]

  • Expected data structures to be passed in each direction

What’s another name for a data structure passed in a structured format? A file! They aren’t getting rid of files at all; they are just getting rid of stored files. So they’ve solved nothing, but they’ve created a new problem: authentication.

Having a non-authenticated API on the Internet is obviously a problem, because the global botnet of unpatched things will quickly start attacking it. You could wrap it in an authentication mechanism (probably OAuth2 [open authentication v2]). Sounds easy, but it turns out it’s actually ridiculously hard when there isn’t an active user in the middle of things making all the connections work. Getting servers to talk to each other requires more layers of junk (SAML [security assertion markup language], for example) that hardly anyone understands, because it’s ridiculously complicated.

Secure and simple are incompatible design goals.

And, of course, the old problem of versions (that we have always had with files) is still there, but now it’s incompatible versions of APIs. As I said, quite silly.
            -Joshua Smith, chief technology officer
            Kaon Interactive

 

- - -

I just read your upFront.eZine 1,083 “Autodesk Wants to Kill the File” from top to bottom, Autodesk has quite a problem on its hands. Is Autodesk still the dominant player it used to be?
            - Name withheld by request

The editor replies: In its early days, Autodesk could boast of being the fifth largest independent software firm for personal computers. Today it is about 2/3-to-1/2 the size of its primary competitors -- Dassault Systemes, Siemens PLM, Hexagon, Trimble, and so on.

While its AutoCAD software still dominates in terms of mindshare, the software is very expensive, given that it costs US$1,680/year to rent with customers receiving just a dozen or so new/improved functions each year.

 

- - -

Tell Mr. Antagonist that if I can’t trust him now to do the right thing with my data, after he has enslaved all his customers to subscription, then how can he expect me to trust him when he takes total control of my data -- as well as the tools of my trade?

I always enjoy reading your historical surveys!
            - Chris Cadman

 

- - -

Here is my write up on zero-files: “Zero File or File-Less CAD systems -- Debunked!”
tecnetinc.com/zero%20file%20cad%20systems%20debunked.html
            - Joe Brouwer, president
            Tech-Net, Inc.

 

- - -

An interesting thought by Autodesk; maybe it’s way ahead of its time: “I think there is something we need to acknowledge right now: that a file is a dead thing working.” This reminds me of the old quip, “God is dead” -Nietzsche; “Nietzsche is dead” -God.

I can see that as computer processors and memory develop this becomes more and more possible. I can also see the cloud evolving into a massive application and storage resource. For profitability, I can see many software companies actually having their applications being cloud-based with no real software on computers. It solves problems for updates, patches, etc. and compels the use of a subscriber service.

I cannot see, however, most firms embracing these concepts. They will want to retain their data and ownership of the same. With total cloud storage, most firms will still want to keep their own hard copy of data and might use the cloud for backup storage. There’s something comfortable about being able to put your hands on a file on your system.  Reliability of cloud-based stuff will have to be 100%-plus.

The complexity of having a program, as Windows currently does, running several different apps is possible as long as the format for the data being used is public domain, so that others with different apps can run the same data, and they do not want their apps to be cloud-based.

This would not likely be acceptable to Autodesk or others. I seem to recall a time in the past where they wanted to have ownership of *.dwg files.

I can’t see this happening in the near future. Maybe on some distant galaxy?
            - Dik Coates, P.Eng.

The editor replies: Some years ago Autodesk attempted to claim DWG as a registered trademark at the USPTO, and even sued some companies over their use of it. The result of the all that litigation was for Autodesk to fail in all its actions. DWG was already too broadly used inside -- and even outside -- the CAD industry.

And so Autodesk now says, “DWG has served and now serves as an Autodesk trademark. Autodesk has never precluded, and does not seek to preclude others from either using .dwg as a file extension or from making software that is compatible with the Autodesk DWG file format.”

The crucial word missing from the first sentence is “registered.”

 

- - -

You forgot “convergence.”
            - Oleg Shilovitsky (@olegshilovitsky on Twitter)

 

- - -

Is my interpretation correct that “There won't be any more files” really means that there’s still going to be a file, but just one file for the whole project? Or are they talking about one file for the entire company?

It’s hard for me to get my mind around, since files seem to be such an integral part of everything I’ve ever done. And it seems like some sort of diversionary tactic to my suspicious mind. For instance, what's the thing with claiming that the problems with translation of a model from one brand of software to another will be somehow solved by going from a thousand files to a single file?

Onshape claims to be doing the no-files thing, but when I asked questions of the salesman, he scheduled me a call with an engineer. That guy also had no technical knowledge, and he set me up a later call with someone else, and then I just lost interest.

Thanks for continuing to bring us great analysis of a very complicated business.
            - Jess Davis, president
            Davis Precision Design, Inc.

The editor replies: I think that non-CAD data about projects are stored directly in drawings (like PMI, but supersized), and then shared with other programs through APIs. But I could be wrong.

 

- - -

Well, #AutodeskAndy says a file is a dead thing. Since they have dozens of file formats and UIs that don't work with each other, this is all just a pipe dream (meant to inflate stock prices).
            - Notandrewaganost (@NotAganost on Twitter)

 

PROJECT NEWPLEX v2.0

Newplex 2.0 is the advanced SHX font designed for technical documents.

  • Compatible with all DWG-Based CAD software that support Unicode SHX fonts

  • Advanced character forms for readability and clarity

  • Designed for drafting

  • Extensive international character set

  • Includes the most requested technical characters

For more info or to purchase, visit www.tcfonts.com

 

And in Other News

Following the virus-induced cancellation of all conferences last year, Hexagon made CAD history last fall when it became the first CAD-related software company to announce a live conference this year — HxGN Live Global 2021 for this June in Las Vegas.

Now Hexagon unmakes history by cancelling it. They’ll try again next year. hxgnlive.com

- - -

Nanosoft releases nanoCAD Mechanica 20 software ($300 and up) for mechanical engineers, based on its nanoCAD Plus 20.1 platform:

  • Improved modeling with 3D constraints, direct modeling, and dynamic UCS

  • New 3D thread representation and library

  • New Offset dimension for measuring lengths of splines, polylines, and ellipses

  • Auto updates of drawing views, and auto rearrangement of section hatches

The full list of changes is at https://nanocad.com/products/mechanica/updates/.

- - -

Arkance of France makes its tenth acquisition of a European CAD/BIM company in two years, the most recent being Agacad of Lithuania. Arkance is a subsidiary of construction machinery firm Group Monnoyeur.

Agacad has Revit-specific add-ons for the design of wood, precast concrete, and metal structures, managing BIM data, and so on. It has 13,000 customers. agacad.com

- - -

I’ve come to rely on my newish Acer Spin Chromebook as my second laptop, primarily because it runs Android apps so effortlessly. Others are finding the same, as shown by ChromeOS machines in 2020 having outsold Macs worldwide (source IDC):

  • Windows: 80.5%

  • ChromeOS: 10.8% (sales up 68% over 2019)

  • macOS: 7.5%

- - -

Here are some of the posts that appeared on my WorldCAD Access blog:

You can subscribe to the WorldCAD Access blog’s RSS feed through Feed Burner at feeds.feedburner.com/WorldcadAccess.

 

Notable Quotable

“To grow and improve its products, the tech industry needs to be open to more independent views, not more sycophancy.”
- Geoffrey A. Fowler, technology columnist, Washington Post

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • Zsolt Engli, Germany: “I always enjoyed your newsletter and will do in future, too.”

  • Charles Moore

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of [email protected].

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4738

Posted at 07:00 AM in Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Monday, November 02, 2020

Readers Respond to Revit's Shared Parameters

Issue #1,072 | 2 November 1020 | The Business of CAD

 

I work in the food service design industry.  We design commercial food service facilities for restaurants, schools, hotels, and so on. Back in the 1980s, a group of forward-thinking food service designers developed a layering standard for AutoCAD, which we still use.  Having a standard made our lives much easier.

There are over 400 manufacturers in our industry.  A food service designer may use equipment from dozens of manufacturers in a kitchen design.  We simply don’t have the time to edit Revit families from all these sources to work together in our Revit projects. So we applied the same thinking to Revit, and food service designers have been using a common Revit Shared Parameter file since 2010.

Our Shared Parameter file covers all the utilities that one may find in a kitchen:  gas, water supply, voltages, drainage, and so on.  By and large, it has been working very well. Now our group has expanded to develop these standards for international food service design.  I’ll keep you posted on our progress.

            - Truman Donoho
            Foodservice Equipment Symbols

- - -

I don’t see how you can have BIM-to-CAM when there is insufficient resolution/fidelity in the BIM to start with. It’s easy to degrade resolution, but how do you add it?

            - Robin Capper
            New Zealand

The editor replies: The idea is to have CAM-level details in the BIM model, which I think is referred to as LOD 5 (level of detail 5). This is the level at which screws are modeled.

The problem is how to get to LOD 5, as lighter models already overwhelm BIM hardware and software systems. So this is the gap that exists between doing the design and being able to manufacture it.

Martyn Day of AEC Magazine wrote about the BIM-can't-CAM problem, but I can't find that article; sorry! Traditional BIM vendors are making enough money from selling regular BIM that they haven't bothered fixing the CAM part. Autodesk, which went overboard on buying construction management software, doesn't have a way to get from Revit to the construction site. Bricsys proposes adding intimate details through "AI," where the software predicts the details needed, and then adds them automatically.

Mr Capper responds: I think the real issue is that BIM is often more ‘design intent’ than actually constructible. I thought Autodesk’s Quantum concept, demo’ed at AU a few years ago, was an interesting approach to that.

The detail modeler, say curtain wall fabricator, just pulled critical control points from the architect's model (live, and refreshed at agreed-to intervals) and served back as a lightweight placeholder. Seems to have ‘gone dark’; I wonder if it was abandoned or retreated into secret development?

The editor replies: It was abandoned after several years of development. It was known as Project Quantum and was specific to AEC. Autodesk is replacing it with the all-encompassing Project Plasma, and apparently will announce more at Autodesk University later this year.

You can read more about the history of these two initiatives in "What Comes After Revit?" at aecmag.com/technology-mainmenu-35/1821-beyond-revit-autodesk-seeks-to-reinvent-collaborative-bim

- - -

The discussion of Revit and BIM are very interesting, even though it's totally different world than the mechanical one that I inhabit. 

Occasionally, I read things that make me realize that the building construction world is intensely striving to achieve the level of documentation that is considered completely normal and routine in the manufacturing world. The problem is that they have to do it for a "product" that is more complex in terms of the number of different parts involved (generally) and, instead of being built in a single factory, with all components purchased by a single purchasing department, there are many, many companies involved, each with their own systems of part numbering, naming, modeling, purchasing, warehousing, issuing, inventorying, and accounting.

So they can look to the manufacturing world for some guidance, but no manufacturing system is going to stretch to fit the construction of a large building by fifty subcontractors.

The article noted that "The Shared Parameter GUID ensures each Shared Parameter in existence has its own unique 32-bit identifier number, which is the only thing Revit really cares about with any parameter you create."

This is called a "part number" in my world. And I have occasionally had to explain and convince small manufacturers that it's important to assign a unique number to every component they make.  I can only imagine how hard it would be to convince everyone involved in a large building project, from the architect to the electrician, that having consistent names for things is essential.

Thanks for your continued insights into this world.

            - Jess Davis, president
            Davis Precision Design, Inc.

The editor replies: You hit the nail on the head, to borrow a phrase from construction. As someone once put it, think of assembling an Boeing 747, but in a muddy field miles from the factory, and each one plane being made with a different set of plans.

The BIM software world has, in the last year, just started to notice that they have a great problem in failing to connect with construction, except experimentally. It is all well and good for industry critics to complain that construction has only progressed 1% in efficiency over the last couple of decades, but there can be no automation when there is no data to input into the automation.

Mr Davis responds: It's kind of fun to explain manufacturing to a carpenter. 

"Yeah, that 2x4 you just cut and nailed in place?  See, we would have a drawing for that." 

"Why would I need a drawing to cut that?" 

"Oh, you wouldn't cut it. A supplier would cut it, and you'd just have to find it in those two semi-loads of pallets that got unloaded during the last rainstorm.  It'll be marked with a cardboard tag."

The editor replies: ROTFL

- - -

Dave has an elegant solution to the parameter mess, although it would require some admin. Bizarrely, it is implemented for some items in that old, non-BIM product called AutoCAD Architecture, that in some ways is more sophisticated at managing BIM standards.

Revit has a similar concept in its CAD export maps (object keys to layer names), but AutoCAD Architecture's Layer Key system addresses the same problem. The list of AEC Objects is consistent, but there is no standardization across the industry for layers.

So an object 'DOOR' can be mapped to 'A-Door' in one key, or '32-Door' or 'Bld_Door' or whatever you assign in the different keys. Open a generic file; hit Remap; all the layers and properties update; start work. This means you have one template, one parameter in the library, potentially serving hundreds of client standards.

Using a key to build names has massive advantages, with the only real disadvantage of having to administer the keys:

  • It enforces company standards by allowing users to only select pre-set values when naming content. For Revit, imagine when creating parameters (to use Matt's example) you could only choose ‘Width’ as part of the parameter name, because the BIM standard has set it . This eliminates creative naming or typos ("witdth").

  • It would allow mapping of multiple values to your standard, so my ‘FurnLength = Desk Width | Width of desk | witdth’ in ‘foreign’ content or linked files.
    As an aside I only have Length (X), Depth (Y) and Height (Z) but no ‘Width’ in my shared parameters as I found this avoids confusion. If you want to have a ‘Width,’ it has to update the relevant X, Y, or Z shared parameter used for tracking object volumes. I can do that with our content, but not any foreign stuff.

  • It would allow you to have per-project or client Key Tables. If they are consistent with naming (and often they are consistently different), just link the content, apply the map, done.

I would not like a parameter creation standard or mapping key to control everything, but it should be able to manage consistent information crucial to information sharing and basic data entry (Width, not widTH, Witdh etc). In some ways the shared parameters do that, but still depend on users complying with a standard while making them!

The other thing is, and sorely lacking in Revit, Layer Keys -- like every other AEC Object, Display, Material and Property Set (Parameters) -- have both Style and Instance GUIDs and can be updated (from a standards file) automatically or with a prompt on first access, or manually any time. If the BIM Manager updates a key to reflect a client’s requirements or a change in standards, then every project will acquire that update when it’s next edited. So I wish Revit had that!

I even have found using Schedule Keys (combinations of parameters tied to a single selectable key value) for things like rooms, area, and space properties works very well in a Revit Project, but is challenging to standardize across multiple projects, even with third party tools.

For instance, I have a master Schedule Key in my Standards project, update it (add a value, or change some of the existing key sub-parameters), but then update the same key schedule in existing projects. It’s a basic requirement in using BIM for lifecycle management, not just build and run.

            - Robin Caper

- - -

Another excellent eZine from my man Ralph! A reader wrote, “What I proposed (many, many years ago) was a Linked Parameter Mapping Table.”

That’s a ‘no-brainer’! Any idiot could see that as the only solution for a changing world. I’ve said as much to Autodesk in the past, but my wishlist suggestions always fell on deaf bureaucratic-guarded investor pocketbooks.

It’s too late to fix the screw-up of data in the CAD world. The only way it will get fixed is if we impose upon ourselves a global CAD dictatorship! Cheers,

- Chris Cadman

The editor replies: Data exchange is a problem that stays problematic, even as brilliant programmers find solutions.

And in Other News

Hexagon reported total Q3 revenues of €940 million (US$1.1 billion) — flat both on organic and constant currency bases from a year ago, following five quarters of declines. Despite this, the company has so far this year made ten acquisitions, including a third line of CAM [computer-aided manufacturing] software through last week’s purchase of ESPRIT owner DP Technology.

CEO Ola Rollén said the company needs also to get more into AEC. Details from Monica Schnitger at schnitgercorp.com/2020/10/28/hexagons-q3-was-flat-year-year-on-an-organic-constant-currency-basis/.

- - -

Contact Software releases its PLM software Elements v15.5 as an LTS [long term support] edition, so that customers will receive support for years to come.

The software helps manufacturers offer variations on products quickly through rule-based family models linked to ERP [enterprise resource planning] systems. contact-software.com/en/news/2020/10/contact-elements-155/

- - -

OnScale Solve’s cloud engineering simulation platform offers multi-physics solvers. The current version has mechanical, thermal, and coupled thermal-mechanical analyses; in the future, the site plans to add dynamic mechanical, nonlinear mechanics, thermal-fluid, fluid-structure interactions, and acoustic analysis.

The company is offering free private accounts to anyone of 500 core-hours/year. The software runs on its own at onscale.com, as well as inside Onshape.

- - -

Here are some of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:

You can subscribe to the WorldCAD Access blog’s RSS feed through Feed Burner at feeds.feedburner.com/WorldcadAccess.

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • Dairobi Paul

  • Karlheinz Peters: “Thanks for sharing your always informative insights. Always like reading your eZine. Keep it up as long as you enjoy doing it.”

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then the amounts I suggest are these:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of [email protected].

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4780

Posted at 07:00 AM in Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Monday, September 07, 2020

Readers Respond: "We're No Longer Happy with Revit"

Issue #1,064   |  August 31, 2020

 

Moderated by Ralph Grabowski

Ever since 17 architectural firms wrote a letter of protest to AutoCAD ceo Andrew Anagnost regarding the status of Revit, reaction has been on-going. More architectural firms signed the letter. Our readers wrote lots of letters to the editor. More industry watchers gave their unique points of view on the problem faced by Autodesk, such as these ones:

Letters to the Editor

Your article "Architecture firms to Autodesk: We're no longer happy with Revit" was very interesting, and emphasized some of the pain points we all suffer from being so tightly tied to the Revit platform.

 It reminded me of a comment I wrote (a long, long time ago, in 2007) for the article "What Needs to be Fixed in AutoCAD" where I outlined about three dozen things that were just dumb about the program that I used just about every day since 1987.

In a comment to your recent article "Autodesk at 2020," I wrote (after a lengthy diatribe of explaining what's great about Revit) that "I could spend at least another hour talking about what’s wrong with Revit and how to fix it."
    - Matt Stachoni, BIM Manager
    Tutor Perini / Parsons, JV
- - -

Your review of the status (and future) of Revit was fantastic, and at the same time sad. Autodesk seems to be suffering from shareholder paralysis, but I'm not an expert. It seems like frustration with product roadmaps and customer needs never ends.

I also liked your mention of customers maintaining their own development teams for customization. I loved working in that capacity years ago, but the opportunities in the defense world seemed bleak to me, and the compensation just doesn't compare with mainstream IT work. 

Keep up the outstanding work that you do! I haven't worked in the CAD industry in quite a few years, but I still enjoy reading your articles and reviews.
    - David Stein

The editor replies: I explain to non-CAD users that Revit is like my previous car: 20 years old, liable to breakdowns, and costly to maintain.
- - -

It is interesting -- in a sort of watching-a-train-wreck way -- to see Autodesk failing to deliver on keeping up its core business. But more curious to me is how this seems to suddenly be happening in a number of industries.

USA automakers are flailing around with electric vehicles, while Tesla seems to have mastered them. A similar thing is true of hybrids: Toyota succeeded where no USA manufacturer even seemed to make an effort. Boeing is facing major internal problems in a similar manner. We have Intel's spectacular failure in not keeping up with TSMC on a technical manufacturing level, and its numerous security issues.

I remember that when Andy Grove was head of Intel, he was almost paranoid about staying ahead of the game technically. His mantra was that you had to be your own competition, always bettering your products before the competition did.

What we are seeing perhaps, is that these large corporations became management-heavy and thought they could coast on near-monopolies forever, forgetting that being heavy on management almost always means being deficient in innovation.
    - Steve Schuller

The editor replies: You seem to have it correct. When Jim Collins examined how mighty corporations fell, it mostly was due to hubris: 'Now that we are successful in one area, we can be successful in any area!'
- - -

I’ll be paying my annual AutoCAD maintenance fee (CDN$985) this week, which will be the last time I financially support Autodesk. I’ve had my own copy since 1993, and prior to then, when I ran the CAD department at Wang Australia, since 1985 at which time there was a specific version for the Wang PC.  Out of curiosity I asked the dealer what the annual subscription costs -- CDN$2,200!

Apart from blind greed, I don’t understand what the thinking is behind Autodesk’s subscription fee. Surely they must realize that there will be many like me who will happily use their perpetual license and/or switch to BricsCAD or another program.  
    - Dairobi Paul
- - -

It seems like an association of companies with obvious profit interest is trying to cut expenses. How is this different to what we doing everyday going to the supermarket? Do we have control over the price of potatoes? or trendy avocados? 

Let me highlight something from personal experience. I had a boss that wanted to automate everything and make modular construction, because he realized on the benefit he could have from cutting construction costs by pre-fabricating. A classic BIM approach. Now, what he did not realize at the beginning is that he'd have to increase significantly the design inversion in hours and tools enabling the task. When he did it was too late for two reasons: he didn't bring right specialists able to predesign, and he didn't use the right tools. Those tools are expensive. All good tools are expensive, especially if are digital in this increasingly digitalised word. So he admitted that Autodesk flows would have work when bankrupting. He made is choice. I do not get why the obsession with Autodesk here. 

Second point. What happened to my ex-boss is happening at an industry level. Everything is digitalizing and there is a huge investment from software companies supporting that change. But don't get confused here, software companies are addressing industry needs -- not the opposite way) 

So, when this ECIF is proposing that paper are actually not understanding the same that my ex-boss missed, that the inversion is balancing towards design stages and pre-construction stages. That's the whole point of BIM, and some construction firms are missing the point because they have significantly less benefits rather than more expenses that, of course, are justified by the investment made by not only Autodesk but others too. I'm a fan of Bentley for example. 

So what are we talking about here? You do not want the avocado? Take the donut. Let's see for how long you'll benefit from it. 
    - Fernando Gonzalez (via WorldCAD Access)
- - -

You wrote, "Architectural firms in England and Australia, some of whom work globally, had standardized on Revit, partly due to government mandating it for its own projects." This is not true. They did not mandate Revit; they mandated BIM. They are very different things. Revit does not equal BIM. Revit is software. BIM is a process. 
    - BIMFluff (via WorldCAD Access)
- - -

I have been saying this for two decades, as you know: the only way to get Autodesk to listen is to become an Autodesk shareholder; to Autodesk's upper management, paying users are just cows to be milked.

Any customer who buys more than ten seats of an Autodesk software product should also get in the habit of buying stock in that company. If each of the signatories to that open letter had 10,000 shares of Autodesk in their corporate stock portfolio, they could join forces to threaten to vote out upper management with much more authority and effectiveness.

The bonus is that when customers own stock in the products that they themselves use, they are getting a discount on the products in the form of stock dividends and increased share value.

Change can even be pushed by regular users, if they work together. Buying a few shares each month, 100,000 aggravated users would control a major chunk of the company after just two or three years. Then they could demand real improvements.

Thanks as always for your diligent reporting.
    - Peter Lawton,  LEED AP 
     AEI | Affiliated Engineers, Inc.  

The editor replies: Autodesk has 221 million outstanding shares. I believe that when someone has 7% of the shares (at a cost currently of $3.7 billion), he can have one seat on their board of directors.  

Mr Lawton responds: Yes, I understand that share prices are now 10x what they were when I was talking about this in the early 2000s, but it is also true that in those days, crowdsourcing was much less developed.

 Today the effort would require sophisticated crowdsourcing infrastructure, and the involvement of many people: 100,000 to 250,000 frustrated Autodesk customers would need to pool resources to purchase many shares each month, for at least a couple of years, before a strong position would be realized.

Then, if we can get some of the large A/E/C firms to buy up blocks of stock, for their corporate portfolios, things speed up.  Their investing philosophy would have to be different than with other investments. For example, one improvement that corporate users might like would be reducing the release cycle to every 4 years, so Autodesk profits would fall, (along with the stock value), but the A/E/C company's profits might rise, because IT changes and software training would be reduced.

Also, if Autodesk gets wind of such an effort seriously undertaken, they might be more inclined to listen up.
- - -

Excellent read! It’s what I’ve been saying about Autodesk since-- well, forever. If you want to know what Autodesk's been up to for the past decade, just follow the money. But that’ll take some digging, and probably creative accounting as well!
    - Chris Cadman

The editor replies: The effort to displace Autodesk is a rare event that's occurred only twice before, that I know of. There was a (failed) effort in the 1990s to replace DXF (then the de facto exchange format among desktop CAD), and then the successful Project Phoenix, which resulted in IntelliCAD and the explosion in alternatives to AutoCAD.

Mr Cadman responds: I can only hope for this rare event to trigger an explosion in Autodesk's customer base, away from them to alternative BIM software. 
- - -

I could have told them this ten years ago. Revit came from the stable of PTC's Pro/ENGINEER, perhaps the least flexible parametric modeler at the time. Users familiar with Autodesk products over time know they have never had a 'vision'. Revit's founders played the market well tho. 
    - Keith Jackson (via WorldCAD Access)


 

Sponsor: Okino Graphics


== Converting 3D CAD & DCC to Virtual/ Augmented Reality ==
 
With the explosive growth of VR/AR, the ultra-massive 3D datasets produced by CAD and DCC programs need efficient conversion to the popular Unity and Unreal development platforms. Okino of Toronto is the long-time provider of the PolyTrans|CAD translator, which easily handles the interactive datasets required by VR and AR for Microsoft HoloLens, HTC VIVE, Oculus Rift, Meta, and other VR headsets.
 
PolyTrans provides you with
  • Massive dataset handling
  • Node compression
  • Adaptive CAD tessellation
  • Intelligent polygon reduction 

Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at [email protected] 

http://www.okino.com

Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
  • Kevin Jacobs 
  • Julian Miranda, Spain
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these: Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected].

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.
*4847

Posted at 07:00 AM in Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Sunday, June 28, 2020

Readers Respond: Lots of Letters to the Editor

Issue #1,061   |    June 29, 2020

 

Moderated by Ralph Grabowski
 

From the Editor

So many of you wrote thoughtful letters about recent upFront.eZine articles that this issue is monster-sized and is dedicated to you, the writers.
    - Ralph Grabowski
- - -
 

Re: The Future of IFC

Tech is still grappling with crossing the divide between design and build. I would make two arguments: one, possibly the majority of benefits of BIM [building information modeling] derive more from IPD [integrated project delivery] than from the technology. At a very high confidence level I would say that without IPD, BIM is of very limited utility. 

Two, in the early years of IFC, it focused on MEP [mechanical, electrical, plumbing], so that is where BIM has had the greatest success. 

The historically normal approach of design-bid-build is a process that in real life involves a lot of redesign, a.k.a. "delegated design" in which the shop drawing process is essentially an iterative detailed re-design in most cases.

IPD instead means that you bring a general contractor and the key subcontractors (historically the MEP guys, mainly) on board early during the design phase. They come onboard on a negotiated basis, rather than as bidders. Often this involves sharing in both the upside and downside of the final project cost, versus the traditional approach in which subs participate only on the downside. 

You put all the players in a big room and work out many of the details in that room, so the BIM model ends up being much more reflective of reality, than a purely designer-designed BIM. (I think you already understand that architects have limited knowledge and responsibility for what they design, and their fees are commensurate and limited.)

The low hanging fruit among all the MEP contractors is clash detection, who otherwise fight for room [to fit their ducts, wires, and pipes] in ceilings and other spaces. The fighting used to occur during shop drawings and sometimes even in the field when trades gave each other little surprises. 

With IPD, all the clashes as detected in the big meeting room, resolved, and put into the model.

That technology wants to take credit is an old story. It tries to take credit for the gains from discipline and cooperation that are outside the technology, but often accompany it.

For instance, computerized inventory control systems require that each item get a unique identifier, and that every movement of items in and out be recorded, whether at a store or a warehouse. Without discipline, computerized systems are basically worthless, or worse, are where you pay the costs but cannot reap the benefits. 

Conversely, with the technology but without the discipline, you get some benefits. 

When both cooperate together, you get maximum benefits, but the technology evangelists/salespersons will always attribute far more benefits to the technology, ignoring the role of the changed process. 
    - Leo Schlosberg
 

Re: 2 Guys Talk CAD

If SpaceClaim is the evidence for the success of direct modeling, no wonder the CAD industry is not investing there. Your reader believes that direct modeling is the next thing. The truth is that it is an old technology that has been around way before the history/feature-based CAD and lost to the history-based systems. 
    - Gal Raz (via WorldCAD Access)

The editor replies: Direct editing was the next thing a decade ago. Today it appears that the next thing is direct simulation.

SpaceClaim was not successful, except in marketing itself. SpaceClaim's marketing did, however, force the largest firms in the MCAD industry to move their software away from being based solely on PTC's pioneering history-based parametric design, and embrace direct modeling -- as witnessed by the direct modeling software launched nearly simultaneously by Autodesk, Dassault, PTC, and Siemens. 
- - -

You wrote, "Synchronous Technology, however, suffers from being very hard to understand and implement, because you have to figure out stuff before you start drawing -- the very opposite to what direct modeling is supposed to offer -- and so few Solid Edge and NX users use it." 

ST does NOT suffer from being VERY hard to use. Ralph, it's your bitterness towards Solid Edge once again that taints your opinion. Granted in the first few releases there were many issues with using Synchronous, and I was one of it's biggest critics at the time. However the developers at Solid Edge made huge improvements to the GUI to help ease the understanding of just how it works. 

The ONLY people who find it difficult to use are those like yourself who are too stuck in their "OLD" ways to see its brilliance. Synchronous has matured into one of the best improvements in 3D CAD in the past decade and has saved my company countless time and money, so I'm not sure why you still hang on to such "old" perceptions and biases. 

How much time have you ever spent using Synchronous Technology, and how honest of an attempt did you make to actually understand it? I've been using MCAD since the mid 80s going all the way back to Personal Designer from Computervision. 

Or maybe you just can't say what you truly feel as to not upset the folks at AutoCAD or Dassualt, eh. 
    - Bob Mileiti (via WorldCAD Access)

The editor responds: I base my opinion on the few hands I observed going up when the question was asked at the four annual Solid Edge user conferences I attended. From this, I estimate about 10% use ST. So, I am very pleased to hear that you find ST useful.

Of the nearly 300 CAD reporters and analysts at Siemens' online press event earlier this month, I was the only one to ask Siemens staff why during the two-day event they hadn't told us anything about Solid Edge.

Mr Mileiti responds: I don't think Spaceclaim's problems have anything to do with direct modeling a whole. Their failure to attract enough customers had more to do with their single-minded approach. 

Solid Edge has always been able to deal with both Parametric and Direct Modeling. As [engineering.com wrote about Siemens vp of mainstream engineering R&D Dan Staples] back in 2018: 

"One might also wonder why, if Synchronous Technology is as beneficial as its proponents claim, it’s not a more widespread paradigm. Staples believes the reason is that Siemens is just that far ahead of the technological curve in large part because of its ownership of the Parasolid kernel and D-Cubed constraint solving SDK [software development kit]. 

"But perhaps there’s a simpler reason, which he summarized nicely: 'Engineers are not people who like to change a lot.' History-based parametric modeling is still the dominant paradigm in the CAD world and, despite its drawbacks, it works just fine." https://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArticles/ArticleID/16587/Whats-the-Difference-Between-Parametric-and-Direct-Modeling.aspx

The editor replies: I feel Mr Staples makes my case.

The 'single-minded approach' referred to by Mr Mileiti is that Spaceclaim had positioned itself as a model fixer-upper adjacent to CAD seats, rather than as an MCAD system in its own right. It thought it could land a share of what it saw as a 10x-100x bigger market (of adjacent seats) than trying to compete directly with ensconced MCAD systems. (In 2014, it was purchased by ANSYS as a model fixer-upper.)
- - -

Synchronous Technology seems cool in a lot of ways, but I don't see it as superior to history-based design, just a different way to model and edit with its own pros and cons. It appears to fall down on complex geometry, which is where a long rebuild in the history model is at its worse. 

I have some parts that I don't know how ST in Solid Edge could edit them, because there is curve to them and/or extremely complex intersections of geometry. I imagine once you learn it, it's not bad and flows well, but I must admit the user interface looks daunting -- a lot of button selections. 
    - Jason Capriotti (via WorldCAD Access)
- - -

You wrote, “Head office in Paris was pressing forward with their V6 generation (known today as "3dExperience"), which uses Delmia as the central repository for Catia data.”

Enovia, ya plum. Much love,
    - Al Dean
- - -

An interesting summary of kernels and consequences re the big boys. I have been a VX/ZWCAD user [and dealer] for 15 years doing a lot of advanced surfacing as part of everyday modeling. ZW3D has a history-based direct editing approach, which provides the benefits of geometry adjustment and the power to edit the direct edit. I find users of other software are a bit shocked when they see how intuitive and effective it is.

Maybe ZW3D is not flavor of the month being Chinese, but the deep development still takes place in Florida, driven in a unique US/Sino collaboration that has been going on for years now.
    - Paul Smith
    Graceland Technology, New Zealand
- - -

Istvan Csanady responded with a marked up Word document. I summarize his and my comments with the original sentences. Mr Csanady is founder and CEO of Shapr3D.

My article in upFront.eZine said: Catia and NX do things Solidworks and Solid Edge cannot -- and deliberately so -- do functions such as advanced surfacing.

Istvan Csanady: I would say that systems engineering is also a key differentiator.


upFront: Direct editing and modeling became vogue with the successful marketing of SpaceClaim.

Csanady: I wouldn’t say Spaceclaim was very successful to be honest, and unfortunately still most CAD users don’t understand what is direct modeling.

Ralph Grabowski: The company was not successful, but their marketing was brilliant.


upFront: Siemens' Parasolid kernel brings direct modeling to Solid Edge and NX.

Csanady: Synchronous Technology is much more than direct modeling. You can think of ST as “feature based direct modeling”. ST automates and batches direct modeling operations by recognizing features in the geometry, like shells. Direct modeling is actually part of Parasolid, and it is licensed to third parties. My Shapr3D is a direct modeling tool, for example, and it runs on Parasolid.

Grabowski: My description of ST being a direct modeler was a simplified one. I understand that it is much more complex, and that users find it too complex.


upFront: Autodesk wrote a new CAD program to handle direct modeling, Fusion.

Csanady: Fusion actually supports both traditional history based modeling and direct modeling. You can switch between the two modes.

Grabowski: Fusion is Autodesk's answer to direct modeling, rather than bolting it onto Inventor.


upFront: My understanding is that Solidworks it has only a kludge that imitates the effect of direct modeling.

Csanady: Solidworks supports all the direct modeling operations, but you can’t turn off design history. So every direct modeling operation is another step in the design history, but basically you get many of the benefits of direct modeling. Obviously, there is a lot of room for improvement in their direct modeling implementation, but it has the basics.

Grabowski: That is the reason behind me using the word 'kludge'. I knew that there was a problem with Solidworks direct modeling. Thanks for spelling it out for me!


upFront: Dassault should have swapped out Parasolids for CGM, while leaving everything else in place.

Csanady: This is easier to say than do. They tried, but it’s basically impossible. If you want to replace a b-rep kernel under a history-based modeler, you need bug-to-bug level compatibility between the two kernels, otherwise you will have significant data loss.

Grabowski: Oh, I understand that it would be very difficult! Hence my use of the word 'should'. Mimicking all bugs is an angle I had not thought of before.


upFront: If they swapped out Parasolid for CGM (they certainly do not enjoy paying license fees to Siemens) they would have incompatible geometry yet again.

Csanady: I think this requires a little bit more of a pragmatic approach: how much they are paying for Siemens versus how much would it cost to replace Parasolids with CGM, and how much would customers benefit from that? 

Considering these factors, it’s actually not that obvious that [the kernel swap] would be worth it, unless they believe that Solidworks will start competing at the higher end of the market, becomes a direct NX competitor, and replaces CATIA in their portfolio, which I find highly unlikely.

Grabowski: Agreed. Nevertheless, Paris keeps hitting its head against a wall -- a Solidworks wall.


upFront: At one point, Dassault told me that CGM was better at it because it was second derivative continuous.

Csanady: This does not make too much sense. You can create G2 or Gn continuous surfaces with Parasolid as well, and you can implement any surfacing algorithm on the top of Parasolid. Actually I would say that Parasolid is in every possible way superior to CGM. In robustness, performance, speed etc., CGM is not even close.

Grabowski: This statement was made by an ex-Dassault employee, who was not on the CAD side of things.


upFront: The final death knell for cloud-based mid-sized MCAD came when Onshape admitted they had only 5,000 paying customers.

Csanady: Not because it’s cloud-based, but because there isn’t a single customer problem that their implementation solves. It’s technology done for the sake of doing technology.

Obviously cloud-based solutions will be and should be implemented, especially for collaboration and data exchange, but running the modeling with a browser front-end and cloud back-end makes literally zero sense, is insanely hard to implement, gives no value to the user, and has lots of drawbacks.

Grabowski: I always found the approach used by Belmont Technology interesting, them using the 'we wrote the new gen of MCAD (Solidworks) that became a huge success' argument to land $169 million. A does not infer B. 

I think that PTC sees value primarily in the database aspect of Onshape, and a way to sell PTC-branded CAD to smaller customers. In a press event earlier this month, the head of Siemens CAD again emphasized that there will be no cloud version of NX and Solid Edge.
- - -

Let Daren know that Logitech owns 3Dconnexion. His money still went to Logitech. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Dconnexion
    - Christopher Fugitt

The editor replies: I was under the impression 3Dconnexion went independent of Logitech.

Mr Fugitt responds: I've been able to find only one reference to 3Dconnexion being sold: spacemice.org/index.php?title=3DConnexion. It looks like from SEC filings that 3Dconnexion was removed from the list of Logitech subsidiaries. It isn't listed as a subsidiary in the 2020 10-K filing, so you might be correct in it being sold. ir.logitech.com/financial-info/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?FilingId=14178866
- - -

Daren is right about everything, except 3Dconnexion being a different company than Logitech. I missed my Performance MX enough I bought a replacement spring for the left click switch.
    - Henry Sommer

The editor replies: The confusion comes about as both Google and Bing, as their top search result, incorrectly say 3Dconnexion is owned by Logitech, while the Wikipedia entry has not been updated in a decade.

I did not know it was possible to get replacement parts!

Mr Sommer responds: You were right. Logitech sold them in 2012. The Spacemouse I was using is older than I realized. logitech.com/assets/45907/logitech-2012-annual-report.ENG.pdf

There are instructions online about how to take it apart and replace the spring at electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/29955/how-do-i-fix-an-omron-d2fc-f-7n-microswitch-from-unwanted-clicks and gonnalearn.com/inside-omron-d2fc-f-7n-microswitch/.

I bought entire switches, and then transplanted the springs. It is a delicate process but the mouse is as good as new. smile.amazon.com/dp/B00HPL57JQ/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_7c55EbW16XNAC

The editor replies: Logitech says it sold the company at a loss as "it is more likely than not that the Company would not generate adequate capital gains in the next five years before the capital loss expires under the U.S. tax law."

I turned our research into a blog entry, which you can read here: worldcadaccess.com/blog/2020/06/nobody-owns-3dconnexion.html. It concerns me that Bing, Google, and Wikipedia all have the same wrong answer, and have been wrong for nine years!

 

Sponsor: Okino Graphics

== Okino's PolyTrans|CAD Software for Professional 'Load & Go' 3D Conversions == 
 
For over three decades, mission-critical 3D conversion software from Okino of Toronto has been used effectively by tens of thousands of professionals. We develop, support, and convert between all major CAD, DCC, and VisSim formats. CTO Robert Lansdale and his team tailors each package to the specific conversion requirements or problems of each customer.

Popular CAD data sources we support include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at [email protected] 

http://www.okino.com

And in Other News
A domain registrar has 3D.com for sale and hopes to land $25 million. I don't see anyone in the CAD industry ponying up that much, but someone in gaming or an nVidia might.
- - -
Nanosoft last week launched nanoCAD Plus 20 with drawing comparison, 3D clipping, new built-in script editor, and a monitor for changes to system variables and externally-referenced drawings.
Dynamic input adds command options, and undoes/redoes can now be visualized before committing to them. The program imports IFC and point cloud files. Download the 32- or 64-bit 30-day trials from nanocad.com/products/plus/download/.
- - -
Decent IFC viewers can be tough to find, as either they have not been updated lately or are too expensive.
The Open Design Alliance has released a free one that handles IFC v2x3 - v4x2 formats. In addition to all the usual viewing functions, it has cutting planes and clash detection, and will support v4x3 in September. https://openifcviewer.com/
- - -
Graebert is adding to its coronavirus-related CAD offer. Anyone who took up their previous offer to use Kudo browser-based CAD free to the end of June, can now join a focus group and get six more months free -- open at least one drawing in http://kudo.graebert.com (following registration) by the end of day June 30.
- - -
MachineWorks will be releasing Polygonica v2.4 soon that offers:
  
  • Curvature aware remeshing
  • Offsetting curves across mesh surfaces
  • Reconnect islands based on surrounding mesh curvature
http://www.polygonica.com/
- - -
AMETEK-owned Creaform to begin shipping later this summer a wicked-looking 3D scanner, the MetraScan Black with 15 blue lasers, 4x greater resolution than earlier models, and no warm-up time. Targets optional.
 
It takes 1.8 million measurements each second at a resolution of 0.0009" (0.025mm) and performs meshing in real-time. But you'll need an optimal hardware setup to handle that amount of data.
https://www.creaform3d.com/en/optical-3d-scanner-metrascan
- - -
Ideate Software offers several Revit helper programs:
  • StyleManager fixes style problems when importing content into Revit.
  • BIMLink imports data into Excel and then sends it as BIM data to Revit.
  • Explorer fixes Revit problems through a model browser.
  • Sticky connects non-BIM data from Excel into Revit.
  • IdeateApps does spell checking, sheet managing, quick selecting, and more.
Free trial versions available for all from ideatesoftware.com/download

Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
  • Mary Fugier: "Congratulations on 25 years! Thanks for all the insight."
  • Todd Majeski: "Ralph, thanks for all support of the CAD industry. Not many other places you can get this unfiltered reporting."
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these: Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected].

Or mail your cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.
*4861

 

Posted at 01:00 PM in Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Readers Respond: Letters to the Editor

Issue #1,046   |   March 16, 2020

 

Re: The Limits of BIM

Thanks for your informative gatherings of insight and innovations in our AEC universe. The Snyder discussion is thoughtful, trenchant. However, I'm (easily) puzzled by this model-vs-drwg "conflict." Ignorance is bliss, one supposes, but isn't it perfectly natural to elicit coordinated info from models, to hone in on details? Details then to be presented in familiar imagery i.e. "drawings?"

What's with the "machismo?"

Those of us ancients who evolved from the primordial swamps of manual drafting/spec-writing/estimating; to taming the great swamp-dinosaur of AutoCAD; and onward to mastering Revit, with all its expensive pluses/minuses. I can assure Rob that drawings as such are no guarantee of a match with reality.

In fact, a crucial professional responsibility of any engineer/architect/contractor is making sure the owner is not to be fooled by any artistic, technical, or financial design work. T the final experience of a built structure, landscape, whatever, will always be a surprise to some extent. There is no AI/simulation/animation whatsoever that will fully "pre-experience" the work at completion, for owners, designers or builders.

Cognition has apparently a limited but useful model presented by cybernetics research, from MIT and elsewhere, where purposive knowledge is acquired as if by a guidance system that aims at a goal and then changes course functionally (ping-ponging?) along its path. If, hopefully, the guidance system steers us to our destination, it will not only have made corrections, but will have learned from its mistakes - it won't make the same mistake twice.
Rob seems to display this process nicely w/ his graphs (could not get the taxicab or lady going in the vid).

Of course, human brains may often repeat avoidable mistakes, unlike the average missile warhead -- emotions? politics? vague language?

So, BIM makes easier the initial cramming-into a database of a maximum, COORDINATED body of project information. Then, it's there for multiple, coordinated purposes, dialed out as spreadsheets, spec. text, 2D diagrammatic images, 3D still/video pictures, etc. We're using all the tools, aren't we? All that matters is that we have the best tools - best that we can afford, of course.
    - Michael David Rubin

The editor replies: Thank you for your thoughtful response. Mr Snyder was reacting to 3D modeling extremists who mock the use of drawings, hence the use of the word "machismo."
- - -

What if the entire concept of #BIM is wrong? #Architecture as a database depresses me as an architect. We see thousands of BIM models at @cove_tool  from every leading firm and mostly they use it for fancier 3d modeling.  #parametricdesign #generative
    - @cove_tool (via Twitter)
- - -

I am a fan of BIM but not necessarily of BIM software, so this weeks edition ticked a few boxes in my consciousness. There is a lot of debate about model views being set up as part of the deliverable and these must surely be the missing ‘sauce’ that we need to lift the curve between the model and understanding. 

The only issue is that these model views are drawn by the creators of the model and not the users of the information – so the gap will remain. Good old fashioned drawings are still and will remain a critical part of any buildings documentation be it pdf or paper!

The downward curve after building handover is also a reality, even in well-maintained buildings. Here the gap between the understanding of building operators, of models, and their tools to interpret that model is almost insurmountable. They should not have to learn an entirely new, highly-complex software suite to do the job!  Especially when drawings should be available…

This is not properly understood in the pursuit of BIM by the designers of buildings. This is not a criticism of progress but only a call for greater inclusion of other stakeholders.
    - Rudd van Deventer

The editor replies: Taylor Software is one company that I know of working on making building drawings accessible to owners by linking sensors to software that displays drawings as SVG files.
 

Re: The Test That Failed

I think I would have trouble winding that spring, but your dad probably had the right tools for the task and training in how to use them. Apropos of your father's essay, I came across this quotation in my reading today:

"Specialization is for insects," the science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein famously wrote. "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly." It's fun to ask oneself how many of these tasks he or she could perform.
    - Steve Wolfe
- - -

Thank you for sharing these insights about your father. I maintain an ongoing Facebook sub-page (under my own personal page) I title “Heart of a Master” with precisely these types of stories. With examples, I highlight to give hope to those of us who daily palm-slap ourselves with the lack of integrity, lack of passion, and lack of heart that permeates our AEC industry on so many levels. 

You do a wonderful job at keeping the field interesting!
    - David K. Sargert

The editor replies: I think that what has happened is that over the last few decades, the CAD industry moved from an exciting new frontier to just another job. There are, fortunately, still some pockets of brilliance that I try to tease out for my readers.
- - -

The double-coiled twin spring in larger scale would be a perfect fit for the old Massey Harris hay rake my father used to own. The rake was made of many of these units bolted to the spinning-reel.
    - Hugh Campbell
- - -

That was a very pleasant surprise to read my adventures almost 8 decades ago. There were left-hand and right-hand windings, a loop in the center, two straight ends each 1.5" long, at right angles to the center loop.
    - Herbert Grabowski
- - -

Enjoyed reading your dad’s work story. Handsome guy! That kind of work is what I consider real work. What passes for ‘working for a living’ today is pathetic!
    - Chris Cadman
 

Re: Autodesk at 2020

I have to say I agree with Matt Stachoni chastisement over your comments on Revit. You know I'm no fan of Autodesk, but Revit is a pretty good product I mostly enjoy using -- if you ignore the price and vendor lock-in. 

BIM360 is a great solution for widely spread teams. My current project has people in four cities spread between Denmark and India, and it just works. 
    - Duncan Lithgow

The editor replies: I am always glad to be critiqued; that way I learn more.
- - -

Regarding Matt Stachoni's comments on Revit, "Matt was previously a BIM MEP specialist with Microsol Resources, an Autodesk Platinum Partner serving New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston. He is a contributing writer for AUGIWorld Magazine, and is a highly rated regular speaker at Autodesk University.
    - Ragnar Thor Mikkelsen
 

Sponsor: Okino Graphics

== Okino's PolyTrans|CAD Software
for Professional 'Load & Go' 3D Conversions == 
 
For over three decades, mission-critical 3D conversion software from Okino of Toronto has been used effectively by tens of thousands of professionals. We develop, support, and convert between all major CAD, DCC, and VisSim formats. CTO Robert Lansdale and his team tailors each package to the specific conversion requirements or problems of each customer.

Popular CAD data sources we support include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at [email protected] 

http://www.okino.com
 

*5017

 

Posted at 01:00 PM in Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Readers Respond: When Generative Design Backfires

Issue #1,039   |  January 27, 2020

 

This is in regard to Roopinder Tara’s editorial in upFront.eZine #1,038, "When Generative Design Doesn't Work."

The orange Microbus wheel design demonstrates the pretension of programmers who have never maintained a car. Drive those fanciful wheels on real-world roads with rain, dirty snow, dust, mud, and other detritus. Add a little dispersed grease from under the hood, a hyper-fine mist of brake fluid, and a lot of accumulated brake pad dust.
 

The Corvette owned by Mr Wells

Attempt to wash those filthy gray-black monstrosities by using your favorite cleaning methodology and discover just how much direct rubbing contact is required on every surface to keep car wheels looking clean. 

Simpler accessible forms explain an important appearance constraint for wheel design. Note the attached picture of my car with simple, clean wheels.
    - Steve Wells
- - -
All this effort to take designers out of the design process is disturbing!
    - Phil Champ (@philchamp_ via Twitter)
- - -
I feel generative is the way to go if the object is purely functional in one parameter (example load bearing) and there are no aesthetics involved. In the case of a car wheel, there is aesthetics, aerodynamics, and cooling of brakes involved. Weight is just one parameter to optimize.

Moreover, if there was a way do all the above, Tesla would do it first!
    - Harish Manohar (@HarishManohar via Twitter)
- - -
Roopinder Tara's guest editorial on generative design was an interesting article, raising important issues. But he never directly answered the question: Is the VW Microbus wheel redesign truly a failure?
    - Randall Newton
- - -
Let's be clear. It's like he wasn't at AU, where they showed manufacturable geometry from generative design in Fusion, no sticks or bones! Lazy, opinionated  journalism. Perhaps Roopinder Tara needs a fact checker, maybe someone who actually uses the software.
    - Cad Monkey (@Monkey_CAD via Twitter)
- - -
In his defense, he does mention that Fusion can constrain you to manufacturable geometry. And I don't think he is saying that generative design as a design process is a mistake. We could all benefit from more realistic examples that manifest themselves in the real world.
    - Lynn Allen (@Lynn_Allen via Twitter)
- - -
That generative design is exactly the way it should be for minimal weight of a wheel transmitting torque and subjected to lateral loads. 
 
      
Michell structure used  by race car wheels

I know this because I used Genesis software to create one 13 years ago. They’re called Michell structures and you can choose how much you want to remove based on manufacturing limitations. It doesn’t have to be as extreme as the VW wheel.
    - chrishuck (@chrishuck via Twitter)
- - -
It’s a case of much of the premise of the article is simply incorrect, which would have taken a minute or so’s research to discover. But if you want to get into it, comparing a spoked bicycle with a car wheel makes no sense. The loading conditions are dramatically different. Different masses, different loading positions, and different operating conditions.

“Most generative design algorithms have the inability to produce shapes that can be manufactured by conventional manufacturing means.” Incorrect. Entirely. And has been two for decades.

“Shape optimization in generative design seems 100%-based on bone growth algorithms, and so produces bumpy shapes. Bone growth, specifically growth between two pieces of a bone fracture” Nope. Read up on Wolff’s law

The wheels were cast in aluminum. 
    - Al Dean [@alistardean via Twitter]
- - -
I thought it was a terrific editorial. I think there is way too much hype coming out of tech these days. It is particularly acute in construction.
    - Leo Schlosberg
- - -
Generative design can be used for some great things. Making a funky rim, dangerous steering wheel, or ugly mirror bracket are not those great things. 

Autodesk suffers from a lack of engineering talent for real things, and mostly has people who only want the "wow" factor.
    - NotAndrewAganost (@NotAganost via Twitter)
 
      
Left to right: mirror bracket, steering wheel, and seat support output by Autodesk's generative design algorithms and Fusion software
[image source Autodesk]
- - -

What is the point of generative design if the object is this simple. I don't think it's functional.
    - Mister Maker (@MvdH74169613 on Twitter)
- - -
Generative Creative Writing
    - Gustavo Fontana (@gustojunk on Twitter)
- - -

Just a note to say how interesting I find your newsletter. Working as an architect with my toes in CAD and BIM and databases you raise interesting questions, give good insight, and remind me of things that have happened a while ago. 

I thought that I would respond to the article from Roopinder Tara on the VW Microbus rims. In my earlier life, I saw a local company test early cast aluminium rims by loading the vehicle to spec and then doing ‘figure of eight’ circuits. What was astounding to me was how quickly the rims failed! I was wondering if any testing had been carried out on the rims or were they simply an exercise in generative design by software. 

Your comment about bone growth is true. While hang gliding I managed to get a spiral fracture to my left upper arm. This subsequently broke in the cast and after a long healing and re-abilitation process (through board sailing and off-road motorcycling) I regained 95% of the arm's use. Over the last forty five years I have seen the bump recede to where it is not easily visible.

All the best and I wish you all a wonderful 20-Plenty.
    - Rudd van Deventer
 

And In Other News
During PTC's quarterly conference call, ceo Jim Heppelmann revealed that his company expects to earn $10 million this year from Onshape subscriptions. While this could imply last year's 5,000 customer size going up to 6,700 individual subscribers (based on the normal $1,500 annual rate), it does not account for corporate subscriptions, which typically pay less..

Mr Heppelmann's plans for the recently-acquired Onshape include the following:
  • Bringing AR [augmented reality] close to Onshape
  • Coexisting with Creo MCAD and Windchill PLM
  • Upselling Onshape users to Creo, Windchill, and Vuforia AR
  • Cross-selling Onshape to edge use cases
For fiscal year 2020, PTC expects $1.45 - $1.53 billion in revenues, making it less than half the size revenue-wise than Autodesk and 3x smaller than Dassault Systemes.

Source: seekingalpha.com/article/4318482-ptc-inc-ptc-ceo-jim-heppelmann-on-q1-2020-results-earnings-call-transcript

Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine.

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected].

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

 

*5118

Posted at 01:00 PM in Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Sunday, May 05, 2019

Readers Respond: Dassault and Solidworks

Issue #1,014 

 

 

That article filled in some gaps for me regarding the awkward relationship between Dassault and Solidworks. My company got out of Solidworks 18 months ago when we had to replace Workgroup PDM and realized that the Solidworks brand was slowly distancing itself from the Solidworks/Parasolid core CAD product.

Solidworks has the most fiercely loyal user-base of the CAD tools that I have been exposed to, despite tighter commercial policies and (arguable) product neglect over the last several years. But turning Solidworks World into an overt PLM/CGM [product lifecycle management] platform marketing event should get some attention. The irony of the whole situation is palpable.

Regarding the move to cloud-based products: this is something Dassault and the others have to do for long-term economics. The same factors that are driving other business software to Web-based are just as true for CAD (agile software development, single-version maintenance, elimination of expensive VAR model, easier system integration, data management and sharing, computer processors topping out, nimbler customer support model, etc.). CAD is only lagging because of the unique technical hurdles.

The dirty little secret in the industry is that 3D CAD is a commodity at this point and differentiating by features in 2019 is hard, if not impossible. The end game for the software companies is data management and system integration. 

I think Dassault's big miscalculation was pursuing xDesign as a CGM-based product (and taking too long to release it). Had they just resolved themselves to develop with Parasolid (despite having to license from a competitor) and developed something similar to Onshape, they could have avoided the current, awkward situation.
     - Doug Jones 

The editor replies: Only the ceo of PTC admits to this, saying the only new customers are ones they steal from competitors.

- - -

Interesting the disconnect upper management has from what MCAD users want. I saw the alphabet soup of 3dExperience programs that you need to add to Solidworks for the full "storybook" experience and just busted out laughing. 

You are so right about local CAD-to-cutting operations, and no cloud is ever in the picture. Furthermore, we don't need additional programs requiring gobs of money (and huge outlays in time to learn initially) and then more money each following year, as they use people as guinea pigs. Not needed nor wanted. I expect they hope to pull an "anagnost" on their loyal Solidworks users.

As for me, since I am in-house, I let all program [maintenance] go last year. With a permanent license, I expect to work just fine for the next ten years or so. I never go online. I don't have to worry about the next Windows version and whether it is compatible. There are a bunch of us that used to buy maintenance each year, but with this cloud stuff, and the removal of features, and changing featuerse to add-ons, and the obvious direction of catering only to investors, and screw you, Mr. Customer -- it is not lost on us.

I will say that out of all the mid-range MCAD programs that Solid Edge has been my program of choice ever since Solid Edge ST1; I just don't need the other stuff they are adding. It is obvious they are doing away with Insight [product data management software] and are trying to convince Solid Edge users how much they need the added complexity of NX PLM, or whatever they are calling it now. More $$$, and then you need consultants to help you get it going and to keep it going -- from the grumbles I hear. But in general, I have to say the Solid Edge program I bought initially still costs the same, with more worthwhile features -- although maintenance rose this year for the first time in ten years from $1,500 to $1,650 for the Classic version.

At least Solid Edge has no plans to end perpetual or subs. You choose, and they sell a variety of levels so you can get in at a pretty reasonable price. Just like Autodesk screwed up and gave BricsCAD a chance that Autodesk will regret, I figure something will rise up for Solidworks users, too.
    - Dave Ault

- - -
 
That was an excellent piece of writing, in both content and presentation. You should get some kind of award (maybe invent your own award, like mainstream journalists do).
    - Owen Wengerd (@owenwengerd via Twitter)
 
- - -
 
It looks like with Dassault Systems putting the brakes on Solidworks that BricsCAD has some work to do.
    -Dik Coates
    Canada
- - -
I am sure Dassault wants everybody to move from Solidworks to Catia -- oops, 3dExperience. What they don’t talk much about is cost. We got a quote for Catia 3dExperience with the Electrical Workbench: cost is $85,000. That is just for software, no training, etc. 

Mind you, Catia is great software and there are some designs that cannot be done, except for Catia.  But $85k just for the software?  
    - Scott Shuppert
    CAD/CAM Services, Inc.

The editor replies: I had heard it was expensive, but that level of pricing goes back to the 1980s when Intergraph used to be $100,000 a seat.
- - -
 
This ["Solidworks works well for the lone designer who spends his time completing relatively uncomplicated parts"] is an exact description of how things work in my world. Dassault is completely out of touch with that, and unable to reconcile the fact that they produce a mere tool for the engineer, not an "experience". 

The reason that they have to charge so much for Solidworks is that it's the only good tool that they have to sell, but it has to bring in that $650,000,000 per year to spend on R&D [research and development] on non-Solidworks projects, which mostly exist to satisfy the top tier of executives' desire to be known as something other than the bosses of a company that makes a tool.

As usual, a great analysis of the bizarre state of Solidworks.
    - Jess Davies

The editor replies: Dassault is the biggest CAD vendor by revenues, nearly double that of Autodesk.

Mr Davies responds: They are successful, no doubt, but their successful product, Solidworks, doesn't seem to be the result of their current strategy. It's a testament to the quality of the product that its sales can support the level of non-related spending that they seem to be doing.

Going to Solidworks was one of the best business decisions I've made. It's a vastly superior tool for design and documentation than what we used before (Microstation and AutoCAD). It's also very nearly identical right now to the version we started with over 10 years ago.  
- - -
 
Listen: If I was at that conference, I would have stood up in the midst of the silence and BOOED. (I guess your article achieved the audience reaction.) Great reporting as usual!
    - Cadman

The editor replies: When you watch the videos of the keynotes, you see that the silence is as effective as any booing.

Mr Cadman responds: There you have it: Polite booing vs. vulgar booing. LOL!
- - -
 
Thanks for this issue of upFront, very interesting to read. The following part got me thinking: "With its CGM solid and surface modeler, Dassault has arguably the most powerful CAD code out there"

Could you elaborate some more on why you consider CGM is the the most powerful modeler?
Is there some objective way to compare the features and capabilities of CGM, Parasolid, ACIS, C3D, etc? Or is it more a ranking based on experience?
    - Gustav Naslund 
    GN Tech, Sweden

The editor replies: It was just a guess by me, given the tasks it has to perform in car and plane designs.

As for objectively comparing the features and capabilities of CGM, Parasolid, ACIS, C3D, and the others, it pays to remember that there are two aspects to a modeler: (a) the functions it has built in, and (b) the functions a CAD vendor decides to implement, and how. 

Another ranking could be by sales, by which Parasolid leads.
- - -
 
Interesting reading, interesting writing.
    - Herb Grabowski
- - -
 
I thought your Dassault screed was killer -- make sure your doors are locked and guns loaded.
    -  Jon Peddie

[More responses from readers to last week's issue in the Letters to the Editor section, below.]

And In Other News
In June, I'll be reporting from Graphisoft's 8th Key Customer Conference, this year taking place in Las Vegas during the same week as the AIA Conference on Architecture 2019. 

Also in June, I'll be at Hexagon's annual HxGN Live 2019 conference, also in Las Vegas, with an emphasis on the PPM division, which includes Intergraph and Bricsys. More info from hxgnlive.com/2019
- - -
If you don't use a workstation (and even if you do), Dr. Jon Peddie is wondering what people really think about what makes up a "workstation." Take the five-minute survey, and then optionally get a copy of the results later on. surveymonkey.com/r/G2QW37HupFRONT
- - -
Nanosoft's DWG-based nanoCAD Mechanica software had been a 2D-only mechanism design program. Then for the new Mechanica 9.0 release, they added the C3D Modeler geometric kernel from C3D Labs to turn it into a 3D solid modeler; Nanosoft also added the C3D Converter for data exchange.
- - -
Anthony Frausto-Robledo at Archintosh lands the first interview with the new head of Nemetschek Group, following its realignment into groups: architosh.com/2019/04/toward-a-billion-euro-company-patrik-heider-discusses-nemetscheks-new-formulation/
 
In related new, Nemetschek Group reports its strongest quarterly growth in several years: Q1 revenues were up 27.1% to EUR 129.9 million (about US$143 million).

Letters to the Editor

Re: pCloud

Many thanks for the info on pCloud. I was happy to find that it has block-level sync, which is important for keeping within the 150GB limit on my internet plan.
    - Dairobi Paul
    CAD Networks, Australia

The editor replies: pCoud seems to have seen all the good and bad points in Dropbox and Box.
 

Re: Revit Launch

Can you locate the original texts of Revit's promotional/sales comments that appeared on its original website (pre-Autodesk takeover)?

Their pointed comparisons of Revit with AutoCAD were witty and, at the time, compelling. In fact, their outright (jolly, not cruel) mockery of the sheer clunkiness of AutoCAD seemed to vindicate the frustrations of many of us, who have had to deal with Auto CAD's endless tips-&-tricks, workarounds, etc., to do the most straightforward architectural work. We assume that Autodesk suppressed the verbiage?

As a non-mech. eng., your own comments on our industry are always interesting, amplifying an architect's awareness of design tools.

Also, not that it matters: is the locus of the 2000 launch in Widener Library, a spruced-up Freshman Union, or other venue? Just curious.
    - Michael Rubin, architect 

The editor replies: I don't have any promotional material from the event, but here is part of my write-up from upFront.eZine #196: 
 
Four o'clock and time for the Revit event at the Aurthur M Sackler lecture hall. There are 125 invited attendees, but very few media. From what I and others could see, there is no one from CADalyst, Cadence, or Penton Publishing. 

Revit ceo Dale Lemont hosts the two-hour event, calling this "an important moment in the history of CAD." The parametric architectural software will be sold by monthly subscription. In stark contrast to SolidWorks, Revit will have no resellers -- everything by the Web. Nobody says it for sure, but I finally decide that Revit is short for "revise it."

Dale refreshingly admits much is missing from Revit, and that the following functions will be added over the next 24 months: massing studies, stacking, canted walls, sloping structures, turn on more AccuRender functions, multi-user enhancements, estimation at all stages, product catalogs, schedules, architectural detailing, Web collaboration, ASP capabilities, landscape, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical.

The product will be available in early May; delivery has slipped by two weeks. A new release is promised every 90 days in the first year -- "Tough on us book authors," I note wryly to the Revit employee sitting near me.

The product launch is followed by dinner in the courtyard of the Fogg Art Museum, located across the street. The museum features a small but broad collection of art: religious, African, modern, and classical. My wife would have enjoyed viewing the paintings by van Gough, Monet, and Renoir. 

Each of our name tags have a color. I find out that -- ironically enough -- green indicates you had ordered beef, while red indicates vegetarian; my color was yellow, for salmon.

On one side of me sits a representative from Atlas Ventures, who asks me what I thought of Revit and the launch. How do you answer a man who has sunk millions of dollars into this?

On the other side of me sits Brad Holtz (of CAD Rating Guide fame) and next to him, Geoffrey Langdon (of architectural CAD shootout fame). The thought underlying this whole event is "Solidworks or Numera?" Would Revit rocket into orbit, or burn out at the launch pad? We reminisce over CAD ventures that have burned through their money over the years. Brad declared himself the winner in remembering the worst CAD launch ever: TriumphCAD spent all its money on ads -- no product ever shipped. 

We muse over Revit's business model. "How long does Revit have before investors would want their money back?" The problem with a monthly subscription model is that money trickles in more slowly. Take 60 Revit employees earning an average of US$100,000/yr each. Assume Revit nets $100/mo per subscription. That means they need 5,000 subscriptions just to break even. "The question is," summarizes Brad, "How long will it take to ramp up to 5,000 subscriptions?" As I write this, I also wonder about "subscription churn" where gains from new subscribers are offset by losses from unsubscribers. 

Just as we complete our analysis, an earnest young Revit employee comes by our table to introduce himself. "I'm in charge of developing the business model in conjunction with Harvard Business School," he explains. The three of us roar with laughter: "Funny you should mention that..." We give him our analysis -- at no charge.

Mr Rubin responds: Revit's business model asked for $200/mo [back then]. I negotiated them down to $100/mo. At the Autodesk takeover, I was allowed an annual renewal subscription that began at about $700, without the separate purchase price (or whatever it was called) of about $4.000.

BTW: Revit is short for "revise Instantly"

Clearly, Dassault and Autodesk market to the large corporations and design firms, caring little for independent professionals. Many of us are grateful that Autodesk at least marketed and continued to develop Revit Architecture, rather than burying the patent/copyright altogether, since it instantly made their flagship AutoCAD obsolete [for the architecture market].

And it is astonishing that they have also managed to persuade customers to keep paying for said AutoCAD. Baffling -- and successful -- business model?
 

Re: DraftSight No Longer free

With Draftsight becoming 'unfree', how long before Autodesk sticks it to the low end users of Fusion 360? The worried brows at San Rafael might be licking their lips now.
    - Brian McKenzie

The editor replies: The only reason for a corporation to have something free is to gain more customers, to whom more can be sold. Or out of competition. So, yah.
- - -
 
IIRC [if I recall correctly], the last time I re-registered Draftsight (the forgotten other leg of the stool from Dassault Systemes) it said that the free version of Draftsight would go away in a year. 
    - Scott Taylor

The editor replies: I haven't had a need to touch DraftSight in a couple of years, so I would not have seen that. Thanks for the IIRC!

Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
  • Arnold van der Weide
  • Michael D Rubin
Should you wish to support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are like these: Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected].

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.
 

Notable Quotable
"Two 21st century employment categories, which are tantalizingly trendy, are 'aspiring rapper' and 'social media influencer'."
    - David Burge (@iowahawkblog on Twitter)
*5428 

Posted at 01:00 AM in Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Readers Respond to 'Will Computers Revolt?'

Issue #1,001

 

 
This issue sponsored by


Discover the A-B-Cs of BricsCAD at the inaugural Australasia BricsCAD Conference
19 March 2019 in Brisbane, Australia
Book your tickets at http://www.trybooking.com/YIUA

Readers Respond

Will Computers Revolt?

 
Best thing I've read in years! I've been deep into the MIT AGI courses (online) and absorbing the views and assertions of everyone interviewed on Lex Fridman's YouTube channel. So many angles and levels to this discussion.

It's as tough as defining "existence" itself. One aspect that rarely gets much attention is the legal ramifications. For example, it's been argued that once your thoughts/memories are uploaded outside your corporeal body, they no longer belong to you exclusively. Much like who has legal rights to your cloud content. 

And if your original biological construct is augmented with mechanical, or even bio-engineered replacements, at what point can responsibility and liability be challenged for any subsequent actions? 

In short, when I opened your newsletter this time it was like I won the lottery. Thank you! :)
    - David Stein

The editor replies: Thanks for your added insights. I hadn't thought about the legal aspects.

- - -
Personally I think the Swiss cheese metaphor, pointing to the obvious technology gaps, is not a particularly strong defense. Who could have anticipated how machines can now beat humans in games like Jeopardy and Go, the logic and intuition of game playing, captured in a computer program. Perhaps a simulated consciousness could also be programmable.
    - Dave Jeffries

The editor replies: It turns out that the problem with AI playing Jeopardy and Go is that the algorithms are "not scalable," to use the computer term. This means that the AI code for Go cannot teach itself beyond Go by playing something else, like checkers or chess, or going on to diagnose cancer.

This major admission was made just a few months ago by one of the leaders of AI programming. Here is what the problem is, known as Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem (see https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/limits-artificial-intelligence):

Only humans can act in ignorance, or refuse to follow what truth they know, or go beyond a given set of rules. 
A computer must follow what truth is programmed into it, inexorably proceeding from one step to another, never able to transcend itself, never to recognize, and never go against or beyond its own consistency. 

Mr Jeffries responds: I am certainly out of my depth here. i do agree that it is difficult to see how machines could ever become conscious in the way humans are. but I do think that, just as the skills of driving and playing Go have been simulated, it might be possible to program a simulated consciousness. 

It seems that Alexa at least is headed that way:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40479207/for-amazon-the-future-of-alexa-is-about-the-end-of-the-smartphone-era

i keep thinking of the movie version of I, Robot. Have you seen that?

The editor replies: I saw it when it first came out -- in a movie theatre, no less! There is, however, a vast difference between what is claimed as possible (a million people living on Mars -- I doubt that will ever happen -- or traveling faster than the speed of light, as in Star Trek), and what we can actually accomplish.

One of the flaws in humans is that we think linearly into the future. So we take a couple of possible actions, like:
     1. We traveled to a space station
     2. We traveled to the moon
And then we extrapolate linearly:
     3. We can also travel to Mars
     4. We can also travel to other galaxies, really quickly

What we cannot predict are Black Swans (or chaos events, like the Yellow Jacket movement in France or spaceships exploding in space) that disrupt the present and so cause a severe swerve to a different future.

- - -
"In my lifetime, the singularity will happen. But why does everyone think they'd be hostile? That's our brain assuming it's evil. Why on earth would it need to be? People are just terrified of change."

This is wrong, and it must stop. It's not only emotionally disturbing, it's physically disturbing. Other than an academic achievement, there is little merit to it. The potential for being evil is there, with dire uncontrollable consequences for the human race. It's not worth the risk. It will be attempted by more than one "pristine" individual, with little or no oversight. It can become uncontrollable. Look at the recent flack the Chinese genetic expert, Dr. He, caused with world's first gene-edited babies.
    - Dik Coates 
    Canada
- - -
I don't think computers will take over; rather, business leaders will see them as a means to cut costs, even in creative industries. Many of the manual functions of design work will be handed over to them. This includes things like building-layout AI for architecture, detailing using massive material and construction databases, and CAC (computer-aided construction). 

Once BIM is married to programmatical front ends (Python, AI scripting), you will see whole new fields evolve.
    - Dave Edwards
    Dave Edwards Consulting

- - -
My personal thinking is that there is no way human brain can be computerized, simply by the fact that each human being has a unique, personal model. We will see how readers will react. Frankly, I got lost in some of the expressions used -- they are simply beyond me.
    - Herb Grabowski

The editor replies: The Singularity suffered a setback last week when nVIdia ceo Jensen Huang declared Moore's Law dead.
 
- - -
I don't think AI will be hostile by design or by default, but it is entirely possible that (after careful analysis) AI will just conclude the world, as a whole, would be better off without us! 

Not my idea, but one that I agree with. It is perhaps best expressed in Marshall Brain’s (yes, really!) book The Second Intelligent Species: How Humans Will Become as Irrelevant as Cockroaches, which looks at the potential social and economic impact of AI. See Amazon http://a.co/d/iqU0Lb6
    - Robin Capper
    New Zealand

- - -
You wrote, “Some estimate the brain's power to be 30 terraflops at the low end, and 1,000 terraflops at the upper end.”

More important than big numbers is that it has to be an analogue computer, not a digital one. However hi-res a digital simulation is, there still are no-data gaps between the [discrete] data points, which have to be extrapolated. In real life, the universe, brains, etc don’t have such gaps – their data is continuous.

Chaos Theory (which isn’t really chaos, but stupendously fine-grained determinism complicated by multiple-solution nonlinear equations) shows that the tiny fluctuations (the flap of the butterfly wings) are the very things that tip a fine balance into a major phenomenon (hurricanes).

Digital simulations (or neural nets) can never be so hi-res as to capture all, most, or even any of the subtlest fluctuations which happen undetected in those data gaps, and almost never precisely on the data point. So digital has to assume that the tiniest fluctuations are insignificant.

Lesson no.1 of Chaos Theory is that those tiniest fluctuations are (or may prove to be) in fact the all-important ones. The only computer powerful enough to simulate the universe is the universe itself. Not quite the same size-logic, but probably the only computer capable of really, fully simulating the human brain, is the brain itself.
    - Tom Foster
    Tom Foster Architecture, England

The editor replies: Your statement that the brain is analogue is better than my statement that it doesn't perform floating point operations. Thanks for that!

- - -
That's a great book review and some good philosophy.  I shared it around with a couple of non-CAD, non-tech relatives.
    - Jess Davis, president
    Davis Precision Design, Inc.

The editor responds: I am glad you found it useful. It is an aspect of AI that people in technology have little interest in addressing, and that the mainstream media doesn't understand.

- - -
Your Ship of Theseus​ reference reminded me of a visit to the famous USS Constitution in Boston a few years ago. I turned to one of the Navy people and jokingly said "Wow! I didn't know they had polypropylene rope in the 1700's!" He replied that modern air pollution was destroying the original rope material. I asked how much of the ship was still original and he looked around carefully before whispering, "A few planks down near the keel."
    - Bill Fane

The editor replies: Similarly, all dinosaurs skeletons on public display at places like the Royal Tyrrell Museum are fiberglass replicas, and most of the castles in Europe were expertly reconstructed in the last century, except for a few rows of stone down near the ground.
 
ARES KUDO: MODERN DWG EDITING IN THE CLOUD

 

ARES Kudo is the only online CAD solution
offering a full set of 2D features to read, create, modify, and
share DWG and DXF drawings.

Nothing to install. It runs in your Web browser and your files follow you on any device. ARES Kudo is integrated with cloud storage services like Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, OneDrive, OneDrive for Business -- and industry-specific solutions such as Onshape and Trimble Connect. 

Visit www.graebert.com/areskudo to learn more
and activate your own free trial at kudo.graebert.com

Sponsor: Okino Graphics


== Okino's PolyTrans|CAD Software for Professional 'Load & Go' 3D Conversions == 
 
For over three decades, mission-critical 3D conversion software from Okino of Toronto has been used effectively by tens of thousands of professionals. We develop, support, and convert between all major CAD, DCC, and VisSim formats. CTO Robert Lansdale and his team tailors each package to the specific conversion requirements or problems of each customer.

Popular CAD data sources we support include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at [email protected] 

http://www.okino.com

Letters to the Editor

Re: Issue #1,000


Congratulations on publishing your 1,000th newsletter.
    - Don Beaton

- - -
Congratulations Ralph! That's an unbelievable milestone to reach. I must admit I haven't read them all, but I read a lot of them, since CAD has been my profession from the very beginning. I still own a very old AutoCAD user manual. I think it's 1986 or so. Thanks for all the good work and keep it up, old fellow! ;-)
    - Siem Eikelenboom
     The Netherlands

- - -
This is a remarkable achievement, particularly when one considers the consistently high level of quality information you deliver with every issue. 

I retired a few years ago and have no direct use for the information you provide. I scan some of your articles and am always impressed by where you go for a story and the quality of your presentation. I would not have missed receiving this issue or writing this complimentary note for anything. 

God bless you. I wish you and yours the very best.
    - Carl Howk

- - -
Congrats on a 1,000 issues -- seems like only yesterday. 
    - Dave Edwards
    Dave Edwards Consulting

- - -
My colleagues and I admire your unique and fruitful activity on promotion of all that is meaningful in the domain of engineering software. Sending you our congratulations and best wishes on your 1000th anniversary. 
    - David Levin
    Ledas, Russia

- - -
Congratulations on 1,000 issues. I didn't see much CAD content in this one, aside from the duck drawing complete with an intestinal spline, yet an important topic to consider. I found it very worthwhile reading, as usual, and am looking forward to many more issues!
    - Doug Vander Wilt

The editor replies: I had considered stopping at issue #999 or maybe #1,001, but there is too much happening in the CAD world to stop right now. In anniversary issues, I usually look back in time. But this time I thought I would look forward to the most forward thinking topic there is: AI replacing the human brain.

- - -
Wow! Congratulations on reaching the 1K milestone Ralph! 

And what a topic to explore. I’m sure there will be a lot of comments on that piece -- very interesting to see where modern thought takes us. I rather side with the apostle Paul who wrote to Christians in Corinth, “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” Those are the things worth being human for.

Thanks again for the CAD news.
    - Ron Powell 

- - -
Congratulations on issue #1,000!  That is a great accomplishment.  That has to make you #1 in this arena.
    - Jim Balding
    The ANT Group

Thank You, Readers!
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
  • Risto Juhani Saarikko, Canada
  • Key Glass LLC, USA
  • Jim Balding at The ANT Group: "Ralph, I don't know how you do it. You never fail to bring straight-shooting CAD information from all over the globe. Thanks for your continued dedication to us, the readers."
Should you wish to support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are like these: Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected].

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.
 

Notable Quotable
"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more specific."
     - Jane Wagner,  Slashdot 2018-12-01; h.t. to D.B.
*5583

 

Posted at 01:00 PM in Book Reviews, Readers Respond | | Comments (0)

Sunday, February 04, 2018

Readers Respond to Autodesk's Subscription Woes

Issue #966

 

Damn good article Ralph: keep up the good work.
    -Dean Saadallah
    http://pendean.com
- - -

The issue with using third-party software is often that the client (which in many cases is the US government) specifies AutoCAD or Revit by name in the contract. If you're going to meet the government requirements for many projects, you have no choice but to subscribe to Autodesk software. I can't imagine what third-party developers are thinking when they have to compete against a government-issued mandate.

I recently consulted for a firm that had finished their entire project in AutoCAD, only to find out it had a BIM requirement. The contract specifically stated "Autodesk Revit version 2014 and AutoCAD Civil 3D." 

Architects can't name manufacturers in their specifications, so how can the government specify a specific software vendor?

is it possible to fulfill these contracts with software other than Revit? AutoCAD and even Sketchup technically can do "BIM," but you can't work with an engineering firm who uses Revit unless you provide Revit files. I'm really hoping we will see IFC > RVT converters soon. Or something - anything!
    - Dave Edwards
    Dave Edwards Consulting

The editor replies: In 2017 Autodesk spent $410,000 lobbying the US federal government. Competitors like PTC, Dassault Systemes, and Bentley Systems spent essentially zero.

With the API development that the Open Design Alliance is doing, lots of translation and CAD vendors are starting to add Revit import and, eventually, Revit export. The lock Autodesk holds in certain jurisdictions may come to an end in a few years time.
- - -

You weren’t kidding about the annual maintenance “bump”. We got hit with a 31% maintenance renewal increase this year. I asked for clarification on why such a large increase but was met with only silence.
    - Jim Koerner, systems administrator
    Zeppelin Systems 

The editor replies: Autodesk has been very public about the reason: it is jacking up the price to force you off your valuable permanent license.

Mr Koerner responds: "We actually have an inside Autodesk sales rep due to a global agreement we have. I think he just didn't feel like answering my question on the price increase."
- - - 
Current Autodesk deferred revenue is $1.333 billion. So under the old selling method the loss would have been $0.05 billion. The graph (https://www.cadnauseam.com/2017/12/06/adsk-bubble-trouble/) really should be showing deferred revenue in the graph to get a better look at the overall financial picture.
     - Christopher Fugitt (@C3DReminders via Twitter)
- - -
Interesting post this time and very relevant to my situation. I was in the Autodesk maintenance camp until I walked away from it all 12-15-17. 

I refuse to be an ATM told to spit money out until I run dry. Loyalty is a two-way street and has to be earned. 

In the three years I was with Inventor Pro HSM, I can honestly say that the improvements were not worth the cost of the yearly payments; support was pretty well limited to getting you up and running. After that, it was cost-per-incident or per-year, no doubt with a cap of some sort. 

The online forums were the best and really only line of support unless $$$$$. HSM is worthwhile (when it was solid with perpetual seats; Fusion360 is where silly people dwell) but to buy it for what it does, and not what they are promising someday, maybe, we hope it will do. The current version of HSM does what I want, and I am not buying new equipment for some time, so for years to come I don't need new CAM software. 

If I did, it would be funded by new products and a need for new tech in my shop and absolutely will NOT be subscription-anything. Like you, if the end result is the most important thing then I can survive well with what I have for many years. 

I would have been willing for Autodesk to get money from me at the same original price and perpetual seats only. The day they decided to dictate what I was going to get (and with this year's new increased price) was the day I walked. I was a customer and that implies voluntary transaction with value for both parties being determined and agreeable.

Adobe Photoshop 7 still does all I need. Anyone who uses Inventor and Solid Edge will have no trouble choosing SE so that solves CAD. Solid Edge and HSM will do all I need past 2025, when I intend to quit working full-time. I wonder how Autodesk will make money off my new company policy where I am telling them what I won't do?
    - Dave Ault

The editor replies: Weird thing is how maintenance isn't even needed:
  • For tech problems, we just look up the answer on the Internet; someone else will have already solved it.
  • For software updates, we usually don't need them
Mr Ault responds: AMEN to that. I still can get tech support for HSM from the forums, which I could not get from Autodesk -- unless I spent money when I was a paying customer.
- - -

Excellent article!  Perfectly summarizes Autodesk’s situation and provides a great comparison with Adobe.
    - Dairobi Paul
    CAD Networks Pty, Australia
- - -

Great write-up on the Autodesk subscription fiasco.

Of course, that problem that they claim to be solving is completely self-inflicted. That flawed strategy of annual releases was created by them, not by their customers. And I contend that the same is true of mechanical CAD software.  If I had the theoretical feature set of Solidworks 2006, my mechanical design business would work fine. There has been very little actual improvement in mechanical software in the last 12 years, and most of that improvement has consisted of making theoretical features actually work.

Bottom line, to me, is that solid modeling software is $500-$1000 software.  The fact that their business models demands $5000-$10000 to stay aloft indicates a problem with the business model, not a problem with their software, nor a problem with their customers.
    - Jess Davis, president
    Davis Precision Design, Inc.

The editor replies: The same goes for basic drafting techniques like dimensions and hatching. So many variables for the computer to control that the hand does naturally.
 

The Rest of the News
Mark Pesce announces the death of Moore's Law, age 53. Mr Law died after branch prediction, designed to overcome the hilltopping of CPU speeds, required amputation. Mr Law is survived by GPUs and software optimization. RIP 2 January 2018.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/24/death_notice_for_moores_law/
- - -
For 2018, AGACAD is working on specific intelligent workflows for parking garages, bridges, smart fabrication, packaging, logistics planning. Take a BIM model from 3D point cloud data and with a few mouse clicks depict it on a HoloLens display. http://www.aga-cad.com/
- - -
"Elon Musk’s new Tesla compensation plan only pays if he delivers." Gosh, that's been my compensation plan all along.
- - -
CADENAS is hosting the 19th Industry Forum Mar 7-8 in Augsburg Germany on the subject of " trends, methods of intelligent finding, process optimization in engineering, increase in sales and Industry 4.0." Register through https://www.industry-forum.biz/registration
- - -
A. I. = artificial ignorance. I like this redefinition, as it spells out our ignorance of how the blackboxes of AI algorithms arrive at their decisions.
- - -
Festo AG & Co launched the online version of their configuration software Festo Design Tool 3D in cooperation with CADENAS GmbH. The http://www.festo.com/FDT-3D-online configuration site is up and working. It's easy to use: click a green ball to see acceptable additions.
- - -
I'm thinking back to when the mainstream media mocked US vp Pence for his "never alone in a room with a woman not my wife" policy. Today, the mainstream media is on the flip side of things, tsk-tsk'ing inappropriately horny men from the me-too bandwagon.
- - -
If you're facing forced subscriptions by Autodesk, ZWSOFT reminds you of their five-pack offer: maintain full ownership and get 20% off.
  • ZWCAD 2018  net $640 each
  • ZWCAD Architecture 2018 net $1200 each 
  • ZWCAD Mechanical 2018 net $1040
https://www.zwdirect.com/downloadbuy.html 
- - -
"My problem with Google is that I just can't rely on them to support their offerings. For example, I used to find both My Tracks and Picasa simple, easy to use and useful. Google's dropped both." More great comments at https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/
 
- - -
For late-breaking CAD news, follow upFront.eZine on Twitter at @upfrontezine.

Letters to the Editor

Re:  After Ten Years, IntelliCAD Holds a Conference

In your IntelliCAD update in issue #965, you said IntelliCAD arrived at Visio from Softdesk via Autodesk and pointed out that it is a long story (that's an understatement). Quick correction, Visio acquired IntelliCAD from Boomerang Technology, which was comprised of the original developers.
    - Robert Drummer
- - -
Congrats to our client IntelliCAD.
    -HBC Lawyers (via Twitter)
- - -

"AMAZON plans to put camera, microphone in every bedroom."  I remember when the same was said of 3D printers. Never did happen.

I remember when same was said in 1935 in ‘1984’ (or was it ‘Brave New World’? never can remember). Never did happen --– until now.
    - Tom Foster
    Tom Foster Architecture, England

The editor replies: The number of cameras in public outdoor areas and in businesses is startling. I suppose the 2-3 cameras on each cell phone could count towards the bedroom number.

Mr Foster responds: Cameras we're kinda used to, can maybe hide from. Speech collection
throughout the house is something else and is already here.

While we're at it: Foveated rendering is a seriously useful technology for following what the eyes glance at (without need for tiny mirrors on eyeballs or contact lenses in lab research). It out-classes clicks and likes by a mile for meta-data collection, not to mention surveillance of thoughts and interests.
- - -

"Upon the next crisis, the rules will suddenly change for the benefit of the elites; not the rest of us." 

During a friendly conversation with an engineering associate, he commented on the above subject as follows: "Those who make the rules, make the rules for those who make the rules."
 
I've been considering a Chinese program called ZW3D. Every hear of it?
    - CADman

The editor replies: It used to be known as VX. It was bought by ZWSOFT and I think that the programmers are still based in Florida.


 

Thank You, Readers!
Should you wish to support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are like these: Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.comand the account of [email protected].

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.
 

Notable Quotable
"Numerous declarations about the 'death of drawings' have nothing to do with the reality. since the refusal of drawings is equivalent to the refusal of understanding."
    - Alexander Yampolsky
 *6324

Posted at 01:00 PM in Readers Respond | | Comments (1)

Older »

Advertisements


Search This Blog


  •  

Recent Comments

Translate

Subscribe to this blog's feed

About

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

Thank you for visiting!