Deelip.com

AutoCAD Scale Nightmare

2009-07-06T09:50:00.002+05:30

Having recently built my house using AutoCAD as one of the CAD systems, I can relate to this story. A UK couple who are building their 1 million pound dream home are fighting a battle with authorities who are looking to tear it down - all because the blue prints were automatically scaled down by 4 percent to fit the page.

"When the plans have been printed out, we didn't realise the printer had reduced them by 4 per cent and these were the plans that were passed", said Colin Walker, the 50 year old owner of the house. "The trouble is that the plans were drawn up with AutoCAD and it's dangerous to use a scale ruler because printers often have these discrepancies with computer aided design. This is why the plans clearly state that all the dimensions should be checked or measured on site and not scaled from the drawing. However, plans containing full dimensions were subsequently submitted to West Lancs building control."

Unfortunately, the plans approved were the original scaled down drawings and the authorities are now taking the stand that Walker is building a house 4 percent larger than what they approved. Walker has already lost an appeal against the enforcement notice and now hopes that the High Court will stop the demolition of his four bedroom home. Apart from the scale problem, there are 15 other discrepancies between the approved plans and the currently built structure. I wish him luck.

Source

Inventor Fusion Is Finally Out, But...

2009-06-25T19:43:00.003+05:30

...it is not what they say it is. At least, not yet. All that marketing talk about "uniting direct and parametric workflows" is just that - talk. Inventor Fusion Technology Preview 1 is just a preview of the direct modeling workflow and has nothing related to the history side of things. And this is precisely how the brains at Autodesk Marketing appear to have planned it. According to the Autodesk press release, the "technology preview is the first step in delivering the full vision of Inventor Fusion". So instead of releasing their "full vision", Autodesk intends to dish it out in installments, thereby dragging this issue for as long as they possibly can. I am not sure whether this approach is designed get people like me to write about Fusion as much as possible, although it certainly looks that way. Frankly, after all that noise, I don't think so the world is interested in seeing part of their vision, especially the part which just about every other CAD vendor has already implemented.

Don't get me wrong. I have been playing around with Fusion for the past three weeks now and its direct modeling capabilities are great. But truth be told, Direct Modeling has ceased to amaze me, especially after seeing what SpaceClaim, Synchronous Technolgy and the other CAD systems that came before them can do. What will amaze me is the "fusion" part. The part where Inventor Fusion will let me open a history based model, let me thrash it around and then let me save it back to a history based model. This will be part of Technology Preview 2, which is due to be released late summer.

Kevin Schneider, Product Manager, Manufacturing Emerging Products and Technologies at Autodesk, could not be more explicit when he told me exactly what Fusion will eventually be able to do:

"[Technology Preview 2] will allow history free edits made in Fusion on Inventor native data to be read back into Inventor and converted into features. And this is not tweak features at the end of the tree. The changes will be to the source features. This allow users to make traditional parametric edits to their Inventor data using Inventor or use Fusion to make history free edits to the same data and then have those edits be converted automatically as parametric feature edits if they need them. This is truly giving customers the best of booth."

Usually companies spend years on a new technology using code names and shrouded in secrecy. Then when they are ready they go ahead and make a big splash. Someone at Autodesk decided to do exactly the opposite.

This is more like a strip tease and I am pissed because I am not yet feeling horny. Wake me up when she's about to take it all off.

I Love My Company But...

2009-06-25T17:15:00.001+05:30

...maybe not this much.

The Magic of COFES

2009-06-25T15:41:00.004+05:30

As I was asking the bartender for a beer at the Scottsdale Plaza during COFES 2009, so was another person. We shook hands, introduced ourselves to each other and began a conversation, which then spilled over to another beer.

This person was Francis Cadin, the CEO of DATAKIT, a French CAD software company that specializes in data exchange software. Technically, DATAKIT and SYCODE are business rivals because we have have a few products that overlap. So needless to say, Francis and I, knew quite a bit about each others companies, but we knew absolutely nothing about each other. However, a warm handshake followed by a couple of beers had changed all that. We really enjoyed our conversation, at the end of which, we exchanged business cards and decided to stay in touch.

And stay in touch we did. So much so that today DATAKIT and SYCODE issued a joint press release announcing a collaboration to offer hi-end Data Exchange solutions. DATAKIT's strength lies in their ability to read and write native file formats like CATIA, Pro/ENGINEER, SolidWorks, Solid Edge, Inventor, etc. whereas SYCODE's strength lies in developing plug-ins for a wide range of CAD systems. DATAKIT also developing plug-ins, but not for as wide a range of CAD system like SYCODE and SYCODE also has the ability to read and write native file formats, but not as wide a range as DATAKIT. So by simply adding the two together we will now be able to offer hi-end native file format import and export plug-ins for almost all the major CAD systems.

Its a win-win situation for everyone - DATAKIT, SYCODE and our customers. Funny thing is that this kind of a partnership never struck either of us in all these years. Its a wonder what a couple of beers and the right kind of atmosphere can do to business rivals.

And that, precisely, is the magic of COFES.

Linear and Non-Linear Modeling

2009-06-16T11:31:00.004+05:30

For those interested in the Direct Modeling and History Based Modeling discussion, I strongly recommend that you read this post at the Solid DNA Blog on Linear and Non-Linear Modeling. I don't believe the idea here is to throw another couple of terms and add to the confusion. Rather, the author uses the terms "linear" and "non-linear" to put his views across in a simple and straightforward manner. Definitely worth a read.

ODA and LEDAS Get Constrained

2009-06-15T15:02:00.005+05:30

Earlier I had mentioned that there were some interesting things going in the ODA on the technology front. Today I can tell you what. The ODA and LEDAS, a Russian software company, formalized their partnership by issuing a press release announcing that LEDAS would implement their LGS 2D Geometric and Dimensional Constraint Solver into DWGdirect, a main component of the ODA Platform. This will give all ODA members (and hence ITC members as well) the ability to have a 2D constraint system in their applications, something that was introduced in AutoCAD 2010. So when the ITC does come out with IntelliCAD 7.0 (whenever that may be), every ITC member will be able to license the constraint technology from LEDAS and offer a similar constraint system as AutoCAD 2010.

At the ODA World Conference in Leiden, Holland, this April, LEDAS presented their proof of concept - A DRX plug-in running inside Bricscad, the only DWGdirect hosted application in the market. Earlier the same day, Siemens had made a similar presentation, showing their 2D DCM (Dimensional Constraint Manager), the constraint management system licensed by Autodesk for use in AutoCAD 2010. It looks like LEDAS beat Siemens to it.

I had a feeling that it would turn out this way. I remember the Siemens presentation ending with the presenter saying something like, "If there is sufficient interest among ODA members then we can consider working towards implementing 2D DCM into ODA technology". Then later in the day, LEDAS floored the audience with their Bricscad plug-in. "We have already done it", was how the LEDAS presenter started his presentation.

It will be interesting to see how good the LEDAS constraint system turns out to be. 2D DCM is seasoned technology used in a number of CAD systems for a number of years. LEDAS is basically a outsourcing company that uses its revenue earned though it outsourcing activities to fund the development of technologies like LGS 2D and 3D (yes, they have a 3D solver as well). But as far as high end scientific and mathematical software like solvers is concerned, the Russians do it like no other. Also, as far as licensing cost is concerned, I suspect that LEDAS would be able to offer ODA members a sweeter deal than Siemens.

I don't think we will need to wait for long to find out. I suspect LGS 2D will soon find its way into a not so distant version of Bricscad.

Critical Bugs and Stop Ship Issues

2009-06-15T09:18:00.003+05:30

After reading my opinions in the last couple of posts and comments on the issue of bugs and known issues some readers of this blog think that I have lost it. I now know why. It appears that my readers and I are not talking about the same thing, and maybe I am to blame for that.

Throughout this discussion I have used the word "crash" in conjunction with "bug" to signify that I am talking about bugs that cause a crash, not "this-tool-does-not-work-that-way or that-tool-does-not-work-this-way" kind of logical bugs. I am talking Crash! Boom! Bang! here.

As always, things are best explained by means of an example. So I will use one that I talked about on this blog earlier - the AutoCAD PolyFace Mesh issue. After I reported the problem to Autodesk (for the second time), they analyzed it, admitted it was a bug, limitation or whatever you want to call it, after which they arrived at the conclusion that it was not a "stop ship issue". Means it didn't cause a crash. Means there was no need to stop shipping the product. Surely reporting that a mesh has -1218 vertices and 0 faces (see image) is as big a bug as can be. But it didn't cause a crash. So they went ahead and released AutoCAD 2010 with this bug/limitation. And this kind of a bug is precisely what I have NOT been talking about.

Compare this to what Kevin Quigley said in a comment:

"I am talking about bugs that are logged in the system as bugs, that are perhaps not critical but cause features to fail or behave inconsistently. These are bugs, they are logged as bugs and they are released as known bugs - just look at the release notes of any application under 'known issues'. In your utopian programmers world no software should be released like this? Really? That is a recipe for bankruptcy."

Clearly we are talking two very different things here. Lets be clear. Bugs that cause crashes are critical bugs, stop ship issues or whatever fancy term that a developer many choose to use to describe them. My point is that no self respecting developer, whether it is a mammoth company like SolidWorks or a puny outfit like SYCODE, will (or rather should) ship a software with a critical bug that causes a crash. And if they have to release the software for whatever reason, they will (or rather should) convert it into a known issue by hard coding a check just before the crash occurs which make the operation abort gracefully. I don't think I can be more clear that that.

Now if any user (SolidWorks or otherwise) can show me a critical bug (which caused a crash) that was reported and which was not addressed in a future service pack or new version, I would appreciate it.

Of course, contrary to what some think, I happen to live in the real world and can understand if a few critical bugs slip though the cracks. But for users to come up in arms like the way they have, these issues have to be much more than just a "few".

Bugs and Known Issues

2009-06-14T21:22:00.004+05:30

In the comments to my last post "Users and Non-Users", a couple of SolidWorks users leveled what I believe to be a pretty serious accusation against SolidWorks. They claim that SolidWorks finds bugs in their software, does not fix them due to lack of time and goes ahead and releases the software. As a software developer I find this pretty hard to believe. But then maybe that's because I draw a clear distinction between "bugs" and "known issues".

Known issues are problems in the software that programmers have come to know of and are unable to fix for a variety of reasons, some of which may be beyond their control. For example, the compiler used to create the software may have a bug that prevents a fix. The data being sent to the software for processing may be just too large. In such cases, programmers hard code in a check just before a problem can occur so that the software aborts gracefully and does not crash. This information and the behavior related to it is then passed on to the people writing the documentation and they add it to "Known Issues" section of the product documentation. This is perfectly fine with me and should be fine with any reasonable user as well.

A bug, on the other hand, is something that the programmers have come across or users have reported, the cause of which is yet to be ascertained or the solution to which is yet to be implemented. Personally I consider releasing software with such unfixed bugs, without converting them to known issues, is sacrilege. It is unpardonable. It is like Boeing shipping a plane to a customer comforting itself with the hope that the chance of it crashing is fairly low. OK, maybe I am exaggerating a little here, but I think you get my point.

Earlier I mentioned that programmers may not be able to fix bugs for a variety of reasons. Time should not one of them. That's why, in principle, I am against this annual release cycle thing that some CAD software vendors have got going. Now we all know that it makes good business sense to do that. But having said that, I would like to share something which an extremely successful businessman, Bob McNeel, said to me at COFES 2009 when I asked him when Rhinoceros 5.0 would be released. He replied, "I don't know". I almost spat out the beer that I was drinking. He went on to explain, "Of course, we do have a date in mind, but it all depends upon how the software looks like at that point in time. We have never had an annual release cycle. That would just makes a mess of everything."

Great minds think alike, eh?

User and Non-Users

2009-06-13T11:23:00.006+05:30

In a comment, Matt Lombard asked me to comment on something that I have been trying to avoid talking about for quite some time. He asked:

"To the best of my very poor memory, all of the proponents of Direct Editing as the New World Order for CAD are non-users, and the proponents of history are users ...[snip]... Any comments on that?"

If you are a so called user, please forgive me if you find some of what you are about to read offending. It is not my intention to offend anyone. Definitely not Matt whose blog, I believe, is one of the best CAD blogs out there, not just for the content, but also for the way he puts it.

I want to keep Direct Modeling out of this discussion and only talk about this concept of users and non-users that Matt brought up. Over the years I have been reading comments from users which imply that the CAD media, analysts, authors, etc. have their heads in the clouds and do not know what they are talking about because they do not do real modeling work. I have even heard pretty derogatory comments (especially from SolidWorks users) saying things like, "The programmers at SolidWorks should be made to use their own software."

This kind of thinking is similar to questioning the wisdom of asking a priest for advice on your marriage. After all, what the hell does a priest know about married life, right? And yet they are very effective in sorting out marital problems. I don't know about the West, but here in a place like India, they are wizards. For a doctor to be able to write a prescription for a patient, he does not need to be ill. Furthermore, the patient does not even know or care how other patients in the clinic feel. But the doctor does. All that matters to each patient is his health, that's all.

My point is that a user normally thinks only in terms of the software that he is trained to use. For the most part, he is unaware of features and methods implemented in other software. I see this every day at SYCODE. We specialize in developing data exchange plug-ins for almost all the major CAD systems and we get questions from customer of all shapes and sizes. The kind of queries that we receive make me sometimes wonder whether users wear blinders that prevent them from looking at all the other stuff around them.

Now coming to the view that the CAD media, analysts, authors, etc. do not use CAD software. I will let others speak for themselves. But before I have my say, let me list the CAD systems along with their versions that are currently installed on my computer in office.

Acrobat Pro Extended (9.0)
Alibre Design (11.0)
AutoCAD (2000, 2000i, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010)
Bricscad and dozen other IntelliCAD variants
Cobalt, Graphite (V8)
CoCreate Modeling 2.0
DoubleCAD XT and Pro
Inventor (10, 11, 2008, 2009, 2010)
IRONCAD & INOVATE (11.0)
KeyCreator (7.5)
KOMPAS 3D (V10)
Moment Of Inspiration (1.0, 2.0)
Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 Preproduction)
Rhinoceros (3.0, 4.0, 5.0 Beta)
SketchUp (6.0, 7.0)
Solid Edge (ST)
SolidWorks (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009)
SpaceClaim (2009)
TurboCAD (15.0)
VectorWorks (2009)

And these are just general CAD systems, not specialized CAD software like industry specific solutions for Rapid Prototyping, Reverse Engineering, etc. Now these CAD systems don't just sit there and occupy my hard disk space. I use these systems on a daily basis. I have spent the last decade solving people data exchange problems by figuring out how these CAD systems work internally. Apart from a few personal projects like designing my house and the stuff in it, I do not create a lot of design data. But I sure as hell modify data created by others. The data I am referring to here is live data from customers (or should I say users?), often sensitive information for which I need to sign Non Disclosure Agreements. The kind of stuff that eventually end up as products, buildings, etc.

But what is more important to understand is the fact that at SYCODE, we do not offer design services. Rather we offer plug-ins and custom solutions that automate the tasks of creating and modifying design data. So I need to wear the hat of a user as well as a programmer to be able to automate a user's workflow in his CAD system or between his CAD systems. So when someone refers to me as a non-user, you can imagine why I would find that a particularly difficult pill to swallow.

And lastly coming to the view that programmers should be made to use the software that they develop, I believe that apart from reflecting insolence, this kind of thinking shows stupidity in its purest form. I think this is best explained by means of an example.

Like I said before, at SYCODE, we specialize in data exchange plug-ins for CAD systems, one of which is SolidWorks. I find myself using the Import Diagnosis feature of SolidWorks a lot on models imported by our import plug-ins. It is not uncommon for the Import Diagnosis feature to not fill all holes and close all gaps because its success or failure depends upon the quality of the imported data. But sadly, it is also not uncommon for me to hear customers bitch about SolidWorks not being able to do a good job. Now consider this for a moment. A user will use a feature like Import Diagnosis probably a few times a month, if at all. Can you even imagine how many times the programmers who developed this tool used this feature to create, update, test, debug and continuously maintain their code? As programmers we use the software that we create after every tweak in our code and after every rebuild. We use our software with all kinds of design data that we can gather or conceive. We sometimes programatically create data that a user would normally never create, just so that we can stress-test our software. Heck, we use our software so much that we often need to write code that continuously runs data though our software on a dedicated testing server 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Think about it. If you are amazed at the speed at which demo jocks work, I suggest you take a look at programmers. Just because they work in the back room invisible to the world, it does not mean that they do not use the software they create. They use it far more than these so called users do. The reason I call this line of thinking stupid is because its more like a cab driver scoffing at a bunch of automobile engineers who designed the car that he is driving.

And while I am at it, I would like to draw attention to another thing I find quite repulsive. When a user creates a design and it fails or does not work as intended, he goes ahead and modifies it and gives it a revision number. In programming parlance the failure is called a Bug and the revision is called a Service Pack. Users should start calling their failures bugs and revisions service packs and then they will be able to appreciate the saying "to err is human".

I often hear users say that CAD vendors should sort out all the bugs before releasing their software and not make paying customers debug their software for them. I have even heard some users say that the CAD vendors should pay them for reporting bugs. I can turn this argument on its head and ask users to design products that never fail so that people who paid money for the products they designed do not have to pay the price for their "revisions" as well.

Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Is the Direct Modeling Honeymoon Over?

2009-06-12T09:29:00.005+05:30

In a comment, Matt Lombard remined me what Dan Staples, Director of Solid Edge at Siemens PLM, said to him last October:

"Ten years from now history based modeling will not exist"

Today, Dora Smith, Director - Global Social Media at Siemens PLM told me something which appears to quite the opposite:

"We have no plans to deliver NX or Solid Edge without a history-based option."

I believe 10 years is a very long time in the world of technology and would prefer to go with Dan Staples. I also feel that Dora is merely addressing the immediate concerns of her customers.

I simply cannot bring myself to believe that the best way to create and modify a solid model is by cooking it up in a sequential manner all the time. Features are here to stay, at least for the length of my lifetime. Whether they need to be created and maintained in an orderly manner is something that I am not comfortable with.

But there is another solution, something which just about everyone I have spoken to, including myself, feels is next to impossible. That is, to have a history tree containing features and allow the user to make direct edits to the features, but not add these direct edits as new features at the bottom of the history tree. Rather directly edit the existing features in the history tree. If such a solution exists then probably I could live with the history tree because I would not need to figure it out before I make any change to the model. Current history based modelers do only a fraction of this. I say fraction, because you can push/pull only those faces which have a clear relation to an underlying feature. Case in point, Instant3D by SolidWorks.

However, Autodesk claims that Inventor Fusion will do exactly what I said above was next to impossible. If that is indeed the case, then this year's Nobel Prize (doesn't matter which category) should go to the person at Autodesk who figured this out. I can think of few cases when this solution may be made possible, but there would be severe limitations to how much you can mess with the solid model. But then maybe I am not Nobel Prize material.

So to answer the question, "Is the Direct Modeling Honeymoon Over?", I say "No". I would say that probably the marriage between History Based Modeling and Direct Modeling has only just begun and they are now fighting over which one of them is wearing the pants.

Siemens Holds on to History

2009-06-11T21:02:00.009+05:30

In an earlier post titled "PTC Joins the Direct Modeling Bandwagon" referring to PTC's announcements and demos at PTC/USER 09, I wondered:

"So does that mean that like Siemens, PTC is abandoning the history based feature modeling approach that they pioneered years ago?"

As it turns out there was something fundamentally wrong with the question. I have access to Solid Edge only and assumed that Synchronous Technology was implemented in NX in the same way, which apparently, it is not. An anonymous commenter pointed out:

"In NX, you can CHOOSE to have Synchronous features seamlessly integrated with the 'old' history-based modeling approach, OR, to go with a completely history-free approach. It is UP TO THE USER TO DECIDE. In Solid Edge, it seems you have to choose one or the other.

... [snip] ...

It is very unfortunate that the differences in implementation of ST between NX and Solid Edge are being confused (by everyone, from Siemens to the blog media etc)."

This is precisely the reason why I allow anonymous comments on my blog. So after I was enlightened I decided to get it straight from the horse's mouse. So I asked Dora Smith, Director - Global Social Media at Siemens PLM Software, two specific questions:

(1) Will Siemens continue to develop new technologies that are based on the “history based” parametric modeling?
(2) In the future will Siemens ship a version of Solid Edge and/or NX that will not have the “history based” parametric modeling option.

Her reply to question 1 was:

"We have definitely NOT 'abandoned' history-based modeling. We continue to invest in history-based modeling AND synchronous technology. The feedback from our customers so far is they want the best of both worlds: history-based and history-free modeling."

In response to question 2, Dora said:

"We have no plans to deliver NX or Solid Edge without a history-based option."

So there you have it. As far as Siemens is concerned, history is not going to be history. I was pretty alarmed by something that Al Dean said in a comment to the same post:

"I've heard of users reevaluating their Solid Edge licenses, some even dropping it and moving to another direct editing system that's more mature. Why? because of this notion that history is being dumped."

If Al is right, then maybe Siemens is not doing a very good job getting the message across to its customers. Either way, I am still trying to figure out the reason for implementing Synchronous Technology differently in Solid Edge and NX. It is quite obvious to me that giving a user the option to integrate Synchronous features in the history based modeling method is far better than not giving the option. So why is Solid Edge being left out of the party? Is Siemens facing the same problem that Dassault is facing with smaller brother SolidWorks stepping on the toes of bigger brother CATIA? Or is there something that I am not seeing here?

If any of you know the reason why Synchronous Technology was implemented differently in Solid Edge and NX, I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me a bit further.

GRX - Another ObjectARX Source Compatible SDK

2009-06-11T09:25:00.005+05:30

Today the Chinese IntelliCAD developer, GStarSoft announced that they would be releasing GRX, an AutoCAD source compatible SDK, in a couple of months. According to the press release, "GRX, short for GstarCAD Runtime eXtension, is highly compatible with AutoCAD ARX interface. With GRX, one set of source codes can support two platforms (AutoCAD and GstarCAD)."

I think I should maintain a list of these ObjectARX source compatible SDK's, because I don't believe that we have seen the last of them. Here is the list:
1) BRX from Bricsys. This SDK is in production use by many AutoCAD plug-in developers.
2) FRX from Graebert. This is part of their new Argon platform which is still is Beta.
3) ObjectDRX from ZWCAD. The only information about it is as cryptic as the Chinese can make it.
4) GRX from GStarSoft. To be released in a couple of months.

The press release has a link to www.gstarsoft.com. If I remember correctly their web site was located at www.staricad.com. I wanted to see what had changed and so I clicked though and began looking around. I finally found myself on the About Us page staring in disbelief at the Autodesk Authorized Developer logo.

I thought Autodesk didn't partner with people who make AutoCAD clones. So I searched for "GStarSoft" or "GreatStar" or whatever name they go by now at the Autodesk Partner Index page. The search turned up empty.

I smell something fishy here. Do you?

The ODA Finally Gets It

2009-06-10T14:35:00.009+05:30

More than seven months ago, in a post titled "DWGDirect and DRX Explained" I wrote:

"Take a look at their [ODA's] web site. This is what you see on the home page:

'The Open Design Alliance is a non-profit membership-based consortium of software companies, developers and users committed to promoting the open exchange of CAD data now and in the future. In addition to setting standards for CAD data formats, the ODA also focuses on the practical matter of developing software libraries of exceptional quality that enable ODA members to develop applications capable of reading and writing the popular DWG and DGN CAD file formats. ODA members use the following ODA software libraries to support their efforts of developing CAD solutions'

…and they go on and talk about DWGdirect and DGNdirect, about how these libraries can read and write DWG and DGN files. Absolutely nothing about anything I said above. No mention whatsoever about the DRX SDK. You need to click on a cryptic link called 'Public Downloads' to even know that they offer something called the DRX SDK."

Go take a look at the ODA web site today. This is what the home page says:

"The Open Design Alliance is a non-profit, membership-based consortium of software companies, developers and users committed to provide the ODA Technology Platform to its members, giving them the tools to create a wide range of technical graphics applications, including custom data access and editing utilities, visualization tools, and even full-scale CAD systems. The platform also supports the use of both DWG and DGN files, with import and export capabilities to other file formats."

I have been yelling myself hoarse on this blog and elsewhere, that reading and writing DWG files is just one of the many things that the ODA does. I even wrote a book to emphasize my point. It feels nice to know that the ODA has finally found itself. I have been privy to a few things going on at the ODA for some time. I would like to give a substantial amount of credit for this "makeover" to Arnold van der Weide, the president of the ODA. I know that there are other people involved as well, but let's give the devil his due. I am pretty sure that with the leadership and vision of Arnold, the ODA is a much stronger organization, which undoubtedly has a bright and strong future.

Today the ODA released DWGdirect.NET, the first ODA platform platform component built for use with the Microsoft .NET Framework. This opens the ODA's doors to a whole new class of programmers, the kind that do not need to mess with C++, but a more easier language like VB.NET. Full press release here.

Way to go, ODA!! Now go do what you do best. Crack that 2010 DWG format and piss all over Autodesk once again. I only hope that the ODA does not go ahead and do something stupid like the TrustedDWG thing they did the last time around. Otherwise Autodesk will be the one pissing all over the ODA in court.

PTC Joins the Direct Modeling Bandwagon

2009-06-08T20:47:00.004+05:30

I guess I can open my trap now. People at PTC/USER 09 have started reporting on PTC's modeling plans. I was shown some of it during my visit to the PTC Headquarters in Needham this April, but was asked not to talk about it till PTC/USER 09.

Direct modeling will not be in Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 5.0. Rather it will be part of Wildfire 6.0. But since they are already working on it, I suspect that it will be in the software but the functionality will be hidden from the user. When I asked PTC top management why they were not shipping this technology in Wildfire 5.0, they told me that they were not completely satisfied with the technology and in their view it would be in shipping condition in time for Wildfire 6.0.

So does that mean that like Siemens, PTC is abandoning the history based feature modeling approach that they pioneered years ago? Hell No! PTC has managed to find a way to do quick localized rebuilds so that a complicated history based parametric model can be solved much faster that it previously could, thereby giving the user the feel and easy of direct modeling. At least, that's what they told me.

DEVELOP3D is covering PTC/USER 09 live and has a sneak peek of the direct modeling that will become part of Wildfire 6.0.

PTC's New Blogger and Tweeter

2009-06-07T11:49:00.006+05:30

Mark Lobo, PTC's Director of Windchill CAD Integrations, now has a blog. PTC/USER 09 starts tomorrow and Mark intends to blog and tweet live at the event.

Blog: http://marklobo.blogspot.com
Twitter: @marklobotweets

John McEleney's Comment on Parasolid

2009-05-28T19:31:00.003+05:30

I guess you can imagine how hard it is to get an official comment from SolidWorks on the issue of them continuing to using Parasolid, a modeling kernel owned by their rival Siemens PLM Software. I am still trying to get something out from them. However, I have been recently speaking to former CEO John McEleney and asked him for his views on the contentious issue. This what he had to say:

"I do not think it's appropriate for me to comment on behalf of SolidWorks - Jeff Ray or Austin O'Malley are probably the best people to speak with.

The one thing I can say that I know the past, current and any future team would agree with is: that we simply did not want people to be bothered with or worry about the technology foundation that was used. Our feeling was always that we wanted to remove the technology hassles/details from the user and provide them with what they wanted: powerful, affordable easy-to-use 3D."

Although John McEleney is no longer affiliated with SolidWorks, he is a big supporter. He stepped down from the board approximately one year ago and has recently joined a start-up called CloudSwitch as CEO, a company still in development mode and which is doing something related to cloud computing.

Direct Editing and Direct Modeling

2009-05-28T13:07:00.004+05:30

Paul Hamilton's comment made me wonder why there may be some confusion regarding what I have been calling "Direct Editing" on this blog. Alibre and its customers claim that they already have direct editing, and some think that it is the same as what SpaceClaim, Siemens and others are offerring. The problem has been the term "Direct Editing". I should have been using the term "Direct Modeling" instead and I will begin to do so from this post onwards.

This post will also serve as a comparison (as I see it) between the Direct Editing capabilities offerred by Alibre Design and SolidWorks.

Alibre Design has a sub-menu called Direct Edit in it's Feature menu that contains a bunch of commands to directly edit something. We will find out exactly what in a while.

Now lets see how direct editing works in Alibre Design. I sketched a 1" x 1" square and extruded it by 2" to get a box.

I then used the Push Pull Face or Sketch command from the Direct Edit sub-menu and used the mouse to push the dark colored face (in the figure above) into the solid by 1" to arrive at a cube.

I then used the same command to pull the same face outward by 1" to return to the original geometry.

Now let's see what happenned to the feature tree.

After the Extrusion feature we now have two Move Face features. So although the geometry is exactly the same as before I started direct editing, we now have two extra features. So if I were to sit all day and push/pull a million times I would have a feature tree a million features long and would still have modeled a 1" x 1" x 2" box. This is called Direct Editing in Alibre Design. But what is it directly editing? The Extrusion feature? No. If it were directly editing the Extrusion feature then the extrusion distance parameter would have been modified from 2" to 1" and then back to 2" and we would have just one Extrusion feature in the tree. Direct Editing in Alibre Design means adding features to the feature tree.

Now lets see how SolidWorks does the same thing. I created a similar 1" x 1" x 2" box in SolidWorks by extruding a square and turned on Instant3D, their direct editing feature. I picked the square face, pushed it into the solid and then pulled it back. When I looked at the feature tree I found that there is still the single Extrude feature and no other features. So it appears that SolidWorks is smarter then Alibre Design because it recognized that the face I was pushing and pulling was created by an extrusion and modified the extrusion distance instead of adding Move Face features to the tree. Direct Editing in SolidWorks means that you directly edit the parameters of a feature, whereas in Alibre Design you directly edit the entire model by adding features to the end of the feature tree.

So you might think that SolidWorks has a better Direct Editing solution than Alibre Design. Well, according to me, it is quite the opposite. I bet you will find this interesting. Lets go back to Alibre Design and push one of the rectanglular (not square) faces into the solid. As expected, the face is pushed in and a third Move Face feature is added to the feature tree. If you try and to the same thing in SolidWorks, the rectangular face does not get pushed into the solid. Rather the entire model is pushed in space. This is because SolidWorks cannot find an Extrusion feature corresponding to the rectangular face and hence cannot change its value to push the face into the solid. SolidWorks does have a separate Move Face command, which is not tied into the Instant3D feature, which can be used to move the rectangular face into the solid. But just like Alibre Design it adds a Move Face feature to the feature tree.

So if you compare the two in terms of directing editing a model using the mouse, I would prefer Alibre Design to SolidWorks, simply because they have managed to let the user use their Move Face command (they have one as well) with the mouse. SolidWorks has not yet managed to tie their Move Face command to Instant3D. However, it would be nice if Alibre Design would not add Move Face features if the user was moving a face linked to an extrusion. However, both end up messing up their feature trees. And this is Direct Editing when it comes to history based parametric modeling systems like Alibre Design and SolidWorks.

As you can see, it is quite a messy affair. I call it messy because in order to make a modification, a user has to study the history tree and figure out which sketch or parameter of which feature he needs to modify in order to effect his change. And now if users can arbitrarily move faces using Direct Editing commands, the feature tree is bound to get only more and more complicated and difficult to understand and work with. No model is perpetual. It undergoes several changes thoughout its lifetime with the changes being made by different people. As a programmer, I know how hard and frustrating it is to modify someone else's code, especially if the programmer has not left comments in the code. In SolidWorks you can add comments to a feature. In Alibre Design, I don't believe you can.

Direct Modeling is an entirely different ball game. Direct Modeling systems are not history based, although some like Solid Edge ST have features, parameters and constraints. In others like Spaceclaim, a model is simply a bunch of closed solids and open surfaces. These systems give the user the ability of directly modify the geometry of a model without being constrained by the limitations associated with history based systems. They differ in the way they offer this functionality and the outcome of a modeling operation, but essentially they are all about making the geometry creation and modification processes quick and easy.

The fundamental difference between Direct Modeling systems and history based systems is that Direct Modeling systems make or allow geometric changes by taking a bird's eye view of the entire model, whereas history based systems make or allow geometric changes by performing modeling operations in a sequential mannger. Hence they lack the flexibility of Direct Modeling systems. Its like deciding your trip by looking at a map as opposed to reaching a place and then deciding where to go next.

Alibre and SolidWorks seem to be of the opinion that their customers need Direct Editing and not Direct Modeling. I know for sure that Alibre feels that way. In a comment, Paul Grayson, the Founder and CEO of Alibre said, "Alibre already has direct editing and the non-history based editing is simply a feature, not the basis for a product." Clearly, Alibre and SolidWorks feel that Direct Editing, of the kind I showed above, coupled with the benefits and power of history based parametric modeling outweigh the value proposition offerred by Direct Modeling systems. I tend to think otherwise. As Direct Modeling technologies evolve to more closely integrate parametrics, features, constraints and all the things that make history based systems powerful and also difficult to use, I believe we are going to see the sense in what some consider to be a rush towards Pushmi-Pullyu CAD.

I hope this explains a few things. And I promise never to use the phrase "Direct Editing" when talking about non-history based systems.

Direct Editing and the Future

2009-05-27T09:37:00.004+05:30

Solid modelers like IronCAD, CoCreate, KeyCreator, etc. have been doing direct editing for quite a while. But somehow the entrance of SpaceClaim was the event that got every one's attention, mine as well. Paul Grayson, Founder and CEO of Alibre, left a comment asking me, "You have been over the top on Direct Editing since SpaceClaim hit the market. I recall your prediction that SpaceClaim would get snapped up by someone for Billions! What happened to that?"

I guess SpaceClaim did not (and probably will never) get bought because other CAD vendors decided to "make" instead of "buy". Maybe the "billions" were the problem. We know that today they certainly are. I may have been wrong about other CAD vendors buying SpaceClaim or their technology. But I was not wrong about the reason for doing so - to add a direct editing solution to their products. Siemens, Dassault and now Autodesk are ample proof of that. I have said on this blog earlier that as far as direct editing is concerned PTC is not sitting idle, which is pretty much all that they will let me say for now.

I believe that direct editing is going to be an integral part of our future. Not just because I believe that it is a good thing. We have discussed its benefits and drawbacks over and over again. But there is another reason that many of you may not have realized. The purpose of this post is to highlight that reason.

If you were an exisiting Solid Edge 20 user (the version just before Synchronous Technology) and you installed Solid Edge ST, you would be given an option of using old history style modeling or direct editing. But if you installed Solid Edge ST on a computer without a previous version of Solid Edge, you would be able to do only direct editing. At least I could not easily find a way of doing history based modeling on a new license. This means that Siemens has already decided for new users how their future will look like. I guess Siemens may have wanted existing users to adopt direct editing as well, but they must have realized that switching to direct editing is not something that can be done in a day.

My point here is to draw attention to the myth that customers decide what the future holds for them. Sure they give feedback, report bugs and submit enhancement requests, some of which are considered and implemented in future versions. But ground breaking changes are almost never decided by customers. The Microsoft "ribbon" is a perfect example. Microsoft simply decided that the menu should be the past and the ribbon should be the future and shoved it down the throats of its customers.

I can go on giving you many such examples, but I think you get my point. Direct editing is an excellent thing. But that is not the only reason why I believe it is going to be the future.

In another comment Matt Lombard said, "CAD manufacturers have shown that they are willing to make the leap, but the other half of the market (customers) are not showing that propensity in significant numbers yet." I believe that customers don't need to make a leap. They will simply be airlifted and dropped on the other side.

So when I say things like SolidWorks and Alibre are "stuck in the past", I do not mean to look down on the companies and their visions of the future. My opinions are based on my vision of what the future will look like, which seems to converge with the visions of the majority of CAD vendors.

Paul Grayson ended his comment by saying, "Why should Alibre, or SolidWorks for that matter, waste development resources on features that their customers are not asking for? Hopefully, we are not expected to write code solely based on what our competitors do and the opinions of industry pundits."

Maybe Paul has a point. It would be nice if Alibre and SolidWorks resisted the movement towards direct editing. At some point in the future, we would then be able to let customers determine which direction was the better one. Or maybe not. Because like I said above, the CAD vendors are taking decisions for the customers, and we already know which side of the fence most of them are on.

Kernel Conclusion

2009-05-26T22:05:00.003+05:30

It all started with me speculating about SolidWorks' use of Siemens' Parasolid kernel and not Dassault's V6 platform. Then to drive my point that this was a business issue and not a technical one, I used IronCAD as an example to show how a CAD system could easily switch between two modeling kernels, that too on the fly. Today, someone from IronCAD left a comment that confirmed my theory.

"[IRONCAD] Users can design their models using a specified modeling kernel. This provides them the ability to work in the most common kernel that they may end up exporting to downstream in the design (helping to eliminate translation issues). However, IRONCAD has technology to 'Kernel Collaborate' which is nearly invisible to the user. Kernel Collaboration means that IRONCAD can use both kernels to build the underlining solid model. For example: Say the user was working in ACIS to build their model. They add a blend to the model that ACIS cannot support for some reason. IRONCAD will automatically pass the operation to Parasolid to attempt the modeling operation. If successful, it will build the blend and maintain the model in ACIS. At this point, you might think I mistyped that. No I did not. The model is still in ACIS. However, the results of the body are made up of both Kernels. If the user exports to ACIS at this point, the result would still be the same since it is just the final b-rep body.

IRONCAD does not have many issues in translating back and forth between ACIS and Parasolid once the model is inside of IRONCAD. We maintain a common tolerance which reduces many issues found in direct translations. In most modeling cases, you can take an ACIS model and change its type to Parasolid and visa-versa without any issues. Of course there may be the rare exceptions to this but IRONCAD performs regular testing on this capability. Most cases where issues would occur would be in non-manifold conditions where ACIS can support and Parasolid does not, but this is not normally a common modeling case."

This pretty much proves what I said earlier:

"The job of a modeling kernel is to end up with a valid watertight solid model, basically trimmed NURBS surfaces stitched together. A modeling kernel has very little to do with the presence or absence of parameters or history that makes up the recipe which cooks up that solid body, if any at all."

I am not suggesting that the task of SolidWorks switching kernels is, in any way, an easy one. Just that it may not be entirely impossible to do so, as some might believe.

WTF is Digital Prototyping - Part 2

2009-05-26T14:34:00.002+05:30

A year ago I did a Part 1, in which I defined Digital Prototyping as "the difference between modeling and designing". At that time I was talking about Autodesk and its idea of Digital Prototyping, while keeping Inventor at the center of the concept.

Today I would like to talk about another company that is doing digital prototyping - a company called GEOMATE with its product CADCALCS 2.0. I don't believe I have seen anything like CADCALCS before. To put is crudely, it is a geometric calculator. But it is actually much more than that. I could spend an hour trying to explain what CADCALCS does in words here, but I think you will get a much better idea if you see this video. After you do that take a look at this PDF document to see a bunch of examples where and how the software may be used.

Even in the case of CADCALCS, my definition of Digital Prototyping still remains the same - "the difference between modeling and designing". Like I said in Part 1, geometry is a solved problem. Of course, we will constantly strive ways to find new ways of arriving at geometry, such as direct editing or the thing which comes after that, but the real problem is to find an easy and accurate method of arriving at the right geometry that will satisfy the design requirements. This is a very complex problem and is probably the reason why we still need a particular class of humans to design something, a class called Engineers. Technology can only make our work easier; and CADCALCS is one such technology.

CADCALCS 2.0 is priced at $499. They also have an educational price of $99, which I believe is fantastic. A software like CADCALCS is an excellent tool to get young minds interested in engineering. For that price you even get an extra license for home use and free technical support via the web.

GRANITE Cross-Release Interoperability

2009-05-25T09:55:00.006+05:30

During my recent visit to the PTC headquarters in Needham, Asa Trainer, Director - Product Management, explained to me PTC's solution to the legacy format interoperability problem, something which I accused many CAD vendors of deliberately ignoring in my last post. Their solution is called GRANITE Cross-Release Interoperability or GCRI. I believe that this solution is the only one of its kind in the CAD industry today. At least I am not aware of any other CAD vendor doing something like this. In this post I will try and explain GCRI and the issues surrounding it.

PTC uses an in-house developed modeling kernel called GRANITE, similar to ACIS from Spatial, Parasolid from Siemens, etc. GRANITE is also used for interoperability to read and write native Pro/E part and assembly files. GCRI is basically a plug-in to GRANITE interoperability kernel.

With the GCRI plug-in, a Pro/E Wildfire 2.0 user can read files created by later versions of Pro/E. I will not get into the technicalities of this, because then I would need to explain things like Associative Topology Bus (ATB) and Translated Image Model (TIM). However, if you are interested to dig to the roots then I suggest you read this document.

The GCRI plug-in gives Pro/E the ability to do the following wonderful things:
1) Open a later version Pro/E file and display the feature tree. However, the feature tree is read-only and cannot be edited.
2) Add new features to the feature tree and save the file.
3) Open the saved file in the new version of Pro/E and "graft" the new features added in the older version back into the new version.

All this happens without any loss of design data. So effectively with GCRI you can now have a single Pro/E file which has been edited by more than one version of Pro/E. Obviously, this is a far better way for users of different versions of Pro/E to work with each other, as opposed to exchanging data using neutral file formats like IGES and STEP.

So now to the all important question. What happens when PTC adds new features to Pro/E that never existed in a previous version? Well, its actually quite simple. The features simply don't show up in the feature tree, which is quite understandable. So if a user of a newer version of Pro/E does not use any new features, he can work seamlessly with the user of an older version of Pro/E. The fact that the user of the older version can actually add features to a newer version file is simply amazing.

Needless to say, I find GCRI to be simply awesome. What I do not find awesome is the fact that GCRI is available only to customers on maintenance, which ironically, defeats the very purpose of GCRI. If a PTC customer is on maintenance then he already has the latest version of Pro/E and does not need GCRI. Of course, he would need something like GCRI if he paid his subscription fees, received all the latest software, never opened the box and still continued to use his old version.

I sincerely hope that I have misunderstood something here, because try as I might, I cannot get myself to believe that this wonderful technology is going to waste.

Kernel Confusion and Legacy Models

2009-05-24T11:52:00.006+05:30

Evan Yares left a comment on my earlier post ("Inventor Fusion and SolidWorks Confusion"), attempting to explain why SolidWorks could not switch to the Dassault V6 modeling kernel. This is what he had to say:

"There are very good reasons. I don't think they're beyond your comprehension -- but they may be beyond your experience. Talk to someone who has done kernel-level interoperability work, and ask them how easy it is to replicate the weirdnessess of one kernel in another. The issues of surface parameterization and modeling tolerance alone are enough to make most developers run away screaming. Dassault owns both the ACIS and CATIA modeling kernels. Either one could be 'bolted in'. Neither one would provide support for legacy SolidWorks models."

When someone like Evan says something, I listen. He comes with a lot of experience in the CAD software industry. However, on this particular point, I would beg to differ.

IronCAD offers its users a choice between two modeling kernels - ACIS and Parasolid. Their software works perfectly with both kernels. IronCAD does not maintain two file formats, one for each modeling kernel. This is because the job of a modeling kernel is end up with a valid waterright solid model, basically trimmed NURBS surfaces stitched together. A modeling kernel has very little to do with the presence or absence of parameters or history that makes up the recipe which cooks up that solid body, if any at all. Tomorrow morning the developers at IronCAD could very well add a history tree to their software and still continue to use both modeling kernels.

IronCAD is a perfect example of how a solid model created by the ACIS modeling kernel can be converted into an exact same solid model as defined by the Parasolid modeling kernel, and vice versa. IronCAD users are even known to switch between modeling kernels, because one does blends better than the other. In fact, I believe that IronCAD is the best way of transfering data from modeling systems that use ACIS and Parasolid, as compared to using neutral file formats like IGES and STEP. Their programmers have figured out a way to map data perfectly between ACIS and Parasolid.

I may not have a lot of experience in modeling kernels, but I do happen to have some experience in file formats and the issues that surround them. But in this case, a little bit of common sense was more than enough to figure this out. I believe that the programmers at SolidWorks are at least as competent as those at IronCAD. This SolidWorks-Dassault kernel discussion is a business issue, not a technical one.

And talking about SolidWorks wanting to support legacy files is a joke. They don't even save to earlier versions of their own software. The excuse given is that they add new features in every new version that cannot be broken down into older features. Anyone with half a brain and a little knowledge of the SolidWorks feature tree will be able to see how much water that argument really holds.

For argument sake, lets accept the SolidWorks argument at face value. I have another question. Why cannot SolidWorks save to an older version as a dumb solid? There can certainly be no reason for not doing so. If a SolidWorks 2009 user wants to send a model to a SolidWorks 2008 user, he needs to export to a neutral format which can then be imported into the older version. This introduces huge problems of missing geometry, gaps and what not. Instead of putting their customers though this, doesn't it make sense for SolidWorks to spit out an older version file with the model as a dumb solid. At least the user of the older version will not have to worry about the integrity of the data that he has received from another SolidWorks user.

And this is true for all parametric modeling systems, not just SolidWorks. We all know why these CAD vendors do this. They actually shove their "valued" customers down a path of great risk in the hope that they will upgrade to the latest version or buy a subscription.

Trust me, you don't want to get me started on this.

AutoCAD Fusion

2009-05-23T11:43:00.003+05:30

In a post on this blog six months ago, I wrote:

"It is my prediction that a version of AutoCAD in the not so distant future will have 3D direct modeling capabilities equivalent to (or probably better than) what we see today in SpaceClaim and Solid Edge ST."

Today I would like to reiterate my prediction once again. I believe it will eventually happen. It seems to be the most logical thing to do.

AutoCAD has the largest base of CAD software users. Every other CAD software vendor is trying just about everything in its power to woo this huge base. Not always to make them dump AutoCAD and adopt their software, but sometimes to sell them stuff that works with AutoCAD. For example, an AutoCAD 2D user wanting to do some serious 3D work is more likely to use a direct modeling system like SpaceClaim rather than learn a parametric modeling system like Inventor.

In recent times Autodesk has been making the right noises in terms of adding 3D capabilities to AutoCAD. They even hired a Product Manager called Guillermo Melantoni for that exact purpose. Clearly the idea here is to prevent customers wanting to adopt 3D in their work flow from looking for technologies outside of the Autodesk stable.

Assuming that Autodesk does not piss off its AutoCAD customers too much with its pricing, subscription and product retirement policies, AutoCAD users would prefer to look for technologies that they need within the Autodesk stable itself, rather than risk jumping ship to another CAD vendor. So with Inventor Fusion, Autodesk is offering its AutoCAD customers a reason to stick with them. I don't believe the purpose of Inventor Fusion is to make people switch from SolidWorks or Solid Edge. Rather it will be more effective as a deterrent for preventing AutoCAD users from looking to other CAD vendors for solutions to adopt 3D in their work flow.

But lets move a step further and take a closer look at my prediction. AutoCAD is a platform that is used across several industries. Inventor Fusion will be an answer that will work only for the MCAD industry. What about the others? Doesn't it make sense for Autodesk to add direct editing capabilities right inside AutoCAD itself? In AutoCAD 2010 they already added 2D constraints and I am sure 3D constraints is on its way. So all that is left to do is link the constraint system to the underlying modeling kernel and you have an Inventor Fusion like technology right inside AutoCAD. I am sure there is a lot of work involved here, but my point is that the situation is ripe for Autodesk to do this. And so is the business case.

The underlying logic of my prediction is based on the simple assumption that if you give AutoCAD customers direct modeling capability right inside AutoCAD itself, a software that they have learned to trust and are quite familiar with, Autodesk actually ensures that their customers stay with them. Obviously some AutoCAD users may move to Inventor for the Digital Prototyping features, but the ones who simply want to model in 3D will not find the need to look elsewhere. Moreover, this way Autodesk can effectively market AutoCAD and Inventor with Digital Prototyping as an explosive combination that can make a huge mark in the MCAD space. Right now, AutoCAD and Inventor look and feel like two opposites sides of two different coins.

The beauty in all of this is that adding direct editing to AutoCAD does not break it or change it drastically. An AutoCAD user can still work in 2D just like how he did a decade ago. For those who do not need it, life will remain the same. But for those who do find the need for direct editing, life will be much easier and will gladly sign those subscription payment checks. In fact, I would be extremely surprised if Autodesk does not add direct editing capabilities to AutoCAD immediately after they have let the world test the technology in Inventor Fusion.

Like I said, it seems to be the most logical thing to do. If any of you can think of a reason why Autodesk should not go down this road, I would like to hear from you.

Inventor Fusion and SolidWorks Confusion

2009-05-22T20:17:00.008+05:30

The Lonely Engineer blog is dead. I have to admit, I never really understood what it was all about. The subtitle of the video blog read "One engineer's adventures with direct and parametric CAD", although I don't remember Roger ever mentioning anything about direct and parametric CAD. Too bad I cannot cross check because the all posts, except the last one, have been deleted. The last post, dated 19th May, is basically a suicide note (in terms of blogging) and a pointer to a new video of Inventor Fusion.

At COFES 2009, Buzz Kross, Senior Vice President of the Manufacturing Solutions Division at Autodesk, let me know that they would be releasing Inventor Fusion on Autodesk Labs in May ("Inventor Fusion is Coming"). Maybe the death of the Lonely Engineer blog is timed to match the release of Inventor Fusion. Lets see. But for now, I suggest that you see the video.

I wonder if Inventor Fusion will be the final straw for SolidWorks. Probably something that will finally make big brother Dassault let them use their V6 direct editing technology. It is an open secret that Dassault does not appreciate SolidWorks eating into it's market. That probably explains why direct editing technology, of the kind that we see in V6, has not yet found its way into SolidWorks, after all this time. Heck, Dassault still makes SolidWorks use the Parasolid modeling kernel by Siemens to do its basic modeling, thereby lining the pockets of competitor Siemens.

For its part, Siemens has made it quite clear that Synchronous Technology is for their use only and will not be licensed to competitors. So obviously, if SolidWorks is to move beyond Instant3D, it would have to either borrow/license direct editing technology from Dassault or someone else or develop its own.

So if I have understood this correctly, Dassault prefers that SolidWorks (a company that it owns) pays hefty royalties to Siemens (its competitor) for every license and subscription of SolidWorks that it sells, as opposed to earning royalties from SolidWorks (a company that it owns) for letting SolidWorks use its V6 technology. I am sure there is a very good reason for this kind of thinking, but it is certainly well beyond the limits of my comprehension.

Something else strikes me. Alibre has been constantly comparing itself with SolidWorks, more in terms of functionality and less in terms of price. I can now see the similarity between the two on another level. In the part of the mid range CAD market that I track, Alibre and SolidWorks seem to be the only couple that I consider to be still stuck in the past.

Back To Work

2009-05-11T13:10:00.003+05:30

I am back in office after almost a month and the place is still standing. Which means that my employees no longer need me to run my joint. And that is a good thing.

The picture below shows the stack of business cards that I accumulated during my meetings in this mammoth US-Europe trip. It also reminds me of the number of people I need to initiate or continue conversations with.

I think I should get started.