Chinese IntelliCAD developer takes on Autodesk

The IntelliCAD Technology Consortium members are getting more aggresive in their attempts to steal market share from Autodesk. Graebert is developing Argon, their attempt to make it easier for companies that develop AutoCAD plug-ins, such as mine, to take their existing source code, recompile it with their libraries and come up with a plug-in for their AutoCAD clone.

But it appears that they were not the first to do this. In August 2007, a Chinese ITC member called GreatStar Software released their AutoCAD clone called GStarICAD 2007 which, according to them, was the first IntelliCAD to offer ObjectARX source code compatibility. They claim to support 95% of AutoCAD's ObjectARX functionality. They also claim to have removed "tens of thousands of bugs" in the IntelliCAD source code, hence making their IntelliCAD far more powerful and stable as compared to the other IntelliCAD's out there.

Such tall claims made me dig a little deeper. I downloaded GStarICAD 2007 Professional but could not find a way to a load a DRX DLL, let alone an ObjectARX style DLL. The Developer Reference section of their documentation has no mention about ARX or DRX at all. In fact, the docs state that ObjectARX support is unavailable. But that may be because they are still using the old IntelliCAD documentation. There are no special libraries installed with the software and no instructions on how to create ObjectARX source compatible plug-ins. In fact, I could not find any evidence to validate any of their claims. I didn't spend too much time on this, so it is probable that I may have missed something... or maybe everything.

Keep watching this space. Trust me, there is a lot more to come on the DRX-ARX front.


Update (1-Feb-2008)

I contacted GreatStar Software with my queries. They sent me a Word document in Chinese with some English thrown in here and there. Apparently there is a developer version of GStarICAD which comes with their ARX libraries, and hopefully instructions (in English) to build ARX plug-ins. I am now trying to get a hold of the developer version. If I manage to do that I shall post my findings.

CAD Software Pricing

IMSI Design is now offering TurboCAD for $169.95. This is what their email says:

"We're offering the TurboCAD Deluxe 14 Anniversary Edition to you at a price that has our accountants shaking their heads and our competition frantically waiving white flags."

I am beginning to wonder how much lower CAD software is going to get. At the rate things are going, we will soon be talking double digit prices.

Looks like finally we will end up with two kinds of CAD software: very cheap and very expensive. People in the middle may have to move up or down or disappear.

Version Confusion

The Chinese certainly do things differently. Yesterday Chinese CAD vendor ZWCAD Software released ZWCAD 2008, the latest version of their AutoCAD clone with DRX support. But they still sell ZWCAD 2007. And a license of the ZWCAD 2007 comes with a license of ZWCAD 2008. I am not quite sure I understand the point here. If you do, please enlighten me.

In related news, I am sorry to report that the CADopia webmaster has still not woken up.

DRX For Dummies

In this week's issue of upFront.eZine, Ralph Grabowski made the following statement, which I believe, needs some clarification:

"All applications that use the DWGdirect API conceivably could run AutoCAD ARX applications, following a re-compile. This means that MicroStation, ArchiCAD, VectorWorks, SolidWorks, IntelliCAD, TurboCAD, and others could support ARX apps through DRX."

First of all, what is this DRX that Ralph and I keep talking about? I will try and explain without getting too technical.

DRX is a technology, actually a framework, over which a CAD system can be built. It can be compared to the chassis of a car, over which every thing else is fitted. Going along with the car analogy, you can say that Autodesk created a chassis for their AutoCAD car and called it ObjectARX (ARX - AutoCAD Runtime Extension). They then added the various parts to the chassis: the engine (the complex goemetry stuff), the powertrain (the graphics pipeline), the boot (DWG data storage), the steering wheel, gear shift and pedals (user interface) and then finally gave you the keys after making your wallet a lot lighter.

But Autodesk did something more. They made extra holes in the chassis which could be used by other people to fit custom parts (the plug-ins). They then let people know where these extra holes are located and how to create custom parts so that they fit properly into the AutoCAD chassis. In fact, this is the way all the big CAD systems are built.

Coming back to DRX, since it is a clone of ARX, you can say the that DRX chassis is quite similar to the ARX chassis. People making ARX plug-ins will need to tweak their source code and rebuild them to arrive at a DRX plug-in, which will then fit into any CAD system built with the DRX chassis. The point to be noted here is that the CAD system needs to be built using DRX technology. Apart from the new IntelliCAD's (which are being built using DRX technology), DRX plug-ins will not work into any of the CAD systems Ralph mentioned. It's like trying to fit a car wheel to the axle of a truck. Sure, both wheels are round and have the ability to roll over a flat surface, but the car wheel just won't fit the truck chassis.

True, the CAD systems Ralph mentions all use the DWGdirect API, but only to read and write DWG/DXF files, not for system level data manipulation which plug-ins are capable of doing. For example, an AutoCAD plug-in may ask the user to pick a line object in the AutoCAD drawing window and automatically scale it. To make this happen the plug-in developer has to write source code that connects with AutoCAD's object selection mechanism, queries the current DWG database, modifies the object in the database and finally asks AutoCAD's display pipeline to show the updated object on the screen. The ARX plug-in source code that makes all this possible is completely different from that of a SolidWorks add-in which does the same thing. You cannot simply take the source code of the ARX plug-in, compile it with the DRX libraries and expect it to work with SolidWorks. You will have to write a completely different SolidWorks add-in from scratch which talks to the SolidWorks framework and makes it do things the SolidWorks way.

I guess you can take a bearing from one car and make it fit into another, or maybe even an engine, after some modifications. That's because there are standard specifications for bearings. There is no standard specification for CAD systems. Each CAD software vendor has developed their own framework and rarely do they even come close to each other.

In summary, porting AutoCAD plug-ins to a CAD system not built over DRX technology amounts to rewriting it from scratch. That's the reason I believe that the new IntelliCAD's have a far greater chance of relieving Autodesk of its 2D customers than anyone else, especialy those who rely on third party solutions. But first they need to get their act together. DRX has the potential to shake things up and I am curious to know what Autodesk intends to do about it.

I sense more DRX wind blowing. Watch this space.

MoI Version 1.0 Released - Quietly

On 18th January 2008, Michael Gibson posted the following message on the MoI forum:

"After 4 years of development, I am proud to announce that the final release of MoI version 1.0 is now available!"

That was it! The product launch, I mean.

As mentioned in my earlier article ("Solid Modeling for $195"), you can purchase a MoI license for precisely $195. I ended that article by saying "In my opinion, the key to MoI's success or failure will not lie in it's abilities but rather in the way it is marketed."

Michael, my man, apart from writing software, you gotta learn how to write press releases as well.

The Largest Producer of CAD Software

Today SYCODE released seven data exchange add-ins for Autodesk Inventor. And in doing so, we now offer a total of 101 products. Yes, I know. They are just small utilities. But then, we are just a small CAD company based in Goa (India), trying to make a small difference.

CAD software companies are notoriously known to pump up numbers and use them in their marketing campaigns. Today I will try and send a major shockwave through the CAD software industry by making the following statement:

"SYCODE is the largest producer of CAD software on the planet."

...to the best of my limited knowledge, I must add. Now that I have got your attention, I guess you may be interested to know how I arrived at this simple yet profound statement.

Software is abstract. Unlike cars, you do not have to create software from scratch every time you want to sell a license. The largest producer of cars would be the company which actually builds the largest number of cars. But the largest producer of software would be the company which builds the largest number of products. So going by my skewed logic, SYCODE beats Autodesk, PTC, Dassault Systemes and Siemens PLM Solutions, as well as every other CAD software company I have heard of.

Autodesk, the world's largest CAD software company, has 77 products. PTC comes quite close with 98 products. I did not have the time, not the patience, to figure out the exact number of products that Dassault Systems and Siemens PLM Solutions offer. The product pages on their web sites are far too tangled. From their site map I am guessing that Siemens offers about 80 products. Since I cannot figure out Dassault's exact number I will play the "to the best of my knowledge card" and claim that the number is under 101. If you feel I am wrong, please feel free to sue me. This is marketing, honey. Anything goes.

I'd like to take this opportunity to let the concerned people know that I am currently entertaining offers in excess of 10.25 billion. And that's in Euros. I don't do USD anymore.

The SpaceClaim LT Strategy

An anonymous reader commented on my article "SpaceClaim LT", "Maybe, it's time to spend another day in Mike Payne's office and to turn on API support in LT/LTX versions."

Usually when companies offer stripped down versions of their products, they tend to remove a lot of functionality. I was quite surprised to see that SpaceClaim LT/LTX has the same modeling capabilities as the Professional version. From what I understand, LT and LTX are limited mainly in terms of data exchange capability and the lack of API support. In my opinion, this is quite a bold step, something I didn't quite expect. I expected removal of some advanced modeling features or limiting the number of parts in an assembly. Basically, things that would not allow people to use LT to do advanced design or large scale work.

I am now beginning to wonder whether SpaceClaim is giving away more than they should in LT. Limiting data exchange sounds reasonable. As regards API support, I would be extremely happy if they had let LT load add-ins, since I would have more SpaceClaim users to sell my add-ins to (SYCODE released nine data exchange add-ins for SpaceClaim Professional 2007+ today). However, I believe that would be overdoing it. It would almost remove the need and use of the Professional version altogether.

So what exactly is SpaceClaim actually trying to achieve here? Common sense dictates that for any 3D solid modeling CAD vendor to gain market share (or in SpaceClaim's case, create it) they would need to target AutoCAD users who are interested in making the move to 3D. 2D AutoCAD users may find it quite difficult to understand the principles and complexities of 3D parametric modeling. They need to go back to the classroom for that. And I am quite sure that, if given the option, they wouldn't want to go down that path. Autodesk itself is trying very hard to get AutoCAD users to use their Inventor. It seems to be just too big a leap.

So can SpaceClaim LT fit in here? Lets see.

• At a price of $695 for a perpetual license it has a far lesser cost of ownership. That's even lesser than AutoCAD LT, which cannot be extended by plug-ins anyways. So AutoCAD LT users will not have much to complain about.
• By virtue of it being a non-parametric solid modeler, SpaceClaim's learning curve is bound to be much flatter than that of Inventor, SolidWorks, Solid Edge or any other parametric modeler.
• By keeping the same solid modeling features of the Professional version, LT users would always have the best technology that SpaceClaim has to offer.
• SpaceClaim LT can import AutoCAD DWG/DXF files. So the AutoCAD user's existing work can be brought into SpaceClaim without a problem. And since SpaceClaim uses Autodesk's RealDWG technology to read DWG/DXF files, one can safely say that all the data will (or should) come in properly.
• SpaceClaim LT can also write out DWG/DXF files, again using Autodesk's RealDWG technology. So users can safely supply "real" DWG/DXF files to other people, just like they used to when they were using AutoCAD.
• Exchanging data with other 3D modeling systems also will not be a problem since SpaceClaim LT can read IGES and STEP files, with SpaceClaim LTX being able to write them as well.
• SpaceClaim has the advantage of not using proprietary formats to save it's data. So users do not run the risk of being locked into using SpaceClaim only.

In an earlier article "SpaceClaim Changing Direction - Finally", I wrote, "After getting kicked out of Autodesk University, SpaceClaim should have learnt that they cannot play the "we love everyone and everyone loves us" game anymore. If they want to succeed, they should sharpen their swords, put on their armor and step into the arena. Stop playing politics while trying to sneek in from the back door." I believe that with their LT and LTX versions, SpaceClaim has finally decided to step into the arena.

Which brings me to an interesting point. Autodesk is known not to license it's RealDWG technology to competitors. So in the not so distance future, I will not be surprised to find the "Powered by Autodesk RealDWG" logo missing from the SpaceClaim splash screen.

In the same article I wrote, "There are many AutoCAD 2D users wanting to make the switch to 3D. SolidWorks is doing a good job in offering free seats of IntelliCAD along with their software to help these people across. Siemens is giving their Solid Edge 2D for free. That's where the real money is and SpaceClaim does not appear to be interested in these people at all."

With LT and LTX, SpaceClaim seems to be addressing this very issue, and doing a pretty good job as well. I will not be surprised if they start bundling an IntelliCAD license along with their software. Or something else that will help AutoCAD users make the switch.

Limiting Freedom

In his recent post on the protest against the Chinese Maglev train, Ralph Grabowski raises an interesting question. He asks, "What should CAD vendors do when their software is used to design morally questionable projects?". He hopes that "Dassault will see the light, and not permit their design software to be used for this project any longer".

If CAD vendors begin to dictate to their customers when, where and how their software can and should be used, their customers (and the CAD press) will be the first to cry foul. And even if they place such restrictions, just how are the CAD vendors supposed to enforce them. We can very well see how people are taking Autodesk's audit clause in their EULA.

Recently when SolidWorks changed their UI, they were crucified for "forcing" customers to work differently. CAD users don't even want to be told "how" to design, leave alone "what" to design.

Users want (and the CAD press expects) all the freedom possible when choosing, upgrading, installing, learning and using their CAD software, which they have paid for and legally licensed. And when they get that freedom, CAD vendors are then expected to limit it. "Limited freedom" is listed as an oxymoron at oxymoronlist.com.

Ralph likened CAD vendors to politicians. "They take for themselves all credit for the good, and hope no one finds out about the bad". Isn't that what everybody does? Have you heard a dentist make a noise about how he screwed up someone's teeth?

I think too much is being expected from CAD vendors, and virtually nothing from CAD users. If somebody must do something about the controversial Maglev project, it has to be the users of Dassault software, not Dassault itself. I can understand asking Transrapid (the German developer of the Maglev technology) to put pressure on the Chinese. But asking Dassault to prevent Transrapid from using their software on the Maglev project amounts to barking up the wrong tree.

SpaceClaim LT

In my earlier article ("SpaceClaim Finally Gets It") I said, "I believe it will not be long before they come up with a cheaper stripped down version."

Later, in another article ("SpaceClaim Changing Direction - Finally") I said, "If [SpaceClaim's CEO] Mike Payne allowed me to use his office for a day ...[snip]...I would have Development come up with a stripped down version of the software and have Marketing sell it to the 4 million non-CAD users at under $1000."

SpaceClaim has decided to do exactly that. They are now offering SpaceClaim LT at $695 for a perpetual license. They are also offering SpaceClaim LTX for $895. From what I understand these stripped down versions differ from the full blown versions mainly in their ability to import and export file formats. SpaceClaim LT enables you to import STEP, IGES, DXF and DWG file formats and export DXF, DWG, XAML, STL, VRML, BMP, JPG and PNG file formats. Additionally, SpaceClaim LTX allows you to export to STEP and IGES. Tommorow's press release should explain more.

Things like this make me wonder whether I should ditch programming and get into consultancy. I may get rich faster that way. :-)

ODA Gives Away Their DRX SDK

The OpenDesign Alliance is now giving away their DRX SDK. According to their web site:

"The DRX SDK allows users to create extensions for DWGdirect-based applications. DRX applications can access the data in a DWG/DXF drawing file, add custom commands to the global DWGdirect command stack, and create custom objects and entities. The SDK can be used to create DRX modules only, not stand-alone applications. DRX modules are Microsoft® Windows® DLLs which can be loaded at runtime by a compatible DWGdirect host application."

"DRX modules" are actually plug-ins similar to ObjectARX plug-ins that work with AutoCAD and it's verticals.

"DWGdirect host application" is not limited to the various new IntelliCAD's already out there or that are being developed. It can also be an entirely different kind of a CAD application. To get the DWGdirect SDK you need to be a member of the ODA.

DWGdirect is shaping up to be a pretty good framework to build CAD applications upon. At SYCODE, we are seriously contemplating rewriting some of our standalone applications using DWGdirect. If we end up doing so, our applications will have AutoCAD DWG/DXF compatibility be default. Moreover, with the ODA giving away the DRX SDK, anyone will be able to extend our applications by writing plug-ins for them. We have been writing plug-ins for other CAD systems for a long time now. The thought that others could one day write plug-ins for our software is almost romantic.

The ODA has often been painted in bad light by some, mainly Autodesk. They have been referred to the "hacker's group" whose sole aim is to reverse engineer the DWG format and give Autodesk all the grief possible. And the ODA does not appear to be doing much to change that image. For example, their newly designed web site says precious little about how their DWGdirect SDK can be used to create powerful CAD applications (not necessarily AutoCAD clones) and how third parties can use their free DRX SDK to extend these applications. All they talk about is reading and writing file formats, that all.

There is life beyond Autodesk and I hope one day the ODA is able to experience and appreciate it.