SolidWorks SPR's are now Confidential Information

I just realized that the SolidWorks Software Performance Reports (an elegant term for "bug") are now considered confidential information and you are made to click-accept a non-disclosure agreement before accessing the SPR database.

I wonder why. Probably because SolidWorks found too many people bad mouthing their software and had the SPR numbers to back their claims.

And that's precisely why it is a good habit to read those long and pesky click-through agreements. I know they are a pain and come in the way of your work. But understanding what you are agreeing to is equally important and can save you a lot of trouble down the line.

Synchronous Technology

I always wanted to know how big companies come up with big terms like "Synchronous Technology", "Procedural Features" and "Digital Product Design". I guess you already know I am referring to yesterday's news from Siemens PLM Solutions. Do they get all their marketing wizards in a room and brainstorm on the best sounding term? I guess so. Especially since a lot of money goes into marketing and branding these terms. I guess I will never know how "Synchronous Technology" came about, but I think we may get a clue as to "when" this term was coined.

As it turns out, synchronoustechnology.com was registered by Siemens PLM Software (UK) on 31-Mar-2008. Hey, that's only three weeks ago.

Interesting.

Comment Moderation

I do not moderate comments on this blog for a variety of reasons:
1) Blogger's anti-spam feature works fantastic.
2) I want to have a free and fair two way conversation with my readers. You can call me a jackass and it will stay there. However, I expect you to explain why you think I am one.
3) I also want my readers to have a two way conversation between themselves without me interfering and taking sides.
4) I live in India and most of my readers happen to be on the other side of the planet. The time difference is bound to make a very slow and staggered two way conversation.
5) Due to the nature of the stuff I write here, a reader may feel the need to comment anonymously. So I allow anonymous comments as well.

In fact, the only comments I delete are those which have no relevance to the conversation or which are written with an ulterior motive of driving traffic to another blog/site without a good enough reason.

So why am I telling you this? Well, it has been brought to my notice that some readers are pretending to be someone else when commenting on this blog. I can solve that problem by enabling OpenID for comments. Blogger added that feature some time ago. But then we lose the ability to comment anonymously.

I guess we are all grown up and decent people. It is not a problem that our views point in different directions. That's what makes life interesting. I appreciate the time you take to read this blog and comment on what I or other readers have to say. I do not want to moderate this blog or disable anonymous comments. So please don't make me.

Now be good and get back to work.

SpaceClaim Reacts to Synchronous Technology

I asked Mike Payne, CEO of SpaceClaim, if he had anything to say on the "breakthrough" Synchronous Technology unveiled by Siemens PLM Solutions today. As it turns out, he did.

"I am very impressed that Chuck and his team have chosen to imitate SpaceClaim. It gives us validation that we are on the right track, and delivering what people want. As you saw in our latest product release we have taken this simplicity even further with our “3D On-Ramp™” approach which combines the simplicity of 3D modeling pioneered by SpaceClaim, with the familiarity of 2D. I am sure that Chuck will imitate this, as well, in the next release of NX, and come up with another great name for this technology."

As regards to the similarity to SpaceClaim, Mike was of the opinion that "it almost looks like SpaceClaim, even down to the Gizmo!"

I think Siemens has helped add a zero to the price tag on SpaceClaim Corporation.

The 2D To 3D Bottleneck

At one of the many discussions that I was a part of at COFES 2008, someone started lamenting on how many years ago everyone said that 3D was the next big thing and it would trample 2D out of existence. And yet that has not happenned. Someone else suggested that it would never happen. It is my view that 2D will always have a rightful place in the CAD world. Not as the beginning of the design process, but rather as one of the end products of design. Things like workshop ready drawings, contour maps, etc. will always be in 2D.

But this begs the question. If 3D is "the" way of doing it, then why is so much design still being done in 2D? There are as many answers to this question as there are people trying to find an answer. And here is my own.

First let me ask you a question. What is the first thing you do when you start to model a new part in a 3D parametric solid modeling system like SolidWorks, Inventor or Solid Edge? Correct, you create a sketch - a parametric sketch. You then extrude it and then maybe create another parametric sketch on a face and so on.

So if parametric solid modeling relies on parametric sketches, which are essentially 2D drawings, then doesn't it make sense to add parametric sketching to 2D CAD systems to help people make the move from 2D to 3D. After all, the most popular reason given for not moving from 2D to 3D is the "you-need-to-change-the-way-you-think" excuse, which I believe, is a perfectly valid one.

A perfect example is AutoCAD and Inventor. Clearly Autodesk wants its AutoCAD customers to move to Inventor, but it has not added parametric sketching to AutoCAD in all these years. Why? Because if they do, they will essentially be opening a door for their cutomers to get out. But on the other side, their customers will have a choice of many doors to enter and only one of them will be called Inventor. A pretty nasty Catch 22 situation for them. So it is in Autodesk's best interest to keep AutoCAD users happy with wonderful things like non-rectangular viewports, fancy layer editing tools and pretty interfaces. If they choose to give their customers a helping hand across the 2D to 3D chasm, they run the big risk of losing them altogether.

Autodesk can easily add parametric sketching to AutoCAD. They have had it in Inventor since the start. They change their file format every three years. So they can accomodate just about anything into a AutoCAD DWG file, just like how they encode parametric sketching data in an Inventor IPT file. If there is any company that can help 2D users move to 3D it has to be Autodesk. After all, almost all of 2D is AutoCAD.

So am I blaming Autodesk for the 2D to 3D bottleneck? Hell no! Autodesk is not here to do social service. They are not going to do anything to reduce their customer base. And why should they? It is up to their rivals to find ways of relieving Autodesk of their customers. And it it up to 2D users to decide for themselves if and when they should make the switch.

I understand that the issue is not as simple as adding parametric sketching to AutoCAD. I used it only as an example, as one of many things that will help 2D users make the move to 3D. My point is that 3D CAD vendors need to make it extremely easy for 2D users to move to 3D. And last weekend at COFES 2008, I saw something precisely along those lines.

Not surprisingly it came from SpaceClaim. Roman Walsh from SpaceClaim took the time and showed me SpaceClaim 2008 in the lobby of the Scottsdale Plaza. As I watched him model a differential I was amazed to see that he was literrally "drawing" in 2D just like how you would in AutoCAD and 3D parts were simultaneously being "modeled" in another window. After he was done I asked him to rotate the 2D view, and just as I suspected, the 2D views he was "drawing" into were actually full blown 3D section views of the same model that was being constructed in the 3D window.

I turned to Mike Payne, the CEO of SpaceClaim, sitting across the table and said, "Mike, you guys are going directly after AutoCAD customers with this". He replied, "Naw... now why would we do that?" but could not hide a wicked smile.

I believe the approach of convincing 2D users to switch to parametric solid modeling is not going to work as well as the approach that SpaceClaim has taken, and now Siemens PLM Solutions is taking. As far as I can forsee, my kids are going to learn about parametric solid modeling, but only in their CAD history class. It will be a chapter titled, "The Great Skip" and it will describe how 2D users skipped parametric solid modeling and used direct modeling as their express elevator to the 3D world.

However, the 2 billion dollar question is: What role is Autodesk going to do play in that chapter?

Siemens Adopts CAD 2.0

It sure looks like parametric solid modeling is on its way out. Today Siemens PLM Solutions let the world know about their breakthough "Synchronous Technology". Some time ago I referred to SpaceClaim 2007 as CAD 2.0 and published a white paper on it. I also predicted that other vendors will follow suit. Today Siemens PLM Solutions did exactly that.

Take a look at the video here. For a moment (in fact for many moments) I thought I was looking at SpaceClaim. This is going to be part of Solid Edge and NX and will be released in May.

Hey Autodesk, SolidWorks and the rest of the gang, what are you guys waiting for?

WTF is Digital Prototyping?

That's the question I asked many people at COFES 2008 last weekend. Not exactly the same words, but pretty much something along those lines. I got several replies ranging from decent to colorful, depending upon the level of intoxication of the person replying. Replies like "it's nothing new" and "it's just a marketing thing" to "load of crap" and "complete bullshit". However, the average reply centered around "it's being done for many years now" and I tend to agree with that line of thought. But I know that Autodesk Marketing is the best there is and when they say something, I listen and wonder.

So WTF is Digital Prototyping? Just like PLM means different things to different people, I happen to have a view about Digital Prototyping as well. If you care to know, let's back track a little here. I had a long and animated discussion with Scott Harris, the co-founder of SolidWorks at COFES 2008. Among many things I asked him about the growing functionality being added to SolidWorks every year, and how this could eventually step on the toes of CATIA, if it hasn't already. Scott put his drink down, sat upright and said, "No way! We each cater to a different set of customers who have different needs. We operate completely independently of each other and are free to do what we want."

Later that evening I had another long conversation with Suchit Jain, Vice President of Strategy of SolidWorks, and asked him the same question. His response was more elaborate than's Scott's but not very different.

The next day I was having lunch with Stan Przybylinski, Manager, Market Intelligence of Dassault Systemes and I found myself asking him the same question. I was expecting a similar reply as the other two, but was pleasantly surprised to hear him say, "Yes, we are concerned about this, especially since we are interested in making our solutions more affordable to a larger cross section." So I was right. Dassault sees a conflict of interest here, and rightfully so. In these days when companies are looking to cut costs more than ever, Dassault runs the risk of losing the bottom tier of their customers to SolidWorks. No, not the Airbus type of customers, but the smaller companies which barely manage to afford CATIA and do not need all of its functionality.

So WTF does have to do with Digital Protoptyping? Patience, I am coming to that.

Now taking this argument to the Siemens household, we can see that Solid Edge runs into the same problem with NX. Whether they admit it or not, both SolidWorks and Solid Edge have to internally fight their way up. But there is no such glass ceiling for Inventor, the last of the three in the mid-range CAD market. It can push all it want's to. And push it will. Like I mentioned on WorldCAD Access, Robert "Buzz" Kross, Sr. Vice President, Manufacturing Solutions of Autodesk, the man in charge of Inventor, was very clear when he said that over the next ten years Autodesk intends to acquire companies that will aid in giving Inventor the capabilities of Digital Prototyping.

So again, WTF is Digital Prototyping? My definition of Digital Prototyping is simply "the difference between modeling and designing". Allow me to explain. Modeling is the act of fiddling around with the mouse and keyboard to arrive at a solid model, technically a set of trimmed NURBS surfaces, knitted into a watertight body. Designing, on the other hand, is something totally different. Designing is the act of testing and verifying whether a solid model will fulfill it's intended use, modifying it if it cannot, and if it can, optimizing it to make it do a better job. In designing, you need to apply real world conditions such as loads, heat, stress, etc. and determine whether the part or assembly will work satisfactorily and efficiently. Although the "D" in CAD stands for "Design", we have actually being doing modeling, that is, creating and altering geometry. When you "design" you essentially iterate though many versions of models of the same part or assembly and finalize on the best version which fulfill all your requirements. That, in essence, is "Digital Prototyping" according to me, and maybe according to Autodesk as well. I repeat, "Digital Prototyping is the difference between modeling and designing.

I believe Autodesk's strategy for Inventor actually involves giving Inventor the ability to "design" parts and assemblies, as opposed to just "model" them, which it can do already. And so can SolidWorks, SolidEdge and just about every other software capable of creating a watertight solid model. Modeling is a solved problem. It was solved long ago. The "enhancements" that we see in every new release of SolidWorks, Solid Edge and Inventor and just more elegant methods of doing the same thing - modeling. However, designing is a problem that is far from solved and only the high end CAD systems like CATIA, NX and Pro/Engineer offer solutions close to what is required to design. And for reasons mentioned above, SolidWorks and Solid Edge will always be restricted in offering design solutions.

So when Autodesk says things like "Digital Prototying", "ten years" and "aquire companies", I believe that over time they are looking at offering a solution, or rather a set of solutions, that spans from the mid-range to the high-end CAD market. If that indeed is the case (and it should be if they wish to continue making a lot of money), then Autodesk may feel the need to make some noise about their plans. And I believe that "Digital Prototyping" is that noise. But more than noise, to me it appears to be a firm foundation of a sound business plan to truly rule the CAD world - 2D and 3D.

Now we know that Autodesk has loads of money to acquire companies and make this happen. They are not taking the stairs here, it's the elevator. Buzz was very clear that they are not interested in developing these digitial prototyping solutions on their own. They intend to just go out and buy tried and tested solutions that work (or can be made to work) with Inventor. And when (not if) that happens, the rules of the mid-range CAD market game are going to change.

So while most of the world thinks of Autodesk's Digital Prototyping mantra as a "load of crap" or "complete bullshit", I would suggest that their rivals give them a little more respect and probably do something to about it.

COFES 2008 Diary - 3

In case you haven't noticed, I have been reporting on COFES 2008 at WorldCAD Access. I have yet to file my Day 3 report, but it looks like I will be able to do so only after I return back to India. I am currently in Atlanta to wrap up some unfinished business. It's freezing cold here and getting myself something warm is the first thing on my to do list.

COFES 2008 Diary - 2

Every COFES attendee is assigned a host, basically a COFES representative who helps you around and introduces you to the people you want to meet. For first timers like me a host is critical. I met up with my host Shyamal Roy, CEO of GEOMATE, and he introduced me to a quite a few people.

One of the first people I met was Mike Payne, CEO of SpaceClaim. I stood a safe distance from him, fearing that he would swing a fist at me for all the stuff that I have been writing about him and SpaceClaim on this blog. As it turned out, our short meeting was without incident.

Later in the day, I had the opportunity to shake the hand of Bob McNeel. I admire this guy for his vision. At SYCODE, we use McNeel's free OpenNURBS Toolkit a lot in our products. In my opinion, McNeel is one of the very few CAD vendors who have got it right. Their approach to interoperability and resistance to switching to the software subscription model are what makes them stand out. I hope to bump into him again.

I also had a nice long talk with Paul Grayson, the founder of Alibre. I was looking forward to meeting Greg Milliken, the CEO of Alibre, but he could not make it to COFES this year. From what I gather, Alibre is planning some interesting things to go with their "Personal CAD" marketing strategy, one of which is Alibre CAM Express released just yesterday.

I also met Joel Orr minus his 24 grandchildren and Brad Holtz, the man behind COFES. Interesting people. Rachael Dalton-Taggart was instrumental in getting me to COFES and I finally got to meet her as well.

A word of caution to my fellow bloggers. Think twice before criticizing Evan Yares. This guy is huge and you don't want to piss him off. I am 6 feet tall but Evan was towering over me when I shook his hand this evening. You have been warned.

Margarita and Bloody Mary

I wandered around Scottsdale today and learnt a few things about Americans:

1) They drive on the wrong side of the road.
2) They have weird looking electrical wall sockets into which none of my charging cables fit.
3) Their electrical switches work opposite. Down is off and up is on.
4) They don't use concrete and stone/bricks to build small structures like houses. I find this particularly odd since this is supposed to be developed nation having something known as a "hurricane season". Back in India, even the free one-room houses built by the government for the Tsunami victims have solid walls, a concrete roof and will last a hundred years.
5) They make far better Margaritas and Bloody Marys than Indians.

Cheers!

COFES 2008 Diary - 1

After being shoved around in airports and airplanes for the past 48 hours I have finally arrived in Scottsdale for COFES 2008. I missed my New York to Phoenix connecting flight and that resulted in me having to haul my sorry ass via Atlanta. Anyways, 4 aircrafts and 5 airports later I am finally in my hotel room. But now I have a new problem. My body is telling me to have breakfast and my watch is telling me to have dinner.

COFES - The Oscars of the CAD World

Next weekend I will be attending the Oscars of the CAD World - COFES (the Congress on the Future of Engineering Software), an annual invitation-only event organized by Cyon Research. Take a look at the list of attendees for COFES 2008 and you will understand why I consider this event as the Oscars of the CAD world. Here are some statistics regarding the titles of the attendees:

President 36

Vice-President 35

CEO 31

Director 29

CTO 10

Managing Director 7

COO 5

Chairman 4

Partner 4

My position is a humble "Contributing Editor, WorldCADAccess and Blogger, Deelip.com". Looks like I am the only person with the word "blogger" in his title, although some of the press attending are bloggers as well. I hope to blog about COFES 2008 at WorldCAD Access and this blog as well. A look at the schedule makes me wonder whether I will get the time to do so.

Over the past decade, I have corresponded with many of the attendees, mostly through email and sometimes on phone. It will be great to meet them in person. And I am flying half way around the world to do just that.