SolidWorks, Siemens and their AutoCAD Strategies
It is a known fact that the massive install base of AutoCAD users is the number one target for CAD vendors. The question is not whether the bulk of AutoCAD users are going to switch to 3D. Rather it is when will they do it.
In order to help AutoCAD users make the leap of faith, SolidWorks has been bundling free licenses of DWGeditor, their flavor of IntelliCAD, to their customers. Siemens, on the other hand, has taken a different approach. They are offering their 2D drawing program for free, not only to their customers, but to everyone.
To me these look like two solutions to solve the same problem and I like only one of them. First off, the switch to 3D is going to be gradual, if not painful, with ample scope of the user getting stuck in limbo between the 2D and 3D. He would need to work with his old data and his old suppliers while going through the process of rewiring his brain to think in 3D. I know that Solid Edge's 2D program can do many things that AutoCAD can. But all said and done, it is a completely different software which looks and acts in ways that AutoCAD users are quite unfamiliar. Somewhere in the transition process, the user would invariably need to edit a DWG file before using it in his workflow. Using DWGeditor, he will barely feel the difference. However, editing a DWG file in Solid Edge's 2D program is going to be a far more difficult, time consuming and probably frustrating. Remember that Solid Edge, like other 3D solid modeling systems, considers a 2D drawing to be an end result of modeling and not the start point, as does AutoCAD. So by intent Solid Edge's 2D program is quite simply not designed to work like AutoCAD.
So now the user has to learn two things: how to think like Solid Edge wants him to think and how to make Solid Edge's 2D program do things that it was probably not designed for. While it may be technically possible for users to do just about everything in Solid Edge's 2D program that can be done in AutoCAD, I see no point in wasting time figuring it out or get trained to do it.
If given the choice, I would choose DWGeditor over Solid Edge's 2D program. After all, as a 2D user making the switch, I would prefer spending my time learning 3D rather than figuring out another way of doing 2D.
In order to help AutoCAD users make the leap of faith, SolidWorks has been bundling free licenses of DWGeditor, their flavor of IntelliCAD, to their customers. Siemens, on the other hand, has taken a different approach. They are offering their 2D drawing program for free, not only to their customers, but to everyone.
To me these look like two solutions to solve the same problem and I like only one of them. First off, the switch to 3D is going to be gradual, if not painful, with ample scope of the user getting stuck in limbo between the 2D and 3D. He would need to work with his old data and his old suppliers while going through the process of rewiring his brain to think in 3D. I know that Solid Edge's 2D program can do many things that AutoCAD can. But all said and done, it is a completely different software which looks and acts in ways that AutoCAD users are quite unfamiliar. Somewhere in the transition process, the user would invariably need to edit a DWG file before using it in his workflow. Using DWGeditor, he will barely feel the difference. However, editing a DWG file in Solid Edge's 2D program is going to be a far more difficult, time consuming and probably frustrating. Remember that Solid Edge, like other 3D solid modeling systems, considers a 2D drawing to be an end result of modeling and not the start point, as does AutoCAD. So by intent Solid Edge's 2D program is quite simply not designed to work like AutoCAD.
So now the user has to learn two things: how to think like Solid Edge wants him to think and how to make Solid Edge's 2D program do things that it was probably not designed for. While it may be technically possible for users to do just about everything in Solid Edge's 2D program that can be done in AutoCAD, I see no point in wasting time figuring it out or get trained to do it.
If given the choice, I would choose DWGeditor over Solid Edge's 2D program. After all, as a 2D user making the switch, I would prefer spending my time learning 3D rather than figuring out another way of doing 2D.
posted by Deelip Menezes at
12:03 PM
19 Comments:
Deelip,
What if users were given the choice within one piece of software of how they wanted to treat the data... like AutoCAD (an electronic extension of the drafting board) or like a modern parametric sketcher. Would it be too much to ask if we could have both and have a switch to throw so that we could decide when to treat it differently? One peice of software - albeit more complex - for both types of users.
Pete Yodis
By
Anonymous, At
6:13 PM, October 23, 2008
I'm actually starting to see a shift away from 2D in the expectations of students graduating. I think there's less board drawing being taught as a basis of structuring drawing content (unfortunately) and the focus is being put more on how to create 3-dimensional designs.
Yeah, DWGEditor would be more familiar to them *if* they had training in autocad, but like you say, the preference is moving to 3D.
By
Anonymous, At
6:38 PM, October 23, 2008
The preference of 2D or 3D depends on the field of study.
By
Anonymous, At
7:37 PM, October 23, 2008
Pete: "Would it be too much to ask if we could have both and have a switch to throw so that we could decide when to treat it differently?"
In all these decades Autodesk has not put a parametric sketcher (let alone parametric modeler) in AutoCAD. Their rival, IMSI, has gone ahead and made a plug-in for AutoCAD that does exactly that. See http://www.idx-design.com (Variable Constraint System for AutoCAD)
What you are asking for makes perfect sense. Just that it does not make good business sense for Autodesk. Or does it?
By
Deelip Menezes, At
8:53 PM, October 23, 2008
I think, Deelip, that you are on the verge of another Parametric vs. Explicit modeling discussion, but in 2D instead of 3D.
AutoCAD is a non-parametric sketcher whereas SolidEdge Draft is parametric. When I initially went from AutoCAD to 3D modeling, the modeling was not the problem. Rather, learning that the dimension-drives-the-line instead of the line-driving-the-dimension was the hardest concept to grasp -- IN THE 2D ENVIRONMENT.
So, if I want to drop AutoCAD and transition to 3D and not loose any productivity, I'd pick DWGEditor. If I want to drop AutoCAD and transition to 3D while learning 3D, I'd pick SolidEdge Draft. If I need to remain productive in 2D while learning 3D, I'd just keep a license of AutoCAD around.
Finally, your assumption that SE treats 2D as an end result is only correct in concept of 3D modeling. SolidEdge draft is based on Integraph and is a fully functional 2D program. It was merely adapted to import 3D model geometry as the basis for drawing views. From that point, it is just a 2D program. For point of comparison, SolidWorks creates a "window" to the part file but SolidEdge projects all the model edges and turns them into 2D elements within the draft file. That's (a reason) why you can't redefine the drawing view orientation in draft view with Edge, but you can with Works.
By
Anonymous, At
9:08 PM, October 23, 2008
wertel: "If I want to drop AutoCAD and transition to 3D and not loose any productivity, I'd pick DWGEditor. If I want to drop AutoCAD and transition to 3D while learning 3D, I'd pick SolidEdge Draft."
By this logic, SolidWorks gives more importance to the end user's productivity. I agree with you completely.
It is true that SE Draft is a full blown 2D CAD system, maybe even better than AutoCAD in some respects. But my point is that 2D is precisely what AutoCAD users are trying to get away from. And they cannot do it overnight. It is going to be a process (physically and mentally) and they will need all the help that they can get, not be burdenned by learning how to work with another 2D system.
By
Deelip Menezes, At
9:30 PM, October 23, 2008
This conversation completely leaves out the choice of using Inventor. I get 3D and AutoCAD. Even DWGEditor is different from AutoCAD, albeit much less than SolidEdge Draft.
By
Anonymous, At
11:29 PM, October 23, 2008
I thought I would share some input from Siemens in regards to your post.
“The question is not whether the bulk of AutoCAD users are going to switch to 3D. Rather it is when will they do it.”
So what he is saying is the 2D user WILL at some point make the move to 3D. So one must ask the question “How easy of a move will it be and how fast can the user learn the new 3D UI?”
ALL 2D user will have to learn a new UI at some point in time, no matter what CAD system they go with, Edge, Works and Inventor. All three have a different UI than AUOTCAD. In fact AutoCAD 2009 is a Ribbon based UI (like office 2007) so even AutoCAD has changed UI. Now the new Solid Edge 2D is also Ribbon based. DWG Editor is NOT.
So why not have a 3D system, that has a standalone 2D system, that 1) keeps the user going by designing in 2D 2) educates the user on the 3D UI that someday they will be using to design in 3D. So the Solid Edge approach is one that keeps the 2D productive but at the same time training them in 3D UI so that when the time comes the level of productivity will still increase. Rather than the SolidWorks approach, when the user makes the switch to 3D, the productivity will slow down because the user must now learn a new UI." Kyle Aruda - Solid Edge Field Support
Regards,
Adam Charlton
Siemens PLM Software
Inside Product Sales - Solid Edge
By
Adam a Ant, At
11:31 PM, October 23, 2008
I am always leery about taking advice from a company like Solid Works who doesn't own its Intellectual Properties. Their rented Parasolid Kernel owned by Siemens PLM-Solid Edge has been abused by Solid Works for several years now and has become almost unrecognizable. The Solid Works approach to the AutoCAD dilemma is in my opinion, one more example of them simply not understanding the final software goal.
By
Marshall the IPS, At
12:50 AM, October 24, 2008
Deelip – “The question is not whether the bulk of AutoCAD users are going to switch to 3D. Rather it is when will they do it.”
What number or percentage does ‘bulk’ represent?
And why should they “switch to 3D”; to use 3D or make money?
Wertel - I think, ….., but in 2D instead of 3D.
Yes, and again it is a waste of time. 2D CADD users are neither slow, un-productive nor backwards: but there is an attempt to make them out to be all of the above, and it is wrong to do so.
Ralph G. – ‘The preference of 2D or 3D depends on the field of study.” I append, “and in which you work and what you work on”.
Ralph’s comment is correct and a key consideration. Combined with productivity and profitability these are the drivers behind the selection of CADD tools.
Adam C. – “So one must ask the question “How easy of a move will it be and how fast can the user learn the new 3D UI?”
This presupposes the UI is important to the successful implementation of a CADD system. I personally think it is, in the main, irrelevant. I would select on functionality long before ‘user friendliness’; and would much rather have a difficult to use CADD system than one that is easy to use but limits both, what I can design and document and the fields in which I can use it.
Something to ponder;
- Autodesk have – poorly implemented - both direct editing of 3D models and dimension driven geometry (2D drawing), in AutoCAD. Why have these gone ‘un-noticed’ and lack development?
&
- 3D modeling has been available on PCs since the early 1980s and yet 2D has out developed and sold it by a long shot. Many of the comments made back then – about its benefits are still seen in posts today. So, well over twenty years and of almost the same age as 2D (on a PC), 3D software not been as widely adopted, why?
One possible answer, Pete Yodis comes close too - The market has, for a long time been telling developers, a story they simply don’t want to listen too; 2D CADD is as relevant today as it has been in the past and a truly successful developer, in this field, will be the one that recognizes this and ensures their products treat 2D and 3D as equally important tools, available simultaneously and that can be applied in any combination.
Autodesk are there but they have foolishly squandered their opportunities, continue to do so and will into to future, because they also have been blinded by the ‘concept’ 3D is a must and it is simply not true!
By
Anonymous, At
5:07 AM, October 24, 2008
"The preference of 2D or 3D depends on the field of study."
I'm sure Ralph is right about this.
I'm also sure that 2D CAD is dead in machining job shops and from any company I've made parts for in the last five years.
Can anyone name any CAM company creating new CAM applications that run inside of Autocad? I can't.
Here is a partial list of companies that don't have any CAM that runs inside of AutoCAD but do have applications (or are developing applications )that run inside of SolidWorks.
CNC Software (Mastercam)
Delcam (FeatureCAM)
OpenMind (Hypermill)
CAMWorks
SolidCAM
HSMWorks
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
By
Anonymous, At
9:46 AM, October 24, 2008
Adam Charlton,
Thanks for offering the Siemens view. I appreciate it when CAD vendors take the time to reply to criticism.
I will use an example to explain myself. Suppose I have a DWG file containing a rectangle. I want to accomplish the very simple task of increasing the width of the rectangle. I open the DWG file in DWGeditor, type STRETCH, make a appropriate selection in the drawing window with the mouse and stretch the rectangle. Just like how I used to do it in AutoCAD.
Now lets see how I accomplish the same thing in SE Draft. In fact I am going to toggle between this window where I am typing this comment and SE Draft to share my experience. I open the DWG file in SE Draft. I see my rectangle. I look around for something which says "Stretch". Can't find anything. I am used to seeing "Stretch" in AutoCAD's "Modify" menu. So I am now looking around the menu system (I use an older version of Draft). Cannot find the word "Stretch" anywhere. Let me fire up the new SE Draft on another computer. Ok just did. I now see a bunch of buttons in the ribbon. Now hovering over each one of them to see what the tooltips say. Sorry no "stretch" anywhere. I am now clicking the drop down arrows of the buttons to see if "stretch" is hiding there. Ah! Finally got it. "Stretch" is in the "Move" button context menu.
I think you get my point.
I know I could have fired up help and typed in "Stretch". If the user is going to do that for every command, you can imagine how frustrated he is going to get.
By
Deelip Menezes, At
11:21 AM, October 24, 2008
Hello Deelip,
News Flash!!! AutoCAD users design in 3D!!! Late news!!! Some users have been doing it since 1994!!!
I enjoy your CAD chat more than some so I'll come clean from the start...I'm a user and not a pusher, CAD that is! It often appears to me that much of the published chat around CAD has an unhealthy bias in favour of the pushers and if you'll allow, here's a users view.
I first swapped from 2D CAD design to 3D around 1994 using.....AutoCAD R12. No, that's not a typo, AutoCAD could do proficient 3D design using solids at least as far back as 1994. It's true that with later releases some of the solids editing was reduced but with a low cost 3rd party (CSG editor/Context CAD) even more fluency could be achieved.
After 6 years or so my design toolbox gathered additional tools: - AutoCAD R13, CADkey 98/99, MDT5, MDT6/IV5.3 and I would guess that current utilisation breaks down as follows: - 70% MDT6, 20% CADkey, 5% IV5.3, 5% AutoCAD. Each tool has it's purpose and must earn it's keep, for as a one man business I can not afford the luxury of squandering cash just for the sake of glitz and one up manship.
I design and develop both product (opto-electronic) and special purpose assembly equipment and did so equally well with AutoCAD R12. Please remember that Concord was designed before CAD and man went to the moon possibly without it too.
To state that AutoCAD users need to ditch their tool in order to design in 3D seems to me at least disingenuous and possibly even a little insulting.
May I suggest that if AutoCAD users are still not converting to IV, SW, SE in their droves that perhaps they have valid reasons. May I also suggest that 3D CAD is not a prerequisite for good or efficient design, and just possibly it never will be.
Autodesk would maybe gain more sales if they swapped from chasing glitz to chasing programme bugs. I'm guessing here as I don't use SolidWorks or SolidEdge, but perhaps the same cap would fit?
In case I have over stated my view I'll finish by saying that I love my 3D CAD and would be loathe to go back to 2D or even worse, pencil and paper. But I could. The wrench of going back to 3D design using AutoCAD would be small in comparison.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
By
Anonymous, At
3:24 PM, October 24, 2008
Well done and well said Jonathan.
You have just touched on the very points Autodesk (and many others) do not want to hear and refuse to listen too.
Lets hope a few more, like you, speak up in a similar manner.
Thank You.
By
Anonymous, At
5:43 PM, October 24, 2008
Deelip: Solid Edge understands that the two UI are different, that is why we have a "Command Finder" and an Autocad user can type in the comand that they are used to and SE will show them where the command is. This is in the version 20 and the current version. No other CAD system does that.
Also a note on the Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology version, you can select 3d faces and stretch them just like in 2d. It's really amazing stuff. Check out the solidedge.com website if you haven't already.
Adam Charlton
Inside Product Sales
Siemens PLM Software
By
Adam a Ant, At
12:49 AM, October 25, 2008
Adam,
Indeed, the "Command Finder" is a neat feature. This will save a lot of headache.
By
Deelip Menezes, At
11:48 AM, October 25, 2008
I've been working with Siemens Solid Edge with ST all weekend. It's both easy and a pleasure to use. Someone who has never used Solid Edge with ST before can be productive in a few hours. It's a very addictive program to use because of how well it's user interface works and how powerful it is.
Siemens should be offering a free demo version of Solid Edge with ST via a downloadable website. This demo version should save 25 times and then stop saving. After 25 saves it should still work but just not save files. This demo version of Solid Edge with ST should also not have compatible files with the regular version of Solid Edge with ST.
I can't imagine any AutoCAD user doing mechanical modeling wanting to go back to modeling in AutoCAD after using Solid Edge with ST.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
By
Anonymous, At
12:00 AM, October 27, 2008
Hello Jon,
How many more different CAD applications would you have me spend my time and money on though?
Over the years I have purchased numerous different ones from numerous different stables and the 3 which I currently use do most of what I require and I'm familiar with them.
They currently all work and interface with the Optical modelling software, the FEA software and numerous other engineering applications which I use. All run well under Windows 2k and on my existing hardware.
Can anyone guarantee that Solid Edge with ST (or SolidWorks) will slot seamlessly into my office and leave me in better shape for just the cost of the software? I don't think so!
There are many different reasons why designers stick with the CAD and the methodology they've got, and possibly not all of them are easily imagined.
There seems to be little to choose between Autodesk or its competitors and taking a long distance view even less reason to swap.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
By
Anonymous, At
4:29 PM, October 27, 2008
Have you ever heard the old saying 'no pain - no gain' ?
The AutoCAD-friendlyness of DWGeditor isn't all that significant compared to the advent of something like Synchronous Technology, which holds the promise of 'making 3D CADD so easy, that even an AutoCAD user can do it'.
Relative to the potential benefits of ST, which put quite simply, are immense, AutoCAD-friendlyness is relatively unimportant.
The big change in CADD is for it to become a middleware component of systems that are operated people with little or no CADD training. Customers will interact with front end applications that allow them to customize products and play 'what-if' using the CADD middleware as the engine for display and analysis.
In other words, the masses will be using CADD without even realizing they are.
By
Anonymous, At
4:45 AM, October 31, 2008
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home