SpaceClaim Reacts to Inventor Fusion

I asked Mike Payne, the Founder and Chairman of SpaceClaim, what he thought about Inventor Fusion. Mike was the CEO of SpaceClaim when they started it all. This is what he had to say:

"They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. SpaceClaim is really flattered that now all of the major players in the Mechanical Design Automation market have either announced actual products, given glimpses of future products, or actually purchased the technology. This clearly shows that the wave started by SpaceClaim has momentum, and products that implement “Direct Modeling” are being demanded by the customers of the major players. Now, ADSK is showing a technology future with a very nice user interface, which must be in response to requests from their customers. I will look forward to seeing the released implementation sometime in the future, and seeing how many of the real world cases are implemented, and how well the product performs with geometry that was created in other systems which would be needed to be able to work well with analysis and other downstream products."

The present CEO, Chris Randles, also had something to say about Inventor Fusion, but it was my ears only. ;-)

Inventor Fusion

Shaan Hurley's post alerted me to Autodesk's Inventor Fusion Technology Preview. So contrary to what some believed would happen, Autodesk went ahead and made it's own push-pull technology instead of buying it.

I haven't got access to this piece of software yet but these videos look very familiar to what SpaceClaim and Synchronous Technology offer. I am most interested to see whether Autodesk has done a better job at mixing parametric modeling and direct modeling as compared to Siemens.

So now that leaves SolidWorks and Alibre Design out in the cold. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the direction in which solid modeling is headed. Alibre had better come up with something pretty soon. It will be most interesting to see how SolidWorks handles this. It's parent company Dassault Systemes already has this technology in their CATIA V6 platform. But it does not appear that they are in the mood of giving it to poor little SolidWorks because poor little SolidWorks is busy nibbling at their pie and snatching their customers from them. They don't even let SolidWorks read CATIA files, which is simply ridicuous. The fact that SolidWorks has been using the Parasolid modeling kernel from Siemens will only add to their woes.

But then, SolidWorks may already be developing their push-pull technology. I don't believe they have been twiddling their thumbs as they watch the world go by. Time will tell.

Google's Silent Gate-crash

Today a shortcut called "Google Chrome" showed up in my start menu. When I clicked it it told me that I was at the final step of my installation. Funny thing is that I don't remember starting any installation. And neither do I remember downloading anything to install in the first place. But I guess when you are Google you can get away with anything.

[Free Advice: Do not click shortcuts that turn up on your computer unless you verify their source and know exactly what you are doing.]

Things get scary when companies decide what software they think you should have and then go ahead and download and install it for you. Thankfully, the only thing they cannot do is make you use it.

Autodesk vs SolidWorks

Owen Wengard's last post at CAD/Court finally made me take some time off work and read the Autodesk vs SolidWorks case documents. A bloddy waste of time, I must say. To me it looks as if Autodesk simply wants to waste some of its money on lawyers so that SolidWorks wastes some of its money on lawyers. The irony is that both their customers end up paying the bills.

In my opinion, complaining that SolidWorks uses the term "DWG" in it's product names and "Real" in it's marketing is just falling short of intellectual bankruptcy, especially when Autodesk has repeatedly be declined trademarks related to "DWG" and most definately cannot come close to trademarking the word "Real". And I would consider Autodesk's assertion that only they can use an "Orange Frame" in their product branding a joke, but I really didn't find it funny.

After reading the arguments that SolidWorks put up in its defense I believe Autodesk realizes it is nowhere close to winning this one. I hope they also realize that the more law suits they loose or settle, the worse their chances get of finally trademarking "DWG" because the opposing party keeps building its defence on what Autodesk conceded in the previous cases. In this case SolidWorks used the Autodesk vs ODA law suit to bolster it's own case.

This one will be a no-brainer for the judge.

A Change in Name

Taking cue from my title at the COFES 2009 list of Key Participants I have changed the name of this blog from "Deelip Menezes" to "Deelip.com".

When setting up this blog I was asked for the name of the blog. I mistook it for the blogger's name and put my name instead. And it has stuck for more than two years.

COFES 2009

I will be attending the CAD Oscars again this coming April. As will 5 Bob's, 3 Dave's and a David, 3 Michael's and a Mike and a couple of Brian's, Chris', Scott's, Mark's, Joe's and Joel's. Take a look at the list of Key Participants for COFES 2009. My title clearly stands out of the crowd: "Blogger, Deelip.com".

This year the theme is Innovation. I asked Brad Holtz and Joel Orr of Cyon Research, the organisers of COFES, the reason why they chose Innovation this time. According to Joel, innovation is the major factor driving Manufacturing and AEC and it seemed like the obvious choice.

Brad tells me that attendee count is capped at 300. Remember that COFES is an invitation only event and before you apply note that the organizers expect you to hold a position which, in their words, "empowers you to implement strategic technology decisions in your company". In a typical year, 15% of attendees are from the user community and 20% are from the press and analyst community, which explains why my name is on the list.

I asked which event competes with COFES, or whether it has a competitor in the first place. Joel does not believe that there is a competing event to COFES. "Just about everyone who comes to COFES wants to come back", says Joel and I agree. I definately wanted to. "The COFES experience is unlike any other, and nobody else has come up with anything like it. We continue to improve it each year -- but very carefully, because we have, by design and by chance, created something magical, and we want to sustain the magic." Brad adds, "In some respects, COFES fills a void that was created with the death of the major, cross-vendor shows like AEC Systems, NCGA, and Autofact. Today, only Siggraph remains. All of the other events that are healthy are focused on a single vendor (AU, COE, SolidWorks World, BE, etc.) COFES is the industry event where vendors in multiple verticals can get have a conversation in a non-selling environment. That’s a major part of why COFES is a community event and why there really aren’t any direct competitors to it."

I asked why COFES was held at the Scottsdale Plaza every year. Here is Brad's explanation, "A key component of why COFES works is that we are never in a building for more than 90 minutes without going outside to move to a new venue. The connection with the outside is important and we need a location that can almost guarantee sunshine. Also, the event must be relatively easy to travel to. An executive can leave the office at noon from any major city in the continental US and still be at the event in time for the opening reception."

I look forward to COFES 2009. My only worry is that, like last time, I have to use four planes and five airports to get my sorry ass there. And then I have to get it back to India.