Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
exocubic

Rumors...

Recommended Posts

Guest clb

Parasolids is not good - it is good (pardon) At least ONE good move. See the New SOLID EDGE V21 (getting the upgrade).

And this !

http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/campaigns/breakthrough/index.shtml

And I hope it is the latest technology not lagging a year behind like on SW.

Great - hope they take the complete package with all the available tools - not a scaled down cost saving part of the Parsolid Engine.

That was the reason why I took on SE and not SW's. They are the developers of Parasolid and turning it to big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest clb

Hi Chris

Both gone but both have high regards for VW and still reading the posts. I think we both respect VW solid base - forget VW 2008.

Chris - it is a positive move. I doubt that they will ever go that far. They are not concerned about engineering which is another mistake. Especially if they have the 64 bit system (Hopefully).

And as I have read and live the fact that the engineering side with the Arch side becoming more and more integrated over all disciplines, it will be just another flaw of VW if they choose not to make the engineering side much more integrateble.

Again those FEA abilities can be cost options and by using the German superiority in their technology field of expertise it can be applied positively. As a matter of fact VW can top the FEA add-on's with ALLPLAN concrete FEA technology.

I think that is what you and I want for an all in one CAD with a solid base.

Just think if you have it in VW - all features for steel, trusses, HVAC, piping, concrete etc - brilliant.

Will still be interesting to see how far they will bet their mouth and money on VW 2009. Full baked or half baked ? - with another succesfull askew marketing campaign behind them or a real timer ?

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, this is brilliant. Check out the username of the last edit to the Parasolids article on Wikipedia... removing VectorWorks from the list of supporting software!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parasolid&diff=237059398&oldid=231438827

Which had previously been added on the 18 July:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parasolid&diff=226430296&oldid=226034284

If anything convinces me the rumour's correct it's Sean Flaherty removing mention of it from Wikipedia!

Share this post


Link to post

You guys might as well be speaking arabic. I'm a struggling with vw12 and really have no idea what these changes to VW means. Can someone explain in more simple terms. I think my tendency to upgrade is going to be solely based on whether or not vw2009 is going to make learning / using VW any easier.

Share this post


Link to post

To Kell: VW's is a complex program, and while some people can jump right in, others find the initial learning curve unbearably steep. If possible you should get some professional training. It will pay for itself tenfold.

To Christiaan & Others: Sorry for the thread-morph...

Share this post


Link to post

My motivation for posting this is twofold: to let other VW users know what is being whispered about, and to start in on a rant. Here goes:

I just bought SolidWorks. And a new Vista-based workstation to run it on. Needless to say, a gargantuan investment that is a tenfold increase in capital outlay for software/hardware. Plus the added complication of switching BACK to windows, after two years of relative happiness on the mac.

Why? Because the suite of packages (formZ and VectorWorks) I was using was inefficient and cumbersome for the work I was needing to do. Both packages fall just short of doing what I want - that is, 3d designs developed into 2d sheet metal patterns PLUS shop drawings for fabricators to actually build the objects. FormZ is a wonderfully flexible modeler with half-assed 2d capabilities and VW is the best 2d CAD program I've ever laid hands on - but it's 3d capabilities (specifically SNAPS and "Hybrid Objects") end up creating more problems and workarounds than useful data. Thus I was attempting to exploit the strengths of each to arrive at a workable solution. But moving data between programs is inherently risky, and that risk manifested itself on a major project in the form of lost path lines in the final cutting pattern - which cost me the price of FormZ in change orders on the project. Not cool. Enter SolidWorks: it does everything I need without any data translation - with a simplicity that helps minimize user error, too.

So imagine my chagrin to learn that VW MAY be incorporating a new modeling kernel on par with that in SW. You mean I could have stayed on my MacBook Pro, supported a dedicated mac CAD software developer, AND saved myself $7,000? Needless to say, if this rumor proves true I'm going to be a bit miffed.

The point here is that the software industry as a whole is operating under a veil of secrecy that makes it virtually impossible for us as users to make any kind of intelligent future plans for our businesses - businesses that utilize software as the foundation of our entire revenue stream. I, for one, am sick of software companies treating their loyal users as pawns and expecting us to operate in the dark and maintain solvency while they make development decisions with blatant disregard for our SHARED goals.

I was going to post here offering up my VW Designer+Renderworks license for sale. But this rumor is delaying that decision as well.

Hmph.

Share this post


Link to post

Exocubic,

For the work you are doing, I think you have made the right decision in going with SolidWorks.

While VW might be using the same kernel, it does not mean that it has the same focus.

SolidWorks is a mechanical design package. VectorWorks is a general purpose cad package with an architectural tilt.

I seriously doubt that VW will get the sheetmetal capabilities of SW in any imminent version.

DIfferent packages work better for different jobs and different people prefer different software.

You might want to take a look at VW2009, but based on my understanding of the MCAD market, VW is not really trying to compete there. At least not yet.

Pat

Share this post


Link to post

You're probably right, Pat. But there is the small matter of branding one subset of the VW product line "Machine Design." It's definitely the forgotten bastard child of Nemetschek products - so much so, it borders on false advertising. They should continue to develop for it or abandon it altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
The point here is that the software industry as a whole is operating under a veil of secrecy that makes it virtually impossible for us as users to make any kind of intelligent future plans for our businesses - businesses that utilize software as the foundation of our entire revenue stream. I, for one, am sick of software companies treating their loyal users as pawns and expecting us to operate in the dark and maintain solvency while they make development decisions with blatant disregard for our SHARED goals.

Generally speaking this is a problem of capitalism, not the software industry.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, did I kill the conversation?

More gossip welcome (thought I was gonna get my fix today).

Share this post


Link to post

Not at all... actually, you've pushed the conversation to a whole new level. One I don't have a hell of lot of expertise in.

I think you're correct in placing the blame here on "capitalism" as a whole, but I'm not entirely sure that strict adherence to a textbook definition of that economic system is being put into practice in any real-world scenario. Compromise is pandemic.

The compromise I'd like to see is one where the same insights into corporate plans that are granted board members be granted also to users of the corporation's products (in this case, software). I have no idea how this could be implemented, though. It just seems to me that the software industry is producing a unique, dynamic product whose future functioning may be radically different from what it is today, and the return on our investment is inextricably tied to having at least some insight into that future functionality. When I buy a new welder, it's functionality is implicit and will remain so throughout the life cycle of the welder - but software's current functionality and future functionality are in flux, subject to decisions made behind closed doors.

Share this post


Link to post

First they want layer transparency.

Then they want object transparency.

Now they want boardroom transparency.

Kidding aside, this isn't likely. Desirable yes. Likely no.

Share this post


Link to post

1. It is no rumor. SolidWorks will be in VW09. I have it in writing from VW. What level of implementation - I have no idea, but given VW historical 3D implementation and user interface, I think it is safe to have not waited. Let the early adopter crash the software 10,000 times, then jump on board for the next release.

2. Its not the fault of Capitalism. Socialist Russia and China are (were?) not known for their arching consideration of their citizens, never mind customers. Any good company, capitalistic or otherwise, keeps their customers happy. Their are plenty of SW companies that do not exploit their customer, but bring them along with new versions of their software that make the user more productive. Adobe's Photoshop is a shining example, as is SketchUp, Quake and Apple (although Quake may not improve your productivity).

If you find it impossible to make future plans, its not entirely the venders fault nor their secrecy. There are dozens of companies offering a myriad of solutions, all trying to hedge their bets on what new features will become desirable. They are as incapable of predicting the future are you or I.

If you buy a major SW package a few weeks before a scheduled upgrade (VW upgrade history is predictable and on wiki) you can hardly blame VW for keeping secret. Every one likes the rumor mill; its a good marketing tool. A few months earlier, and even VW will not be sure of what features will make the next release.

Share this post


Link to post
1. It is no rumor. SolidWorks will be in VW09. I have it in writing from VW.

So where is that writing? Please publish it! We all want to know!

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone have any experience of how or whether a parasolid based kernel will assist in 2D work.

The Solidworks wiki says that 3D designs typically start off as 2D sketches which are then extruded.

Are the parametric constrains likely to be available in 2D mode?

As a garden designer, I find that Vectorworks could be more helpful when designing informal gardens - these are gardens with sweeps based on geometric shapes, but linked at tangents, either by lines or arcs. So for instance, you may have a couple of circles linked with each other with a line at on a tangent between each. Whilst VW does have constraints, I have found them not to be robust enough to be of any real benefit, although line at circle tangent is useful, but only later on when finalising the plan not when nudging and resizing shapes. It would be so nice to be able to draw the circles, link them with lines (or smooth arcs) and be able to reposition and resize the circles whilst the outline lines and arcs adjusts within the limits of the constraints.

Taking it further, if my understanding is correct and the implementation is robust enough, it may even be possible to draw up a survey and enter the survey data as a set of constrains, line lengths, triangulation measurements etc, and have the survey set itself out. We are talking about small hand measured surveys here, not large ones taken with total stations.

Or am I hoping for too much?

Share this post


Link to post
2. Its not the fault of Capitalism. Socialist Russia and China are (were?) not known for their arching consideration of their citizens, never mind customers. Any good company, capitalistic or otherwise, keeps their customers happy. Their are plenty of SW companies that do not exploit their customer, but bring them along with new versions of their software that make the user more productive. Adobe's Photoshop is a shining example, as is SketchUp, Quake and Apple (although Quake may not improve your productivity).

Economic analysis has come a little way since the simplistic view of "communism vs. capitalism" altoids. The Russia and China you invoke weren't forms socialism but, as coined by Michael Albert, coordinatorism.

"Bringing along" (whatever that means) is not the point of contention. The point of contention proffered is the keeping of future product details secret, thus lowering the ability of buyers to plan their spending efficiently. I don't know about the others but Apple is certainly one of the more secretive technology companies around.

Personally I don't see this secrecy as a big problem (there are far more important things about capitalism to worry about). It's simply a propaganda (or "PR") mechanism that capitalism takes advantage of to help maximise profits (i.e. the transfer and concentration of wealth).

Secrecy maximises publicity at the moment the products are available to order.

Secrecy builds up anticipation for announcements.

Secrecy increases the likelihood that purchases of superseded products will continue until the new product is announced.

All of these are aimed at maximising profits, which, of course, is by and large the point of capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
All of these are aimed at maximising profits, which, of course, is by and large the point of capitalism

And...

maintaining market share, and minimizing risk, and marginalizing the competition, and decreasing tax exposure, and enhancing visibility, and perfecting usability, and reducing misconceptions, and creating synergies, and ... basically struggling to survive in a very predatory unforgiving world.

Product development is essentially a fractal problem. Each new release is based on the previous set ... but at any given iteration a chaotic attractor may emerge which will randomly perturb the set.

Things that at first seem like a really good idea often result in longterm conflicts. It's a well established fact that to maximize the ' profits ' ... one has to minimize the 'costs'. Seeking profits while disregarding costs results in failure. Therefore, what some may view as insensitivity and secrecy others interpret as shrewd cost analysis and risk management.

Share this post


Link to post
It's a well established fact that to maximize the ' profits ' ... one has to minimize the 'costs'. Seeking profits while disregarding costs results in failure. Therefore, what some may view as insensitivity and secrecy others interpret as shrewd cost analysis and risk management.

Minimizing costs is the most dangerous way to achieve profits (and minimizing costs is not the same thing as controling them).

Reducing costs doesn't typically translate into the creation of value for the customer.

Costs can only be reduced in a finite manner (without subsidy one cannot get to less than zero).

The creation of value is unlimited...there is no upper bound on potential price.

Edited by brudgers

Share this post


Link to post
Seeking profits while disregarding costs results in failure. Therefore, what some may view as insensitivity and secrecy others interpret as shrewd cost analysis and risk management.

And still others are able to step out of the whole box and see greener pastures elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Come on Jeffrey, we all know you're a closet anarchist who wants to rise up against the NNA oligarchy.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×