Germany’s Graebert has officially released the new ARES Commander 2017 DWG-native CAD system for Mac, Windows, and Linux operating systems. Architosh published details of the new system first shown at Graebert’s Annual Meeting Event in Berlin, Germany earlier in the fall.
The Computer-Aided Design ('CAD') files and all associated content posted to this website are created, uploaded, managed and owned by third party users. Each CAD and any associated text, image or data is in no way sponsored by or affiliated with any company, organization or real-world item, product, or good it may purport to portray. December 16, 2010 By raykurland in 3D Design, CAD, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: CAD history, Catia, Dassaut Systemes, Francis Bernard Leave a comment Francis Bernard, my former boss at Dassault Systemes, and I would like to say, a friend, sent me an article he wrote detailing the emergence of CATIA from software for analyzing wind tunnel models at Avion Marcel Dassault into Dassault Systemes. CAMWorks Tolerance Based Machining(TBM) 2017.0 plugin for CAMWorks 2016-2017 Win64 DATAKIT 2016 Import-Export Plugins for SolidWorks 2010-2017 Win32_64 DATAKIT CrossManager 2016.4 Win32_64.
What’s New—Why It Matters ARES Commander 2017 features a new “Trinity” dark user interface theme that unifies the ARES experience across desktop, mobile and cloud (web) based versions of the CAD software. Unlike any of its native-DWG CAD rivals, including Autodesk’s AutoCAD, Graebert’s ARES software operates with unique advantages across all three use-access platforms (desktop, mobile app and cloud), centered on user-interface, license management, and flexible access policies.
The Trinity user-interface provides an optional dark theme UI option in addition to the “light theme” user interface. Benefits of this include consistency and a fresh, modern look, as well as longer battery life with laptops computers.
01 – How much flexibility do CAD customers really want? This picture says its all.
When you can support not just Windows but native Mac, plus Linux, Apple iOS, plus Android, plus cloud through the web browser you pretty much have it covered. The new licensing management options provided by Graebert are best-in-class in terms of flexibility and management. Unlike rivals, Graebert offers the benefits of subscription licensing options while still offering the flexibility of perpetual licenses. A new Customer Portal enables management of licenses. Users can simply log out a license on one computer and log in on another computer. Users are allowed to log in their license on two computers simultaneously. Other New Features ARES Commander 2017 features Multifunctional grips that yield quick editing options. New contextual shortcut menus appear when the cursor flies over entity grips.
A host of new drafting features includes polyline editing tool improvements, relative angles in coordinate input and new trim and power trim in hatches and gradients features. Features a redesigned Print dialog box with dynamic print preview features. There is also advanced PDF to DWG conversion features.
Graebert Ares Commander 2016
These support batch processing of PDF files to DWG as well as layer extraction to DWG and the ability to maintain LineStyle and LineWeight entities. The ability to insert centerlines between two pairs of lines, concentric arcs or polyline segments is a new power feature.
So too is pattern along any path, new split dimension line features and advanced block editing capabilities. Learning More & Langauge Support ARES Commander 2017 is available now and, including pricing. One key advantage that ARES Commander 2017 has on the Mac platform compared to some rivals is language support in 14 different locales. Those who may have read articles about Autodesk’s new AutoCAD 2017 for Mac earlier this week may have noted that the Mac version of AutoCAD is only available in English and French. ARES Commander supports Japanese to help serve the second largest CAD market in the world on Windows and Mac, as well as Germany, the third largest CAD market in the world.
Other languages include Spanish, Russian, etc.
Assembly with clevis pin indicated by orange dot This test focuses on the design of a clevis shear pin and its related holes in this hydraulic clamping assembly. The pin needs to be optimized so that if a failure occurs, the pin fails and not the other components. We’ll seek a factor of safety of 2 for the clevis pin, and 4 for the rest of the assembly. The Clevis Pin shear pin must withstand 250 N force with a factor of safety of 2.
The bending force on the pin is important. If it exceeds maximum allowance the pin cannot be removed. The pin should be sized to meet the forces at the designated safety factor and fit within the support structure. The pin should further be selected from a standard library of components and created with the size required.
The design calculations should be stored for documentation. Autodesk provided a Parasolid model of the above assembly and a video of Inventor performing the design and analysis to select the proper pin to fit within the clevis opening. The key differences you will see demonstrated below Both Autodesk Inventor and SolidWorks can solve this problem; however there are important differences in the steps required to complete the exercise and the confidence in the engineering optimization. Inventor executed all of the steps within one command sequence. SolidWorks uses separate commands for each of the three key steps. Both Inventor and SolidWorks seem to have an equally robust clevis pin library, and automatic sizing capability.
The engineering calculation is the differentiator in the example. For this problem Inventor designed a solution using its engineering calculations library for clevis pins. The only solution offered by SolidWorks was to use FEA, which in this case, proved to be difficult to verify and is a questionable strategy.
Inventor users have the ability to leverage standard engineering calculations shown below which are included in design accelerator tools. In this test we examine the clevis pin generator.
The same concept applies to bolts, bolts, frames, shafts, gears, bearings, belts, chains, keyways, cams, splines, o-rings, and springs. Inventor does not require the user to know or learn the engineering equations; the software does it for you. In the case of using FEA, the engineer must be concerned with the accuracy (error) inherent to FEA methods, necessitating a higher skill set, and certainly more time. Inventor’s automation of standard engineering calculations provided a better solution and reduced design time. What’s Important in Assembly Design and Analysis. Select the most appropriate purchasable clevis pin that meets the specifications. Weigh design decisions that affect cost, product reliability, and weight.
Evaluate the performance of the final design Observations Inventor executes all of the steps (make the hole, insert the pin, perform the engineering calculation) required within one command (feature). SolidWorks uses separate commands for each of the three key steps.
Both Inventor and SolidWorks seem to have an equally robust clevis pin library, and automatic sizing capability. The engineering calculation is the large differentiator in the example. Both Inventor and SolidWorks offer integrated finite-element analysis (FEA). However, using FEA methods for this kind of problem is a questionable strategy.
Autodesk prompted the user to determine the correct pin size by using its engineering calculations. SolidWorks does not provide this kind of functionality.
SolidWorks’ concept was to have the designer select the pin size and then perform an FEA analysis in an iterative fashion to arrive at the correct sizing. SolidWorks was able to use its own no-charge Simulation Xpress to perform the FEA analysis. Is a first-pass basic stress analysis tool that comes with every SolidWorks Standard and Professional software package, offering limited FEA functionality. SimulationXpress environment in SolidWorks Standard engineering calculations (analytical methods) exist for this situation, making FEA methods unnecessary/overkill. The FEA boundary conditions necessary for this case present a convergence issue (singularity) for most solvers. This increases the expertise required to verify the accuracy of this FEA study with any level of certainty.
Some FEA programs will simply never reach a reliable result for this case. This is typically referred to as a divergent case. SolidWorks Simulation Xpress did not allow us to individually manipulate the mesh to test for convergence.
See how Inventor solved the problem in this video. See how our engineer solved the problem with SolidWorks.
Here are the calculations Inventor uses to solve the clevis pin selection. Plastic Injection Mold Design Continuing on with part 3 of our blog series dedicated to showing the differences between Autodesk Inventor Professional 2011 and SolidWorks Premium 2011 for digital prototyping workflows, we examine the ability to design and validate molds, starting with a pre-designed part. We show below, using videos from both systems,three major design aspects of mold design: the ability to use a 3D model of a plastic part to create the core and cavity of the mold, designing and engineering the multiple components and systems of the mold, and validating the design to ensure it can manufacture high-quality plastic parts. Simple mold design used in this workflow test Autodesk provided us with a model of the handle to be molded, detailed specifications for the mold, and three videos of Inventor performing the desired tests showing the workflow for splitting core and cavity, engineering of the mold, and a simulation and validation of the mold.
The key differences you will see demonstrated below Autodesk Inventor provides standard libraries of mold bases and components along with automated tools for splitting the core and cavity and for designing the runners, gates, and cooling and ejection systems. The inclusion of Autodesk Moldflow simulation software directly in the design workflow allows designs to be validated and improved upon until they will optimally manufacture products of the highest quality. SolidWorks includes dedicated functionality for splitting the core and cavity, but that is where the mold design capabilities end. With no automated design tools and no libraries of components, the design of injection molds is entirely manual and inefficient. Without any built-in plastics simulation capabilities, mold designers must purchase third party software, such as Autodesk Moldflow, often at significant cost, to validate and optimize their designs to ensure quality.
What’s Important in Plastic Injection Mold Design. Balance of speed in designing the mold while ensuring high quality.
Accurate design of mold components including runners for injecting the plastic materials, cooling of the mold, and ejecting the finished part. Iteration of the mold design with simulation to arrive at an optimal design. Observations Splitting the Core and Cavity The desired result was to generate parting surfaces and complete the core and cavity operations. SolidWorks parting surface generation Inventor used a mixture of automated and manual patching and runoff surface creation tools.
Surfaces for simple holes and profiles were created automatically which increases productivity. Complex patching and runoffs were created using Inventor’s surfacing tools. SolidWorks also assisted the user in splitting the core and cavity with automated and manual tools for defining the parting line and creating patching and runoff surfaces. The two systems are comparable in capability. SolidWorks required a few more menu picks and interactions, but both came up with an acceptable mold core and cavity. SolidWorks generated an odd triangular shape in the area to be removed, but it was temporary and did not affect the final part.
See the video of Autodesk’s engineer using Autodesk Inventor to perform the core and cavity workflow using Inventor: See how our engineer used SolidWorks to perform the core and cavity operation: Engineering the Mold The tasks completed included: designing the runners, adding a submarine gate, inserting a properly sized mold base, inserting a sprue bushing, designing cooling channels, attaching pipe fittings for cooling channels, and adding ejector pins as specified. Inventor completed this task using a built-in workflow for designing injection molds that includes libraries of mold bases and standard components as well as automated design tools for runners, gates, cooling channels, slides, lifters, and ejectors. Manual ejector placement in SolidWorks SolidWorks had no built-in functionality for designing injection molds. All standard components needed to be searched for and brought in from external content centers or supplier websites, a time-consuming process. All modeling was done manually as there are no automated design tools for the various systems of the mold. This made mold design in SolidWorks a tedious and labor-intensive process with low user productivity. SolidWorks was able to build the geometry required for the moldbase design, but it was a laborious process.
See the video of the Autodesk engineer performing the mold design: See TechniCom’s engineer performing the mold design using SolidWorks: Validating the Mold Design To validate the mold design for manufacturability we needed to first determine the optimal molding conditions for the entire system as designed. Next, we performed a filling analysis to determine if the mold, as designed, could completely fill the cavity at acceptable quality. Then, we assessed the location of air traps and weld lines. Lastly, we performed a shrinkage analysis so exact figures could be input for core and cavity sizing rather than manually inputting generic percentages. Inventor includes Autodesk Moldflow simulation built-in to the mold design workflow, which was used to simulate the filling phase of multi-cavity molds and their respective runner systems to validate manufacturability. A shrinkage analysis was also used to ensure cavities were sized based on the specific design, rather than relying on generic shrinkage factors from the material supplier.
Inventor validates the mold design. SolidWorks has no built-in simulation capabilities and therefore had no ability to validate the mold design for optimum molding conditions or for a filling analysis that would help the user avoid manufacturing problems that can potentially result in huge expenses in both time and cost.
SolidWorks was unable to perform any portion of this validation using its software or no-charge software, of which there was none available that we were able to find. Users could use Autodesk Moldflow stand-alone software that would have the capabilities required, at extra cost. Our analysis did not include examining extra cost third party products.
We only compared Inventor Professional to SolidWorks Premium. Therefore we do not have a video of SolidWorks performing the mold validation. —- The next blog in this series (Part 4) will examine designing and analyzing a clevis pin in a hydraulic clamping assembly. Stay tuned or sign up to be notified of my blog updates. Executive Summary (Part 1 of an 8 part series) Last Summer (August 2010) TechniCom Group published a report comparing Autodesk Inventor and Dassault Systemes SolidWorks using our Delphi Expert Analysis methodology.
The results of this report were somewhat controversial; Autodesk Inventor scored better in all fifteen categories than did SolidWorks, including core modeling. The scoring for the Delphi Expert report was the result of a very detailed survey of eight expert users of the two systems, four experts for each system.
The experts had comparable familiarity with their systems and comparable backgrounds. Readers of that report evidenced hunger for more detailed information, one that might be less sensitive to opinions and be more factual. As a result, TechniCom worked with Autodesk to develop a series of tests between the two systems that might expose the differences between the two systems and perhaps highlight advantages Inventor might have as compared to SolidWorks. We are publishing the results of this series of tests in an eight part blog beginning with this summary of the results.
Every two days or so we will add the details of each test, concluding the whole series within the next three to four weeks. Videos and images of both systems performing the tests will be included.
At the end of this blog series we will publish a pdf version of the complete report on. A little background up front:. Autodesk commissioned (paid for) the tests. Autodesk specified the tests which it challenged TechniCom, using SolidWorks Premium 2011, to match the results. The seven tests are in the seven categories where TechniCom’s Delphi Expert report showed Autodesk Inventor rated the highest. Extra cost third party software was not to be considered.
When we were able, we used no-charge third party add-ins for SolidWorks — none were needed for Inventor. Deciding what to test First we had to decide what to test and the scope of the testing. Followers of the mechanical CAD market are no doubt aware of the term Product Lifecycle Management, often designated as PLM. Autodesk’s mechanical philosophy is to eschew developing PLM software in favor of digital prototyping. The term “Digital Prototyping” has led to some confusion in the industry.
One clear definition comes from IDC in a paper entitled “Digital Prototyping: Autodesk Strengthens Competitiveness of Worldwide SMB Manufacturers’, published October 2008. This whitepaper differentiates digital prototyping from PLM by noting that “PLM reaches from a product’s cradle to its grave. On the other hand, digital prototyping stops at the completion of the digital product and its engineering bill of materials. The beauty of digital prototyping is that designs can be tested out before they go to manufacturing.” Thus, Autodesk’s definition of digital prototyping includes the basic functions of PLM — industrial design, design and engineering, data vaulting, and collaboration, without the post-manufacturing baggage. Autodesk has been carefully steering its Inventor software product development over the past few years to enable workflows that take maximum advantage of seamlessly passing data among its built-in application solutions. Thus, what we see in Inventor today is a careful melding of technologies that Autodesk has acquired or built. Many of these technologies are not available as extra cost add-ons to the base software, but fully included as part of the Inventor software.
Some example, of which you will see more later, include mold analysis software, mold base design capabilities, built-in advanced simulation, inherent design automation options, an intelligent part library, built-in engineering calculations, and many others. Not only are these available as an integrated part of Autodesk Inventor, but they are often combined to form workflows that aid in developing the digital engineering models.
Thus, when deciding the scope of what to test, we settled on a series of tests that focus on the areas in our Delphi Expert analysis where Inventor rated the highest. These areas include the following:. Plastic Part Design. Plastic Injection Mold Design. Assembly Design and Analysis.
Exporting BIM-ready Models. Interoperability. Design Automation. Mechatronics Even deciding on these seven areas leaves a great many options to be tested. Autodesk decided on the detailed functions to be tested; Autodesk specified the seven tests in detail.
They are aimed at comparing the two systems ability to perform common, real-world engineering workflows. These tests are not designed to be impartial; they are taken from standard demos used by Autodesk that were designed to represent a series of engineering workflows highlighting Inventor’s digital prototyping capabilities. Most of them, as the users will see from the blogs that follow in the next few days, are aimed at performing a complete design sequence.
The complete eight blogs, including this summary, will cover the seven workflow tests we performed. We will include the details of what we tested, images and videos of the results, what we observed comparing the two systems, and our summary of how well each system was able to perform the desired workflow.
Tests specified by Autodesk Autodesk provided TechniCom with the test definitions including videos of Inventor performing the desired task, starter geometry, related dimensions, and other relevant data, all described below within each test section. TechniCom’s task was to perform the same tests using SolidWorks Premium 2011. Because Autodesk provided much of the model data we were able to focus on the desired workflow details of each test rather than building geometry. Autodesk commissioned TechniCom to perform these tests and to document the results. Our approach TechniCom, in collaboration with a Certified SolidWorks Professional (CSWP) performed and analyzed these tests during November and December 2010 using Inventor Professional 2011 and SolidWorks Premium 2011.
To make the scope reasonable, we limited each vendor’s software strictly to what was included with the package or third party add-ins that we were able to find and download free of charge. For the test definitions, we used the Inventor videos illustrating the work to be performed. We attempted to deliver the same results, as did Inventor, using SolidWorks Premium 2011. As we publish the results of the seven tests, we will make available annotated videos of both Inventor and SolidWorks performing the tests on TechniCom’s blog at.
Readers wanting to understand how the two products compared have the unique ability to review these videos along with reading our test summaries in this report. Mold design used Inventor was also able to design the mold significantly faster than SolidWorks due to the inclusion of automated tools for designing the various subsystems of the mold. For the assembly design and analysis test, both systems were able to model the addition of a clevis pin.
However, Inventor excelled in its ability to design the correct pin by coupling its engineering calculation library to the potential design. In other words, Inventor helped select the correct pin size because it was able to use its calculations concerning the required stress that the pin would need to perform correctly.
This is subtly different than SolidWorks, which used its library to size the pin, but without taking into account its stress requirements. Copies of frame along a path For design automation, our tests revealed two weaknesses of SolidWorks. SolidWorks with DriveWorks Xpress was not able to automatically scale drawing views to fit a part within the confines of a drawing after the size of the part was changed. Manual intervention was necessary.
A second weakness was shown when scaling a copied assembly using 3D curves to define key points as the assembly was copied and scaled to other planes. Inventor was easily able to scale a copied assembly using drive curves; SolidWorks could, but required significant manual effort. Electrical schematic and assembly Both systems proved to be comparable in mechatronics where we tested the ability to build wire harnesses using schematic input from electrical software packages, albeit Inventor was able to do so with many fewer interactions. Conclusions Ray Kurland, President of TechniCom, knew that the tests were meant to highlight Inventor strengths, but was surprised that SolidWorks Premium 2011 was, in many tests, not able to do the work without adding pricey third party software.
Duplicating Inventor’s capability on these tests with third party products will also make SolidWorks substantially more expensive than Inventor. These seven tests underscore our contention from our previous Delphi Expert Analysis, that Inventor is a mature system that can more than effectively compete with SolidWorks and should definitely be considered for even the most complex situations. The Inventor workflows illustrated in this series of tests are integrated and highly logical, enabling users to accomplish their design goals with minimal effort. Beyond that, we hope to have shown the value of Autodesk’s digital prototyping emphasis, which we expect will continue to evolve even further. “I didn’t know that Inventor had this much functionality,” said TechniCom Group’s associate performing the tests, a CSWP. “I know that they acquired a lot of technology over the past few years, but I am surprised to see it all integrated so well into Inventor.” Overall, TechniCom is most impressed with Inventor and the direction Autodesk is taking for the future. To keep abreast with our continued tracking of the industry and our reactions to Autodesk’s direction we advise readers to follow our blog and twitter feeds.
29 Oct 2010: Yesterday, in downtown Boston and worldwide via the Internet, PTC announced Project Lightning, now renamed Creo. CEO and President Jim Heppelmann, noted that Creo is the Latin root of the word for creativity.
The announcement lived up to its name. I was present at the live event in Boston.
This gave me an opportunity to follow up with some questions in person. By now you have probably seen or read about the announcement. If not, you can see more at. I want to give you my thoughts and observations on the product and how it might change the CAD game. First I was surprised. I had expected a much more mundane announcement.
What PTC did was fundamentally change the direction of their approach to CAD. To put it simply, PTC is marrying its Pro/E, CoCreate, and ProductView technologies, mixed in with a connection to Windchill for managing complex BOM assembly configurations. It turns out the ProductView is a key element to the AnyData strategy. Similar to JT, ProductView enables storing summary and detailed model data from 130 or so data formats. This will form the basis of the common data model mentioned in passing by Jim Heppelmann at an afternoon press conference. 4 new technologies were described that net out Creo’s ambitions:. AnyRole Apps.
AnyMode Modeling. AnyData Adoption. AnyBOM Assembly AnyRole Apps approaches the problem of CAD being too difficult to use and train, except for power users. For most other users the power of a CAD system with its myriad of menus and options is too daunting even for less complex usage. AnyRole Apps approaches the problem by implementing a wide variety of applications, each with a simple UI, designed only for specific user roles. AnyRole Apps are expected to come from PTC as well as its partner ecosystem.
This concept generated a variety of questions. What might the apps cost?
Will they be customizable by customers? If similar in concept to iPhone apps, what developer systems will PTC offer? Will there be an app store? Three partners at the announcement were able to answer some of the integration questions. Luxion, Simpoe and Vistagy, all third party partners, were able to completely integrate their applications within Creo and demonstrate it today, after only a three-week lead-time.
I had a chance to view the Simpoe plastic mold flow application. It operated totally within the Creo UI and directly read and wrote to a common data model. Options windows opened to allow input to the application. Vistagy claimed s similar, easy to integrate experience.
AnyMode Modeling ties together parametric (history based), direct 3D modeling and 2D. The concept is to allow designing in either mode, or a mixed mode.
Designs can “float back and forth with no loss of design intent or flexibility.” The difficulty is usually in working with direct models in parametric mode. The technology for AnyMode Modeling was not discussed and I was left with the impression that most PTCers I spoke with either did not know any details about how worked or were purposely vague about it. I questioned a few about how similar it might be to Autodesk Fusion which converts direct model changes to parametric models and the answer I typically got was: Creo’s direct-parametric modeling was more robust. AnyData Adoption recognizes the proliferation and need for data from multiple CAD systems.
PTC describes that as allowing all types of data to flow in. More than just understanding non-native CAD data, Creo “adopts” the data and treats it as a legitimate family member. The data is treated as much more than an unintelligent blob as most systems do. Using the beauty of direct modeling Creo can change the non-native data by recognizing and allowing alterations to its inherent geometry constructs.
Modifications can be exported to the originating system. Originating system changes can be brought back into Creo, although it is not clear how this would work since Creo may have already modified the geometry.
AnyBOM Assembly optionally incorporates Windchill to allow serial number configurations. This should make the hardware vendors happy because this usually generates massive amounts of storage needs. PTC is also rebranding the existing 3 technological apps as follows:. Pro/ENGINEER becomes Creo Elements/Pro. CoCreate becomes Creo Elements/Direct. ProductView becomes Creo Elements/View Availability PTC expects to ship Version 1.0 in the Summer of 2011 and Version 2.0 in the Fall, preceded by a Beta version in the Spring of 2011.
Aaron Kelly What is your new position? My new position is to lead the DraftSight business unit. I report into the DS SolidWorks Brand and am the General manager for this business unit. Aaron was in SolidWorks product management for many years and has been with SolidWorks virtually since its inception – 15 years. He is a well respected SW executive. Where does the DraftSight organization fit within the DS and SW company structure?
Is DraftSight a stand-alone company? How big is it? How is it organized? The DraftSight organization has its own P&L and is made up of DS employees around the world. The team is made up of about 24 people in training, customer support, technical support, development, QA, marketing, product marketing, and sales.
What is the sales model, considering that the product is free? The sales model involves selling value added services and/or products that are compelling for DraftSight users. DraftSight is free, but we are offering a service called DraftSight Premium Service. The DraftSight Premium Service includes a concurrent network license, access to the API extension (and updates) and Technical Support directly from DraftSight. This service is offered through all the Dassault Systemes direct and indirect channels. It costs $250 per user per year Who are the target customers?
The primary target customers are existing DS customers who have a need to work with 2D and DWG files. This is a need, up until now, we have not had a solution for. What is the cost/benefit to proposed customers?
We are trying to make is easier for our customers to invest in 3D and related technologies. By offering a low to no cost 2D offering, our customers can invest money allocated for 2D and use it to invest in 3D. The important thing we are trying to achieve is a superior user experience.
It starts with an easy to download, free to activate product, shaped by a free, vibrant community, and is rounded out by professional technical support options. Is the DraftSight product meant to completely replace 2D software from other competitors?
No, not really. Many of our customers today use DS products and our competitor’s 2D products side by side. We are happy we are solving our customer’s needs where we can. We want the opportunity to either offer new 2D to 3D users who need it, expand the usage of 2D to those users who need it, but maybe cannot afford it, or replace competitor’s 2D software wherever a customer sees value.
How does DraftSight interface with other DS products? With non-DS products? Many products from 3D CAD (SolidWorks and CATIA) to PLM products from DS read DWG files that DraftSight uses.
A focus on 2D is new for DS. Why now and what’s to come? We are trying to solve customer problems.
Customers certainly need to 2D functionality and DWG file capabilities. We are trying to help our customers. I think you are going to see many improvements in terms of social innovation tools – we are going to listen to our users with better community tools, we are going to build DraftSight based on user feedback. Aaron went on to discuss that he plans to use crowd-sourcing from customers to vote on and thus select enhancements that they want.
Where does the underlying technology come from? Is it Graebert? What is the impact of the Ares announcement on DraftSight? We have a partnership with Graebert to use the ARES platform with DraftSight. We are in a very close partnership with Graebert and endorse their products for sale that have a different value proposition from DraftSight.
For example, ARES Commander has a richer API and 3D as well as other features that DraftSight does not include. What is the product future of DraftSight?
DraftSight is in Public Beta today. We will be shipping a released product in the coming months as well as a Beta version of a MAC release and a Linux release. Each DraftSight version was written specifically for the platform intended – either Windows, Mac or Linux. If it’s free, how do you make money? We make money by enabling our customers to invest in 3D as well as offering services around the free DraftSight product (DraftSight Premium Services). The product, released on 22 June, about two months ago, has already had in excess of 40,000 downloads. Many fewer have signed service agreements.
Why is this different than other free CAD products that have failed to be successful? Customers are looking for more than free software. They want a real product with a future from a solid company, along with a long-term commitment, performance, multi-language offerings, and global support. We are offering this. Is it open source? How do third party developers work with it? Open source is not what our customers want.
We do not offer an open source version at this time. Rather, customers under the subscription plan have access to the API’s for adding software. In my opinion, this will slow down the development since all new code has to be done by DraftSight’s limited development team. On the other hand, this allows complete control over the software for quality and makes for a simpler development process for DraftSight. What are the support plans? We have free community support for all users.
Users have the ability to post questions to the entire community for feedback. We also have a support offering today that will enable a user to call, e-mail or even request remote access when applicable to help them out.
For more information about DraftSight go to. 10 Aug 2010: Yesterday I published a TechniCom Group whitepaper comparing Autodesk Inventor 2011 versus SolidWorks Premium 2010 to. I suggest you read it carefully. The methodology used was a new research technology we have been exploring that uses our variation of the Delphi Expert Analysis. This technique has primarily been used in the past to survey experts, the aim being to predict the future. TechniCom adopted it to provide clarity in comparing complex systems such as CAD and PLM.
We have also used a similar method to successfully analyze gaps in program plans that might reveal competitive opportunities. More about this paper This paper was not our original goal for this study. Rather, we were investigating the competitive positioning of Inventor’s upcoming (at that time) 2011 release as an internal project for Autodesk. Autodesk was particularly interested in exploring the fifteen functional areas shown in the paper, since they felt these were their strong points.
Originally we proposed 24 Functional areas. I will share some of these additional areas with you below. Some of these, no doubt, would have shown SolidWorks scoring ahead of Inventor. In any case, after the results of the expert scores were “normalized” and tallied we were surprised at the results; Autodesk also seemed surprised, but elated.
Autodesk asked us to summarize and publish the results. We hesitated, but willing to stand by the results, agreed to write the whitepaper. Other functional areas – not studied in this analysis. Ease of use. Installation.
Third party offerings. No charge add-ons (not shipped with the product). External user community. Sustainability design. Built in Content. Overall vendor support.
Cost (initial and TCO) Some independent comments on the web have called the report worthless. We could not disagree more. Take it for what it is – the subjective opinions of a limited number of experts familiar with the software. Several of the categories were so close that the voting could have easily gone either way. Even more important, are that most scores of both vendors are well below the top score of 5. Reviewing these gaps shows that both of these leading vendors still have far to go before they are perfect. — 11 Aug 2010: Clarification about the BIM functional area: The study was not asking whether each system could perform BIM — rather the seven questions we asked the experts were focused on the interaction between a mechanical system and BIM.
In essence, could mechanical parts be designed for use within a BIM system? Areas of focus included: managing the space requirements for the mechanical design within the building model, bi-directional data transfer, associative data management, and UI issues.
Recently we published a whitepaper sponsored (partially paid for) by PTC. Nevertheless, this paper is completely unbiased. The paper provides a rational approach to selecting a new CAD system. We define a CAD system to include 3D and 2D design, inherent analysis, connection to specialized analysis, an integrated CAM system, and a workgroup product data management (PDM) system. In my view a PLM system is most useful after the design is complete and the product released to the manufacturing process. We focus our energy in this report on the process of justifying a new system and making decisions based on business needs first, then developing the technical and functional requirements to support those business needs.
The best we can do in a paper of this length is to provide overview guidance to customers making such a decision. Yet we have tried to distill our years of expertise into this paper. We hope you will find the methodologies presented by the author clear and usable.
First we discuss a CAD system, why it is important and why a company might consider switching to a new one. Then we launch into the how-to of going about the selection and many things to consider along the way. Over the years, we have observed and been involved with the complexities of such a decision. We can only provide you with our sage advice and recommendations of a process to follow. It is up to you to work with our recommendations and bend them to fit your company. Notice I said, bend, not discard.
We take you from the early decision stage, show you how to get started in organizing for the process, and guide you through the various stages. The process follows a suggested path to develop requirements in order to judge the software that best fits your needs.
We suggest the development of management requirements, leading to functional requirements, then to technical requirements, and give guidance on how to work with vendors to make the final decision. We conclude with advice on what such a system should cost and some suggestions for implementation. The appendix contains some interesting advice on a technique for evaluating vendor proposals.
As a consultant who has observed and been involved with many such decisions, I can assure you that selecting a CAD system for small businesses is a difficult process. The bigger and more complicated the company, the more difficult it seems to be.
Why is that the case? Because a mechanical CAD system is the most important tool of product development. A business must focus on its business; it needs to determine what the proper business process is. Then it must consider the tool to meet the process and requirements. It’s not about strategy; it’s about the business of running the business. A well-implemented tool will support the business plans.
This is the fundamental message of this paper. It all starts with the business objectives in mind, starting with a determination of whether a new system is warranted or not. This encourages a business case that carefully ties the software strategy to the strategy of the business as a whole. Without this business alignment, the selection process will likely be focused strictly on the technical merits of the software system and disregard evaluation criteria that are critical to the successful implementation (and return on investment) of the PLM solution. After determining the need and building the business case for the new solution, the author recommends a number of steps to organize and conduct the evaluation process.
Assembling the proper team for the selection is an important step, including the development of a cross-functional team and an executive steering committee to drive the process. This team will quantify the company management requirements, functional requirements, technical requirements, and integration requirements.
Then this team will drive the process to select a vendor partner and a solution based on these requirements. The paper further identifies a process to evaluate potential vendor partners, including the importance of the vendors’ long-term strategy in addition to current offerings. The evaluation should include an assessment of the vendor’s ability to support the company during the implementation and beyond, including an understanding of design strategy of the company and the ecosystem of partners and solutions that are aligned with the potential software vendor. Finally, the paper identifies a number of potential solution providers and offers some advice on how much a company should plan to spend on a solution of this kind to help ensure a realistic cost for the business case.
An executive summary of the paper is available at. Post navigation.