Why Pay Again and if you have to how many times is reasonable?

If we were to start this document looking at AutoCAD as a product (once called MicroCad**) we can see this product has progressed from its early days maturing as a profitable product to own at or around (for some) R12 and R13*** and for most R14 pretty well completed the task from a 2D detailing and documenting point of view.  AutoCAD R13 made a significant change in 3D capabilities and whilst not perfect by a long shot provided tools that should have been more widely used and promoted.  And these tools have been the mainstay of 3D in AutoCAD ever since.

So we have a time line of relatively good improvement that has spanned pre 1982 to around the year 2000 for 2D functionality.

If we were to look at Autodesk’s development of 3D modelling isolated from the 2D components we get a very different picture of development. It spans a period dating from <1987 through to the present, better than fifteen (15) years. And in that time Autodesk has brought to the market place seven (7) 3D products.  That’s one every two and a bit years, and they are still struggling not only to get it right but are doing it bringing out yet other changes and products as well.  And you and me as an end-user trying to run with this and implement sensible programmes are paying far too much for the ‘privilege’, dislocation, loss in productivity and profitability.  It must be said here Autodesk has obviously spent a lot of the money products like AutoCAD were earning them on chasing their ‘Holy 3D Grail’ and other products (think WEB).

And a ‘Holy Grail’ it is, that not only Autodesk but the whole industry is chasing.  And it might as well be a mirage because each time they think they have got their hands on it, they reach out and cannot get a hold, why?  The answer is very simple to understand if you have ever physically made anything that is unique or different and there are few if any of these individuals to be found running CAD software manufacturers.

‘Unique’ is something most if not all designers and draughties’ understand along with change and the importance of accurate documentation vs …………..

I group CAD software into two categories but the line I draw is a very blurred one and the extent and size of that blur is based entirely (and mostly) on the users design/draughting experience and ability and a portion on the software and the users knowledge of how to apply it to his/hers or company requirements.

I have a phrase or statement that I often quote when engaged in an argument or discussion about the relative merits of 2D and 3D, or as is the case more frequently now 2D vs 3D and it goes like this;

‘There is nothing you can think of, (in the way of product, machinery or building etc), that cannot be documented (2D) in a product like AutoCAD or one of similar capability, absolutely nothing!’  I go on to say, ‘however with design products (like Inventor) if the software cannot do your job then neither can you using that software.  You now must compromise your design to suit the software (stupidity personified), turn to another source or return to the drawing board.’

In essence what is often seen as 2D CAD’s weakness is a strength, that is, it simply does not stop a good designer or draughty from documenting any idea new or old, existing or ‘pie in the sky’, and why.  Why because CAD is about giving people tools to develop and document ideas (products, or call it what you like!) and working in 2D does not inhibit this process.  However a 3D package in trying to do this same task attempts to give you tools or jigs to make items which you have not even thought of yet!  This is analogous to me walking into a toolroom and asking the toolmaker to make me a set of tools and or jigs.  The first question he is going to ask is what for? And without that information absolutely nothing is going to be made. And herein lies the problem for the CAD software developer, they don’t know what you’re currently thinking and neither they nor you know what you are going to be asked to do tomorrow and what restrictions, guide lines or design rules you may have to follow.  This is what design is about, unique and new solutions to existing or new problems and try as they might 3D CAD will never fill this bill and will remain a ‘Holy Grail or Mirage’.  Whilst the developers continue to ignore the most important feature to be found in any CAD software, ‘FLEXIBILITY’, with this feature CAD software will simply never prevent the documentation, manufacture or construction of any ‘creators’ designs.

Are products like this to be found or are they still to come?

They’re here, and have been with us for a long time.  Not perfect but they work.  To mention just two that have played a major and un-limiting role in my engineering career.  Obviously the drawing board and all its associated tools and materials were the first.  CAD the second, AutoCAD with a good 3D component, Mechanical Desktop its name and ‘FLEXIBILITY’ it’s hallmark.  It’s not perfect but it needs a lot less work to take it forward than Inventor does, just to give me what I have already paid for several times over*.

And herein lays my point.  Many of us who have soldiered on with Autodesk (and other vendors) for a very long time and have repeatedly paid for, in particular 3D functions all doing essentially the same tasks but packaged with different names and interfaces, adversely affecting our profitability whilst increasing Autodesk’s.

Enough is enough, for many of us we have lost, are losing and will continue to lose money if we continue to allow the CAD vendors to decide on the future path of 3D CAD. It is now up to those CAD vendors to re-think their positions, understand what adverse effects they are having on our profitability and to start producing product that has genuine productivity gains for its end-users or stop trying to do what they so obviously don’t understand and leave it up to someone who will listen and learn from those who know.

In closing, its FLEXIBILITY that makes a good CAD system and features are a reflection of how much FLEXIBILITY exists.  Reduced functionality, context restrictive menus and command structures and ‘Verticalisation’ all reduce FLEXIBILITY and as a result productivity and profitability for many.

‘Pay no more until you have or are going to get what YOU need’!

As I have done in the prologue and other documents, I issue an invitation to any person who may wish to respond to this document, supporting comments or dissenting no matter, your views will be respected as I trust mine will be also.

R. Paul Waddington.
Proprietor – cadWest.

P.S.

*Autodesk has been trying to make a 3D modelling software for over fifteen (15) years (and still struggling?) so some modelling features, some of us, have paid for as many as seven (7) times I think it’s time Autodesk got its act together don’t you?  I have covered this in more detail in another document.

** MicroCad and the history of Autodesk can be read about in ‘The Autodesk File’ written by John Walker and published by New Riders Publishing.

*** R13 the long lamented problem child of Autodesk and its customers and wrongly so.  Even as recently as late 2002 Ms. Carol Bartz said some of Autodesk’s current problems came from this era (as reported in TenLinks).  I have gone on record at Autodesk and in talks about CAD in general that AutoCAD R13 caused my company very few problems if any.  And the reason was simple; we don’t sell to customers (or use) any software that could reasonably be expected to reduce productivity or profitability.  AutoCAD R13 distorted our cash flow and popularity at Autodesk until the C4 version, but did not damage our creditability one bit.  It was a shame that a majority of others did not have the commonsense to do the same.

It also happened to be when AutoCAD stepped into the true 3D world and laugh as some of you may, had people looked a little deeper at R13 and learned to apply what it brought to those interested in 3D, at the PC level, we  would not have needed to put up with the rubbish we have had to over the past few years with ‘Verticalisation’ and stupid comments like; ‘If your working 3D in AutoCAD you are most definitely in the wrong space’.