14 September 2004.
The Inventor $1500.00 Challenge – A
Reason!
The reasons behind the running of
the Inventor $1500.00
Challenge are many, though in the main it was one part of a series of
trials I have
done gathering information about how users of CAD software apply their
tools.
I wanted from the Challenge,
information that would expand
on information that I currently have. I
wanted it from a different and a more diverse cross section than I
currently
have available to me. I wanted to find
out were there any Inventor users out there that had been able to equal
or
better 3D model generation times equivalent to or better than can be
achieved
with relatively ‘dumb’ 3D tools and or earlier 3D parametric modeling
and if so
how, and if not try to determine why?
I wanted to find out if my
experience and perspective of 3D
CAD is still current, relevant and reflected in the wider market.
Two other related reasons are
commercial and selfish. The commercial
reason is easy to
explain. My business revolves around
Autodesk’s MCAD products; supplying, training, supporting and more
importantly
advising a diverse range of large and small businesses on what Autodesk
products may or may not be appropriate for them and why. So I need to
know how,
why and why not, from a user’s perspective not only the vendors.
The selfish reason, (also
commercial), will be a little
difficult for some to understand, but it is to do with business
survival. You see, despite my background
and time
working with and promoting Autodesk’s products (over 20 years) I have
been
substantially
marginalized by Autodesk. Autodesk (its
staff) does not like any person (customer or dealer) who does not toe
their
line 100% and I don’t. I believe CAD
software should be appropriately applied, assisting business not
impeding it. At Autodesk however technical
merit and
customer satisfaction play very distant seconds to sales; and
developing
products is about Autodesk’s development not the customers, and it
shows.
For me it has always been about
the customer and it still is,
if he/she is profitable and happy then so will I be and so will
Autodesk you
would have thought, but alas this is not a business model that suits
Autodesk’s
requirements. Their choice, their loss; no weeping here but it does
make it
harder to know the products and the issues that surround them. That’s why I employ the information gathering
methods I do; it doesn’t win friends in the channel, it’s very
expensive and
time consuming for a small guy, but it is very, very informative and
more revealing
and truthful than vendors might like.
As a user and advisor I need
useful, truthful
information. Some ask about how to use a
function or do a specific task, when I asked two questions, using the
Challenge,
I was asking about method and application and the most appropriate
answers and information
often comes from users not vendors. In
doing this neither did I fear finding out that I have missed the point
or that
there is lot more to learn (there always is), quite the contrary. I put my dollars on the line to find someone
that could do just that; I was looking for someone that could prove my
views
and comments out of date and irrelevant. How many of my
detractors/competitors,
vendors and or Autodesk are game enough to do similar?
I am very appreciative of the
effort put in by those that chose
to have a go. There are Inventor users with enough faith in their
abilities to
try something different. Hopefully they now also have a spark of
curiosity
about how is it that AutoCAD/MDT can outrun Inventor on tasks similar
to those
in the Challenge and many others, by a considerable margin. That may also lead them to an understanding
of just why software like Inventor, and it competitors, have not
stepped up to
the plate for many users. They have there
place, no argument, but
without drastic change they threaten to trample many users, condemning
them to
reduced productivity with the associated profitability losses that will
follow.
Consider this, FLEXIBILITY in use
is the only reason AutoCAD/MDT
out-ran Inventor in the Challenge; it’s actually very easy to see and
understand. What is more difficult to
understand is why
Autodesk has failed after eighteen years (yes 18 years) of 3D CAD
software
development to take advantage of what is right under its nose, make
this
connection and profit from it both fiscally and in market consolidation.
And what’s more it is for this
same reason that Inventor
WILL never catch up to these levels of performance if it continues down
the
same ‘philosophical’ road!
I’M NOT ONE EYED; and I don’t
just criticize Autodesk. All
the 3D vendors have similar problems understanding the importance of
the
relationship between 2D and 3D, probably without exception;
SolidWorks Corps. CEO recently
made this statement, ‘It
holds that 2D CAD is destined for obsolescence, but only after 3D CAD
vendors
build more 2D functionality into products’.
He goes on to argue that until 2D design is rendered obsolete,
‘the
design-to-manufacture process unfortunately will take a performance
hit’.
(extract from Machine Design). Rubbish! Rendering or trying to render
2D design
obsolete is a pointless dream, a complete waste of effort and
detrimental to
industry, why is this so hard to understand?
He is also well wide of the mark
as far as the future is
concerned, in my opinion, but if he shifts his 2D perspective 180
degrees he may
reach the same conclusions I have and that would change his product,
his predictions
for future as well as the sales, productivity and usefulness of
SolidWorks.
Something additional to ponder;
Autodesk Inc, SolidWorks
Corp. and Solid Edge users were asked to attempt the Challenge shapes
prior to
the Challenge being issued. Autodesk
have been asked a number of times since the release of Inventor 5. SolidWorks Corp. responded very quickly, a
Solid Edge user did like wise. Autodesk
have been to busy, FOR YEARS, and have yet to reply.
Are they really too busy or just simply too
frightened of how embarrassing it is to admit they cannot address the
issues I
have highlighted thus exposing their product claims as questionable? Would it mess up a business plan that will
have we users paying yet again, for functions we already have paid for
several
times over in earlier products? Think
Inventor 9, think ‘mirroring features, layers, text and dimension
‘enhancements’ and the hole function to name only a few’, why are we
paying for
these again? Remember eighteen (18)
years of development is behind Inventor and at Version 9 why is it that
it has
yet to catch up to AutoCAD and Mechanical Desktop 4?
Don’t stone the messenger, think
about to whom and how much
you are paying for the tools you earn your salaries and incomes with. Are they profitable because they helped or
made you more profitable or just simply because of you.
For many users out there it’s the latter,
many are purchasing 3D software because they have 'no
choice'
not because it improves their lot. The
Challenge SHOULD have been the wedge to split
my opinion but……..
And by the way, having
watched and participated in all of
Autodesk’s seven attempts (>18 years) at 3D modeling and looking at
the
current capability of Inventor it looks a lot like it might be time for
another
change, you know a ‘new look’ a program that might be described like
this;
Auto3DWhatEverAgain.
TheNextMCAD Desktop
Revisited Solutions from Autodesk.
Create, Build,
Visualize, Analyze and Distribute Your Designs… All from Your Desk, All
in a
Day’s Work.
Easy to Learn and
Use…
You can provide information directly from the Auto3DWhatEverAgain
database to
other application software in the design and manufacturing process.
TheNextMCAD
solution(s) will be the primary application(s) for 3D modeling, new
design
engineering approaches that closely parallel the way humans visualize
mechanical concepts!
Eh! easy as, the art work for
these product brochures has
been done already, in 1988 (by Autodesk for AutoSolid), all we need to
hope is
that someone still has a copy of the software the brochure was done
with so we
can change the product name…….it’s what… its been ‘End of Lifed’, oh no! Does that mean we have to buy new
software and do it all again like those CAD blokes have to…..yep…..
bugger!
‘What Needs to Be Done’
Agree or disagree with me I don’t
mind. If you want to know more about me
and why, or
wish to make any comment please just ring or email.
R. Paul Waddington.
Proprietor - cadWest
Phone: 61 2 9724 4305
E-mail:cadwest1@ozemail.com.au
Back Index
Next