Comments on: Autodesk Visit – Interview with Guillermo Melantoni http://www.deelip.com/?p=1368 My Views on the CAD (Computer Aided Design) Software Industry Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Mook http://www.deelip.com/?p=1368&cpage=1#comment-2146 Mook Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:22:31 +0000 http://www.deelip.com/?p=1368#comment-2146 Nice interview, and your questions regarding analysis are particularly relevant given Autodesk's heavy investment in analysis software over the past few years with their purchase of Algor (FEA), Robot (structural analysis and FEA), and Moldflow analysis suite. It's doubtful whether Autodesk has a coherent strategy on what to do with all that analysis software. It's not Autodesk's area of expertise, and their traditional dealer channel is not well-equipped to deal with these analysis software products. Nice interview, and your questions regarding analysis are particularly relevant given Autodesk's heavy investment in analysis software over the past few years with their purchase of Algor (FEA), Robot (structural analysis and FEA), and Moldflow analysis suite. It's doubtful whether Autodesk has a coherent strategy on what to do with all that analysis software. It's not Autodesk's area of expertise, and their traditional dealer channel is not well-equipped to deal with these analysis software products.

]]> By: Jen http://www.deelip.com/?p=1368&cpage=1#comment-2080 Jen Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:25:04 +0000 http://www.deelip.com/?p=1368#comment-2080 Maybe, instead of the verticals each being treated as separate programs, they should be like modules instead. Everyone starts out with generic AutoCAD and if they need specialized tools, they can add modules. I'm stuck using AutoCAD because the work I do is so diverse, I'd need 3 or 4 different programs to encompass everything I do and my small company can't afford to spend that much on software. I have Civil 3D for doing sitework, but there's a lot in that program that I don't need. If I could trade what I don't use for some of the tools available in AutoCAD Architecture for example, I'd be happy. It would be great to build my own program, pay only for what I need and not be locked into just one vertical. Maybe, instead of the verticals each being treated as separate programs, they should be like modules instead. Everyone starts out with generic AutoCAD and if they need specialized tools, they can add modules. I'm stuck using AutoCAD because the work I do is so diverse, I'd need 3 or 4 different programs to encompass everything I do and my small company can't afford to spend that much on software. I have Civil 3D for doing sitework, but there's a lot in that program that I don't need. If I could trade what I don't use for some of the tools available in AutoCAD Architecture for example, I'd be happy. It would be great to build my own program, pay only for what I need and not be locked into just one vertical.

]]> By: Brian Hall http://www.deelip.com/?p=1368&cpage=1#comment-2051 Brian Hall Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:03:18 +0000 http://www.deelip.com/?p=1368#comment-2051 Where to begin...<br><br>I believe AutoCAD still has it's place in the world and it's not going to change anytime soon. AutoCAD has been around so long that businesses have developed methods, workflows, practices, and lifecycle management around its functionality. It was not designed as a true digital prototyping software package to begin with so to make it into one now would be like putting monster truck tires and a deep water fording kit on a Tata Nano to make it "all-terrain". <br><br>AutoCAD has found its niche and a lot of people are profitable with it in this niche. In my humble opinion, if Autodesk tried to add a whole bunch of "digital prototyping" functionality to AutoCAD, most likely it wouldn't get used by a very large percentage of its users anyway. Case in point, the 2D parametrics and constraints. I went in there excited to try it only to be bitterly dissapointed by the sheer counter-intuitive workflow. Coming from Inventor, I found it to be just plain clunky. They HAD to set it up that way because it needed to still "feel" like AutoCAD drafting. That kind of approach wouldn't lend itself to promoting wide spread usage if they took AutoCAD to the next level. Besides, the "next level" is a paradigm shift that requires a different mindset. What better way to promote that than by moving to a new software package. Where to begin…

I believe AutoCAD still has it's place in the world and it's not going to change anytime soon. AutoCAD has been around so long that businesses have developed methods, workflows, practices, and lifecycle management around its functionality. It was not designed as a true digital prototyping software package to begin with so to make it into one now would be like putting monster truck tires and a deep water fording kit on a Tata Nano to make it “all-terrain”.

AutoCAD has found its niche and a lot of people are profitable with it in this niche. In my humble opinion, if Autodesk tried to add a whole bunch of “digital prototyping” functionality to AutoCAD, most likely it wouldn't get used by a very large percentage of its users anyway. Case in point, the 2D parametrics and constraints. I went in there excited to try it only to be bitterly dissapointed by the sheer counter-intuitive workflow. Coming from Inventor, I found it to be just plain clunky. They HAD to set it up that way because it needed to still “feel” like AutoCAD drafting. That kind of approach wouldn't lend itself to promoting wide spread usage if they took AutoCAD to the next level. Besides, the “next level” is a paradigm shift that requires a different mindset. What better way to promote that than by moving to a new software package.

]]>