The CAD Insider

CAD Olympics Part 1: Who's #1?

Business is competition and every competition has its contestants, its judges and its winners. Sports has its Olympics. But businesses also vie for top prizes in several arenas. Movies have their Oscars, Motor Trend has is Car of the Year. Travel magazine ranks cruises, hotels and more. Consumer Reports sorts out just about every type of consumer product. The list goes on...But no one wants to say which is the best CAD product

Wait. Let me take that back. With the lack of true arbiters, many CAD vendors have declared themselves #1, using criteria such as sales figures, seats sold or -- as has been done on these pages -- with some new technology that is certain to leave its competition in the dust. But contestants placing olive wreaths on their own heads is hardly credible and has only caused confusion among potential buyers.

Why not let the contestants compete? In an arena, with judges, an audience...? It's not a new idea but previous attempts at CAD competitions have been spotty. I have been involved in three of them:

• A mechanical CAD competition (Archimedes) was held at the M/Tech event in 1998 as part of a bigger show. All contestants were given a computer mouse to model and analyze. But several leading vendors were missing. As far I know, it the event was never held again. I was with IMSI at the time and we participated with TurboCAD.
• A more recent competition pitted Inventor against SolidWorks (see article). The less robust Inventor was the surprise winner in this 2002 shootout, as judged both by the judge and the audience. The resulting firestorm of protests from SolidWorks backers left well -meaning contest organizer Elise Moss feeling bruised and battered. Chief among the protests was that the contest tested the user more than the product, a claim of some validity as the winner was an Autodesk-trained  demo jock. SolidWorks had declined official participation in the event, so a SolidWorks user had been invited to participate.
• An architectural 3D CAD Challenge has been the best contest I have ever seen. Several teams were given a project and were asked to create a design as an audience watched. But the last one seems to have occurred in 2003. Largely a labor of love by Geoffrey Moore Langdon, this contest should serve as a basis for future competitions. I served as a judge one year.

Next: What would make a good, fair CAD contest?

CAD Industry Press: Have We Failed?

Has the CAD trade press failed in its mission to educate the CAD software buyers so they can make good buying decisions? Sure, the CAD press puts out many reviews and its editor and authors freely offer their opinions. But are buyers listening? Does the typical CAD software buyer buy based on a favorable review or an an editor's choice. If I put myself in the shoes of a CAD software buyer, I might just be a little leery of accepting a review or opinion at face value. Maybe as a CAD "insider," I know too much, like the cooks who would never eat at their restaurants. But consider the following:

- Grade inflation. Let's say you are trying to pick an MCAD program and you've narrowed it down to the front runners, SolidWorks and Inventor. You might see what one venerable CAD magazine says about them only to find out that both of them got the magazines highest rating. (Actually, so did KeyCreator. Alibre Design Express and Solid Edge). How to choose?

-Editors choices that aren't. One magazine (CADENCE, now defunct) in one issue gave an Editors Choice award for SolidWorks and Inventor and thinkdesign and VX, all competing products (see press release). That's not a choice, that's a free for all.

-Readers choices lack substance. One popular magazine gives weekly "reader picks" but if you read the fine print, it is given to the products that generate the most web inquiries. There is no mention of how many readers were involved or even if they liked the product. Would you put your professional reputation on the line by picking such a readers' choice?

-Favorable treatment. Several of the large CAD vendors wine and dine the press. Although there is never any explicit contract to provide favorable coverage in return, this practice must at least garner an disproportionate amount of coverage. Even if you ignore that the editor has been provided airfare, a hotel room, dinners and gifts (as is often the custom), doesn't the chunk of time invested by the editor have to translate into articles? This is not exactly fair to vendors without a 'wine and dine' budget.

-Following the money. The pressure to provide coverage to products from advertisers is enormous.

So, who do you trust?

Inventor Coverage Provokes Big Questions

Recent coverage of Autodesk Inventor's 'functional design' touched of a flurry of responses. Despite Autodesk's claim to the contrary, users and employees of competing MCAD programs wrote in to say that their software also did 'functional design,' albeit by other names.

Examples gleaned from comments:

"Pro/E has had this functionality for years. It's called the Behavioral Modeling Extension (BMX)."

"I saw functional design with CATIA v5"

Also:

• SolidWorks has demonstrated a belt/chain assembly tool that -- like Inventor's example -- shows a lot of smarts. In addition SolidWorks Intelligent Feature Technology (SWIFT) also aims to free the user from the constraints of CAD.
• Solid Edge doesn't give its technology a name, but promises "intelligent, functionally realistic" models

In light of all the competing claims, how can the reader not be confused?

"Functional Design" is just one feature of Inventor but its coverage and ensuing discussion has stirred up broader issues. Vendor claims often generate counter claims. Who is telling the truth? Perhaps each believes they are telling the truth. Today's CAD products are complex and deciding between them is no small task. Which is the best for a buyer? Each vendor can drown you with descriptions of features and successes. Who will sort it out? The press? The analysts. They buyers themselves? 

Stay tuned as CAD Insider starts to examine these issues. For example:

• How can a buyer make an educated decision?
• What are the deciding factors when a user buys CAD software?
• What role does the industry press play?
• Has the industry press failed in educating the buyer? 
• Does the industry need CAD companies to compete head to head -- like a CAD Olympics?

With most of the MCAD software still to be bought, these are issues that are important to many. So jump in! Your input is most valuable.

Autodesk's Andrew Anagnost Discusses Functional Design

SAN FRANCISCO (Autodesk Press Event) - I zeroed in on Dr. Andrew Anagnost, Sr. Director of Product Management at Autodesk, who earlier had praised Inventor's "functional design" as the shape of thing to come.

Q: What did you mean when you said, "We have Russian mathematicians to blame for making 3D difficult to use?"

A: Parameters and geometric constraints are not the way users should have to think. Autodesk hopes that one day parameters will be pushed into the background so a user would not have to interact with them.

Q: Is Autodesk in the forefront with "functional design?"

Absolutely. There was one company that made a foray into this but gave up.

Q: Inventor uses functional design for shafts, pulleys and belt systems. Why those choices and what's next?

A: It was non-threatening. Those things are common to all mechanical users, they'll get it. Though I can't say what will be in the next release, you can look for functional design to be applied to the creation of molded and cast parts.

Q: How is functional design of an assembly (such as in the creation of a belt/pulley system) different than simply creating the assembly parametrically?

A: Functional design uses a rules-based system -- so it is actually making decisions based upon rules that have been defined, thereby capturing engineering intent. In the future, we hope to make our software actually capture these rules automatically based on user actions. The technology comes to us from our recent acquisitions of Mechsoft and Engineering Intent.

Functional Design -- Humans Still Needed

SAN FRANCSCO (Autodesk Press Event) - "Functional design" is a great phrase. Like world peace, how can you argue against it? I mean, who would want the alternative: dysfunctional design?

But as marketing often does, it over reaches.

The idea that a computer can take a function -- or need -- and transform it into a product is a BIG jump -- more in the realm of science fiction than actual software. Imagine telling a computer you want to go from point A to point B and having it create a bicycle. Could software ever have been told to put a person on the moon and been able to design a a 3-stage booster rocket and landing module? No, for now and the foreseeable future, true functional design still depends on humans. What Autodesk is calling functional design can only be applied to much less ambitious projects.

Autodesk's functional design, as being shown here with Inventor, can help hone the design of a shaft -- once a human determines a shaft is needed.  it. Or once a human determines a transmission is to be constructed with belts and pulleys, the software could help in applying different configurations of it.

That is the current state of the art.  Anything else is still science fiction -- for now.

Functional Design According to Autodesk

SAN FRANCISCO (Autodesk Press Event) - Users need to be freed from having to create geometry, say Autodesk's functional design evangelists. We should be able to specify what a system is supposed to do -- its function, in other words -- and the software should create the geometry.

Autodesk showed 3 examples of functional design. First was a shaft, then a belted drive systems and last, a space frame. In each case, Inventor created geometry based on functional needs. For example, in the case of the belted assembly, an extra pulley was added after the user specified that it was needed. The belt was automatically lengthened. Pretty fast. Quite painless.

But what if your company does not make shafts, or belted assemblies or space frames?

Apparently, Autodesk is tackling this one step at a time with Inventor modules and will in time create more Inventor modules for specific types of design.

Autodesk Wants to Change the Way We Design

SAN FRANCISCO (Autodesk Press Event) - We're doing it all wrong! Even users of the latest greatest 3D design tools are working harder than we need to. So says Andrew Anagnost, Autodesk's wild-eyed visionary, who is expounding the wonders of "functional design" at today's press event in San Francisco.

"What's wrong with 3D modeling?" he asks. I don't take the bait. "Russian programmers," he offers. Hmm, I wasn't ready for that.

We have been, more or less, victimized by Russian programmers, the brains behind Pro/ENGINEER, the product that singe handedly transformed 3D design in the 80's and whose parametric design software has inspired the current crop popular MCAD software. I think he means Russian programmers have taken the wonderfully creative process of design and mired it into a world of constraints. Autodesk's Inventor aims to distance itself from the rest by introducing this concept of "functional design."

Is it more than a marketing buzzword? Stay tuned, we'll find out...

The Queen of AutoCAD Takes A Groom

Though my wife and I were invited as friends and neighbors of Lynn Allen, Queen of AutoCAD, and Dr. Craig McCurdy, Novato's finest eye doctor, I could not resist playing celebrity reporter at their recent wedding reception.

Lynn Allen and Dr. Craig McCurdy at their recent wedding reception in Sonoma County.

Lynn and Craig had tied the knot a few days earlier in Grand Cayman (no paparazzi allowed). The reception was held at the lovely Gloria Ferrer Champagne Caves in Sonoma. There was great food, fine music and dancing, lively conversation and, as you might expect, the champagne was flowing.

CAD Insider has secured rights to first pictures of any Asian or African children the celebrity couple may decide to adopt.

Rumors that Dr. McCurdy had to pass an AutoCAD proficiency test before Lynn said "I do" could not be verified.

Autodesk Investigation Overshadows Record Quarter

Autodesk reported another quarter of record revenue ($450 million in Q2, see press release) but chose not to reveal profit until it concluded an internal investigation of stock options. News of this investigation touched off a whirlwind of headlines drawing attention away from an otherwise stellar quarter and has even negatively impacted Autodesk stock prices (down 5% at last check).

This is not the first time Autodesk has been bothered by stock options. You may recall that back in May when Autodesk reported Q1 earnings, net profit fell 36% due to stock option expenses, offsetting a 23% gain in revenue (see MarketWatch story).

The San Francisco Chronicle reports more than 80 companies are doing internal investigations or are being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for activities relating to stock option grants. (see Options Probe Extends to 2 More Tech Stalwarts...). Autodesk is the first CAD company that has launched an investigation, as far as I know. Carl Bass, CEO of Autodesk, was quoted by Reuters news service as saying he has no reason to expect the SEC will probe Autodesk.

Handling this crisis is the first real test for Bass, known more as a technologist than a firefighter. Bass took over the reins to Autodesk from Carol Bartz earlier this year. Bass was previously Autodesk's chief technology officer and is respected among Autodesk programmers as being one of them, some one who has actually written code. By comparison, Bartz' survival skills are legendary. Not only did Bartz guide the company through its lowest point (the infamous AutoCAD R13), she made Autodesk into a billion dollar company.

While no improprieties have yet come to light, the internal investigation may well center on the extremely lucrative insider trading that has been going on at Autodesk for years. Chief among the beneficiaries has been Carol Bartz herself. In one 12 month period, Bartz netted $230 million in stock options. Though no longer in Autodesk's day to day service, Bartz is still in still busy with stock transactions and cashes in stock options every few days to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars each time, if not millions (see Yahoo! Finance).

New Engineering Magazine - Pt 2

Information about Design World, a engineering magazine to debut in October, is starting to trickle in.

The publishing company name, WTWH, stands for "willing to work harder."

Editorial will be handled by John Gyorki. I googled John and found this entry on the iotech.com site:

John R. Gyorki, previously editor of Medical Design News magazine, holds a bachelors degree in electrical engineering, and has more than 30 years of experience in the test and measurement industry.

Scott McCafferty and Mike Emich merged their independent rep businesses about a year ago to create WTWH Media. Most of their sales were for Penton titles including Machine Design, American Machinist and the now defunct CAE magazine.