Autodesk Pushes Interdisciplinary Application

SAN FRANCISCO (Autodesk World Press Days), Jan 13, 2008 - In the AEC demo shown today, Autodesk led off with a design study of high rise towers that were modeled in Inventor -- an application considered by most to be exclusively for mechanical design. Then a train station concept was manipulated in Maya, long a favorite animators/modelers. The remaining applications showed more of the traditional AEC applications but in the MCAD demo that followed, machinery designed in Inventor was brought into a Revit building model.

It's not just for MCAD: a high rise tower concept done using Inventor leads off the AEC demo at Autodesk World Press Days 2008

Such interdisciplinary applications were not isolated incidents, but oft repeated to the point of becoming a minor theme of the press event. Autodesk seems to have seized on the idea that users of its AEC software should also be using MCAD software, and to a lesser extent, vice versa.

Autodesk point: why not use the best tools for the job? Certainly, all the really cool new building designs are curvaceous -- a stretch for traditional AEC applications but very possible with MCAD tools.

Of course, it would be in Autodesk's best financial interest if architects needs surpassed the capabilities of their AEC software. They would be only too happy to sell Inventor to them.

But pity the poor architect. Once all he had to learn was AutoCAD, and he probably felt that had taken a lifetime to master. Now, an architect risks falling behind unless he learns 3D, BIM, rendering, collaboration, and more.

Never mind the cost of all this software -- and the bigger book cases needed -- how can one hope to be proficient in AutoCAD, 3ds Max, Inventor, Maya, Revit, Civil3D and NavisWorks? They all have different interfaces, commands. And what a headache to transfer data! Even some of these Autodesk applications cannot read each others' native data formats.

Autodesk appears to be somewhat aware of this burden. One highly placed Autodesker has said there is a long term commitment to achieving more of a commonality among the various applications to reduce the training burden. "But don't expect them all to look the same," they added.

An alternative would be to add capability to applications the user was already familiar with. Couldn't curvy shape technology could be made available in a Revit pull down menu or icon?

Now, really -- how much profit would there be in that?

Comments

[Stevenson]

A core modelling and draughting system should be the base of a good CAD vendor’s product into which specialized ‘vertical’ applications

[R.Paul Waddington]

The name of the product is irrelevant in fact it is what it can do as a modeller that is important. MDT is just AutoCAD if you take the ‘nuts and bolts library’ out and if the word Mechanical is taken out of its name more Architects may have been able to take advantage of its modelling capabilities sooner.
A core modelling and draughting system should be the base of a good CAD vendor’s product into which specialized ‘vertical’ applications can be added as per individual customer requirements: vertical products have divided the market and worse still have condemned users and companies, who have to work in a multi-disciplinary environments to waste much money and made it more difficult, for some companies, to fill staff positions because of the polarization of individuals to use particular packages.
Your side issue: to say ‘MDT lost’ is to admit so did those who used it? That’s cool so long as it was not you or your money eh!

PaulW.

[Kevin E.]

Mr. Waddington, just keep using MDT. Let the rest of us dumb users keep using Inventor or Solidworks or whatever. It's over, MDT lost.

Kevin

[R.Paul Waddington]

I have long argued Autodesk failed to see the true value of MDT’s abilities – for the entire design industry - because they were too busy looking for the next step to increase their revenue and over their shoulder instead of concentrating on their customers needs and revenue with more effort than lip service.

This ridiculously late and inaccurate statement, “why not use the best tools for the job? Certainly, all the really cool new building designs are curvaceous -- a stretch for traditional AEC applications but very possible with MCAD tools.” Demonstrates Autodesk still do not understand the ‘discipline’ of design documentation and still have an understanding to shape that is rooted in the relative complexity of a sphere or shoe box.

CAD vendors live in a bubble of belief that CAD is required to design and manufacture: they need to lose this perception and move their egos back to the plane they belong on as tool suppliers. They need to stop trying to steer and control design and start servicing it!

R.Paul Waddington