The CAD Insider

Solid Edge Ready to Take Off

Though never faulted for its technical prowess, Solid Edge has languished in the MCAD market as the spotlight often shines on SolidWorks and Inventor (see  my post "The Best MCAD Program You Won't Buy" June 2006).  But lately, Siemens PLM's Synchronous Technology, which is poised to introduce updates to Solid Edge and NX this summer, has received an incredible amount of press -- and just about all of it favorable. I wonder if all this adulation threatens to shatter Solid Edge's reputation as the CAD industry's best-kept secret.

What is all the fuss about? To find out, I flew to Toronto, where Siemens was introducing Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology at the CN Tower. I listened to claims of how Synchronous Technology will save money ("over $76,000 per year") and time ("100X faster"). No CAD software introduction would be complete without such claims, though the numbers may vary. Siemens was pushing how fast you could change parts-- not just Solid Edge parts but parts from rival CAD companies. One assembly contained Solid Edge, SolidWorks and Inventor parts, though it did not seem to matter. Solid Edge was able to make changes in a part without regard to what application was used in its creation. More importantly, part changes were made without any consideration of the original history tree and without requiring a rebuilding afterward. Changes were pretty darn quick!

We are told that it is Synchronous Technology and Live Rules which allow Solid Edge to recognize features -- even in imported parts -- and allow for such quick edits. Sure enough, on a simple part, moving one face on a part picks up coplanar faces and moves them as well. The program also picks up concentric circles and common dimensions. All changes happen quickly, seamlessly. No rebuilding takes place.

(courtesy Siemens)
Siemens claims that with Synchronous Technology, editing time does not increase appreciably as models get more complex. Their studies prove that parts with upward of 2,000 faces which would take an hour to rebuild happen in practically no time with Synchronous Technology.

Having experienced difficulty in changing SolidWorks models, I can appreciate the advantage such quick editing would have. I am by no means alone. Synchronous Technology is a surprisingly active subject among leading and influential SolidWorks bloggers. While reaction often include "what's the big deal?" or "we've been able to do that for years," a certain amount of respect and envy is apparent.

If Synchronous Technology is as good as it seems, what's to stop other CAD companies from doing the same? I ask Dan Staples, Director of Solid Edge. Patents are being applied for, for one thing. Also, Dan reminds me Siemens owns D-Cubed (the constraint manager in Solid Edge) and Parasolid (the geometry kernel), a fact that should translate into a better utilization of both products. I imagine the developers at D-Cubed and Parasolid have saved a few tricks for the company that issues their paychecks. Could it be some undocumented features are never found by the competitors?

History-less applications seem to be quite the rage these days. There's newcomer SpaceClaim, a resurgent CoCreate, the venerable IronCAD and Kubotek KeyCreator, both now enjoying a vindication of sorts. In fact, so pervasive and overwhelming is history-less modeling in current discussion that I can't remember what advantage a history tree had. A champion of history trees needs to come forward -- if they have not all gone into hiding, that is.

So, what makes Synchronous Technology different than this current crop of history-less modelers? Answer: Solid Edge with ST leaves the parametrics in. You can still control the model using parameters thereby preserving design intent.

Dan sees the next version of Solid Edge so radically different that he won't even call it V21, referring to it instead only as Solid Edge with ST. How is this any different a marketing tack than SolidWorks and their SWIFT, I ask. Ah, SWIFT still leaves SolidWorks history-based, doesn't it? We've done away with the history tree entirely, says Dan. A history is just something CAD companies have added on top of the geometry kernel. We've been working for several years to find a way to do away with it.

The folks at Siemens seem genuinely excited, perhaps even surprised by the buzz Synchronous Technology has created. In my short take, it looks good. Maybe Synchronous Technology will be the engine on which Solid Edge finally takes off.

CAD Programs Are So NOT the Same

oLONG BEACH, CA (PTC World Event) -- As I wasted way too much time online shopping for my own Father's Day gift, a GPS unit (hey, kids need help!) it occurs to me I should just walk into a store and pick one out. It may not be the perfect one, maybe I'd pay a bit more, but this should not be a big decision. Aren't they all pretty much the same?

It's not like picking out a CAD program, right?

Wrong. CAD programs are pretty much the same. That message came from a most unlikely source: the recent PTC press event. As you can see below, Pro/E, CATIA, UGNX, SolidWorks, Solid Edge -- even Inventor-- occupy the same horizontal space, which I am interpreting as robustness or capability. PTC meant to show that the brass ring goes to the company with the better data management solution (their Windchill product) but I'm floored by an implication of parity from a company in a competitive market -- especially a company whose long-standing insistence on product superiority has bordered on arrogance.

PTC suggests parity in MCAD programs (click for larger impage)

I mentally play back the tapes of previous presentations....and sure enough, a common thread emerges. CAD executives have been deemphasizing new features and capabilities, like they've been running out of stuff to add, running out of ideas, reluctant to compete feature by feature. Even my own readers have suggested that reviews and comparisons are pointless. I had attributed this attitude to fatalism and weariness. Few readers actually get to pick a CAD program as it is usually thrust upon them. Also, reviews have suffered from grade inflation in the hands of non-critical, vendor-friendly reviewers. Oh, don't get me started. But more on topic, I may have been closing my eyes to a creeping parity. Maybe they are all the same?

No, I refuse to give in. CAD programs are complex, nuanced, problematic. They have strengths and weaknesses.

So I still beg for a show down and shoot outs, a white knight of a publisher with guts and brains. How about pitching Pro/E against SolidWorks, as both claim to have solved filleting problems (yeah, right!). I ache for someone to put interoperability claims to the test, as one CAD vendor after another claims to work in multi-CAD "ecosystem."' (Or could they just stop saying "ecosystem" when they just mean  system?). They can't all be the same. If we can find  split hairs on GPS units, digital cameras, washing machines, why can't we be critical of CAD programs? I can find a half dozen good sites to compare the latest cell phone, something I will spend $50 on and have for a year, maybe less. Yet, no similar site exists for CAD programs.

Not long ago, I sat in embarrassed silence in an group of engineers as we were asked if anyone had analyzed the presidential candidates. Nobody had. And we're the kind of people who make spreadsheets to determine which screw to use.

Could there be such a thing as:

Roopinder's Law: The amount of analysis is inversely proportional to the importance of the decision.

Keith Bentley Wants to Make it All Work Together

BALTIMORE, MD (BE Conference) - I caught up to Keith Bentley at this years annual user meeting in Baltimore. I enjoy meeting with Keith, who despite his stature in the CAD software business (CTO of Bentley Software), makes himself accessible, listens patiently and answers every question, no matter how foolish. I resolve to test his limits. "Any little Bentleys ready to take up the reigns?" Keith laughs easily, naturally. No, his son wants to be a teacher, he says. How can you not like this guy?

We discuss the conference. Bentley seems to have cut back this year. Last year there were 2 user meetings, one in London and one in California. This year, BE (Benley Empowered, as the annual user meeting and conference is known) is more about engineering applications. The talk is more talk of energy analysis, sustainability, bridge building, water modeling, etc. MicroStation is more or less as a given and is deemphasized. Also, gone are the hands on training classes of previous conferences -- an omission lamented by more than one attendee.

Disappointed drafters notwithstanding, Bentley is clearly going after the "high end user." It's acquisitions are clearly on that path and the company sees engineering (the "E" in AEC) as where it can distinguish itself and grow, almost conceding entirely the "low end" (quotes are mine) to its archrival, Autodesk.

So with all these diverse applications being acquired, surely the challenge is to get them to work together, maybe even share the same look and feel. It's the biggest job I have, says Keith has. Sharing data through neutral files is still happening between certain applications, and customers are demanding better. Less of a priority -- but still important -- is some commonality in look and feel. However, don't expect the sameness of MS Office applications -- the engineering applications are far to dissimilar to allow that.

Though for years, MicroStation has been getting bigger and bigger, another of Keith's jobs is now to break it down. Parts of MicroStation will find themselves in different Bentley applications. For example, a geometry creation module from MicrStation could find its way into the water modeling application, substituted for whatever Haestad had used when they owned it.

Athens is the code name for the next release of MicroStation products. I wonder out loud if Bentley was naming releases after defunct empires. Again, the quick and easy laugh. No, Bentley's theme is Olympic cities. Jeez, anybody else would have thrown me out by now.

Adobe Has A Lot of CAD Functionality

The folks at Adobe gave me a 90-minute demo of version 9 of their products over a Web connection. That's about 3 times as long as a normal tradeshow demo. It wasn't long enough. There's more CAD functions in Adobe now than any product from a non-CAD vendor. It's going to change the way you think about Adobe.

Exploded views are a cinch with Acrobat 9 Pro Extended

One feature that will be worth the price of admission (about $700 for the high end version with all the CAD functions) is the one-touch explode. How I longed for that when I was just trying to figure out how an assembly was put together! It is probably an easy task to create an exploded view if you are full time user --certainly I've seen it done a dozen times in demos -- but it's quite an exercise in frustration for an infrequent user or non user. With Adobe, not only do the parts fly apart on their own, but Adobe tells me the animation can be captured and played back. Hallelujah!

On top of that, you can take sections, measure, even get mass properties. It seems to work with a lot of common CAD program formats, including AutoCAD, SolidWorks and Pro/E.

Adobe has renamed their products as such:

• Acrobat Pro Extended (was called Adobe 3D), $699
• Acrobat Pro, $449
• Acrobat Standard, $299
• Acrobat Reader (free)

A full comparision of features of each is available here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/matrix.html

Look for them version 9 around late summer of this year.

Greener Than Thou

May 28. 2008, BALTIMORE, MD (BE Conference) -  Bentley is convincing everyone at their annual user meeting that it has gone green. Examples abound. Their corporate logo has been redone in green, for one thing. They have reduced their corporate carbon footprint for their big show by coming to Baltimore by bus instead of flying. They've hired Andrew Winston (author of Green to Gold) to let us know that green can represent not only the environment but also the greenback. And if you were to believe what Bentley says, the software itself will now allow AEC professionals to be green by incorporating green tactics during design.

old logo

new Bently logo is way more green

It's not the first time I have heard software companies aligning themselves with the green movement. Autodesk pledged itself to be green when Carl Bass, CEO, led off Autodesk University in 2007. However, my request to interview him on this initiative has gone unanswered.

How green can design software get? Isn't AEC software about turning green fields into concrete and metal? Not so, says Joe Croser, from Bentley's marketing division. He educates me in how Bentley is about sustainable infrastructure. A green building can take the place of a not-so-green building . A roadway can be created using more environmentally friendly materials. Energy analysis can reduce thermal load and lower dependence on air conditioning. And so on.

Ok, I think I get it. Still, it bothers me that Toyota (cited as a successful implementation of green technology) is ultimately not green. Yes, there is the problem with what to do with its old batteries, but also, if we wanted to really be green, shouldn't we not be buying a ton of metal and plastic, even if it takes the shape of a Prius, because the creation and disposal of such materials is ruinous? For Earth's sake, shouldn't we walk?

We feel good about doing these little things: paper instead of plastic, recycle, don't litter -- we even turn in our plastic attendee badges so they can be recycled. All these actions can make you feel like a pretty good green citizen: I've done what I can, what is within my power, what is fairly easy. And it hasn't really cost me much or inconvenienced me too badly.

But are we doing as much as is needed? Is replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones going to make a significant difference? Are we rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? The ship is still going down, now maybe sinking a tad slower. Maybe what I need is not fluorescent bulbs (which Mr. Winston points out are really an environmental nightmare because of the mercury) but candles. Or better yet, why don't we just go to sleep?

But for now, technology companies tell us something is better than nothing.