DISQUS

Blake Courter · 6 months ago

Hey Lou,

I'm looking forward to seeing this discussion evolve.

One of the amazing things I've learned as I've watched our customers adopt SpaceClaim is how they use it with a plurality of tools. Many love history-based modeling, but they use SpaceClaim to plan their design intent and perform what-if studies that are not convenient in the history-based models. Of course, at larger companies where roles are more specialized we now see teams of engineers using SpaceClaim to help them work better with the CAD team doing detailed design.

The most compelling impact of direct modeling is to move 3D into places where we've traditionally seen pen and paper and 2D drawing tools. In hindsight it seems obvious that all CAD systems will have some direct modeling capabilities, but I'm most excited about more people getting involved with 3D product development.

-Blake (a founder of SpaceClaim)

burhop · 6 months ago

Lou I love your blog but I think I’d use a different analogy.

If you were to compare the emergence of History based parametic modeling back around 1990 to what is going on today, I see a lot of similarities. PTC didn’t arrive on the scene with the product is has now, it was a much more primitive version compared to what it has today. I still remember going to a trade show with the PTC guy trying to get me to talk features while I wanted to talk lines and arcs. The technological advantages were far less clear.

So, rather than the Apple to Microsoft analogy, I’d rather stick to your original 'History of CAD’ idea. To me, the history based solutions as we know them today have reached their potential. Sure, we can add more goodness around it, tweak it here and there, maybe break it up but there is only so much more horsepower you can get.

The potential of the new technologies has only been partially filled and it can already do (roughly) what a history based system can do. It has some plusses and minuses today as you point out but the minuses are more due to having the resource to flesh it out rather than some technological limitation.

If you are going to design a part today, you have to look at a static point in time and decide what technologies to use. But if you are running a business, looking at where things were in CAD and where they are going will be very valuable.

gol10dr · 6 months ago

Thanks for the comment Mark. There were many traditional parallels I could have used but thought I would use a more main stream example to hopefully get users to comment on how these tools would/could be most useful to them. Interesting that all of us on the Vendor side are commenting here so far. I hope more users let us all know what is best for their challenges.

In the end I am glad to see the emergence of more options for 3D design. The more tools in your pouch, the less trouble you have formulating an idea into reality.

Robin Capper · 6 months ago

"Apple's hardware allows me to run any operating system"?

Huh? My WIntel would happily run OS X but cant because Apple won't share it. Surely your ability to run any operating system because Microsoft let you into their world rather than anything special about Apple Hardware?

gol10dr · 6 months ago

Apple's decision to keep their OS locked to their hardware is an entirely different discussion. I would also say that Microsoft is hardly looked at as a generous, open company and controls their technology much the same way.

The topic of discussion here is not about Apple it is about the best blend of direct editing in CAD tools today.

Brian · 6 months ago

I can see lots of uses for direct modeling tools up front in the design, but I still want and need to capture the design intent, especially after the design has "gelled". I am all for tools that will help me get my job done easier, I just don't see how the design intent can be captured with direct modeling/editing only...