Pro/E is first, SolidWorks is 6th

Just FWIW, I don't see why your post should be considered off-topic.
It's no more so than a lot of follow-up replies to a lot of threads in
this NG.

 

This discussion, for the most part, is irrelevant. The fact that PTC has
been selling Pro/E for the past 20 years accounts for it's large footprint.
And, company management style can account for what software is picked, and
also employee retention. Those that take the easy way out and don't
actually investigate the software they are going to use (Inventor customers
who were given the software or Pro/E users who had bosses to stupid to pick
the worlds best CAD app, so it was sold to their bosses as such (typical
Pro/E sales tactics)), probably have a short field of vision and thus have a
high turnover rate (do to erratic business due to shortsighted business
plans) as opposed to those that really do their homework and choose the best
CAD system for the job (and develop far more stable business plans).

I would like to see numbers on 3D CAD software displacements such as X
number of Pro/E seats were replaced by System Z.

Ken

 

.......had bosses to stupid to pick the worlds best CAD app, .....

The suspense is killing me. 8~)

================

 

: > .......had bosses to stupid to pick the worlds best CAD app, .....
:
: The suspense is killing me. 8~)
:
Me too! I just hope I'm surprised, like a design package from China that nobody
outside the country's ever heard of and that didn't even make it to Wohler's list.

 

See the whole press release at:

"research".

I purchased the Wohlers 1998 and 2002 reports. Given that I am
supposed to know a thing or two about Rapid Prototyping and that my
employer has around $400k invested in hardware alone, I consider it
due dilegence to keep abreast of the published research in the field.
I don't have the current report, but assuming it follows the same
general format of the two previous reports that I do have this press
release misses the point of the report.
The numbers reported represent accumulative seats shipped for whatever
reason since the beginning of (MCAD) time. In the 2002 Report this
section had a subsection titled, "Getting good estimates" that went
into the difficulties of getting any kind of meaningful numbers. The
bottom line point of the inclusion of a number for seats of MCAD,
(regardless of accuracy)in the report is that Rapid Prototyping
Technology requires 3D solid models as the initial data. While
everyone I know (including Greco in the Wohlers Report) views these
numbers with a skeptical eye, everyone agrees that the number of 3D
MCAD users is growing at an accelerated rate. As Greco and Wohlers
state, "Despite the cloudiness of the numbers, the future of the MCAD
market looks bright..." Wohlers 2002, pg 181.
Current estimates are that somewhere around 25% of mechanical
designers and engineers worldwide use solid modeling. The early
adopters of the technology have been touting the benifits of 3D MCAD
for some time (often with evangelical zeal for particular software
they adopted, of course). Published job placement advertisements are
only one indication of current use. The big question for MCAD vendors
is, "Who will the late adopters, the 70-75% 2D CAD users go with and
how long will the migration to 3D tools take?"
J.D.

 

: > See the whole press release at:
: > http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/PR/WOHLERS/062504_5mil.htm.
:
: >....to sell it for $425, hunh!?! Oh, well, somebody's buying that
: "research".
:
: I purchased the Wohlers 1998 and 2002 reports. Given that I am
: supposed to know a thing or two about Rapid Prototyping and that my
: employer has around $400k invested in hardware alone, I consider it
: due dilegence to keep abreast of the published research in the field.
: I don't have the current report, but assuming it follows the same
: general format of the two previous reports that I do have this press
: release misses the point of the report.

Nice to hear from somebody who's actually read one of the Wohler reports.
Unfortunately, no one is reacting to the report because we, like you, have not
seen it. The reaction started with a rather provocatively titled message, cross
posted to AutoCAD, SolidWorks and Pro/e newsgroups. Then there was the content of
the post, purported to come from Tara Roopinder, publisher of 10Links. Whatever
the point of the report, the point of the post was apparently to goad people into
reading and discussing the 10Links announcement and the nearly contentless
Wohler's press release. It seems they succeeded in getting a discussion going, but
one that managed to counter only the most obvious defects in the statistics.

: The numbers reported represent accumulative seats shipped for whatever
: reason since the beginning of (MCAD) time. In the 2002 Report this
: section had a subsection titled, "Getting good estimates" that went
: into the difficulties of getting any kind of meaningful numbers. The
: bottom line point of the inclusion of a number for seats of MCAD,
: (regardless of accuracy)in the report is that Rapid Prototyping
: Technology requires 3D solid models as the initial data. While
: everyone I know (including Greco in the Wohlers Report) views these
: numbers with a skeptical eye, everyone agrees that the number of 3D
: MCAD users is growing at an accelerated rate.

Very important question: what are good numbers. Everyone gets this report to go
data mining: sort through a ton of tailings to find that nugget of gold that
points the way to the future. However, even the one statistic that's available
from the announcement stuff, a chart showing the number of RP models produced from
98 to 03, shows a straight line curve (slope, about 1.5) running the whole way.
There is certainly no *accelerating* rate in evidence. And, it is precisely the
warping, to the point of deluded fantasy or using the most meaningless figures
(total number of licenses ever issued) which is used to mislead, to create a false
optimism, an artificial excitement, that leads people to object strongly, that
leads me to believe there is an agenda at work behind behind this kind of "number
crunching". And what could be the point? I already stated in one of my posts: to
stimulate sales, to tell the RPers that now's the time for some capital spending.
But, no one wants to listen to stupidly lying claims (ADESK Inventor is in more
widespread use than SolidWorks!?! As Sporkman said, that's LAUGHABLE!!!), much
less base capital spending plans on them. I would hate to think that RPers are so
poorly informed or depend so heavily on a report like this that they would take
such nonse for gospel.

: As Greco and Wohlers state, "Despite the cloudiness of the numbers, the future
of the MCAD
: market looks bright..." Wohlers 2002, pg 181.

That's either an item of analysis or an item of faith. If analysis, facts and
arguments can be marshelled to bear on it. But marshalling trumped up, exaggerated
and meaningless stats doesn't make the analysis stronger. It makes the whole case
weaker, less believable, less trustworthy. And with corporate executives,
accounting firms and others on trial for lying with numbers, why wouldn't the
report writers get the idea: extra caution when presenting and interpreting, not
flamboyant optimism, is what's needed for people to take such reports seriously.
Especially when it's $425 or *our* money at stake.

: Current estimates are that somewhere around 25% of mechanical
: designers and engineers worldwide use solid modeling. The early
: adopters of the technology have been touting the benifits of 3D MCAD
: for some time (often with evangelical zeal for particular software
: they adopted, of course). Published job placement advertisements are
: only one indication of current use. The big question for MCAD vendors
: is, "Who will the late adopters, the 70-75% 2D CAD users go with and
: how long will the migration to 3D tools take?"

As long as we're making predictions, I have one: in ten years time, one more
decade, there will be no more 2-D, no more CAD or CADD. There will be only
modelling ~ solids modelling, process modelling as in the kind represented by PLM,
matematical modelling, statistical modelling as in the GIS mapping of geographical
to demographic data, molecular and chemical modelling as represented in designer
drugs and, finally, the vast field of simulation of everything from dynamic
stresses in materials to the formation of currents and fronts in the atmosphere to
the way bones will heal after maxilofacial surgery can be realistically,
faithfully shown on a computer. In ten years time with the continuation of the
revolution in computing of the last decade (1.5 year doubling time of processor
speed, continued improvement in the accessibility of computers to average users
through the GUI revolution and another revolution to come in networking
technology) will put modelling everywhere and make it as economically unfeasible
to waste hardware on 2-D applications as it was to waste coal on the steam
locomotive by the 1950s. I don't think you can be more optimistic, in general,
than this. Yet the questions remain as they were: when, where and how. If China
and India, where a third of our species lives and where we are developing the most
rapidly, were not taken fully into account by the Wohler report, then it is worse
than useless. It is Eurocentric snake oil.

David Janes

 

CAD is a tool to help you get your job done, the # of people using it
doesn't really matter unless you interact with some of those people on
a frequent basis. Most engineers I know don't like sharing their
pencil let alone their CAD data. So why not just go with the CAD tool
that works best for you and not worry about the popularity.

Sure you may need to get a job where your specific CAD skills help but
how often is that. Also, I've learned 4 solid modelers and it get's
easier each time, not to mention most employers appreachate my
knowledge of more then one system.

Do you ask which hammer is the best seller? I didn't think so...

IronDude

 

Interesting points, but.....

Eastwing. (A dated opinion.)
If you'd ever swung one all day, day in and day out you'd know that a hammer
is not a hammer is not a hammer. It takes a lot longer to eval CAD software
than a hammer (but you're right; each one comes easier), so we rely on
things like popularity, published "expert" (guy away from his hometown
carrying a briefcase) opinion, etc. to help narrow down the field a bit.
It's also why so much money goes into marketing.

Analogy to buying a car would be more appropriate. Trade rags, expert
opinions, consumer reports, popularity.....

Sharing data is a big concern which is why there are $20K+ applications on
the market that will translate features and history.

8~)

==============================

 

it's estwing, and yes, they are still the best.

Bigjobs

 

it's estwing, ....

Ack! Thanks for the correction.

 

That's exactly the point - here's a person who's probably been

Yes, Inventor is an SGI trademark, but a quick look at the link you supplied
shows that it only pertains to "object-oriented developer's toolkit" and it
is so important to SGI they never even bothered to register it in the USA!!

http://www.sgi.com/company_info/trademarks/sgi.html

So you are defending poor little SGI and think they have been robbed by
Autodesk, when they obviously haven't. But at the same time you critisise
Autodesk for trying to stop people using their software illegally, when it
is generally agreed that this is one of the most pirated CAD software
application is the world!

Get a life!

 

: Yes but I'd be willing to bet to my limit that the $5 Chinese Harbor
: Freight hammer sells more units. Heck I might be going back for my
: second or third one soon.
:
People bought the Sony Walkman 30 years ago. The company is still around and known
for pretty good quality stuff. But, the original Sony products were cheap junk.
The company survived and the products got better. If the Chinese companies do the
same, 20 years from now, they too will be well regarded. Especially with an
economy that's growing 6-8% a year and sucking up capital investment like crazy.

BTW, I gave up on Harbor Freight when that hammer turned out to have a cast iron
(maybe, cast something anyway) head and broke the first time I wacked a nail with
it. Who knows, by now; Estwing may have started the same way. Anyway, who uses
hammers when you've got nail guns!!!!!!!!!!

David Janes

 

I have an Estwings hammer and it has been past down from my father, its as
good as the day it was bought. I always admire it when I use it and if ever
people are arounf I poj t out that I have an Estwings

Bit sad but, it would be great if everything was made as well.

Joe McBurnie
CSI Managing Director