A few days ago, SolidWorks CEO Bertrand Sicot posted a blog, reiterating yet again that, no, they’re not going to mess with the SolidWorks program that so many people count on. Just as since it was first written, it will continue to use Parasolid as its geometric modeling kernel.
While I think it’s healthy for SolidWorks to periodically remind its customers that it still loves them, in this case, the message was made a little bit more urgent, as Dassault Systemes head Bernard Charles had been a bit overly enthusiastic at a customer meeting last year, and made a statement that pretty much sounded like DS was going to ditch Parasolid. OK — it was more than “pretty much.”
So, record set straight: SolidWorks Mechanical CAD (the name they’re now using for the existing SolidWorks product) will continue to use the Parasolid kernel. There is no plan to change the kernel. They will continue to develop and improve SolidWorks Mechanical CAD, and have no end-of-life plan for it. They’re not going to do anything to alienate their largest customer base.
That is all.
We now return you to your previously scheduled programming.
And where does the truth lay Evan?
Watching the Solidworks train wreck progress is like re-living the MDT saga in which key managment lied to customers.
Change we all understand. Those who are deeply committed to using CAD stuff need longer lead times than would have been the case twenty years ago but, CAD vendor managment has failed to see this simple truth and continue to think they are the only one who need to make long terms plans. Rubbish retoric pertaining to not wanting to signal intentions to the competition is an old-fashioned standby which no longer holds true.
What is needed now – more than ever – is a legal push/requirement for company managment/marketing and sales staff to be held responsible for making deliberate false or misleading statements.
I can be held accountable for my business promises; the same level of accoutability should be applied to CAD software vendors.
Of course you can’t “change the kernel” of SolidWorks. That’s not the issue, IMO. The issue is the life of the existing SolidWorks is coming to a close and will be replaced by the CGM kernel powered “new” SolidWorks. The CGM kernel powered version has the CAD parameters stored in a Database.
Therefore, currently there is no reliable, cost effective way to exchange data between the existing SolidWorks and the new SolidWorks. As a SolidWorks consultant for over 14 years, I have over 2TB of existing SolidWorks data. If I chose to continue my business, the value of my existing SolidWorks files has a value of zero to customers using the new SolidWorks. That’s the issue.
Of course you can’t “change the kernel” of SolidWorks. That’s not the issue, IMO. The issue is the life of the existing SolidWorks is coming to a close and will be replaced by the CGM kernel powered “new” SolidWorks. The CGM kernel powered version has the CAD parameters stored in a Database.
Therefore, currently there is no reliable, cost effective way to exchange data between the existing SolidWorks and the new SolidWorks. As a SolidWorks consultant for over 14 years, I have over 2TB of existing SolidWorks data. If I choose to continue my business, the value of my existing SolidWorks files has a value of zero to customers using the new SolidWorks. That’s the issue.
As someone working in the 3D design field for 25 years I’d like to weigh in on this subject. Full disclosure here; I am currently working with Solid Edge but also used SW since it was first released and know it is a fine product.
The fact of the matter is the contract between Siemens (owner of the kernel) and Dassault Systemes for license rights to the Parasolid kernel has expired and I don’t foresee SolidWorks getting any more updated versions in the near future. While I do not doubt SolidWorks will get all the support from Dassault possible it means a dramatic change. That change could mean the feature many users appreciate the most (mainly ability to work with multiple data formats easily) may suffer; fingers crossed.
Contract expired? Really? “The fact of the matter” is for a software company to cancel a contract relinquishes their rights to use the kernel at all unless they buy rights to use the ‘frozen’ kernel (as Autodesk did with ACIS).
So as long as SolidWorks uses Parasolid, or DCube they have a contract with Siemens. If Siemens were to cancel that contract they would be shooting themselves in the foot, cutting off large revenue stream and drawing a line in the sand to other customers saying ‘dont count on us for the long term as we can cut you off any time’.
So please, provide so evidence of these ‘facts’ please. I would love to see the source.
April 24, 2013 7:03pm PST I just got word from an anonymous reliable
source that this is incorrect. The contract has not expired.
Sorry, my bad for not checking.
Devon