After it launches next year, does SolidWorks V6 stand a chance?

Judging from the negative commentary and comments on Matt Lombard's Dezignstuff blog about SolidWorks and the company behind it, you'd think it was pretty much dead. Or dying. Or with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. [Cue the peal of laughter.]

SolidWorks the software isn't, of course, and in just the last half-year brand-owner Dassault Systems has grown to become the biggest CAD software company in the world.

Nevertheless, people who have built their small business on the success of SolidWorks are concerned of its future due to the vague statements made by Dassault, such as this by-now-classic:

The existing SolidWorks tools will continue to be actively developed (not just supported) until customers no longer express a need for them, and will continue to be based on the Parasolid kernel.

On the surface, it reads positively, but the problem lies in the word "customers," a word as meaningless as "they." (As my English 12 teacher reprimanded us one day in class, there is no "they.") Dassault needs to work in the same reality as their customers: how many need to express a need for SolidWorks tools for Dassault to continue developing them? Two represents the plural of customer.

Dassault will not continue developing SolidWorks for two customers. Nor for 10. Or 100. Or a thousand. Doubtful even for 10,000. (History: Autodesk stopped developing Generic CADD, which had 300,000 apparent customers.)

In the provocatively titled posting "[Former Solidworks ceo] Jeff Ray Killed SolidWorks, [current ceo] Bertrand Sicot Embalms" at Dezignstuff, a vigorous discussion is now at 39 comments. There is the group of regulars long-faced about Solidworks having no future, if not already dead; others, however, talk up the positives of V6. As Dudi put it, if you are today designing a CAD package, you have to design it with the cloud in mind.

Knut F asks, "But let’s say that everything works out just fine (for sake of the argument), and there is a bug free SWv6 available from day one. I’m curious about what level of functionality will be available in SWv6."

When I asked this question at a SolidWorks media event last year, a DSSW exec told me that V6 would have tools "suitable for the needs" of the targeted person using V6. This is code for a subset of design tools.

This makes sense, because you cannot launch a full-blown CAD package in version 1.0. Even SpaceClaim gets annual updates that fill in missing features, like sheetmetal design. We know that V6 will launch less capable than SolidWorks 2013, and so it will look like an immediate failure to current SolidWorks users -- along the lines of that n!Software (whatever it was called).

Missing functions is one crucial issue; the other is pricing. For Dassault to give V6 a chance at success, it needs to price it free initially, by making it part of the SolidWorks annual maintenance fee. (History: Autodesk included the first two releases of AutoCAD for Windows free with the DOS version.) I predict, however, that Dassault won't; the extra monthly/annual fee imposed on top of SW's annual fee will make it as successful among Solidworks users as that n!Software was (whatever it was called).

If the CGM-based [nee-Solidworks] V6 will have a chance, it will be in the large customer market; it will bypass SMB.

It won't be called Solidworks, but will be subsumed into the 3DEXPERIENCE brand as a cloud-based, Envoia-linked, lightwight modeler suitable for seats adjacent to Catia.

Product managers for Creo and Inventor are salivating as Solidworks faces being GenericCADDed.

 

Comments

[Kevin Quigley]

Ralph I tend to base my business critical decisions on fact, assessment and impact on my business. At this point in time nobody outside SolidWorks knows what is coming. Not you, not Matt Lombard, not me. Like a lot of SolidWorks users I am interested in what is coming but I'm not losing sleep over it and I'm not overly concerned. I will make my judgements when I know exactly what the offer is. Until then I'm happy with SolidWorks and have no great desire to jump ship, with all the upheaval that brings.

[Ralph Grabowski]

We do know some things about SolidWorks V6, from what executives have told us over the years:
- it is based on Enovia, meaning all aspects of models/dawings are stored in a single database
- it uses the CGM kernel for compatibility with Catia
- it will have a subset of Solidworks commands
- it has been shown running on several OSes and a variety hardware formfactors

[Jon Banquer]

Solidworks V6 will do very well if it meets the following conditions:

It ditches the Siemens legacy code software components that don't make full use of multi-core processors that are currently used in SolidWorks (they are also used in Solid Edge ST) and replaces them with constraint solvers and a kernel that can take full advantage of all the cores in a multi-core processor.

I cover the CAD multi-core processor problem in detail here:

http://cadcamtechnologyleaders.blogspot.com/

It combines both direct modeling and history based modeling in a seamless user interface... something that Solid Edge ST does very poorly.

It allows better CAM integration than legacy code SolidWork allows... meaning a CAM add-in needs to be able to create its own Assembly file rather than ride on top of a SolidWorks Assembly file which is the case now with legacy code SolidWorks.

I see no reason why SMB's won't switch to SolidWorks V6 if it's designed and marketed properly by Dassault.

[Tim Neumann]

Just got done with a Solidworks trial,and being a 2D user for 18 years I actually caught on with it faster than Inventor or Solidedge.

Now with this business of it being on shaky ground maybe I better temper my enthusiasm before trying to convince my boss to spend serious cash on a package which may be orphaned in a year or so.

So would it be better to wait or just look into one of the other mid-range packages?

[Jon Banquer]

Tim,

In my opinion there are no easy/good answers at this point. If I were in your position I would look at a newer, non-legacy code application like SpaceClaim and see if it has got enough functionality for your application. It is my opinion that SpaceClaim is in the best position of any existing application to change kernels or to adopt newer software components that make full use of multi-core processors. I also feel that SpaceClaim has the best user interface of any CAD or CAM application I've ever used.

[Ken]

Tim, you really need to do a thorough test of potential candidates utilizing a typical project using your full change process. Demos are useless and just "trying" out the software usually does not go deep enough to find the "gotchas". People who do thorough testing usually make much different choices than those who just go with a demo and/or a shallow trial. It also matters greatly on the type of work you do as well. Also, beware of anybody who leads you down a specific path by pure opinion, as it is not somebody you should be following...

[Ulrich Hanisch]

Jon, the last time, I´ve seen SpaceClaim, they have used an ordinary ribbon UI as known from MS Office. I don´t know just 1 user who is happy about ribbon UI. I personally hate ribbon UI. It´s boring, one need very much mouse action to toggle between different areas of the features and functions, and I´m sure, that I´m very much faster using my customized SWX GUI - and having much more features and functions as in the SpaceClaim package.

[Jon Banquer]

Ulrich, just because an application uses an MS Ribbon bar doesn't doom it to failure or guarantee it's going to be good. The SolidWorks Command Manager actually mimics what the MS Ribbon bar does.

Suggest you try using SpaceClaim hands on to see for yourself just how good its user interface truly is.

[Bookkeeping Sunshine Coast]

This is all too confusing, I think Solidworks need a lesson on their Public Relations. Their announcement seemed vague and they seem to be unenthusiastic about their product.