Inventor Fusion Technology Preview 2 – Part 4

In this post I would like to share bits of my conversation with Kevin Schneider of Autodesk.

Deelip: Do you know of any other MCAD vendor that was going down the same road as Autodesk in terms of uniting direct modeling and history based parametric modeling?

Kevin: None that I know of.

Deelip: Are you aware of what PTC is doing on this front?

Kevin: Yes, to an extent, I am aware of what they are doing. But the key is that we have something that is working and we are in a position to let our customers test it. Of course, these are early days and we need to improve this technology a lot.

Deelip: SolidWorks has publicly stated that it will continue to enhance its Instant3D feature as its way of offering its customers direct modeling capability. Do you think Autodesk and SolidWorks are converging to the same solution but from different directions?

Kevin: I would not like to comment on the SolidWorks approach. However, I can say that what we are offering is something unique, something which has never been done before. In fact this is what everyone said was impossible. We have now shown that is is possible.

Deelip: How much of this technology belongs to Autodesk?

Kevin: I can tell you that all of what we showed you today is our own technology.

Deelip: Are you saying that Autodesk has not used technology from any other company at all?

Kevin: That would not be an accurate statement. Things get complicated when a technology like this is involved. But I can say for sure that the Shape Manager technology, which is the backbone of Inventor Fusion, is 100% our own.

Deelip: Does Inventor Fusion use the same modeling kernel based upon ACIS 7.0 when it exercised the option of purchasing the source code from Spatial?

Kevin: Yes. Over the years we have enhanced our modeling kernel and we continue to invest heavily into it.

Deelip: When will Inventor Fusion come out of Autodesk Labs and start shipping as a product?

Kevin: When our customers tell us that it is ready.

  • While the answers to this interview are dreadful in their calculated vagueness, I must congratulate Autodesk on rolling out its direct editing software slowly enough for us to understand what is going on — unlike Siemens PLM, who took that “Ta da! It’s all majik under hood” approach.

  • While the answers to this interview are dreadful in their calculated vagueness, I must congratulate Autodesk on rolling out its direct editing software slowly enough for us to understand what is going on — unlike Siemens PLM, who took that “Ta da! It’s all majik under hood” approach.

  • Anonymous

    By the time Autodesk gets this all sorted out, they will have realized too late that their money would have been much better spent investing in tools to create a powerful direct modeler. SpaceClaim, Solid Edge with ST2 and KeyCreator have the right idea.

    History based modeling is a dead end.

  • Anonymous

    By the time Autodesk gets this all sorted out, they will have realized too late that their money would have been much better spent investing in tools to create a powerful direct modeler. SpaceClaim, Solid Edge with ST2 and KeyCreator have the right idea.

    History based modeling is a dead end.

  • Anonymous,

    I think you are missing the point. Inventor Fusion is already a powerful direct modeler.

  • Anonymous,

    I think you are missing the point. Inventor Fusion is already a powerful direct modeler.

  • Anonymous

    That’s news to me and I’ve tested it extensively. What kind of tests did you do to determine that Inventor Fusion 1 was a “powerful direct modeler”?

  • Anonymous

    That’s news to me and I’ve tested it extensively. What kind of tests did you do to determine that Inventor Fusion 1 was a “powerful direct modeler”?

  • Anonymous,

    I am curious to know what more direct modeling capability you wish Inventor Fusion to have? Or you may want to send your list of To Do items directly to Autodesk.

  • Anonymous,

    I am curious to know what more direct modeling capability you wish Inventor Fusion to have? Or you may want to send your list of To Do items directly to Autodesk.

  • Anonymous

    I’d like to know if you tested making changes with the direct modeler side of Inventor Fusion to features that were already created in the history side of Inventor Fusion and then tried to bring them back into the history side with the Change Mangler?

    In your tests what happens when you do this?

  • Anonymous

    I’d like to know if you tested making changes with the direct modeler side of Inventor Fusion to features that were already created in the history side of Inventor Fusion and then tried to bring them back into the history side with the Change Mangler?

    In your tests what happens when you do this?

  • Anonymous

    Ralph, you’re right about Siemens marketing but consider that Siemens Synchronous Technology actually works where as Autodesk has yet to show a technology that can be used in the real world that truly equals a “fusion” between direct modeling and history modeling. At this point it’s a pipe dream and what Autodesk has shown so far is more like confusion rather than any kind fusion. Suggest you try it. I bet it takes you less than an hour to realize how broken the Change Mangler part really is.

  • Anonymous

    Ralph, you’re right about Siemens marketing but consider that Siemens Synchronous Technology actually works where as Autodesk has yet to show a technology that can be used in the real world that truly equals a “fusion” between direct modeling and history modeling. At this point it’s a pipe dream and what Autodesk has shown so far is more like confusion rather than any kind fusion. Suggest you try it. I bet it takes you less than an hour to realize how broken the Change Mangler part really is.