PTC Buys CoCreate

CoCreate’s “Important Customer Announcement” reads:

“PTC recognizes that there is a broad range of accepted modeling approaches in the industry. By adding CoCreate solutions to its product portfolio, PTC will become the first and only vendor in the market to offer a full complement of design solutions.”

First and only, eh? Not for long, I’d say.

Like I said earlier, “As the thrust towards non-parametric modeling gathers momentum, the big companies with strict parametric modeling systems will want to offer their customers a non-parametric solution as well. As always, when faced with a “make or buy” decision the easier and faster way out is to buy.

I wonder who is going to be next.

  • irontest

    IronCAD has had both history and non-history solid modeling since 1998. http://www.ironcad.com

  • irontest

    IronCAD has had both history and non-history solid modeling since 1998. http://www.ironcad.com

  • R.Paul Waddington.

    Autodesk have always been in this position since the release of AutoCAD R13 it is just that most have never noticed even when pointed out. Most notably it is Autodesk and their dealers that have noticed the potential of Autodesk’s products the least.

    Those of us using Mechanical Desktop have always known and used these methods; Autodesk has ostracized and ignored us and made us pay for a product that was and is inferior (Inventor) because they believed if they told us long and often enough we might believe Inventor was the way forward; many have been hoodwinked.

    Now all Autodesk needs to realize is what they have been told by their MDT customers had substance and that they should have just got on with the business of developing MDT instead of chasing an unrealistic dream, a result of chasing money not excellence in product.

    Autodesk squandered a huge opportunity and market lead now it remains to be seen if they have the ability, and intelignece, to realise their mistake, look inwards and capitalize on their existing products and market assets and learn what customers actually want and need instead of trying to tell we users what they want is best for us.

    R.Paul Waddington.

  • R.Paul Waddington.

    Autodesk have always been in this position since the release of AutoCAD R13 it is just that most have never noticed even when pointed out. Most notably it is Autodesk and their dealers that have noticed the potential of Autodesk’s products the least.Those of us using Mechanical Desktop have always known and used these methods; Autodesk has ostracized and ignored us and made us pay for a product that was and is inferior (Inventor) because they believed if they told us long and often enough we might believe Inventor was the way forward; many have been hoodwinked.Now all Autodesk needs to realize is what they have been told by their MDT customers had substance and that they should have just got on with the business of developing MDT instead of chasing an unrealistic dream, a result of chasing money not excellence in product.Autodesk squandered a huge opportunity and market lead now it remains to be seen if they have the ability, and intelignece, to realise their mistake, look inwards and capitalize on their existing products and market assets and learn what customers actually want and need instead of trying to tell we users what they want is best for us.R.Paul Waddington.

  • Deelip Menezes

    Paul,

    With their “Digital Prototyping” mantra, I believe Autodesk is a moving in a direction which is diametrically opposite to what you want them to.

  • Deelip Menezes

    Paul,With their “Digital Prototyping” mantra, I believe Autodesk is a moving in a direction which is diametrically opposite to what you want them to.

  • R.Paul Waddington

    With their “Digital Prototyping” mantra, I believe Autodesk is a moving in a direction which is diametrically opposite to what you want them to.

    Deelip; Yes, if Autodesk are trying to tell customers how to run their businesses.

    No, if Autodesk is providing tools and going to allow users to determine software combinations, application and implementation.

    The latter is what Autodesk should be doing but it is the former that Autodesk has been doing for a long time.

    That’s why I use Mechanical Desktop as an example. Using MDT a users has varying 2D and 3D tools to use in many combinations. MDT also demonstrates how little Autodesk and their dealers knew about what customers were doing in this area; they where so busy looking for their next “big fix” that they completely overlooked the potential of the product they had created and in a moment of “corporate brain fade” they started chasing products they had no need to chase.

    Autodesk have a long track record of this behaviour and a short look back prior AME and R13 demonstrates just how little, and for how long, Autodesk has misunderstood their customer’s real requirements. Autodesk’s situation, now dilemma, stems from the fact that they really do not know how to apply their products in the wider real world; choosing to be very selective about what they promote to ensure “they” look good.
    R13 was, for some, not us, very troublesome but it was also a great step forward and is yet another example of how shortsighted Autodesk was and is in understanding the application of 2D and 3D. A quick look at this example – http://members.ozemail.com.au/~cadwest1/gallery/Stirling_Engine.html – I created using R13 just prior to its release demonstrates a number of ‘things’ Inventor can still not do and also demonstrates how little Autodesk knew, and knows, about the latent capabilities of their software.
    Their is still no other CAD software company positioned as well as Autodesk but is there enough good crew on board to see their potential from a customers point of view or are they just going to continue to steer their (ego) course with continued little regard for their customers.

    R.Paul Waddington – cadWest.

  • R.Paul Waddington

    With their “Digital Prototyping” mantra, I believe Autodesk is a moving in a direction which is diametrically opposite to what you want them to.Deelip; Yes, if Autodesk are trying to tell customers how to run their businesses.No, if Autodesk is providing tools and going to allow users to determine software combinations, application and implementation.The latter is what Autodesk should be doing but it is the former that Autodesk has been doing for a long time.That’s why I use Mechanical Desktop as an example. Using MDT a users has varying 2D and 3D tools to use in many combinations. MDT also demonstrates how little Autodesk and their dealers knew about what customers were doing in this area; they where so busy looking for their next “big fix” that they completely overlooked the potential of the product they had created and in a moment of “corporate brain fade” they started chasing products they had no need to chase.Autodesk have a long track record of this behaviour and a short look back prior AME and R13 demonstrates just how little, and for how long, Autodesk has misunderstood their customer’s real requirements. Autodesk’s situation, now dilemma, stems from the fact that they really do not know how to apply their products in the wider real world; choosing to be very selective about what they promote to ensure “they” look good.R13 was, for some, not us, very troublesome but it was also a great step forward and is yet another example of how shortsighted Autodesk was and is in understanding the application of 2D and 3D. A quick look at this example – http://members.ozemail.com.au/~cadwest1/gallery/Stirling_Engine.html – I created using R13 just prior to its release demonstrates a number of ‘things’ Inventor can still not do and also demonstrates how little Autodesk knew, and knows, about the latent capabilities of their software.Their is still no other CAD software company positioned as well as Autodesk but is there enough good crew on board to see their potential from a customers point of view or are they just going to continue to steer their (ego) course with continued little regard for their customers.R.Paul Waddington – cadWest.

  • David Pulgar

    Deelip, I see Kevin already commented here. Not to derail the conversation you and Paul are having, but I want to expand on his post. IRONCAD can indeed function as a history/non-history system. This is how it works:

    A user builds parametric models in IRONCAD where features of the part are referencing parametric relations (in IRONCAD this can be features before the current feature or after). When users need to make a direct modification, IRONCAD’s direct editing will only affect the features it needs to for the modification (in other words it will retain the parametrics of the features not affected).

    In the CAD industry today, most systems only offer parametrics or direct editing. IronCAD is only system offering a hybrid of the two, giving users the best of both words.

    Parametrics systems are a valid design process when you can anticipate all design changes. However, cases exist where unforeseen changes occur. In parametric models, this may require additional time reworking the design. Other cases require users to scrap their project and start over from scratch. IronCAD’s hybrid of parametrics and non-history, direct editing means users can directly modify faces to make necessary changes.

    As a side note, directly editing faces offers an advantage over parametric systems when working with imported geometry with no history. In IRONCAD, users can modify their models like native geometry using IRONCAD’s dynamic modeling features without actually building any features. Users can still add and remove standard features to imported geometry, but the power to directly edit without the features is one of direct editing’s key strengths.

    This brings me to a comment I posted on Ralph Grabowski’s blog:

    “When two different schools of thought come to be, (in this case parametric and history-free dynamic modeling) it’s only natural some middle ground must exist. Companies like PTC and CoCreate are finally realizing that neither modeling methodology (parametric or dynamic) may satisfy all of a user’s needs. An ideal system would make use of features from both parametric and dynamic modeling systems.”

    IRONCAD makes use of both parametric and dynamic modeling styles. It’s the only software of its kind and is set for catering to the needs of engineers that require the strength of parametrics and the flexibility of direct modeling.

  • David Pulgar

    Deelip, I see Kevin already commented here. Not to derail the conversation you and Paul are having, but I want to expand on his post. IRONCAD can indeed function as a history/non-history system. This is how it works:A user builds parametric models in IRONCAD where features of the part are referencing parametric relations (in IRONCAD this can be features before the current feature or after). When users need to make a direct modification, IRONCAD’s direct editing will only affect the features it needs to for the modification (in other words it will retain the parametrics of the features not affected). In the CAD industry today, most systems only offer parametrics or direct editing. IronCAD is only system offering a hybrid of the two, giving users the best of both words.Parametrics systems are a valid design process when you can anticipate all design changes. However, cases exist where unforeseen changes occur. In parametric models, this may require additional time reworking the design. Other cases require users to scrap their project and start over from scratch. IronCAD’s hybrid of parametrics and non-history, direct editing means users can directly modify faces to make necessary changes.As a side note, directly editing faces offers an advantage over parametric systems when working with imported geometry with no history. In IRONCAD, users can modify their models like native geometry using IRONCAD’s dynamic modeling features without actually building any features. Users can still add and remove standard features to imported geometry, but the power to directly edit without the features is one of direct editing’s key strengths.This brings me to a comment I posted on Ralph Grabowski’s blog:”When two different schools of thought come to be, (in this case parametric and history-free dynamic modeling) it’s only natural some middle ground must exist. Companies like PTC and CoCreate are finally realizing that neither modeling methodology (parametric or dynamic) may satisfy all of a user’s needs. An ideal system would make use of features from both parametric and dynamic modeling systems.”IRONCAD makes use of both parametric and dynamic modeling styles. It’s the only software of its kind and is set for catering to the needs of engineers that require the strength of parametrics and the flexibility of direct modeling.

  • r.paul waddington

    “When two different schools of thought come ……. it’s only natural some middle ground must exist.”

    “IRONCAD makes use of both parametric and dynamic modeling styles.”

    These two comments compliment one another and form part of the frame work of CAD software of the future.

    I am often roundly criticized for my comments in particular my use of Mechanical Desktop as an example of the sort of CAD tool I and many like me NEED.

    But if my critics would only look past their own requirements and belief that what is good for them is good for all and or the equally absurd belief that one form of modelling is better than another then many of my comments fall into place.

    Polarization of how a CAD tool should function is a contradiction, CAD tools are in many cases design tools and documentation tools and therefore must be flexible enough to enable these tasks to be equally accomplished.

    In the area of documentation (2d) it can be argued we have reached a goal that surpasses the functionality of the draughting board. Simply put, copying, or moving a circle – the 2d representation of a 3d hole – is a great improvement on redrawing and or rubbing out and re-drawing.

    Having achieved that goal we then wanted to actually ‘draw’ the hole; extending our circle so that it now actually looks like a hole instead of having to be interpreted. In doing so we have ‘marketed’ the misbelief that our earlier 2d tools are now not required or at best should be used as an after thought; and here is were me and the proponents of 3d, as away forward, part ways dramatically. It is also why I agree with RalphG’s comments and why DavidP’s products are a step in the right direction.

    But I am once again going out on a limb and use MDT as an example of what all vendors should be aiming for and it is also why I made the comment on RalphG’s blog, “The irony is Autodesk still have the tools, the products and the market position to correct the error;”

    Leaving the GUI alone as this is incendental and looking at CAD from and educator, employer and users point of view, MDT allows me to use and teach, with the same tool, basic to advanced draughting, geometric construction, lofting (full size layouts)etc. It also allows me to teach a number of differing ways and systems of 3d modelling.

    All CAD vendors need to see this as a goal but their is not one that I have spoken to that see this as important or achievable; and when I look at the comments on why this is seen as not achievable they ALL come back to comments like “you can’t have good 2d and 3d tools in the same package – Autodesk”. Why? Because of the tools CAD vendors CHOOSE to develop and market, it is not that it cannot be done it is because developers CHOOSE not to do it; for marketing reasons in the main.

    DavidP speaks of IRONCAD’s flexibility and choice in modelling method why not now also consider how the product can be enhanced by making it a tool that can be applied across a wider spectrum in the industries it is meant for; why not make it be able to be used by every one from the trainee to the experienced designer and engineer?

    That’s how you can use MDT! Even with all its warts that level of flexibility means the general engineering industry can realize more profitability using MDT tool than it will using, for instance, AutoCAD for some tasks and Inventor for others.

    MDT is the middle ground but Autodesk and the industry was so busy looking for the next step to notice the value of MDT when it was released and Autodesk’s and its dealers made such a hash of MDT’s marketing that the principals and opportunities it introduced have been discounted or lost in the mist of ‘marketing’ arguments about which modeler type is best, ‘user friendly’, ‘easier to use’, ‘history or not’, ‘complex or simply’?

    Why not just ask, “can my CAD product be equally well used across the range of professional disciplines found in the industries in which it is to be used?”

    R.Paul Waddington.

  • r.paul waddington

    “When two different schools of thought come ……. it’s only natural some middle ground must exist.”

    “IRONCAD makes use of both parametric and dynamic modeling styles.”

    These two comments compliment one another and form part of the frame work of CAD software of the future.

    I am often roundly criticized for my comments in particular my use of Mechanical Desktop as an example of the sort of CAD tool I and many like me NEED.

    But if my critics would only look past their own requirements and belief that what is good for them is good for all and or the equally absurd belief that one form of modelling is better than another then many of my comments fall into place.

    Polarization of how a CAD tool should function is a contradiction, CAD tools are in many cases design tools and documentation tools and therefore must be flexible enough to enable these tasks to be equally accomplished.

    In the area of documentation (2d) it can be argued we have reached a goal that surpasses the functionality of the draughting board. Simply put, copying, or moving a circle – the 2d representation of a 3d hole – is a great improvement on redrawing and or rubbing out and re-drawing.

    Having achieved that goal we then wanted to actually 'draw' the hole; extending our circle so that it now actually looks like a hole instead of having to be interpreted. In doing so we have 'marketed' the misbelief that our earlier 2d tools are now not required or at best should be used as an after thought; and here is were me and the proponents of 3d, as away forward, part ways dramatically. It is also why I agree with RalphG's comments and why DavidP's products are a step in the right direction.

    But I am once again going out on a limb and use MDT as an example of what all vendors should be aiming for and it is also why I made the comment on RalphG's blog, “The irony is Autodesk still have the tools, the products and the market position to correct the error;”

    Leaving the GUI alone as this is incendental and looking at CAD from and educator, employer and users point of view, MDT allows me to use and teach, with the same tool, basic to advanced draughting, geometric construction, lofting (full size layouts)etc. It also allows me to teach a number of differing ways and systems of 3d modelling.

    All CAD vendors need to see this as a goal but their is not one that I have spoken to that see this as important or achievable; and when I look at the comments on why this is seen as not achievable they ALL come back to comments like “you can't have good 2d and 3d tools in the same package – Autodesk”. Why? Because of the tools CAD vendors CHOOSE to develop and market, it is not that it cannot be done it is because developers CHOOSE not to do it; for marketing reasons in the main.

    DavidP speaks of IRONCAD's flexibility and choice in modelling method why not now also consider how the product can be enhanced by making it a tool that can be applied across a wider spectrum in the industries it is meant for; why not make it be able to be used by every one from the trainee to the experienced designer and engineer?

    That's how you can use MDT! Even with all its warts that level of flexibility means the general engineering industry can realize more profitability using MDT tool than it will using, for instance, AutoCAD for some tasks and Inventor for others.

    MDT is the middle ground but Autodesk and the industry was so busy looking for the next step to notice the value of MDT when it was released and Autodesk's and its dealers made such a hash of MDT's marketing that the principals and opportunities it introduced have been discounted or lost in the mist of 'marketing' arguments about which modeler type is best, 'user friendly', 'easier to use', 'history or not', 'complex or simply'?

    Why not just ask, “can my CAD product be equally well used across the range of professional disciplines found in the industries in which it is to be used?”

    R.Paul Waddington.