« In upFront.eZine this week: two more exclusive interviews, with Caustic and Graebert | Main | How to replace the hard drive in your MacBook »

Dec 17, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

twitter.com/jonathanpscott

Not that PTC has fully embraced granularity in the way that you have described it, but it seems like PTC's repackaging of its CAD products (a la Creo) is moving in the direction you've described. I agree that it would be fascinating to see a "Share" menu in a CAD system. I too doubt that it will happen soon, but it would be neat.

Nice article, Ralph.

Tony

Communicating links is one thing; communicating complex data is another.

For example, it's easy to have work on a picture with multiple apps/programs if you use JPGs. But what if you want to retain more information, such as layers? I highly doubt there is a standard for that; my photo image apps don't support one.

R. Paul Waddington

Ralph, you and I have been around for the entire Autodesk experience ;-) and when you think about it AutoCAD was a foundation on which others built; that's what made AutoCAD (& Autodesk) what they are.
I believe Autodesk are ideally suited to repeat the process - and achieve what your suggesting without compromising their current market place - if only they would give it some serious thought.
I also believe a "Draftsight" type community could achieve a similar goal.
I floated an idea some time ago losely called "CO-OP CAD" and had it po-hood by those I mentioned it too, but that's another option; the tools for which, are available now if their was a "driver".

Andrew Coombes

Any model will work, granular, monolithic, anywhere in between, and will be made available if consumers actually want it. However, whilst the mass market has ovine tendancies if all the sheep decide to buy X because it's "granular", then monolithic Y will go out of business - or adapt. I think the reason monolithic is so strong is that data exchange between systems has always been apalling. Perhaps the granular opportunities available now will finally be the tipping point? Actually I think we are more likely to see granular aspects of the monolithic offerings.

Ken Elliott

Ralph - Windows OLE was created for this exact reason. Go look at some of the old OLE demo videos.

Ralph Grabowski

I recall the D&M OLE (I think it was called) initiative promoted by Intergraph, whicih would use OLE to convert between CAD formats automatically. Never caught on, naturally.

Found a link. It was "OLE for design and modeling applications". See http://dan.wygant.org/subdomains/dan/ole/

"This new technology, which resulted from Intergraph's Jupiter R&D project is expected to lead to a new breed of OLE-aware CAD/CAM applications for the 32-bit Windows NT and Windows 95 operating systems."

"The advantage of OLE for D&M is the freedom and flexibility it gives you to construct composite models without having to worry about whether your objects have compatible formats. Imagine combining hundreds or thousands of differently formatted OLE objects to create a single, seamless CAD/CAM model. "

Heh. What CAD vendor would want to allow this to happen!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Advertisements


Search This Blog


  •  

Translate

Thank you for visiting!