« Why the 3D hype of SIGGRAPH 2011 failed by SIGGRAPH 2013 | Main | Exclusive! Details emerge on DWG's exploit vulnerability »

Jul 26, 2013


Jon Banquer

What a mess Dassualt has made with SolidWorks and it gets worse all the time.

There is a huge vacuum just waiting to be filled by a new start up with better ideas and better technology than legacy code SolidWorks has. As soon as this happens it going to get increasingly obvious to many SolidWorks fanboi's that the lights were out for years and no one was home.

Jon Banquer
CADCAM Technology Leaders on LinkedIn


SolidWorks Mechanical Conceptual is not a 2D program as claimed in the caption above. That's just a screen shot of a sketch. You can see the actual product in this video from SolidWorks World 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZSg7xUj5tg&t=45m11s

Matt / SolidWorks


Ummm.. Ralph, mate..

"Screengrab of SolidWorks Mechanical Conceptual, a 2D-only progam"

You might want to have a rethink of that. SWMC is most definately a 3D application, but as with a lot of mechanism-based design, its good sense to start in a 2D layout, then flesh it out..

In fact, if you look at the SolidWorks blog entry that the image you've used is used in, but read down a wee bit, you'll see some 3D action.




lou gallo

Last stated, SWMC was not just a 2D only application. Are they changing focus again? It was also 3D and had a number of tools for 3D design:


Jon Banquer

SolidWorks Mechanical Conceptual looks like a 3D direct solid modeler to me rather than a history based solid modeler.

Legacy code SolidWorks has no real direct modeling tools. SolidWorks Mechanical Conceptual appears to have many purposes, one of which is giving SolidWorks users the benefits of using direct solid modeling.

Jon Banquer
CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn


@ Matt:
Thanks for the youtube link!

Kevin De Smet

Won't there be a big problem with data compatibility this way? A kernel change would have very likely been even worse though, so I guess this is the lesser of two evils approaching the future of SolidWorks?

SolidWorks really got damn unlucky when UGS or EDS or whoever it was at the time decided to purchase Shapedata and got a hold of Parasolid as a result. Looking back at it today, whoever authorized that acquisition way back, was a smart cookie!

Kevin De Smet

Doing a quick search it seems that acquisition happened all the way back in the late '80s actually, well... hmm. I just know in that '93/'94/'95 time period licensing components like modeling kernels instead of making them from scratch must've been the logical choice.

Just a shame Dassault in defense bought kind of a dead fish with ACIS, at least in regards to the whole SolidWorks story.

Jon Banquer

"I just know in that '93/'94/'95 time period licensing components like modeling kernels instead of making them from scratch must've been the logical choice."

I believe you will see new CADCAM startups license new geometry kernels and constraint managers. I don't believe any new CADCAM start up will license Siemens Parasolid or Siemens D-Cubeded constraint managers. The reasons for this can be found here:



"All kernels most popular today were created 15-30 years ago. Over this time, they have been developed, enhanced, and adjusted, their program architecture and implementation cannot fully support the new software capabilities and hardware technologies that have been continuously emerging. Development of RGK kernel started at the end of 2011; when working on the project, we tried to use the modern, effective solutions as well as some new mechanisms and possibilities, which are described in the first section of the paper."

I believe just as important as new geometry kernels and new constraint managers will be a much better user interface than all CADCAM products have right now. There has to be a better way to work with data than what everyone had done for the last 25 or more years... a tree structure.

Consider that Siemens decided not to license Synchronous Technology for a reason. I believe the reason is that it protects their investment in old geometry kernel code.(Parasolid)

Jon Banquer
CADCAM Technology Leader group on LinkedIn


Well going by the What's New beta 2014 I found online (leaked early this year) there isn't a lot happening development wise to bear out the claim. Looks like a fairly poor release to me really.

Jon Banquer

What does it say when free software can easily outperform SolidWorks when it comes to importing non-naive solid geometry?


I've used SolidWorks on and off since 1997. One reason I purchased SpaceClaim years ago is that SpaceClaim has the tools that SolidWorks doesn't have to quickly and easily repair bad geometry. Sure I can jump through hoops and waste tons of time fixing bad geometry in SolidWorks but I've got better things to do with my time. Should a SolidWorks user have to purchase another expensive program to fix bad geometry because SolidWorks geometry repair tools aren't what they should be and aren't easy and efficient to use? I've complained to SolidWorks employees about this problem for ten years or more and the problems never get addressed.

I get what Gal is saying in the link above and I'm beyond disgusted that long time issues like this have been ignored for years. Worse, SolidWorks employees who run SolidWorks official forum don't want to admit that these are serious problems and they don't want it mentioned that SolidWorks never fixes these problems.

There is a reason so many long time Solidworks employees have left and that so many are now trying to leave.

Jon Banquer
CADCAM Technology Leaders group on LinkedIn

Simon Rafferty

I would like to see Solidworks move to a 'pay per view' type model, perhaps with a thin client running on your PC and a cloud based engine for simulation and rendering. Allow users to pay for usage by the hour, day, year and buy 'top-ups' if they need additional processing power for large assemblies or simulations.

Even if this were achieved using something like VMWare plus cloud based virtual servers - this could largely utilise the current code base.

There are plenty of users who cannot afford to spend $5k+ on a license, perhaps for a single project or because a project requires more (temporary) staff. Others (like me) are happy having a Standard license, but would like the premium features sometimes, but not often enough to pay the extra for an annual license.

This kind of model could pretty much wipe out all the hacked 'hooky' copies - an I think generate more revenue for SW in the longer term.

Even if you were to buy an existing Standard license and receive the software on disk - and buy time limited top-ups when you need the extras, that might be an improvement.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


Post a comment

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

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Search This Blog



Thank you for visiting!