DISQUS

Brian · 1 year ago

I highly doubt that backward capability will see the light of day. And if it does come to fruition, I think it will be clunky, as not all features will be able to be saved back. I may be proven wrong (and I hope I am), but I just feel that's the reality of it.

I also think that there is a tremendous disincentive for a 3D CAD company to attempt this, both from a financial and programmatic standpoint.

Ricky Jordan · 1 year ago

Brian,

I'm skeptical as well as to whether backward compatibility would or could ever make it into future releases. Obviously there are business related impacts with a move such as this. This enhancement request has been at or near the top of the list at SolidWorks World for many years. One of the ideas floated by some of the users last night was the possibility of only saving back to the previous version. This is an interesting idea in that it would allow some flexibility to those shops lagging behind a bit, yet still keep everyone on track to eventually align to the same version.

This enhancement would be WILDLY popular among most if not ALL users. If it can be worked out to where all parties benefit, then think of the positive response this enhancement would get across the CAD industry.

I am hopeful that maybe with some more creative thinking this long time enhancement request might become a reality. Time will tell. The best thing we can do for now is to keep submitting this as an enhancement request.

Ricky

Brian · 1 year ago

"One of the ideas floated by some of the users last night was the possibility of only saving back to the previous version. This is an interesting idea in that it would allow some flexibility to those shops lagging behind a bit, yet still keep everyone on track to eventually align to the same version."

Now THAT seems a little more realistic to me! Limiting it to one version back would seem to simplify the task, however slightly as it may be (at least in my mind).

I agree that this would be a very nice feature to have, but I just have trouble seeing how they could save some features back that didn't exist in previous versions without having a kludge of dumb geometry. Maybe make an option to prompt (ala Microsoft Office) about features that may not translate back and disallow certain files to be pushed back would work.

Hopefully this is something we will see in the future; if it CAN be done, I am confident that SolidWorks will make it happen...

Who knows, maybe something along the lines of what Matt has been talking about with no feature history will be the key. A version of SolidWorks ST? You would still be limited in what you could save back to, but going forward, who knows?

Neil · 1 year ago

honestly I would rather have SW able to run on std graphics cards first.
openGL has become a rip off for hardware makers.
if you corner Jon again somewhere please impress this on him.

Ricky Jordan · 1 year ago

You know Neil, I almost asked about this last night. There were so many things being discussed I was mindful to make sure that the members of the Knoxville group got all their questions answered without me interjecting.

I plan to bring this up with some of the SolidWorks folks at SolidWorks World. I think this is another one of those things that really needs to be addressed.

Neil · 1 year ago

Ricky,
Please follow it up.
Here in New Zealand I can buy 10 Nvidia GTX260 for the price I am expected to pay for 1 Quadro FX5600 !!
The 5600 is like 99% based on a 8800 Ultra for goodness sake.

I have had expensive CAD cards die on me just after 3yr the warranty ran out.
Having learned that lesson I will only buy lower cost cards now that are only adequate for the task at hand.
According to the benchmarks a humble FX570 runs pretty darn decently for SW in comparison to a high end card anyway so the performance ratio doesnt pan out either.
It certainlty isnt 10x - more like 1.01

Whilst I might be Ok with paying a premium of say 2x for application honed drivers and certification 10x is just obscene.
People should not be reduced to buying cards for SW that are a couple of generations behind commonly available gaming ones because the asking price doesnt make any practical sense.
SW needs to stop playing its part in allowing hardware makers to exploit the Pro niche for all the market can stand and then some.
I am sure openGL is a fine thing but not if the hardware for it is a rip off.
If SW can run on common old DirectX like Inventor can at least give us the option to decide for ourselves which card we want to utilise.
Even if using DirectX for SW results in a performance drop to half in comparison to openGL I would rather spend my money on a shiny GTX260 and know it will run everything else I might have on my computer at a rapid clip.

cheers

Neil · 1 year ago

PS. sorry for writing too much about the graphics issue on your blog Ricky ;)

More on topic of the post - I havent really understood what the role of Jon H is now that he isnt in the CEO seat anymore.
Is he an advisor on direction setting and new technology for SW? or does he just have a general interest in keeping up re his old job?

Neil · 1 year ago

In the news today: The Quadro FX 5800 is available now at an MSRP of US$3,499.

Yeah right!!
This is a GTX280 based card but with 4gb ram
Whats it worth? well maybe ~$600 as a gamer
Lets double it for cert drivers,support etc = $1200

ok so lets say this card is over priced by $2300
Many people could buy a decent workstn for that difference
Why should SW users pay a ridiculous premium for openGL hardware if directx will do the job and the card is 99% the same
Bring on the revolution!

Brian · 1 year ago

I talk to Fielder Hiss about this in Barcelona. He mentioned that they are always looking at the different technologies, but that right now they felt that OpenGL was still the best path.

I would like to see more discussion and interaction from SolidWorks on the OpenGL/DirectX issue myself...

Neil · 1 year ago

You know I am not so sure SW arent being a little self serving with that 'feeling' because it means they dont won't have to redo their graphics to suit = avoid direct cost to the company.
Also I suspect that they either have agreements or obligations to Nvidia having had close association with them in the development of Realview.
If 500,000 users stop using Quadros then thats a hole in Nvidias wallet
However surely if Autodesk can do DirectX, SW can.
I suspect too there are advantages in using DirectX with MS Windows that may make integration of new technology easier
If SWare paying close attention to their user base opinion and the competition they really should be picking up on this and running with it.
I wouldnt like to think the reason we have attained the CAD nivana of a 'blank screen on every desktop' is because no one has a graphics card : either because they couldnt afford one, or the technology died out and you cant buy them any more.
Perhaps we should buy pc with 2 PCI slots in the future - one for a 'proper' card based on DirectX and one for legacy openGL CAD support.
Why would SW, the company that pioneered easy to use moderate cost CAD on Windows penalise its customer base by making them pay a price for graphics hardware that belongs in the high end exclusive box era?
Given the amazing performance of todays graphics cards I very much doubt that DirectX would be inadequate for CAD even if it was less than ideal.
Time to take another step forward
Unfortunately because SW never speak about anything of real interest to users in preference to pumping out feel good messages I wouldnt hope for too much meaningful interaction but yeah it would be good to hear from the boffins at Concord.
They might also like to talk about how much of their program is multi core as well, and other closely guarded secrets that users have no right to know or be interested in

burhop · 1 year ago

Nice Post Ricky. I always like hearing about the future of CAD. Did you know Dr. Sutherland also did some things with the start of VR and Virtual Worlds? I wish we could have given that guy faster computers back then.