Hypothetical Replacement.

[Damo]

With SW as a "business partner", I'm kind of feeling betrayed and extorted. Not to mention the gaslighting, and inconsistancies of current and future service from the original agreed upon arrangenment. Tho, I suppose I would indeed like to to change the T's &C's of our arrangement too to better benefit my own interests. Like maybe, payments for troubleshooting and product testing, or compensation for failures of service, corrupted data and lost time.
And now my VAR has just informed me they require a "Business Impact Statement" to determine if the problem/bug/issue i'm having is even worth investigating. I mean, "Really".?!?!
I am up for subs renewal and I am seriously considering forgoing it for the near future. (But you know how it is, backcharges..)

So, as a thought excersise, lets assume you're set to jump ship, tell me where you'd go..?

[zwei]

Frankly speaking, SOLIDEDGE is looking real good to me (with all the "promotion" by the user here).
But the grass is always greener on the other side..

I would not recommend CREO though... Unless you enjoy "sticking your elbow in your ear and place your knee behind your back and then do these mouse clicks etc etc" and hope it works". But i cant deny it is much superior when it come to stability (but not speed)

[nuevahola]

We have two licences (premium and professional) since 2006. They´re on subscription till next year and we have started testing Onshape 5 months ago and i think we´re not going on renewal with Solidworks anymore.

[bnemec]

We'd go back to Solid Edge. But we've spent so much time and money in remodeling our dataset into Solidworks and several years of revisions and new stuff that would need to be done in Solid Edge, we're kinda beyond that point.

You guys are going to kill me for even saying this, but for the money we've spent on the SW endeavor we could have sponsored some serious improvements in FreeCAD and never be held hostage by a CAD Software Corp again. I know, that's just silly talk.

[SamSpade]

We may also be looking to move on from SW, just got in the renewal for the subscription fees for the network licenses and they are up 14%, yikes!

We are the only division on SW, head office is on IV. Head office has been unsuccessfully trying for years to have us switch over, but it might just be time to bite the bullet and make the switch. I've used Inventor in the past (12 years back), and at that time I found it, at least for sheet-metal work, limited when compared to SW (IV wouldn't even allow making a normal cut in a flat metal sheet). I have heard through colleagues currently using a more recent version that it is just as capable, if not more so when it comes to sheet-metal work.

It's just the dread of having to go through another learning curve, and add on to that the transfer of years of existing data. As others have mentioned, it's like being placed between a hammer and an anvil.

[berg_lauritz]

But HOW does it work with PDM? That's always my biggest question regarding switches like this.

Changing the program is imho not that bad. But how does BOM/purchasing etc. suffer from this?

[Tom G]

I located my nearest Siemens Partner today - I suppose this is equivalent to a VAR - and introduced myself as a potential new customer. I'll ask questions and determine if it's advisable to my company, while learning a new tool for myself. Legacy data is probably the greatest business concern, but as an OEM of custom equipment we could switch over with less effort because we do not have an ongoing product line to support.

There isn't much hypothetical in my inquiry. Time passes and change happens.

[mike miller]

This poll is pretty enlightening: https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=8092

My $0.03 of advice (adjusted for inflation) to anyone wanting to change CAD systems? Don't expect the new software to work like the old one did. You'll only become frustrated and make other users avoid you instead of helping. This is especially true if you revolt against the tyranny of history-only modelling and get on the Synch bandwagon.

[bnemec]

But HOW does it work with PDM? That's always my biggest question regarding switches like this.

Changing the program is imho not that bad. But how does BOM/purchasing etc. suffer from this?

Just my opinion/perception that trying to mix breeds of CAD and PDM should be a last resort or band aid type of thing. I would probably resign before trying to support SE files in SW PDM as a long-term solution. AFAIK there is no equivalent to PDM Pro on the Siemens side, just Teamcenter (much more than just PDM) and Built in Data Management (no database, boo).

[berg_lauritz]

Just my opinion/perception that trying to mix breeds of CAD and PDM should be a last resort or band aid type of thing. I would probably resign before trying to support SE files in SW PDM as a long-term solution. AFAIK there is no equivalent to PDM Pro on the Siemens side, just Teamcenter (much more than just PDM) and Built in Data Management (no database, boo).

I agree. How much is Teamcenter compared to PDM i.e.? That's like a significant thing to know....

[Lucas]

I am also willing to change SW to SE. Although there is a long learning curve to get for unusual 3D printing design. (plus the bureaucracy ._.)
Got tired of this history based system....

[Damo]

We'd go back to Solid Edge. But we've spent so much time and money in remodeling our dataset into Solidworks and several years of revisions and new stuff that would need to be done in Solid Edge, we're kinda beyond that point.

I hear that. It would be an arduous task to recreate all my designs and files into a new format/platform.
Tho, I have already done that once, a decade ago when we moved to SW from 2d Blackscreen cad..
But.. I understand the cloud 3DE may kinda be like that anyway.

[Damo]

I located my nearest Siemens Partner today - I suppose this is equivalent to a VAR - and introduced myself as a potential new customer. I'll ask questions and determine if it's advisable to my company, while learning a new tool for myself.

It does seem like this is what I'll need to do too. See about a trial and evaluate options.

Legacy data is probably the greatest business concern, but as an OEM of custom equipment we could switch over with less effort because we do not have an ongoing product line to support.

I'm in a similar situation. And tho we do have legacy data to support, methinks that may only be a matter of printing existing documents for the fab shop.
It's the revisions to these existing designs that present the biggest issue. Mercifully tho, I am a "one-man show" and there's no complex PDM or shared data vault to speak of, per-se.

[Damo]

We may also be looking to move on from SW, just got in the renewal for the subscription fees for the network licenses and they are up 14%, yikes!

It seems that every year the subs are more expensive. Here is Aus, $2950 Per Annum now..

I've used Inventor in the past (12 years back), and at that time I found it, at least for sheet-metal work, limited when compared to SW (IV wouldn't even allow making a normal cut in a flat metal sheet). I have heard through colleagues currently using a more recent version that it is just as capable, if not more so when it comes to sheet-metal work.

I have never used IV, but I do know a couple blokes that do and they seem happy enough.. Meh..
Sheetmetal is a big concern too. I use it very predominantly. That and weldments. This is the core of my work.
Whatever I replace SW with I'd hope there was a very similar and suitable replacement to these..

It's just the dread of having to go through another learning curve, and add on to that the transfer of years of existing data.

I'm feeling that trepidation..

[Damo]

Well.. It does appear that the general consensus for the most suitable alternative is SE.. It seems I will look into this somewhat too methinks.

[mike miller]

I hear that. It would be an arduous task to recreate all my designs and files into a new format/platform.
Tho, I have already done that once, a decade ago when we moved to SW from 2d Blackscreen cad..
But.. I understand the cloud 3DE may kinda be like that anyway.

Yes. Exactly like that. https://www.goengineer.com/3dexperience/3d-creator (scroll to the last FAQ at the bottom of the page).

Plus you have a kernel change to boot, which you don't have by going to SE, NX, IronCad, or Onshape.

A quote I heard this week from a long-time Catia user (burned by the V5 upgrade): " They're a greedy company, never trust their promises. And don't ever put your data on the cloud. It's a trap."

[Damo]

Yes. Exactly like that. https://www.goengineer.com/3dexperience/3d-creator (scroll to the last FAQ at the bottom of the page).

Plus you have a kernel change to boot, which you don't have by going to SE, NX, IronCad, or Onshape.

Mike..

I followed your link to the FAQ. WOW.. Remodel all your stuff.. Or just use "Direct Editing"
How does that even relate to ongoing model/product data for fabrication..?
And.. NO Weldments or Sheetmetal either.. ?!?!?!
[I cannot seem to find much confirming info of Weldments on the new 3DE Web thing..]

A quote I heard this week from a long-time Catia user (burned by the V5 upgrade): " They're a greedy company, never trust their promises. And don't ever put your data on the cloud. It's a trap."

This is a scary thing to hear... Tho I feel inuitively, I knew this already. Backdating subscriptions, (and the constant price increases), Draftsight subscriptions, and removal of HUL are clear indications of their greed.
And I am already not comfortable with cloud based data. For both security and access reasons.. (Stop paying your subs.. Access to your data declined..!!)

[AlexLachance]

I'm looking around, trying things when they're offered upon me. We aren't looking to move, but I certainly see signs that points towards SolidWorks forcing us to, and if that becomes the case, then they'll lose our "support".

OnShape looks nice though I haven't looked too far into it. SolidEdge seems as if would be the easier one to transition to if we were to leave SolidWorks. Inventor looks great, but I've been screwed once by AutoDesk, so I'm hesitant there. Everything else seems very much copied on SolidWorks or Inventor.

I'd like to perhaps have a class about how to work with synchronous technology(I think that's the right thing I'm refering to), so that I can better understand how to work it versus a history based and then maybe develop upon it, if we were to move towards it.

I'm always open to trying out things or giving my opinion when I'm contacted by software companies.

[nordstjernen740]

My feeling with Inventor is that Autodesk is doing the exact same thing that Dassault is and pushing their cloud products over their desktop products. That said. My brother uses Inventor and seems to like it. Like SW it is much more user friendly than Creo and has nearly become a clone of solidworks with some differences. I used it in school and there were a few things that I liked better in inventor, but there are a few features in solidworks that seem better as well. I did find the learning curve for solidworks shorter, but neither are bad once you've learned one.
Again my biggest fear with Autodesk is the "holding the customer hostage" mindset.

IDK personally if Siemens is any better in this area, but based on a few users around here, it sounds like they are a better company to work with overall. So my interest is definitely leaning towards SolidEdge as our next alternative if/when we get too fed up with solidworks.

As far as PDM, I don't think you are going to find a direct clone of pdm pro. Mostly because pdm pro has a frankly horrible architecture that is surprisingly functional. It is highly reliant on filebased integrations and windows folder architecture. I feel like it was built without any overall strategy. Rather features built on top of features built on top of features. The truly professional more plm leaning alternatives (like windchill) are more expensive and don't always integrate as nicely with solidworks. That said, if you are dropping solidworks anyway, the real database based plm systems should be filetype agnostic (files attaches to database records, not database records attached to files). Migration should be easier than with the hybrid filebase-database-windows explorer labyrinth that is pdm pro. The challenge will be finding good integration plugins for reading and writing custom properties and references. Especially if you move forward with two native filetypes.

[berg_lauritz]

Does anybody have prices for different PDM systems for a comparison?

I hate that they make it so hard to get a somewhat accurate price comparison on everything...

Teamcenter?
SolidWorks PDM?
IronCAD DDM?
Autodesk Vault?
Windchill (that's for Creo, right?)
Onshape?

Is there a 'cross platform' PDM system that works? (From what I've read Windchill seems to be working with SolidWorks, am I correct here?)
Are there offline/online solutions only?

My feeling with Inventor is that Autodesk is doing the exact same thing that Dassault is and pushing their cloud products over their desktop products. That said. My brother uses Inventor and seems to like it.

Isn't OnShape pushing in the same direction too? IT'S A TRAP!


We just discussed the ridiculous price increase for SolidWorks the other day. Luckily we JUST renewed before that happened & so we have little bit more time left to think about it.

[nordstjernen740]

Unfortunately, I only have vague memories based on our migration from smarteam to pdm several years ago when we looked at the major players.
I also get teamcenter and windchill confused.

The major PLM players at the time were teamcenter, windchill, and enovia.
These were all ultimately 2 to 5 times more expensive than pdm if I remember correctly with windchill being the most expensive?? All the big guys claim to have some kind of integration plugin(s) for all of the file-based cad systems.
Now with enovia being offered in a cloud package format with 3dx there are additional complications as far as deciphering the enovia cost break-down.

I know I just said that there wasn't a clone of pdm, but vault is pretty much that in speaking with my brother who uses it. I think it uses the same sketchy idea of attaching records to files and not files to records, and using a folder based project structure. I have been able to predict some of his issues based on my pdm pro experience.
My guess is the pricing of vault is meant to be pdmpro competitive. I am also pretty sure it is friendly to inventor data and pretty useless with non inventor data.

Onshape has always been cloud based as far as I know and advertises built in plm/pdm. Sounds promising, but only if you don't have legacy data?

One pet peeve I have about some of the limitations of pdm pro, is they use the crutch of "we aren't plm" far too often as an excuse for poor architecture. All of my pdm pet peeves have way more to do with "data management" than "product lifecycle management"
on that note:
I think there are some homegrown options out there that might be surprisingly functional and "well architectured" and reasonably priced. Back when solidworks world was still solidworks world I remember speaking to a few of these guys, but I can't remember any of the company names.

Along those lines,
You might find Solidworks Manage aka "Revzone" interesting. Its got its own set of issues, but it is more database centric than pdm pro and is better suited to non solidworks data. Pricewise, its treated more like an addin to pdm when purchased from solidworks. I'm not sure if you were to purchase it standalone from Revzone and/or if that is even possible, but I get the feeling it is more "midrange" pdm pricepoint not high end. I think they have built some cad integrators, but with a smaller company you are going to be getting limited feature sets for integrations I'm sure.

[mike miller]

Does anybody have prices for different PDM systems for a comparison?

I hate that they make it so hard to get a somewhat accurate price comparison on everything...

Teamcenter?
SolidWorks PDM?
IronCAD DDM?
Autodesk Vault?
Windchill (that's for Creo, right?)
Onshape?

Is there a 'cross platform' PDM system that works? (From what I've read Windchill seems to be working with SolidWorks, am I correct here?)
Are there offline/online solutions only?


Isn't OnShape pushing in the same direction too? IT'S A TRAP!


We just discussed the ridiculous price increase for SolidWorks the other day. Luckily we JUST renewed before that happened & so we have little bit more time left to think about it.

Here are my scattered Monday-morning thoughts.

Teamcenter is as about as close to cross platform as anyone. NX, SE, SWX, Catia V5, Inventor, AutoCAD: https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/ ... stem/69449 The major downside to TC for many companies is the named-user licensing. You can switch license by deactivating users but it requires jumping some hurdles. It's NOT floating.

As far as pricing structure goes, I don't feel free to post the actual quote or the comparison spreadsheet but here are some numbers to give you an idea:

Our initial PO was for 2 CAD users, 2 non-CAD authors (full read-write), and four consumers (read, authorize, markup). Three years worth of subscription for these, plus $12K of setup and training came to about $30K total. Remember, this is subscription paid for three years. Adding more clients equates to: $1370/ CAD user with SEEC, $940/ author license, and $450/ consumer license annually. You also have to add SQL licensing and server architecture on top of this for overall costs.

Going the perpetual + maint. route is cheaper after four years. I would have preferred that, but it was decided above my pay grade. We ultimately chose TC Rapid Start because it is much better integrated into SE. Plus, the growth path into full PLM is always an option.

[XHawkeye]

Use DDM for pdm at work. It doesn't integrate as well with SW as it does with ProE or Acad. Can't use right-click, Open, have to use Open from DDM's add-in menu. It also can't tell the difference between a ProE or SW file, of the same name, but does know the difference between a SW/ProE file and a Acad file of the same name. But one can switch from ProE to SW, install a new add-in, and keep using the same PDM.


==============


Adesk/IV isn't the answer either: https://www.design-engineering.com/feat ... d-forward/

[Damo]

I'm looking around, trying things when they're offered upon me. We aren't looking to move, but I certainly see signs that points towards SolidWorks forcing us to, and if that becomes the case, then they'll lose our "support".

I am in a similar mindset. Not looking to move, but pre-empting the possibility. And when/if the time comes, I'll need a plan in place to convince my accounts people to justify the new expenses.. Tho it can sometimes take a while for me to adapt to some changes, I will adapt.

OnShape looks nice though I haven't looked too far into it. SolidEdge seems as if would be the easier one to transition to if we were to leave SolidWorks. Inventor looks great, but I've been screwed once by AutoDesk, so I'm hesitant there. Everything else seems very much copied on SolidWorks or Inventor.

I've never used IV So I have no bad impressions of them. I will consult a couple of associates who use it regurlarly for some in-depth discussion of their opinion of it and their opinions regarding the future direction of IV. I'm not too impressed with Onshape TBH.. It felt a little like a kids toy when I played with it a little while back. ..And they are already fully cloudbased ... Soooo, there's that to not like.

I'd like to perhaps have a class about how to work with synchronous technology(I think that's the right thing I'm refering to), so that I can better understand how to work it versus a history based and then maybe develop upon it, if we were to move towards it.

I went ahead and downloaded the SE on the link here.. It is touted as free for personal use..!?!? (There are caveats, of course. But.... IT'S FREE..)
And the webpage says they offer free training too.. I will definitely look into this..

https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/ ... /community

I will need to at least attempt to test my workflow, and any adjustments required to suit it, in weldments and sheetmetal, before I can seriously consider changing software. May as well start with this..

[Damo]

I am also interested to hear of anyone else's experience in the differences between SW & SE for Weldments and Sheetmetal Multi-Body parts.
These are the core functions of my needs.

[AlexLachance]

I am also interested to hear of anyone else's experience in the differences between SW & SE for Weldments and Sheetmetal Multi-Body parts.
These are the core functions of my needs.

I might give it a look this weekend if I have some free time on sunday with the free version you posted. If it ain't this weekend, it'll be next weekend, but I'll definetly let you know how it goes.

I build trailers, so there will be weldments and sheetmetal plenty.

[bnemec]

I am also interested to hear of anyone else's experience in the differences between SW & SE for Weldments and Sheetmetal Multi-Body parts.
These are the core functions of my needs.

These things have been covered here at CAD Forum fairly well.

This thread covers much of it. https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=70

Also some here: https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=18302#p18302

I posted a couple kindergarten level questions about SW sheet metal as I try to unlearn SE sheet metal habits.
https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=1224
I cannot find the one where I asked how to insert a dimple in SW, this one still burns me because I made the terrible assumption that any "world class CAD" would be able to dimple from a sketch. File management of these forming tools will be a pain, PDM doesn't track the ref to the forming tool so it doesn't even cache the forming tool file automatically.

In our observation:
- Weldments: We don't use them so I cannot speak to that.

- Sheetmetal:
+ Solid Edge hands down, SW is still a way behind, maybe not a decade anymore but still missing functionality.
+ Cannot speak to Sync sheet metal though, been too long since we looked at it.
+ Solid Edge has a separate file type for sheet metal files, but it's kind of irrelevant anymore, just an extension since they can be switched back and forth.

- Mult-Body parts: I've found "Multi-Body parts" means different things in different use cases so the experience if based in context. We only use multiple bodies for construction, one part number per file. They are quite different in behavior IMO. As of 2019:
+ SE can only have one active body at a time, so any extrudes or cuts are applied to that body, it's clunky compared to the behavior of SW or Inventor where you can select to merge bodies or create new or which to cut right from the feature properties.
+ One thing I like about SE is the workflow of converting body to "Construction" which means it wasn't in physical properties calcs and other things. In Solidworks people just delete the bodies at the end of the feature tree, which works I guess.
+ I was more comfortable with the Boolean tools in SE and have not used them a lot in SW yet, the selection flow in SW feels clunky to me.
edit: I don't think SE has the ability to move bodies around like SW does using assembly mate type move controls. BUT, SE does have the Wheel that when used carefully can do mate like moves IIRC the wheel doesn't add features to the tree like moves in SW do.

[Tom G]

I am in a similar mindset. Not looking to move, but pre-empting the possibility. And when/if the time comes, I'll need a plan in place to convince my accounts people to justify the new expenses.. Tho it can sometimes take a while for me to adapt to some changes, I will adapt.

I'm in the same mindset. Stable business doesn't appreciate surprises, especially nasty ones. This pre-planning to move is directly in response to multiple failures of inadequate leadership and abysmal marketing, while obfuscating costs with panacea hype-bluster. I know what hooks I'm already on, and I won't become stuck on any of them intractably.

[Damo]

These things have been covered here at CAD Forum fairly well.

This thread covers much of it. https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=70

Also some here: https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=18302#p18302

I posted a couple kindergarten level questions about SW sheet metal as I try to unlearn SE sheet metal habits.
https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=1224
I cannot find the one where I asked how to insert a dimple in SW, this one still burns me because I made the terrible assumption that any "world class CAD" would be able to dimple from a sketch. File management of these forming tools will be a pain, PDM doesn't track the ref to the forming tool so it doesn't even cache the forming tool file automatically.

In our observation:
- Weldments: We don't use them so I cannot speak to that.

- Sheetmetal:
+ Solid Edge hands down, SW is still a way behind, maybe not a decade anymore but still missing functionality.
+ Cannot speak to Sync sheet metal though, been too long since we looked at it.
+ Solid Edge has a separate file type for sheet metal files, but it's kind of irrelevant anymore, just an extension since they can be switched back and forth.

- Mult-Body parts: I've found "Multi-Body parts" means different things in different use cases so the experience if based in context. We only use multiple bodies for construction, one part number per file. They are quite different in behavior IMO. As of 2019:
+ SE can only have one active body at a time, so any extrudes or cuts are applied to that body, it's clunky compared to the behavior of SW or Inventor where you can select to merge bodies or create new or which to cut right from the feature properties.
+ One thing I like about SE is the workflow of converting body to "Construction" which means it wasn't in physical properties calcs and other things. In Solidworks people just delete the bodies at the end of the feature tree, which works I guess.
+ I was more comfortable with the Boolean tools in SE and have not used them a lot in SW yet, the selection flow in SW feels clunky to me.
edit: I don't think SE has the ability to move bodies around like SW does using assembly mate type move controls. BUT, SE does have the Wheel that when used carefully can do mate like moves IIRC the wheel doesn't add features to the tree like moves in SW do.

Ah, cool. Thanks mate, lots of reading in these links. I'll get thru it all. And do the SE community version instal..
If nothing else, This old dog may learn a few new tricks..

[SPerman]

I've decided to do my next few home projects in SE. The loss of internet licensing was the nudge I needed to try out something else.

[KennyG]

- Mult-Body parts: I've found "Multi-Body parts" means different things in different use cases so the experience if based in context. We only use multiple bodies for construction, one part number per file. They are quite different in behavior IMO. As of 2019:
+ SE can only have one active body at a time, so any extrudes or cuts are applied to that body, it's clunky compared to the behavior of SW or Inventor where you can select to merge bodies or create new or which to cut right from the feature properties.

edit: I don't think SE has the ability to move bodies around like SW does using assembly mate type move controls. BUT, SE does have the Wheel that when used carefully can do mate like moves IIRC the wheel doesn't add features to the tree like moves in SW do.

SE has been changing some stuff in regard to multi-body use cases in the last couple releases. Additional functions to the part env allow using a feature on all/selected bodies and support assy features through all/selected bodies. They have also added multi-body to Assembly through "Internal Components" which is what should be used if the separate bodies are indeed separate components. You can then use assy relationships to position, specify separate materials, and get a parts list.

FYI, in Ordered part, you can move the active body using the Move Faces and Rotate Faces commands using the Body option...

[Damo]

I've decided to do my next few home projects in SE. The loss of internet licensing was the nudge I needed to try out something else.

Yes..!!! Same.

Genius marketing ploy of theirs to offer it free for personal use, to professionals who likely use something else at their workdesk. Like me.
Tho I've not yet seen the "Watermark" on the drawing output, I don't reckon it'll dissuade me..

[bnemec]

SE has been changing some stuff in regard to multi-body use cases in the last couple releases. Additional functions to the part env allow using a feature on all/selected bodies and support assy features through all/selected bodies. They have also added multi-body to Assembly through "Internal Components" which is what should be used if the separate bodies are indeed separate components. You can then use assy relationships to position, specify separate materials, and get a parts list.

FYI, in Ordered part, you can move the active body using the Move Faces and Rotate Faces commands using the Body option...

Thank you for the update/clarification Kenny.

[SPerman]

Yes..!!! Same.

Genius marketing ploy of theirs to offer it free for personal use, to professionals who likely use something else at their workdesk. Like me.
Tho I've not yet seen the "Watermark" on the drawing output, I don't reckon it'll dissuade me..

They keep making it obvious that we aren't a priority. I don't see things changing for the better; shame on me if I wait until the last minute before investigating a replacement.

[zwei]

I went ahead and downloaded the SE on the link here.. It is touted as free for personal use..!?!? (There are caveats, of course. But.... IT'S FREE..)
And the webpage says they offer free training too.. I will definitely look into this..

https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/ ... /community

I will need to at least attempt to test my workflow, and any adjustments required to suit it, in weldments and sheetmetal, before I can seriously consider changing software. May as well start with this..

This free download:

Is available to any active maker, CAD enthusiast, or design challenge competitor interested in using CAD to bring their ideas to life.
Is intended for personal use, and may not be used for commercial purposes
Has a license that does not expire

Dang... now even i feel like jumping ship (most probably a great idea before it sink into the swymp)

[Adrian_V21]

Does anybody have prices for different PDM systems for a comparison?

I hate that they make it so hard to get a somewhat accurate price comparison on everything...

Teamcenter?
SolidWorks PDM?
IronCAD DDM?
Autodesk Vault?
Windchill (that's for Creo, right?)
Onshape?

Is there a 'cross platform' PDM system that works? (From what I've read Windchill seems to be working with SolidWorks, am I correct here?)
Are there offline/online solutions only?


Isn't OnShape pushing in the same direction too? IT'S A TRAP!


We just discussed the ridiculous price increase for SolidWorks the other day. Luckily we JUST renewed before that happened & so we have little bit more time left to think about it.

I wouldn't call Onshape a "Trap", they're pretty clear that why they offer is SaaS (Software as a Service). There's no other offering

[Damo]

I wouldn't call Onshape a Trap, their pretty clear that why they offer is SaaS (Software as a Service). There's no other offering

Agreed. Indeed, they're very clear about what they're offering. And I don't think I want it.
I feel rather unenthused by this model. Perhaps I am just old fashioned.
It was recently suggested to me to think of it like vehicle registration.. Because you already accept that as a model for subscription based usage.
We've all rented accomodation in the past (or leased equipment as we needed it) and almost everything else is becoming subscription based now anyway.
(I guess that is ok for fleeting luxury items like: Spotify, Netflix, etc.)
So, you only have it while you continue paying for it. But you'll never own it.
Sure, I've occassionaly hired equipment for specific jobs, but I've always owned the essential tools of my trade..
Yeah.. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this in the long term. It should be a choice.. Rent it if you wish, own it if you need..

[Adrian_V21]

The think with Onshape is that it's actually a service. Don't think of it of just a CAD Tool, because it's not. Imagine what you pay for your SW VAR but on steroids; Onshape: manages your servers, performs your installs, upgrades, answers your questions, provides training, logs your issues...

The CAD tool is just a small part, for a one-man (or woman) band, it might be feasible to absorb the cost of performing those activities, but as the team grows, the more it makes sense to go with the "Service" model

[bnemec]

The think with Onshape is that it's actually a service. Don't think of it of just a CAD Tool, because it's not. Imagine what you pay for your SW VAR but on steroids; Onshape: manages your servers, performs your installs, upgrades, answers your questions, provides training, logs your issues...

The CAD tool is just a small part, for a one-man (or woman) band, it might be feasible to absorb the cost of performing those activities, but as the team grows, the more it makes sense to go with the "Service" model

I'm not sure how to process this. Most know very well why many places with lots of users avoid new releases, may stay several years behind and/or wait until SP5 is out or even SP1 of the next version before updating. It's been suggested it is better for these customers to trust the same company to roll updates overnight, with no option of skipping or delaying that build? I don't think so. There will still be a need for the Admin/IT guy to answer all the calls from the users when they cannot sign in or access a file or save a file or whatever it is that the update broke. Just the job changed, instead of trying to find and implement a solution to the problem the admin/tech person's job will be trying to log an SPR then absorb the complaints until the software company fixes it.

[Adrian_V21]

I'm not sure how to process this. Most know very well why many places with lots of users avoid new releases, may stay several years behind and/or wait until SP5 is out or even SP1 of the next version before updating. It's been suggested it is better for these customers to trust the same company to roll updates overnight, with no option of skipping or delaying that build? I don't think so. There will still be a need for the Admin/IT guy to answer all the calls from the users when they cannot sign in or access a file or save a file or whatever it is that the update broke. Just the job changed, instead of trying to find and implement a solution to the problem the admin/tech person's job will be trying to log an SPR then absorb the complaints until the software company fixes it.

I would recommend you do a little research on the technology aspect of Onshape, it's not SolidWorks on the cloud, your assumptions are far from what I've experienced. Have been using Onshape since 2014, over 100 automatic updates and have not experience any issues due to them. And is not "the same company" the founders left DS to start Onshape for a reason.

[bnemec]

I would recommend you do a little research on the technology aspect of Onshape, it's not SolidWorks on the cloud, your assumptions are far from what I've experienced. Have been using Onshape since 2014, over 100 automatic updates and have not experience any issues due to them. And is not "the same company" the founders left DS to start Onshape for a reason.

Interesting. If we were looking to change CAD systems (again) I would probably look at OnShape a bit.

[SPerman]

How is data managed with Onshape? If it lives on their servers, I'm not interested.

[nuevahola]

Everything is on their servers. You can export to different formats whenever you want (even if you stop paying the subscription).

[KennyG]

Remember... It is no longer Onshape, but is now PTC Onshape. What is PTC's long game with Onshape? PTC also owns their own kernel called Granite which is used in their flagship application CREO... Does this eventually turn into another bait and switch since Onshape is using a competitors kernel and is not directly compatible with CREO?

[Adrian_V21]

Short answer is, PTC identified that there was no path forward for Creo to enable cloud collaboration, which is became the larger portion of the market. They determined that acquiring a platform like Onshape was more effective than starting several years after the competitions (Fusion 360, SW 3DX and Onshape themselves).

I recommend you listed to the Keynote from Jim Heppelmann (PTC CEO)

[Damo]

So, I have tried OnShape again for the experience. It had been a few years since my first foray into it..
I must say it has impressed me a little more. It has functional weldments, a working sheetmetal environment
. I was able to immediately create some multibody sample test cases and feel like I could acheive something with it..
I am yet to play with Drawings and DXF export.. But.,.. It is a smoother learning curve than SE has been so far..

[bryan5]

Onshape has some pretty good user group meetings as well.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Onshape has some pretty good user group meetings as well.

I'm not surprised. I believe they have a former SW employee running the user groups?

[jcapriotti]

I would recommend you do a little research on the technology aspect of Onshape, it's not SolidWorks on the cloud, your assumptions are far from what I've experienced. Have been using Onshape since 2014, over 100 automatic updates and have not experience any issues due to them. And is not "the same company" the founders left DS to start Onshape for a reason.

I can guarantee in a larger environment they would break something. An automatic update that I'm not able to test in our environment which is heavily automated would cripple our business. I'm required to have a rollback plan in case things go south. How do I do that with Onshape? They would have to contractually guarantee me same day fixes for any critical issue we find.

For now, that pie will have to stay in the sky.

[Adrian_V21]

I can guarantee in a larger environment they would break something. An automatic update that I'm not able to test in our environment which is heavily automated would cripple our business. I'm required to have a rollback plan in case things go south. How do I do that with Onshape? They would have to contractually guarantee me same day fixes for any critical issue we find.

For now, that pie will have to stay in the sky.

It's certainly not for everyone, specially for highly automated environment like you mentioned. We have had issues with SW when IT force-deploys Windows updates or AntiVirus/Firewall changes... so we were not except from issues even without updating our SolidWorks installations, all of this has been eliminated with Onshape. The risk of something going wrong will never be zero, but the cost of testing and validating is 0.