Onshape's downsides from a SolidWorks user perspective?

[mgibeault]

Besides the obligation to have everything on the cloud (a plus for us), less potential employees familiar with Onshape (both from the market and from schools), what are Onshape's downsides?
I've used it for two weeks now and I found nothing stopping us from migrating to it. There's some features that are incomplete but they're working on them and I found workarounds. I hope I'm not missing something...

[matt]

There's a lot to like about Onshape. But there are also some things to be aware of.

For me the downsides are:
1) for the free version, your data is automatically essentially public domain.
2) when you stop paying, you have nothing, except perhaps pieces of paper you printed or maybe some neutral format files you saved.
3) the inherent lack of control associated with cloud apps and cloud data
4) the list of security breaches of cloud services increases daily, despite the assertions of people with vested interest in you believing that data is secure

I'm sure there are others, but those were the ones that stood out to me.

[jcapriotti]

I think it depends on what you do. I'm still waiting to see someone chime doing large complex assemblies with 1000+ parts. I'm a bit skeptical the browser can handle it but maybe they are doing some voodoo cad magic in the background.

[SolidKeke]

Onshape can-t flatten cone and spiral shapes in sheet metal as far as I have studied it

[Dwight]

Anyone know where we can download some fancy models made with Onshape?

[matt]

Anyone know where we can download some fancy models made with Onshape?

That's part of "the thing" with Onshape, you don't download models. So you'll never have 3rd party libraries. Any Onshape data exists on their server. They don't have a "file type". It's all bits and pieces in a database. You can save stuff out as neutral formats, but live Onshape data lives in a db.

[Ry-guy]

That's part of "the thing" with Onshape, you don't download models. So you'll never have 3rd party libraries. Any Onshape data exists on their server. They don't have a "file type". It's all bits and pieces in a database. You can save stuff out as neutral formats, but live Onshape data lives in a db.

Matt is technically correct in that Onshape data resides in a database. But you can export many different formats out of Onshape, today. Even native Solidworks files. https://cad.onshape.com/help/Content/ex ... -files.htm

There are several different levels of subscription. YOu would need to choose the one that suits your business needs.

I will say it Onshape has some interesting features and functions compared to more traditional file-based, history-based modeling tools.

As for the db-centric data model. Personally, I feel, this is a great path forward for modern systems. FIle-based CAD systems lock too much information up in the proprietary file type. Storing what would be traditionally locked away in data tables makes it much easier for organizations to tap into the hidden data. And it reduces the overall file size required for the modeling tool and visualization tools.

[Ry-guy]

Besides the obligation to have everything on the cloud (a plus for us), less potential employees familiar with Onshape (both from the market and from schools), what are Onshape's downsides?
I've used it for two weeks now and I found nothing stopping us from migrating to it. There's some features that are incomplete but they're working on them and I found workarounds. I hope I'm not missing something...

Sorry, I feel this is really a poor question. We would need more information on your products and systems to make a truly educated response. We would need to know things like whether you are planning on integrating a pdm or plm or ERP or MES or MOM, etc. system? How do manage design data? What constitutes design data? What is the corporate cloud strategy? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered first.
One key question I would ask is: Can this tool provide 100% coverage of our processes for R&D, Quality, and data management, now? If not then don't do it. If you can only design 85 or 95% of your product, what's the point? You can't deliver only 85% or 95% of your product to a customer.

[matt]

Sorry, I feel this is really a poor question. We would need more information on your products and systems to make a truly educated response. We would need to know things like whether you are planning on integrating a pdm or plm or ERP or MES or MOM, etc. system? How do manage design data? What constitutes design data? What is the corporate cloud strategy? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered first.
One key question I would ask is: Can this tool provide 100% coverage of our processes for R&D, Quality, and data management, now? If not then don't do it. If you can only design 85 or 95% of your product, what's the point? You can't deliver only 85% or 95% of your product to a customer.

This assumes that your current process is perfect. In reality, your current process has been shaped by the limitations of the tools you use. So a switch might introduce new limitations, but it also might introduce new capabilities. The tough thing is to be able to recognize an improvement when you see it.

When people switched from Autocad to Solidworks, the advice was to not look back. Don't compare the new to the old. Forget everything you thought you knew about the old stuff, and embrace the new. This same advice has to apply making the move to db-based CAD. Not only is PDM an integrated function, but you have to think of features in a completely different way.

I admire a lot of the new tools in Onshape, but to me, I think they dragged a lot of baggage forward when they continued the history-based thing. I realize that the database has reduced function if it's not storing all of the feature history, but I think the advances you can make by abandoning history are greater than incorporating the db. Not that the db is bad, but it drags history along with it. They could have used a db just for all of the meta data without the history. Like making a fancy modern electric car with old battery technology.

Changing technology is hard, but it allows you to include new ways of thinking/working and it allows you to leave behind a lot of baggage. A lot of undeserving concepts become dogma, and it's those things that you have to learn how to forget. As much as things keep changing, the basics of change generally still apply.

[jcapriotti]

As for the db-centric data model. Personally, I feel, this is a great path forward for modern systems. FIle-based CAD systems lock too much information up in the proprietary file type. Storing what would be traditionally locked away in data tables makes it much easier for organizations to tap into the hidden data. And it reduces the overall file size required for the modeling tool and visualization tools.

Are you saying Dassault will allow us access to the DB data that makes up models created on 3dxWorks? If I elect to move away from 3dx, I can export all of that feature data of my parts and assemblies?

I'm not sure about the file size reduction.....why would it be smaller? The SolidWorks sldprt file is just database itself......along with 3d data for faster loading and viewing which is where I believe the bloat is. You would still need to store 3d viewing information in the cloud db right?

[JSculley]

Are you saying Dassault will allow us access to the DB data that makes up models created on 3dxWorks? If I elect to move away from 3dx, I can export all of that feature data of my parts and assemblies?

They might. But then they'll just encrypt the database stored procedures that actually generate the model from the data. See PDM for an example of how that would work. It has about 1000 encrypted stored procedures.

Might as well be handed a file of point cloud data. Good luck turning that into a usable model in a reasonable amount of time.

[Frederick_Law]

Every file is a database.
If the structure is known, anyone can get the information.
The "proprietary" file type is just an unknown database table.
It could be a text based STEP like structure with encryption.
Or like the good old DXF.

Get the industry to agree on an open source "format" that can transfer all necessary info will helps a lot.
Good luck with that.
Not even banks get their data transfer easily.

[jcapriotti]

Every file is a database.
If the structure is known, anyone can get the information.
The "proprietary" file type is just an unknown database table.
It could be a text based STEP like structure with encryption.
Or like the good old DXF.

Get the industry to agree on an open source "format" that can transfer all necessary info will helps a lot.
Good luck with that.
Not even banks get their data transfer easily.

IMO, file formats should be legally required to be "open" and readable by the creator of those files. I create the files, I own them and their content. And I shouldn't need the originating software to read it. Like a SQL DB, I can read the tables and the data it contains.

[Frederick_Law]

You can't "read" a SQL DB without SQL software.
Even if you can read the table and data in the DB, you may not have the links or relations.

I programmed IV to read MRP database through MS Database Engine.
I can see all the Tables and data but not the relations or structure.

I don't know how CAD organize data.
A look into FreeCAD's code might give some insight.

[bnemec]

You can't "read" a SQL DB without SQL software.
Even if you can read the table and data in the DB, you may not have the links or relations.

I programmed IV to read MRP database through MS Database Engine.
I can see all the Tables and data but not the relations or structure.

I don't know how CAD organize data.
A look into FreeCAD's code might give some insight.

Solid Edge files use the Compound Files (OLE Structured Storage). Made up of stores and file streams. Some of the file streams can be read and made sense of, others not so easily.

FreeCAD uses XML streams in some type of structured storage I think.

[Frederick_Law]

Human readable format is for, human.
The program need to "translate" it every time when the file open.
They can save the translated version in the file also to reduce translation time.

Now we can see 2 versions of the same data.
One for human, one for computer.
The human version could be compressed, so human can't read it until decompressed.

AutoDesk support can "read"/"decode" Inventor file without opening it in the program.

[jcapriotti]

I get that the information may require some decoding. As part of the "open" nature, the file/db structure should have a dictionary and specification for how its structured and what it all means. PDM is a good example, we as customers should receive more than we do on how the DB is structured and what the ID codes mean. It's our data....lock the stored procedures and maybe provide locked storage for code inside a file, but the entire file shouldn't be inaccessible as a means to "lock" customers in which is why they do it.

So for example, a SolidWorks part file should contain the features, every feature option, comments, properties, etc. readable.

[Ry-guy]

Are you saying Dassault will allow us access to the DB data that makes up models created on 3dxWorks? If I elect to move away from 3dx, I can export all of that feature data of my parts and assemblies?

I'm not sure about the file size reduction.....why would it be smaller? The SolidWorks sldprt file is just database itself......along with 3d data for faster loading and viewing which is where I believe the bloat is. You would still need to store 3d viewing information in the cloud db right?

Jason,
I think there is a big confusion between the 3DEXPERIERCE platform and the x software apps. There is absolutely no reason you cannot load and use your existing SW files in the platform. You would be using the POWER'BY connector for that. You would continue to use SW as normal. The platform is a business platform- db driven. Because of this, you can access core data in many, many different applications. You are not locked into a CAD viewer or CAD tool to access cad model information. Think about this as an example. You have attributes in CAD drawing file or even your cad model. Thinks like part number, material, release date, revision, etc. With this data in a separate db you can leverage other tools like BI tools and search this database for information. What we have done in the past was to create this other layer of software called PDM or PLM and then pass that information into those tools (a db by the way) so that we can access this data. The platform basically takes that level of complexity away.

I will see if I can find an article that explains what a unified data model looks like and how they work. I feel that might help everyone understand the difference between file-based software and db-based software. Once you get an understanding of this I feel people will begin to understand the benefits.

SW big event was last week, I am sure there was plenty of information shared there. If anyone from the forum went, please create a new posting for discussion.

Ryan

[Ry-guy]

...So for example, a SolidWorks part file should contain the features, every feature option, comments, properties, etc. readable.

I will have to kindly disagree with the last statement. You are truly locking and limiting your data capabilities by allowing Solidworks to determine what makes up a SW file. The business could care less what SW thinks. The business needs different aspects of the data. Having the data parsed allows for other business tools to access that data without the burden of tool that is designed to extract the information from a single file.
We need to think beyond our normal boundaries as the author or creator of the data and start thinking how usefull the data is to the business. It's a point of view change that is required.

[jcapriotti]

I will have to kindly disagree with the last statement. You are truly locking and limiting your data capabilities by allowing Solidworks to determine what makes up a SW file. The business could care less what SW thinks. The business needs different aspects of the data. Having the data parsed allows for other business tools to access that data without the burden of tool that is designed to extract the information from a single file.
We need to think beyond our normal boundaries as the author or creator of the data and start thinking how usefull the data is to the business. It's a point of view change that is required.

I was advocating for "open" file data to prevent total lock in to a software vendor without having to rely on a 3rd party reverse engineered application. The same should go for DBs and the concern with "SaaS" tools is it's even more closed. Or are you saying that Dassault's platform will allow me to download all of my data in the DB down to the feature level if I chose to leave the platform?

[Ry-guy]

I was advocating for "open" file data to prevent total lock-in to a software vendor without having to rely on a 3rd party reverse-engineered application. The same should go for DBs and the concern with "SaaS" tools is it's even more closed. Or are you saying that Dassault's platform will allow me to download all of my data in the DB down to the feature level if I chose to leave the platform?

I understand the desire for an open CAD format. Technically, we have a couple- IGES and STEP. But I understand that you and many others are looking for more than just the brep definition, assembly structure, and "standard" metadata. You want Apple, Google, and Microsoft to conform to some neutral format that will allow their data to open and fully function between formats. We both know that is never going to happen. The same applies to the CAD vendor- never going to happen.

So if we can move on from that debate we can focus on something more down to earth.

I am not sure what you mean by SaaS being more closed. SaaS is different things to different software OEMs. Can you provide me with your concerns about SaaS? I think I know what you are thinking but it is best that I don't assume and allow you to explain your position.

For your last question, you are shooting for the moon again, expecting CAD software to output to a different CAD system in a native format. I can't get you to the moon but definitely get you into the cloud. Every bit of a pun.
Here's a link about exporting a sldpkg file. know that you can also export to CATIA V5 as well.
https://www.javelin-tech.com/blog/2022/ ... 20Package.
A the end of this article is another link to the import process.
As I mentioned 3DEXPERIECE is a platform that can manage all sorts of CAD data using the POWER'BY tool. It is funny that people think this platform is a closed platform- it's not. Actually, it's very open.

Lastly, keep in mind that import/export process above deals with external collaboration with vendors and suppliers. The real goal is to fully collaborate within the platform. That means allowing your vendors access to your data in the platform. All the PLM vendors are pushing for this. It's not really about adding more licenses it's more about collaboration and traceability. If you are making decisions about changes to your design, that should be tracked. You can do that when everyone is on the same system. Very difficult to do if you are not!

I hope this helps.

[Ry-guy]

I will see if I can find an article that explains what a unified data model looks like and how they work. I feel that might help everyone understand the difference between file-based software and db-based software. Once you get an understanding of this I feel people will begin to understand the benefits.
Ryan

OK. I had a pretty good response with some really cool links...but they system timed out on me! GRRRR....

So here's some things to start with..
Watch this TedTalk first...this will set the big picture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2iYzKeej8&t

Next, we jump to "Embracing Complexity" series. This is a pretty heady series but I think if you read them and understand them you will really understand how our software that we are using for design is changing and needs to change to support the "bigger picture".
https://experiencestack.co/embrace-comp ... 483f10a47f There are 4 or 5 posting in this series.

With this understanding of data, we can now take a look at 3DEXP platform and all the brands and apps that are part of this platform. You can now begin to build out solutions for many, many different businesses, governments, and agencies.

There is so much that can be on this platform it is not even funny. Can it manage CAD data and be PLM too...sure..but that is only the beginning. Think of the data models in the articles. Hopefully, you can start to understand the platform. The platform has business collaboration apps, BI apps, science-based apps, AI, simulation tools, and so much more.
As an example, here is another older video to watch. This is about City and Public Services and Singapore. Think about all the different data types being managed here! Think about how simulation tools, cloud processing and all those things tie together. This is what you can do on a platform.
You can look at other brands and apps...Quintiq, Netvibes, and other core tools that can build custom apps for very complex problems..again, this is what a platform provides..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dix-8SNxlAo

OK. That is some information to chew on...

[berg_lauritz]

Can you mirror features and parts properly in OnShape?

[mgibeault]

Thanks a lot to everyone, that's very helpful.
After a few weeks of trial, I found no shortcomings in our daily tasks compared to using SolidWorks. I would say that it went faster and was a lot more enjoyable.
I understand your worries Matt, but, having been hacked in the past, we feel that outsourcing file management and security is a bonus (we're on Office 365 for the same reason).
Our biggest assembly has maybe 200 parts. The complexity is from a few parts. We have some boats with more than 2000 features in the three.
But CAD computing the load is on their server, the user's computer is like a graphic terminal; only the screen's content is processed (to a certain extent).

Sorry, I feel this is really a poor question. We would need more information on your products and systems to make a truly educated response. We would need to know things like whether you are planning on integrating a pdm or plm or ERP or MES or MOM, etc. system? How do manage design data? What constitutes design data? What is the corporate cloud strategy? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered first.
One key question I would ask is: Can this tool provide 100% coverage of our processes for R&D, Quality, and data management, now? If not then don't do it. If you can only design 85 or 95% of your product, what's the point? You can't deliver only 85% or 95% of your product to a customer.

I don't think it was a poor question. If you're aware of a shortcoming in Onshape's integration of pdm, plm, erp, mes, mom, etc, why don't you say so?
Maybe 3DEXPERIENCE has a list of features covering 100% of the users cases, but we found that it is very time-consuming, very "user-unfriendly", buggy, slow and expensive.

[AlexLachance]

Thanks a lot to everyone, that's very helpful.
After a few weeks of trial, I found no shortcomings in our daily tasks compared to using SolidWorks. I would say that it went faster and was a lot more enjoyable.
I understand your worries Matt, but, having been hacked in the past, we feel that outsourcing file management and security is a bonus (we're on Office 365 for the same reason).
Our biggest assembly has maybe 200 parts. The complexity is from a few parts. We have some boats with more than 2000 features in the three.
But CAD computing the load is on their server, the user's computer is like a graphic terminal; only the screen's content is processed (to a certain extent).

I don't think it was a poor question. If you're aware of a shortcoming in Onshape's integration of pdm, plm, erp, mes, mom, etc, why don't you say so?
Maybe 3DEXPERIENCE has a list of features covering 100% of the users cases, but we found that it is very time-consuming, very "user-unfriendly", buggy, slow and expensive.

Ry-guy drank a bit too much of the DS Kool-Aid, forgive him.

[Dwight]

Our biggest assembly has maybe 200 parts. The complexity is from a few parts. We have some boats with more than 2000 features in the three.

Can you post a STEP file of the model?

[mgibeault]

Can you post a STEP file of the model?

No...
You can have a look at some of our products; https://pelicansport.com/fr/collections ... p10p300-00

[AlexLachance]

No...
You can have a look at some of our products; https://pelicansport.com/fr/collections ... p10p300-00

Would love to buy myself a Pelican Kayak for fishing. Maybe this summer

[mgibeault]

Would love to buy myself a Pelican Kayak for fishing. Maybe this summer

I'll probably be able to do something for you. Tell me what you would like.

[AlexLachance]

I'll probably be able to do something for you. Tell me what you would like.

Thanks mate, I haven't looked too far into it yet, the Catch 100 or 110 would probably be what I would go for. First I need to install some sort of racking on my car to be able to transport it


I'll send you a private message when I've looked further into it.

[Ry-guy]

Ry-guy drank a bit too much of the DS Kool-Aid, forgive him.

Nope. Just looking at things from a different point of view. If you knew my history I was a big Siemens NX and SE fanboy. Since I work for a French company...we don't drink Kool-Aid...we drink champagne!

[Ry-guy]

I don't think it was a poor question. If you're aware of a shortcoming in Onshape's integration of pdm, plm, erp, mes, mom, etc, why don't you say so?
Maybe 3DEXPERIENCE has a list of features covering 100% of the users cases, but we found that it is very time-consuming, very "user-unfriendly", buggy, slow and expensive.

Sorry, I don't know of any shortcomings in Onshape. That is why I was asking. My questions are always formed from my systems business analyst roles in the past. In those roles, you never look at just one point solution. You look at the full systems to understand how the solution is going to work with the "full" system.
I'd like to kindly ask again, how is this solution going to work with ERP, PDM and/or plm systems? If it can't then it probably is not a solution to go with because your business strategy requires a system with more "flexibility" and interoperability.
If your company strategy is full cloud then Onshape fits the bill for the strategy. But does it provide enough value? Will a lift and shift solutions like PTC or Siemens offer work for you? These solutions are just moving your server to the cloud and then accessing via browsers. But you need to pay each to support that cloud instance. There are a LOT of hidden costs in these types of offerings. But I'll spare you the details.
Just so you know I am not anti-Onshape. I will be the first to tell you I don't know enough about it. That is what I am hoping to get from this group..tell me about your experiences with Onshape. What do you see as benefits and what areas don't work well or are missing?

[AlexLachance]

Nope. Just looking at things from a different point of view. If you knew my history I was a big Siemens NX and SE fanboy. Since I work for a French company...we don't drink Kool-Aid...we drink champagne!

I'm just teasing ya mate. I'll have a beer over Champagne, but that must be the Canadian side taking over my french side

[Ry-guy]

I'm just teasing ya mate. I'll have a beer over Champagne, but that must be the Canadian side taking over my french side

I know. I appreciate the zings too. It keeps me honest. The drink champagne lines come as a rebuttal to Siemens' "we eat our own dog food" comment- (we use our own tools). Who in their right mind wants to eat dog food..I'll take the champagne any day over dog food.

[Dwight]

No...
You can have a look at some of our products; https://pelicansport.com/fr/collections ... p10p300-00

No problem, thought I'd ask, at least. If you are designing those hulls with Onshape, it must be working hard.

[mgibeault]

No problem, thought I'd ask, at least. If you are designing those hulls with Onshape, it must be working hard.

They were all modelled with SolidWorks. But, after being burned by 3DX, we are evaluating Onshape. Surfacing, while looking simple, is surprisingly powerful. We'll try to model a hull soon.

[nuevahola]

Can you mirror features and parts properly in OnShape?

You can mirror features and parts, but just in part studios, not in assemblies at the moment. When you're working on sheet metal parts, you can't mirror features, just sketches as I can remember.

[Ry-guy]

They were all modelled with SolidWorks. But, after being burned by 3DX, we are evaluating Onshape. Surfacing, while looking simple, is surprisingly powerful. We'll try to model a hull soon.

3DX is the platform. What on the platform "burned" you? Just curious. Were you using SolidWorks Connected?

[KQuigley]

They were all modelled with SolidWorks. But, after being burned by 3DX, we are evaluating Onshape. Surfacing, while looking simple, is surprisingly powerful. We'll try to model a hull soon.

Take a look at the Phi add on for Onshape.

I think for your products it would be a game changer. A bit like Creo Freestyle is for bathroom product design.

Getting back to the original question, what are the drawbacks? Functionally, not a lot. The issue for me is pricing.
If you are a new customer, the Onshape is lower cost, by far. But if you are an existing customer on active maintenance then Onshape is an added cost. For my business it would mean approx £4200 a year vs £2500 a year. Which is, of course an ongoing cost (not called ONshape for nothing….). This assumes we go for the “professional” option which we would.

Then there is the issues on ONgoing increases in subscription cost. The standard PTC policy for Creo subs was (if I recall from when we had in) 5% to 8% rise p/a. Is onshape the same? No idea.

Of course all this will become irrelevant if Solidworks make changes to maintenance policies like big annual increases, of requirement to buy multi year packages, or step increase so that you are forced to migrate to subscription models.

All of which have been mooted. Let’s see the detail on that announcement at 3DXW about the July cloud access…bearing in mind that June is (or was) end of year for Solidworks. I suspect we will see two things happen.

Big increase in maintenance to stay on desktop only on active maintenance plans.
All new licenses will be cloud connected BUT only available on subscription model.

If that is the case, we’ll end our 25 year relationship with the company. In truth we have already started preparing for that.

[zxys001]

Take a look at the Phi add on for Onshape.

The incestuous world of CAD.
https://www.engineering.com/story/model ... ys-cad-vet

[zxys001]

The incestuous world of CAD.
https://www.engineering.com/story/model ... ys-cad-vet
[/quote]

[zxys001]

The incestuous world of CAD.
https://www.engineering.com/story/model ... ys-cad-vet

[KQuigley]

Phi is based on, or probably more accurately, exactly the same as FreeDimension. FreeDimension was developed from the late 1990s, and I had an early version of it around 2004/5 I think when it was owned by d*** Sowar (or at least thats who I liaised with at the time). It was a really good system as it used curves rather that sub d meshes, by far the closest thing to SketchUp for product design. Not sure what happened to it as it just fizzled out. It is owned by a Greek VC group now so I reckon it is on the hunt for a buyer as the patents must be near the end by now. Very odd they chose to launch it with Onshape. A lot of Solidworks users would jump at this as an add on like Power Surfacing.

[KQuigley]

Love how this forum autocorrected d*** …. As in Richard Sowar.

[mgibeault]

3DX is the platform. What on the platform "burned" you? Just curious. Were you using SolidWorks Connected?

We're using desktop SolidWorks, with the connector to 3DX.
Documenting bugs and finding workaround, re-watching tutorials to find how simple tasks must be done, digging through countless options which one prevents a co-worker from completing a simple task... there are lots of griefs. Our productivity dropped by maybe 30%.
And you said it yourself: "There is so much that can be on this platform it is not even funny." The layout, spread over dozens of apps, is just awful. All these possibilities crippled but visible because "it can". I saw in some option panel settings about railways signage preferences... what a waste of my time.

[mgibeault]

...
If that is the case, we’ll end our 25 year relationship with the company. In truth we have already started preparing for that.

How are you preparing for that?

[Ry-guy]

The incestuous world of CAD.
https://www.engineering.com/story/model ... ys-cad-vet

Can someone pull this posting into its own thread? There is a lot to discuss about this tool! Reminds me of the old days of using UG (pre-NX for those under 25 years old) with curves...yes curves not sketches..and creating thru-curve meshes.

[zxys001]

Can someone pull this posting into its own thread? There is a lot to discuss about this tool! Reminds me of the old days of using UG (pre-NX for those under 25 years old) with curves...yes curves not sketches..and creating thru-curve meshes.

Hi Ry-guy, you mean, just start a new thread on "The incestuous world of CAD."

[KQuigley]

How are you preparing for that?

Trying out other options.
Trying to understand in much more granular detail why we would need to continue with SolidWorks.
In truth, if Solidworks announced an end to maintenance and a move to 100% subscribers model at existing price structures we would just stop paying, buy new hardware and run it into the ground for 3-4 years and use that time to really test alternatives. Don’t forget (something that Solidworks definitely have) that every competitor out there is waiting for that moment as they know they will pick up easy wins by offering hard to resist switchover packages.

[KQuigley]

Can someone pull this posting into its own thread? There is a lot to discuss about this tool! Reminds me of the old days of using UG (pre-NX for those under 25 years old) with curves...yes curves not sketches..and creating thru-curve meshes.

It was called wireframe modelling back in the day. Ashlar created the market. Others copied.