Category Archives: machinedaudiohornlens.com

I have thought for some time about posting on this topic, which is primarily lack of integrated CAM for SE. I have had a stop gap measure in place for some time with VX, now ZW3D for CAM, but in light of what I see to be serious problems for 2012 ZW cam I know I am going to have to finally cut those ties and look elsewhere for my answer. So what to do.

I am completely satisfied with the CAD side of SE and truly believe it is the best midrange MCAD program out there for what I do. But then I also have to produce that which I draw and this has become a real pisser for me.

Rather than create a post from scratch I am going to just quote posts I have on the SE BBS forum today on this topic of integrated cam and a sumation of the replies. The very best solution I could wish for would be quality CAM integrated with SE but I suspect that I will have to buy another companies product well before the glacial progress towards CAM in the SE ecosystem produces anything. I mean SE has had no integrated cam for 24 versions now so why hurry?

I really dislike writing this because I am a huge fan of SE but I am tired of quietly waiting for the bun to be put on the top sirloin Black Angus burger.

“CAM for ST5(or will it be ST9 or never ???)

Yes I know this is not the cam section, but then what is around here. We have Cam Express which is not and probably won’t be truly integrated with SE and from what I hear is way complicated to learn. I know for sure it is expensive and has the cam industries highest yearly % fees BY FAR from what I see. Therefore I declare the SE Cam Express section to be irrelevant and post here instead.

So guys with me sitting here cash in hand are we going to have ST5 rollout and you make me buy cam elsewhere or are you going to get something going and to be announced at ST5? I am not the only one asking and this is a big problem for me. I don’t have to know what program I just need to know it will happen. I have put this off about as long as I can and if I buy somewhere else it won’t matter what you come up with. The money will be gone and I won’t spend it twice just to be here.

If you are going to whip on SW with a big stick start putting some knots on it, know what I mean?”

The reply from someone in a position to know is basically there are no plans for this in ST5 and Cam Express (CE) is the only answer. For those of you interested CE is very proud of themselves in up front costs and then to the tune of like 21 or 22% yearly cost of purchase for maintenance.

“Thanks XXXXXXX for the update. Sadly Cam Express seems to be a solution very few SE users pick for a variety of reasons. Check it out and see for your self when you talk to customers about what they use. Is it the intent of SE and Siemens to just ignore integrated cam for SE? I am not including Cam Express as integrated by the way because we still have to use parts of NX CAD to use it and have to step outside of the SE GUI. I am going to look at Featurecam tomorrow and if I get it it will be probably $16,000.00 or so and I just don’t understand why Siemens/SE don’t want a part of this market.

You guys want to take the throne from SW you are going to HAVE to offer peripheral programs like cam to do it. I think cad with SE is the very best in the market for what I do but then when I make what I design it becomes a problem and I end up looking elsewhere for the answer.

A friend of mine has a machine shop and he bought HSMWorks for cam. It works natively inside SW where most of his files originate from and he loves it. I don’t envy him working with SW but I sure do envy him the ease with which the integration with SW allows his days to be more profitable.”

Reply from another user. “It gets even better. HSMWorks now offers HSMXpress for SolidWorks…and it’s free.”

Yeah I have seen that to. It is still entirely possible that SE will give away their technological advantage over SW by doing stupid traditional SE/UGS type things and I just don’t get it. Six months have passed and hardly any efforts at building the user community, few announcements of any sort with good sustained publicity to build interest by prospective buyers and absolutely NOTHING being done any user can see to add peripheral programs like CAM to the basically non existant SE Ecosphere.

They had great momentum after Huntsville last year and now they will have to pretty much start completely over again with the ST5 Summit. It’s harder to rekindle enthusiasm a second time which they are going to find out the hard way.

All I know is this is becoming a huge problem and a big issue for me. I know in talking to other SE users in person and reading comments here that more than a few SE users share my disgust over this.

Maybe I am wrong about how many SE users actually do anything besides create data and that the vast majority might just never have to make anything with what they create. I know when Jeff asked us to put our candy in the jars at the end of a session in Huntsville last year I was both shocked and disappointed at how few there were in the cam jar.

Are there really that few of you who make things with the data you create? I don’t think so but unless you all start speaking up this problem will remain unsolved. I am begining to think most everyone who uses cam has been forced into buying elsewhere since day one so they have quit asking. CAM Express which is the automatic corporate reply is not a good answer but that is the stock defensive reply to why nothing is done under the SE/UGS and now Siemens umbrellas.

Maybe since users have been forced to buy elsewhere and with money allready spent they have no intention of ever buying into an SE integrated product, I don’t know but this is another stupid self inflicted wound SE did not have to suffer from.

HA HA HA, while I am typing this I get a call from Saratech asking me if I was still interested in Cam Express. I did have an opinion to render of course.”

Reply here was basically we are trying to do something, but nothing is being talked about for details on possible CAM. Users are asked to tell CAM companies of interest they want integratedCAM with SE. OK, I HEREBY NOTIFY ANY CAM COMPANY INTERESTED IN TRUE INTEGRATION WITH SE I AM INTERESTED IN YOU.

“No you are not the problem. I figure it takes at least a solid month of time to learn a CAM program enough to be able to get a good idea if it is suitable for your use. That is a month with few to no interuptions. You try four or five programs and there is almost a half a year gone. In your case where you are soliciting for partners after appraisal of the program you have to discuss/convince a cam company to work with you. Another few weeks per I would think. So there goes seven of your nine months. This integration is a big deal time wise and if you are the only one working at it they have given you an impossible task to do well. I don’t know this to be true but I do wonder how much help you are being given and the level of help is a measure as to how important third party applications are to corporate minds.

I will be meeting with Featurecam again this week and I will make a point of persisting in finding a “Mr Big” somewhere to talk about the idea of tighter integration or at least perhaps a deal for SE to offer it’s users.”

Another user reply,      “….and to think we are told the reason why surfacing takes a back seat is because SE is focused on the Machine and Equipment marketplace and not Industrial Design. So you’d think CAM would be more important then a good rendering. And when you realize how clumsy SE is at doing simple renderings, it can only make you wonder.”

“Yes it makes you wonder how they can be so on track for some things but then lose sight of the practical application of these things. When the day is done someone still has to make this stuff. It reminds me of that wretched Velocity stuff where it was forgotten that without the CAD program backbone the rest of the Velocity stuff was just useless junk. Factories and people who build things made it a long time without CAD but without factories and people who build things CAD would not ever have seen the light of day. It is a shame that software companies forget that so often. But then I only make things and Neanderthal Dave I am sure just does not grok the correct perspective a software user should have.

Render schmender, what use is a pretty picture if you are going to have a hard time making the thing depicted in it. I am going out to my reality rendering device now and make some chips with software Siemens and SE earned no part of.

I am in a poetic mood today and no integrated cam inspires me so—-

There once was a rendering farm

It cost you a leg and an arm

But then in the factr’y

Twas not satisfactr’y

Much to the buyers alarm”

Another user reply.     Dave I guess the problem is two-fold. Firstly, Siemens already has its own CAM solution in CE, so management will never push for a third party solution as it has the “potential” to compromise its own sales. I say “potential” as I think CE is priced as a high end solution and third party solutions tend to be aimed at low to mid market. In terms of better integration, again I just don’t think there is the motivation, as customers using a mix of mid range CAD and high end CAM is probably thin on the ground, so demand is not sufficient to warrant the investment.

Secondly, where is the incentive for the third party provider when your potential partner has their own solution? At least when competing against other third party providers it would feel like a level playing field. It is just not an attractive arrangement.

I reckon the best bet is a CAM Express LITE aimed at mid market, as that seems to fit their strategy. But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Well, thinking of what you are saying XXXXXXX and some thoughts.

Catia/Dassault had machining before the aquisition of SW didn’t they? And well after that SW STILL has people like HSM Works introducing cam for SW in the last couple of years. The mindset that built the great software empire of SW has gone away in many areas but even the French guys still understand you are going to make a lot more money by offering things people WILL buy over stuff they won’t buy even if you only get a part of the action. And what the heck, let someone elses developers create something, let them offer it and if it proves popular buy them out and then get all the money with a prior proven product you did not have to develop.

Based on conversations I have with SE users I bet that less than 5% of SE cam users use CE. Now if your thought about Siemens being afraid of competing software costing them CE sales is what their mindset truly is, it is myopic stupidity. SE sales are competition for NX sales by that mindset so why don’t we just shut SE down so NX (and Inventor and Alibre and SW and Spaceclaim and ProE and the rest) can be more profitable?

I do not believe that just because things have been done a certain traditional corporate way means that it was correct. I think this lack of things like cam for SE is a serious problem and I am debating what I may do about it. It’s a rotten way of doing things and needs to live in the garbage heap along with it’s brother “Velocity”.

My primary purpose in commenting on replies here is not to debate with users. It is to respond to user comments. Comments which have their origin in years of neglect and I know it reflects the past and in some ways the present attitude of the company that gave it to them. Cad is coming along so well I almost have to bite my tongue sometimes and not comment on the ancillary problems. However, SE is the only major cad program without cam integration that I know of.

Looking today briefly I see that Alibre, Inventor, Catia, NX, Sw, ProE all have integrated solutions. They all seem to understand that your best customers for new things are your current customers who allready know and hopefully trust you. They understand I am sure that the more you can get customers into your ecosystem the greater the chance they will be there forever.

This will also, sadly I am concluding, be the chief reason SE will not aquire nearly as many SW customers as they should and the quality of the cad program which with the right ecosystem would eat SW’s lunch will instead be “also ran” in market share.

Just as a spot of humor here. Unless you have a blog you don’t know the stuff we get sometimes and don’t allow to be posted because some things are better left alone. I wanted to allow this response just once but did not want to run the risk that by approving it more could slip in under the radar later. So instead we have a screen capture collage. JB, put your hand on the screen, think thoughts of harmony and bliss.  AHHHhhh, there now, don’t you feel better?

I thought a bit about this title while writing this post today.  I ended up with this title because I felt that it most accurately describes the actions of companies that want to deliberately endanger their customers  in order to turn their customers  into monthly subscription cash cows who have to forever pay to work. This is the primary underlying reason for this whole cloud thing as far as I am  concerned. Read this article and tell me I am wrong with a straight face and no fingers crossed behind your back.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gardner/overlapping-criminal-and-state-threats-pose-growing-cyber-security-threat-to-global-internet-commerce-says-open-group-speaker/4454?tag=content;selector-blogs

So we have SW world coming up soon and I am sitting here today thinking once again about how a major cad company deliberately intends to place the lifeblood of it’s customers IP on the web and then turn around and refuse to indemnify users from the inevitable results of this.  Add to the mix now the latest cloud ninja Autodesk. I asked forty plus questions on the cloud a year ago and very few have been answered by any cloud touting outfit to this day. It is proof as far as I am concerned of deliberate corporate deceit or at the very least outright disregard for their customers well being and bottom line.

http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2011/01/41questionsaboutthecloud.html

By the way all you software companies pushing this cloud junk are invited to prove my stance wrong here by showing, in writing, your legal protection and reinbursement and indemnification language meant to protect your customers from the danger you have deliberately placed them in. While your at it why don’t you show us the performance guarantees to hmmm? Do you guys honestly think by ignoring these thorny issues they will go away? Yeah just don’t answer the questions, it’s safer that way and hopefully we can BS enough people to buy into this so OUR bottom lines can look good.

The problem is that while these ninjas from DS, SW, Autodesk or indeed any other company that pushes this for whatever reason are jumping up and down and twirling round the stage with their IPOD ninja swords the bad guys are wearing ghille suits and laying on the ground patiently waiting 300 yards away with their sniper scopes and .50 caliber rifles. What is that old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight?  Lets get real here for a second. We users all see corners cut, deficiencies or problems/bugs remain in the software we buy because the company that writes this stuff has a projected budget to stay within. They are not going to spend the time and money to make it completely right before release cycle time and this is why every company  has updates. Do we agree on this? Now if we agree here on this is it unreasonable to project this same poor attitude to be existant with all this cloud junk they want us to buy into? Bugs in cad software can ruin your day but bugs in the cloud can ruin your whole business.

All you cloud loving cutting edge uber geek tech guys who just love this stuff go there. Neanderthal Dave who is stupid enough to think the time he has spent creating things should be accompanied with enough common sense to protect these same things is not.

I have been in correspondence with ZW3d support in China over the last day and I am finding out some very disturbing things. I bought into 2012 solely because of the promise of lathe in the cam side of the software. You can read the  following emails and draw your own conclusions.

My conclusions are based on the emails at the end of my commentary. The only post written for lathe to date, and it appears by Tony’s reply the only one they intend for now, is for the Turkish  GSK980 TA controller. Have you ever even heard of this thing? You may well not have and if you  go here http://www.gskcnc.com.tr/En/Links.aspx   you will see the partners listed for this controller family. Now at this site I found a GSK980 TE controller but not the “TA” model and I wonder if the “TA” model is even a current production type. Anyway, eleven of the twelve partner companies listed under links are Chinese machine tool builders. I suspect the twelfth is too but the link is broken.

Three months left to projected release date.

They do intend to have collision detection capabilities sometime in the future for your lathe tooling so if you buy this and trash your lathe please be patient, they are working on it. On second thought though it has been tested on only one controller they will admit to with a post being developed for one that has not been tested according to this same correspondence. You may not have to worry about crashing your lathe afterall if you can’t get code to it.

I have to admit that this email exchange does nothing but gell the idea even further in my mind that USA and Canadian users are of no value to the wannabe gonnabe “official” cad cam program to the Chinese government. If your machine tools are not Chinese you may well fall into the not so important category too.

Don’t make the mistake it appears I have made. Even though the claim to lathe is there it is my conclusion it will be released no where near ready and for Chinese equipment only for perhaps, well would maybe a year more sound reasonable to you? It does to me. I happen to know that lathe for VX/ZW3d has been long in coming and was started in 2008 so the pace of developement is not stellar.  Cad as of 2011 SP2 which I have loaded and played with for a couple of days now does not show much in the way of  geometry creation improvement  and the Icons have been replaced with new ones but the GUI is still basically the same as before with the same basic drop downs and categories. New paint job on the car body in essence. The poorest direct editing in the industry has not advanced as far as I can tell. Sheet metal has a couple of enhancements and would compete well with a typical 10 plus year old program from other vendors who take sheet metal seriously. Can you tell I am disappointed?

Sigh, the never ending saga of CAM crap found round the world continues.

FWIW, no reply yet to my last email yet but I think there is enough here to form an opinion. I will add replies as they arrive.  In reverse order shall we proceed onwards.

“Hi Tony,   So are you telling me that yes lathe will be in 2012 but I won’t be able to use it on the most common type of controller in the whole world? I don’t know anyone who uses this Turkish controller and I have to admit to being baffled as to why you chose this one to be first. The most important thing to me as an end user and customer is that when I am promised lathe it will work. The promise of lathe is the only reason I renewed and to not be able to use it does not make me happy. If I can’t load 2012 and cut chips on my lathe can you give me a good reason why I should have bought this? I am not at all happy with this answer.                                                                                                                             Dave Ault

From: ZW3D support(Tony) Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:24 AM To: Dave Ault Subject: RE: Question for Collin

Hi Dave,

We will continue to improve this area.

In my opinion, the most important thing is we can ensure the output data is correct, and the form will not hard to change.

So, we are focusing on one controller now, and we also offer users options to customized the post for specific machine.

AS you know, everything’s beginning is not perfect, so we need more suggestions and comments.

If you would like to test it in your machine, please send us enough information, and we would be pleased to try to customized the post processor for you.

Yes, our colleagues had  tested  the tool-path on real machine which with FANUC-0i-TB controller , and we will continue to test it.

Thank you

Best regards,

Tony Tan Overseas Technical support

——————————————————

4F, No. 886, Tianhe North Rd., Guangzhou 510635, P. R. China

Tel: 86-20-38289780 ext: 818 Fax: 86-20-38288676

Mobile: 86-13928880835 E-mail: tandaquan@zwsoft.com

Skype: tony_tan05      www.zwsoft.com

From: Dave Ault Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 1:43 PM To: ZW3D support(Tony) Subject: Re: Question for Collin

Hi Tony,

The controller I am worried about at this time would be the Fanuc style used in the Haas machines. The “Fanuc basic inch” post for milling works fine on my mill if that is any help. Something for that same controller set up for lathe would probably work although since that is not my area of expertise I don’t really know for sure.

It is important for customers to be able to post code to various lathes and if they can’t do so it serves no purpose to say you have lathe. Until you have posts for the most common equipment you aren’t ready for lathe and it would benefit ZW to do some of these before the release. For instance even in the beta it will be hard to get feedback if there is no post available to customers. It is not worth it to crash your equipment with a bad post to test something for someone.

Are you testing any of these tool paths with actual cutting to see how they are doing?                                                                                                                                          Thanks, Dave

From: ZW3D support(Tony)

Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 9:52 PM

To: Dave Ault

Subject: RE: Question for Collin

Dear Dave,

This is Tony from ZW3D technical support team.

How are you?

The first version of turning module will be integrated in ZW3D 2012.  Since the beginning,  It is a basic version.

About your question.

1, we are working on to support the GSK980 TA controller which is similar to the Fanuc controller now, and we will continue to work for the other controllers.

2, Yes, you can set the corner radiuses on the various types of inserts.

3,In this version, I am afraid to tell you that we have to do something for avoiding the collision for the insert holders. But we will improve this area in next version.

We would be appreciated if you can give some typical part for us to test the software.

And we will offer the beta version for our resellers and users for testing in the middle of January in 2012, we would be appreciated that you can give us some suggestions then,

and I think we will have enough time to enhance something before the official version releasing in March.

Any question is welcome.

Thank you

Best regards,

Tony Tan Overseas Technical support

——————————————————

4F, No. 886, Tianhe North Rd., Guangzhou 510635, P. R. China

Tel: 86-20-38289780 ext: 818 Fax: 86-20-38288676

Mobile: 86-13928880835 E-mail: tandaquan@zwsoft.com

Skype: tony_tan05      www.zwsoft.com

From: Dave Ault  Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 8:53 AM To: zw3d@zwcad.com Subject: Question for Collin

Collin,

I will follow your suggestion and try finding answers here as you asked on the forum. Can you tell me what types of lathes the new turning tool paths have been tested on and which controllers have posts written for them? Also what types of cutters and inserts are recognized.   Will there be parameters that can be set as to the corner radiuses on the various types of inserts? Finally are standard insert holders modeled in the tool library for the purpose of collision avoidance in verify or do we have to do this ourselves.                                                                                    Thanks, Dave Ault”

I had just sent a check in to renew ZW3D for CAM only as they are supposed to have lathe in there for 2012. $1,500.00 to renew was a whole lot cheaper than $8,000.00 plus other cam vendors wanted for their stuff. That and I have had my belly full of “used car” cam salesmen that can’t use the products they want to sell to me. Yeah thats right, they tell me how wonderfull their stuff is and then can’t show me. They all know how much it will cost however 😦  At least here with ZW I know where the problems are and it does not cost me nearly as much to be irritated.

Then I get the news. The very best support for VX/ZW3D worldwide was here in the USA in the form of two individuals who were just fired by ZW. These two individuals spent the majority of their days helping VARS around the world and indeed even the ZW people in China who are no where near as good with ZW as these two guys were. Support is now officially screwed on many tough questions. There are also other very qualified individuals who have been let go in the past year here in the States and as far as I can tell only the core developers are left now.

Here in the USA this is what I see. Questions raised on the ZW3D forums can go for days and sometimes weeks before anyone from China responds. Since our support now is from VARS with no truly qualified resource to back them up it will be a problem. Well, I guess if you aren’t in a hurry it’s OK that corporate ZW support is now 12 hours out of synch with it’s USA users. Got a tough problem you need answered quickly? So sorry.  Not available for you seven days a week.

I followed the Linkedin links from one of the ex ZW3D guys last week. He had a number of ZW3D employees from Europe listed as contacts and I was pretty amazed at how many were women language majors with no listed cad or engineering backrounds in the about me’s. I suspect that he too was spending time helping these ladies out on programs they may not have been any good at. I imagine they were cheaper to employ though if that is any consolation to the European users.

I believe that the Chinese want to have their own domestic 3D modeler and their only affordable chance perhaps was to buy a pretty capable modeling kernal from a company in financial trouble. VX fit that bill and the rest is history. Now they have their own program, even though they did not and maybe could not create the kernal. If they could after all why didn’t they and save the money? At this time there are around 14 code guys in Florida that are the heart and sole of the VX/ZW3d kernal. The Chinese can’t get rid of these guys because right now because they just can’t do the same quality of work. But the day they think they can these developers are toast. If I were a developer for ZW3d in Florida I would be polishing up my resume and approaching a progressive stable US based cad company with inquiries as I think the hand writing is on the wall for anyone but VARS here. Siemens and Solid Edge come to mind as a good company to work for and they are hiring.

It remains to be seen just how this will unfold. Perhaps this is temporary due to cash flow problems and poor sales here in the USA. These choices however become self fulfilling and a guarantee of continued poor sales and cash flow as USA users are cut loose to fend for themselves.

UPDATE    11-5-14

I find with surprise that this article is still read fairly often and today was read 12 times. I wish to say that while I do not use ZW for CAD anymore as Solid Edge is just to superior I do find myself still using the CAM side. Considering the amount of trouble I have had with Camworks for Solid Edge I have found myself falling back on ZW and re-evaluating my stance against them. While I think there has been little advancement over the years in CAM and  they are falling behind the direct editing paradigm which I favor so much it is still a capable program in many ways. I run into people who are still using Mastercam 8 so if it works they don’t upgrade to new. For the price tag  what you get compared to the major programs it is not bad. I spent over $13,000.00 for CAMWorks and I am ending up leaving it in frustration. While I did the same with VX/ZW it was more because of lack of advancement in CAD direct editing features and bad sheet metal.This is not an advanced MCAD program. The CAM side is quirky but pretty capable once you learn to unlock the secret little toys hidden in various places and learn the limits of what it can do. Would I buy it again? No. Would I recommend it to someone starting out and looking to save cash? You can do worse so get a copy and have a look. By experience hard learned with other programs since this was written I have to conclude that all programs irregardless of cost have many more problems than they should have. Since that is the case buy the cheapest thing which works for you AFTER extensive testing.  ZW3D taken off my hate you list and put on my interesting but would not buy again list.

In general I like Solid Edge and bought it after comparing it to other programs. As I have mentioned before the things that brought me to it were primarily sheet metal, good MCAD and direct editing.

Recently while talking to another SE user about Mastercam I was asked about hole tolerances. I did have a lot to say and this is one of my biggest pet peeves with SE as it was for this company. You see, what we do with geometry after creation is to then go and actualy produce parts. Oddly enough we think this is the primary reason for the existance of CAD.

This has been brought up before on the forums and basically at this time it is SE’s position that it is not important. This is the problem.

Lets take a one inch shaft with a 1 x 12TPI.

You see we have in this drawing taken directly from a part created today a 1″ dimension for the major thread size at the threaded end of the shaft.  Without taking the time to look the data up all I can say is trust me, the true diameter of the threaded portion of this shaft for manufacture is less than 1″. So now if I apply the correct diameter for a 1″ x 12 tpi thread to the end of the shaft I can no longer use the thread command to apply here and get the joy of those cheesy kinda thread looking things. If I want a threaded shaft in SE, I HAVE to send the actual producer bad information. I don’t have a choice here. Either they get a reduced step on the shaft with no threads or a full sized shaft that recognizes the thread minor but not major dimensions. Same thing is true with threaded holes.

So you get stuff sent to machine shops with notes that say things like “even though we can’t properly depict this pretend here with us for a bit”, or words to that effect anyway. Can you see the potential for scrap and confusion here? There is not one shop involved in manufacturing that has not trashed parts because of this. Same thing with holes. So now you stick a note next to it and hope.

What this does for machinists who work off of 3d geometry is not trivial. I can’t create parts that are true to the design intent and use this same part in a cam plan without problems. So now I have to create TWO sets of parts, one with real dims that does not “show” cheesy threads and one that does show cheesy threads but not correct dims.

The subsequent drawings are handled the same way with two parts included, both with aspects which when combined will give the correct data or one drawing with notes about how it really needs to be done.

This is a PITA for everyone who actualy makes parts. The only reason I inflict cad and cam software upon myself is to earn a living and I bet the same is true for you. So why is it so hard for cad authors to sit down with real producers and fix some of these things? I don’t know. In SE’s case I know in many areas they do spend lots of time with real users to find out what they want and need. Then there is this disconnect with true manufacturing dimensions for threaded parts where they know of user complaints and just flat out don’t think it is important. I am not kidding and this has been the response from SE on the BBS Forums when this topic comes up.

Last time I checked threads were still a method used to put things together with. Oddly enough my customers still expect me to produce parts with threads and I wonder how the software gurus figure I ought to expeditiously do this? On the whole, especially when compared to the problems users of other cad software face, I am satisfied with SE. But it still irritates the heck out of me when cad companies choose not to regard the needs of the people who build things. I know darned well that it can be fixed with not much time on their end. If I could add up all the time we cad and cam users waste each year in dealing with this stupidity every time every day, I am quite sure our expenses far exceed the expense SE would have to spend just once to make it right. Happy customers are the best sales tool you could ask for I should think.

My premise has always been that just as fast as the white hat guys write good stuff, the black hat ones are hacking into it. We see advantages occasionaly accruing to one side or the other but it is never a static situation. The intellectual property generated by CAD programs is the life blood of companies that use this software and the value is considerable both to you and those who can steal it.

Whether you agree with Wikileaks or not it has been a very revealing window into the world of govenmental abuses of power and trust. One of these areas last week involved hacking programs that can be used for things such as corporate espionage.  Remember here that companies make a living figuring out ways to get to your data whether you are a bad guy terrorist or a builder of JSF-135 aircraft. And they sell it to people who want to know all about what you don’t want them to know about.

This following link goes to a column that should quite frankly put paid to the idea that SAAS or Cloud-for-CAD can be made secure by anything other than NOT going on the web in any way shape or form.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/skype-monitoring-gmail-hacks-and-fake-itunes-updates-how-governments-can-track-you/1479?tag=content;feature-roto

If after reading Zack’s column you think any Dassault or Autodesk, or anyone else’s software for that matter, can be made secure for web transmittals if someone with deep pockets or the right knowledge really wants it, I have some stock in a famous bridge for sale you might be interested in.

You have to know there is a lot of capability out there that has not been revealed and in daily use by companies and governments to part you from the value of your intellectual property. If you rely on a collander to hold your water don’t be surprised to see the bad guys with a bucket standing below you. Is it any wonder why no CAD-on-the-CLOUD company has given written guarantees of data security? Please correct me if I am wrong with some documentation here anyone. Any takers on this?

Don’t tell me this is just for silly things like I-Phones or Blackberries and the like. I know you can extrapolate as well as I to see how many different ways the bad guys can get to you if you ever move to the cloud. So if you do elect to go to the cloud it seems to me you have two strategies possible. Prayers or finding dumb customers who won’t make you sign confidentiality agreements. A good backup strategy might be a sharp legal staff and or that hidden Bahamas bank account.

I think I have identified the last body part required for Frankie. I know I digress here from strictly cad based commentary but I just can’t help myself sometimes and I might as well amuse myself over this rather sad cloud-for-cad situation. So on we go.

The last body part required is a multifunctional bit of biological construction and fullfills many cloud requirements.

It Is—-

Smart when in cloud developer hands and dumb when in denier hands.

Cloud software can be pulled out of it on demand.

Cad on Cloud CEO’s and promoters can use it to store their heads when not in use and pull their heads out when use is required.

Cloud proponents can use it to talk out of.

Once donated to Frankencad what you once owned they can now own.

Once attached, CEO’s can be trained to find things with both hands.

It promotes sustainability because once they have it, it will turn to grass.

It will be a modular install so it can be handed back on a platter if needed.

It can produce a real cloud along with software clouds.

For those of you not quite willing to relinquish control and appreciate the ability to enjoy beans to the fullest degree there is a desktop version of this. Kind of like a desk top LAN if you will. It will recycle your cash and keep it in your company.  It has a permanent license and requires none of that troublesome internet stuff.

Won’t be a long post today but periodically there are little news bits that I find that are just to good to pass up. The kind that reveal the dirty laundry beneath the top layer of the clean.

It is to me impossible to have any sort of predictable, reliable and secure cloud applications in the CAD world that will do as promised. The promise of the current beta state of  Frankencad to be better and wonderfull and we will all wear cloud “Love Marks” and on and on crashes into reality. The sorts of things these reality deniers in the board rooms never will talk about. “Here, sign this and buy into it and then we will tell you whats in it”. Sounds kind of like Nancy Pelosi and I know she has my best interests in mind doesn’t she?

So today we have poor Frankie lurching between two articles.

http://novedge.com/i/100456

First lets talk about the aspect of doubling and more the rate of downtime. Here we have the new Cloud Jedimasters bemoaning slow throughput because of technical difficulties on their end. Wellcome to the new world where not only do you have to worry about your inhouse systems now you get to add to the mix tons of stuff you can’t in any way shape or form remediate when the problems arise. When and not if. I am sure these notices of don’t worry be happy we are working on it will no doubt ease the troubled minds of all who buy into this. And I wish you to remember here that while slow time is not down time it is money lost time and all because you went to the web to do things you could have done in house.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/defense-giant-ditches-microsofts-cloud-citing-patriot-act-fears/1349?tag=mantle_skin;content

Next up is this heart warming story of BAE, a trivial and inconsequential itty-bitty defense contractor. It seems that yes, security does matter. And here we see a perfect example of why anything that uses the cloud is not secure period. There are just so many proveable roadblocks between the promise and the reality and so much of it totally beyond the control of any software author from the infrastructure they do not own to governments they can’t control who don’t give a flip about your security.

It amazes me CAD companies still try to stand there and daily make bald faced lies about this stupid thing they are pining the future of their companies on. And yes by the way the future of your company too if you unwisely decide to adopt this stuff.

Frankencad indeed and which of your body parts do you care to donate Hmmmm?

Watching the various posts about Cad on the Cloud lately and  the Autodesk entry into the never never land of reality deniers promoting this as the end all be all future for us. As I pondered this I decided that the correct monster to be applied at this time was no longer the vampire but instead one that was cobbled together from bits and pieces, add in electricity, a mad scientist and voila, a crude ugly thing rejected by the masses and ending in failure after a short and troublesome existance. I especially like what happens to the corporate castle at the end.  ALL the parallels are there and we just wait for time to pass now to see this unfold before our very eyes.

One of the most interesting things about the whole cloud for cad saga is how Dassault and now Autodesk promote this mess as being capable of putting more power, cost savings, capabilities and productivity in our hands by taking things out of our hands.

http://www.deskeng.com/virtual_desktop/?p=4604&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nvidia-maximus

http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/customrel.do?easyirid=A0D622CE9F579F09&version=live&prid=821214&releasejsp=release_157&xhtml=true

The preceeding links take you to Nvidia stories where some pretty incredible computing power is being unleashed with GPU and CPU utilization. You can actually put a mini super computer on your desk now for under $10,000.00, power that would exceed the needs of I would guess 95% of us.

I bought three new workstations recently with ssd drives for the primaries and compared to my three and four year old units the speed and capabilities are jaw dropping and the most expensive was just under $1,800.00.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/11/supercomputer-han/?intcid=story_ribbon

Next up is a new example of a real working prototype of an upcoming generation of Intel processors. It is mind boggling the power that will be capable of sitting on our desktops very soon.

This brings us full circle to where the real bottleneck is in the cad world and it is not the hardware anymore but instead the producers of software. Yes the very same ones that want us to buy into the cloud. There has not been ONE proven example of anyone being able to sit down in front of a simple dumb terminal in a typical customer setting and reliably creating meaningfull and complex cad design across the internet from a cloud server farm. After all what can the cloud people actually do for you when we have the single thread limitation still applying to cad. And if it does not apply to cad anymore why aren’t they offering it to us? Works on a cloud server it will work on my six core cpu to I should think,eh?

The very few examples touted by reality deniers like rendering and FEA are being addressed by Nvidia and Intel as we speak where this solution will reside on our desktops and not be subject to the plethora of infrastructure and security risks ANY web transmittals bring.

One of the biggest benefits to the cloud publicity that I have seen recently is the act of users and bloggers shining a big spotlight into the dark recesses of the corporate cloud for all strategy as it reveals some things that companies like Dassault and Autodesk willfully try to hide. Little details like what they are promising can’t be made to work like they promise so A, they will make EULAS that will absolve them of any responsibility and B, we will never answer these requests for facts and proofs of concept.

I issue a challenge to any cad company pushing this stuff. Put your money where your mouth is just once. Security, true cost of use, capabilities over uncontrolled internet infrastructure, what version is the customer forced to use and are rollouts on our time frames or just there like magic whenever, data ownership, autonomy to use this as a full blown program with full capabilities offline and this guaranteed for a specific period of time or forever like now, will permanent seats still be available, how will translations and addons work and on and on the list of deliberately ignored questions go.

So what are we really looking at here? I believe there is a tremendous amount of willfull deception about the cloud by these companies and the kindest thing that can be said is they are liars purveying products they refuse to stand behind. Silly verbal attacks on those who do not buy into this does nothing to bolster trust. Refusal to answer anything significant about all the questions being raised does not bolster trust.  It is ethical bankruptcy in the board rooms and somehow they think CAD users should just blindly write checks for an unproven product that has great potential to destroy any business that adopts it.

Technically there is no reason to go there anymore for computing power, as if there ever was one anyway. Legally we can’t go there because those niggling little confidentiality agreements we all have to sign with our customers won’t be signed by software vendors on our behalf to indemnify us with the inevitable problems.

It is a method whereby CAD software companies can lock you down and in for forced cashflow from customers and an effort to stop piracy. It is all about lining their pockets and how can they fool sufficient numbers of buyers to make it work. It is the product of reality deniers who do not care enough for customers to offer a product they are willing to legally guarantee.

It is the body of Frankenstein constructed of parts that do not work together by people who do not mean us well.

The preceeding is by Denier Dave the Neanderthal who is stupid and backwards looking and is not an employee of Dassault or Autodesk and probably has dirt behind his ears anyway on top of all the rest so just ignore him.

I agree with Ralph and his “Cloud is Dead” article and see little to merit consideration with the cloud. About a year ago I wrote a list of forty questions for the cloud proponents. At the time it was primarily directed at DS and SW as they were the ones touting the inevitability and desirability of the cloud for cad. They have yet to answer a single one with a provably reliable bit of software or even a solid statement of product contract details. One of the questions was a rhetorical one and went basically like this. “Are you still scrambling around trying to figure out how to make this work and doing CYA and damage control in the interim?”. I think the answer is yes.

Well is there any evidence that one of the largest software companies in the world has managed to do anything of real useable significance to the cad community? We do have N!Fuze but it is hardly a good poster child for cost effective well thought out cloud services.

Autocad is producing amidst considerable ballyhoo cloud stuff. I am so uninterested in something based on a seriously flawed set of promises that I have not given it any consideration. Why should I when they like every other cad cloud touting software company refuse to be held responsible and liable for the inevitable fallout their customers will suffer under.

All these cloud promises are based on infrastructure and systems neither owned or controlled by the cad cloud companies. First let us start with the customer. Same IT staff size, still have to buy all those workstations and servers but now in addition to that we have wholsale introduction of Murphy’s Law that the users have utterly no control over. And of course the T-1 line required to make this cloud work right is free right? Thus the elimination of touted up front cost savings from the cloud.

It will work over ISP offerings that are allready overtaxed and incapable of dealing with wholesale cad useage. Reading an article on the amount of data Netflix is using today and it is staggering. The amount of money companies are going to put into the internet infrastructure is going to be the least they can get away with and will be catering to the largest cash cows. We cad users are not this. Add into the mix the burgeoning demand by smart phone users of the internet and where do you think we will be in the food chain.

Yes I can see data transfers at the simplest level of cad. But even the idea of paperless jobsites run by IPads is laughable. [These types of comments on the web by cloud proponents show desperation on the part of cloudies in my opinion as they scramble for something, anything to justify why you should buy into their paradigm.]  The boss may have one but the majority of actual users of the data on any jobsite are going to have blue lines. The great big ones you can write on, actually see without a magnifying glass and don’t have to worry about knocking off onto the floor and breaking.

Well we have Crowd Sourcing to. Don’t let me forget to touch on the latest bit of drivel designed to appeal to corporate hands off level exec’s. Just think, won’t we all be more productive with dozens or hundreds of divergent and competing ideas in the concept and expeditious building of a quality product? Who needs planning anyway I always say. And is not the absolute cheapest vendor source always a wonderfull thing for your bottom line? As if China has not been enough to answer this question.

Yes, the cloud for some things maybe and not the grand cornucopia of bliss for all things cad. I think we are right around the corner from the most staggering leap forward in things like rendering and when companies like Nvidia manage to work out the details of GPU/CPU integration and make it affordable even rendering on the cloud will be moot. The first serious GPU useage in a super computer is happening right now and it is around the corner from our workstations. Even this bastion of cloud companies excuses for why you should love them will quickly end.

This brings us the the nitty gritty of why all this is happening. It is not dissruptive innovative technology but rather a bunch of stuff created to financially benefit the authors. The absolute proof is that they to a man refuse to spell out the rules and regulations and who is liable for what and what guarantees are there. The liabilities seem to accrue entirely to the purchaser and not the issuer. They KNOW what kind of trash they are producing and have no intent to stand behind it.

Halloween is a good time to talk about the death of Vampires I do believe.

Just an aside here. I am an unabashed proponent of Solid Edge. It began with the introduction of Synchronous tech and that plus sheet metal is why I arrived here three years ago. But I have to say that with all the cloud nonsense and kernal change stuff others are going to have to suffer under with various other cad programs that in this day and time being with a company like Solid Edge that is foward looking for the customers benefit is a real additional benefit. It did not start that way for me as all I was buying at the time was a cad program. But in light of current events in the cad world stability and regard for the customer has become pretty darned important too.