SDRC...WHAT IS IT?

Years ago before Windows, SolidWorks, and SolidEdge came out there were some rather high end CAD products that many designers were using. Prices were typically $20K to $50K per seat which did not include the hardware that they ran on. Most of them allowed a combination of solid modeling, surface modeling and wireframe modeling. Some people in the business called these products the "Big 5". Included were SDRC, Pro Engineer, Computervision, Unigraphics and Catia. Pro Engineer, Unigraphics, and Catia still exist today as products. Computervision in 1998 was purchased by Pro Engineer and SDRC about two years or so ago was purchased by the company that owns Unigraphics. SDRC has pretty much gone away as a product and is in the final stages of being blended into a line of products that includes Unigraphics. Ford in North America was probably the most known large user of SDRC.

Thank you! I appreciate the knowledgable answer.

Structural Dynamics Research Corporation (SDRC) in Milford, Ohio created & sold the software way back when. It's called IDEAS. Ford had their own in-house system, PDGS (Product Design Graphics System), and then went to IDEAS after much debate (instead of Computervision or Unigraphics or Catia ... can't use what the other guys are using, after all.)

Just as GM intended to add parts of their own in-house system CGS (Corporate Graphics System) to Unigraphics, Ford intended to add PDGS functionality to IDEAS as I recall it.

Then EDS/Unigraphics/PLM bought IDEAS ...

Most major automotive vendors that sell to the big 3 support seats of multiple systems for compatibility and translation (if needed) issues.

Anyone know what happened to the rest of the software (non-IDEAS) that SDRC developed? Did UG get it too?

HTH

A big reason EDS bought SDRC was because of their PDM product, Metaphase. Metaphase is a huge resourse vacuum to implement and maintain, which is in line with EDS strategy. Metaphase, I-DEAS, and the rest of the CAD related software was purchased by EDS. If I remember right, SDRC's vibrational and test software was purchased by MTS.

Most of the developers and sales people from SDRC have left/let go and are now working on other CAD companies or 3rd party applications. You can see the infulence in some of the mid market programs that came from I-DEAS.

Joe Bartels

Also, folded into SDRC at one point was the popular cam package SmartCam which was originally developed by some company I can't remember....Camnetics or something.

A company has bought the rights to the SmartCam code here is the link:

I think that is very good news. IIRC SmartCAM was originally privately owned and then bought by CAMEX who also offered CAMAND as a high end package. When SDRC bought CAMEX, the plan was to kill SmartCAM and then merge the functionality of CAMAND into SDRC's existing package which was called Generative Machining and was fully integrated into the solid modeling package (I-DEAS). They put SmartCAM on life support and offered users a package which teamed their scaled down solid modeler, Artisan, with a low end version of Generative Machining.

Many or most SmartCAM customers found this unacceptable because the substitute program was cumbersome and lacked much of the elegant capabilities that they were used to. It would surprise if the majority of people who this was pushed upon don't still use SmartCAM unless they switched to a different company's product. Anyway, the point is that I bet there are a lot of SmartCAM owners who are very stoked to see this resurrection.

JJ

Zander,

SmartCam was originally authored by a company called "Point Control". It was first purchased by Camax, who had a UNIX based CAM system called Cammand.

Regards

Mark

The thing that bothers me most about EDS is a recent press release that talked about the new chain of command and the direction of the company. I do not have the entire article but did manage to keep this:

Sometime in Oct 2003: EDS announced it will refocus itself on its core business - IT outsourcing, and stated it wants to sell a significant portion of its UGS PLM division which includes (Unigraphics NX, I-DEAS, Nastran NX and the ParaSolidS Kernel).

The big thing that concerns me would be what will happen to the ParaSolids Kerneal as SolidWorks uses it.....

Yes JJ!

Absolutely awesome. I used smartcam for a six year stint as the implemeter and "guru" (yes I did wear a robe and sandals) and loved it. It was a great program.

I always viewed SDRC as the people who killed smartcam, or at least dealt it it's coup-de-grace. It sounds like these new people might do something useful with it again. We ended up looking seariously at mastercam after the SDRC takeover, complete with its late 1980's interface - the strenth of which was in its CNC programming ability (like smartcam) and not some add-on-milling-wannabe-module.

Usually when I hear of an "add-on" module for CAM programming, it means that some dilettante wants to didle with software because they think they can make a buck. I liked SmartCAM - it was really good stuff.

Later -

SMA

I'll bet SDRC's icing of SmartCAM was a HUGE boost to MasterCAM and other products in that marketspace.

JJ

SBC, EDS bought UG as a firm and can sell it as an operating firm. There's little overlap between EDS's core business and UG IMHO.

It was that way before and easily can be again. I see no problems

*unless* there are bits of GM software in UG that are restricted. Even so, there can be GM & non-GM versions I think. It would only be at the applications software level I think, not at the kernel or part database level.

HTH

I'll bet it was not selling well ....

Someone claimed that it was based on ComputerVision code .

You may wish to revise that. This assumption/claim has been made in alt.machines.cnc as well and I think it caused confusion for poor jb again .

EDS/Unigraphics still seems to own the copyright and thus probably the source code ... see at the bottom of the pages.

What I *think* they have is the right to market it and sell support services (such as answering user questions and doing postprocessor configuration), as what looks lika a VAR. The may also have a copy of the source as that's handy for finding answers to some problems & issues (and not uncommon).

Do they have *exclusive* rights as a VAR? They did not say so. Do they have source code product development rights (as the actual owner would have?) Again, they did not say so. I'd expect it would take several million dollars in developement to even begin such major tasks ... and quite a few programmers. How large are they?

But first I'd think they would actually need the rights to the software ... which it looks like UG still has.

Note also the lack of any mention of plans for new releases.

My best guesses, anyway, and not contradicted so far by anyone AFAIK.

What's NOT said can tell a lot .

BTW, UG IS offering discounts on upgrades to UG to SmartCam licensees .... hardly what one would expect if they thought it still a viable product.

I'd also wonder if the current code will run on the upcoming MS operating systems well .. buyer beware I think.

HTH

I still use Smartcam V11.5 Production Turning, Advanced Fabrication and Advanced Production Milling to this day. Taking cost and training into account I have not found any of the new breed that can create code any better (you can create specific code generaters for your controller) apart from taking native file formats but Smartcam has a decent cam conversion program that from time to time has saved me a few headaches is SWX. I run it on a W2K machine but it also runs fine on XP.

Brian

Postprocessors? Common to most CAM systems.

How many axes supported? 3? Complex surface machining?

Don't need bells and whistles, its paid for, I know how to use it and its works.

I think smartcam called their code output process "code generation" and not post processing. I think they may not have written out a CL file (or just kept it internalized) so hence their aversion to the concept of "POST" processing - your output code straight from the interface (more marketing that anything it was still outputing machine commands like everyone else). To get code you needed a geometry model, job file and machine specific generator template file.

The product was apples to apples in price & functionality (mostly - dont get to touchy here folks) with MasterCam i.e 3 levels of functionality and price point.

The architecture was nice and open with this system - I miss things like that. It was easy for template programmers like me to get good code results without getting a degree in computer programming.

SMA