Will Solidworks will be upgraded to CATIA


I have heard people talking about Solidworks users being forced to
upgrade to CATIA. Anybody know anything about this?
Reply to
Frank
Loading thread data ...
Dude, you have swallowed every bit of that blab that some Autodesk salesman has pumped into you. Since it sounds like you've already laid out the cash for Inventor, it might be cruel to tell you that SolidWorks users are not going to be forced to convert to Catia.
Catia and SW are far too different products to be used interchangably. They rarely compete against one another for the same customers. SDRC users are being upgraded to UG. Mechanical Desktop users are getting migrated to Inventor. CV users got pushed to Pro/E. These all competed at the same level, but SolidEdge users aren't getting pushed to UG and SolidWorks users aren't getting pushed to Catia.
Frank wrote in news:4172B35A.4AF993C1 @REMOVEyahoo.com:
Reply to
matt
You mean like ADSK did MDT users? Nah.
Reply to
Jeff Howard
Typically when something like this happens there are news releases from both sides to keep stock holders and the CAD world informed. I haven't seen any of those from SW. There is certainly no upgrade path like file translation utilities.
Reply to
P
The groups that use the two packages are very different usually on budgets and required capabilities. I do not see this as being a viable rumor even.
Reply to
Rocko
First I heard about this was from a ProE salesman about 2.5 years ago. Judge for yourself if it has come to pass.
Reply to
Edward T Eaton
We had a SolidEdge Rep in a couple of months ago and he couldn't stop talking about how every other program out there was low level CAD and SE was the only program that gave you the room to expand (ie: UG). It was easy to see that he wanted to see us move our couple of seats of SE and the rest of our CAD seats to UG.
Even though Dassault hasn't made a move to migrate the user base to CATIA, they have to be thinking about it. Why would they continue to develop two programs that aren't that different? Wouldn't it make more sense to develop one product and then offer add-ons? Most companies have their product lines this way (ex: software, car companies, graphic cards). Even though they aren't doing it now, it's not crazy to think they will in the future.
Reply to
Cole Thompson
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Cole Thompson) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
Mainly because the business scenario for buying and using Catia is completely different from that for buying SolidWorks. Typically, companies don't need Catia to develop toaster ovens. Likewise, companies don't use SolidWorks to develop commercial aircraft, cruise liners, automobiles or locomotives. A company like Delphi might use SolidWorks to design an alternator, but Chrysler still uses Catia for the rest of the car. I don't see any overlap. The geometry creation is a relatively minor part of what Catia does in a big project.
matt
Reply to
matt
I'm not sure they "aren't that different", but aside from that; one big reason (probably why they were interested in aquiring SW): emerging acad flatlanders. Catia has no appeal to them and it's too furtile a market to ignore.
Reply to
Jeff Howard
IF you have X users it's more cost-effective to use/develop/support a single application/system/CAD or CAD/CAM system and you, as a systems vendor, can probably do it a lot better.
Supplying training and support to users that don't need much capability (or so they think) with a more complex application may cost more though.
Get 2D AutoCad .
Reply to
Cliff
I am kind of seeing that as I learn SE. There are a lot of things left out that are in SW. If UG hobbles SE to get the upgrades they'll lose a lot of sales to SW.
Reply to
P
That's really interesting since the SE and NX reps are completely separate.
Ken
Reply to
ken
And what exactly was left out of SE??? I know for a fact that the SE business unit is free to develop what they want with no regard to infringement on NX or Teamcenter. Solid Edge provides free the Insight PDM system and Frames design environment. Both are items you have to pay a lot extra for in NX (UG for those that have been living under a rock).
Ken
Reply to
ken
I wouldn't believe the rumors. I don't think Dassault is that smart. They own Catia with it's own proprietary kernel, they bought Solidworks to have a mid-range player and haven't made a move to convert it to the Catia kernel for interoperability, and they also purchased the ACIS modeling kernel that essentially no one uses because it is inefficient compared to Parasolid. I'm kind of confused by their tactics which seem to have no clear vision. I guess it would be no pain to them to sell off a business unit or two if they needed to since there is no symbiosis between them. Hope their stock stays strong.
Ken
Reply to
ken
Parasolid.
Sounds like vision to me...first was XChangeworks, which put SWX utils into AutoCAD.... then was owning AutoCads's modeling kernel... now they are giving an acad clone away (Dwg Editor)
Its rather carnivorous, but who says hawks dont have great vision ?
Reply to
rocheey
They don't own AutoDesk's kernel anymore. AutoDesk own's their kernel (Shapemanager. They dumped ACIS shortly after it being acquired by Dassault). And from what I heard, the DWG Editor is a very far cry from AutoCAD or even AutoCAD LT ( and XchangeWorks only works one way (into ACAD/MDT) and on AutoCAD and MDT only, not Inventor.
Ken
Reply to
ken
I had the understanding that they aquired rights to an earlier release of the ACIS kernel and were on their own from there. If they want to rename their version to a new buzzword ... where's jb when you need him?
Reply to
Cliff
Proe Crushes solid works and solid edge.
Reply to
Shaun T
Only because it is an old, obese, slob of a CAD system. Good thing both SolidWorks and Solid Edge are young and agile and Pro/E can't run fast enough to catch them. It's about time PTC turned a profit, too bad it was from a tax refund instead of sales :)
Ken
Reply to
ken

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.