CAD Migration

[SPerman]

I honestly have a hard time imagining how that would be viable. Just think how toxic the work environment would get over things like this. I know I’m faster then some of my co-workers, but I wouldn’t want the pricing of the program to be imposed on what defines the salary of my co-workers.

It could even go to the extent of “killing companies” from the pricing of the program, rather then the performance of the company, of course that would still be seen as what we actually call “competition”, but I think it would be extremely unhealthy.

From what I understand, Fusion 360 is already doing this with some of the add on features (simulation and generative design.)

And while searching for that, I came across this.

https://www.autodesk.com/benefits/flex
image.png

[AlexLachance]

From what I understand, Fusion 360 is already doing this with some of the add on features (simulation and generative design.)

And while searching for that, I came across this.

https://www.autodesk.com/benefits/flex

image.png

Sounds like forcing a form of gambling onto users rather then having then pay for a service.

[nordstjernen740]

I honestly have a hard time imagining how that would be viable. Just think how toxic the work environment would get over things like this. I know I’m faster then some of my co-workers, but I wouldn’t want the pricing of the program to be imposed on what defines the salary of my co-workers.

It could even go to the extent of “killing companies” from the pricing of the program, rather then the performance of the company, of course that would still be seen as what we actually call “competition”, but I think it would be extremely unhealthy.

Sure, but an engineer should be more or less considered “full time” so at some point the price strategy should level off and the number of hours would be moot for “full time” users. what the named user model has done in many instances is dropped the concept of “floating licenses” and forced companies to choose rigid “roles” for every employee that match the one size fits all concepts of what a company/employee looks like in the eyes of Dassault /Microsoft/whoever . (ignoring the need for casual and/or temporary access to software and other scenarios that have been built in to traditional license models for years via floating licenses perpetual options etc etc.
Again, the companies haven’t really changed, the license models have. There is not a technical limitation that says the named user model can’t accommodate more scenarios. Its just that software companies are “getting” away with providing less use of software for more money in the name of “progress”.

[SPerman]

The more I think about it, I don’t think the problem with DSS is that they are moving in the wrong direction. Others are in this space already and having success. To me it shows just how ineffective DSS is at implementing that vision and communicating it to their customers.

The fact that they are willing to kill their current customer base to stop paying parasolid royalties is just icing on the cake. If they can’t make a tool to import a parasolid in the new software, they can certainly create a tool to export a solidworks file in a format that the new software can read. But that’s asking a lot from a company who can’t create a forum.

All of this screams incompetence to me. Incompetence from the top level leaders. Incompetence from the middle management that is in charge of implementing these ideas, and incompetence from the marketing department.

[matt]

The more I think about it, I don’t think the problem with DSS is that they are moving in the wrong direction. Others are in this space already and having success. To me it shows just how ineffective DSS is at implementing that vision and communicating it to their customers.

The fact that they are willing to kill their current customer base to stop paying parasolid royalties is just icing on the cake. If they can’t make a tool to import a parasolid in the new software, they can certainly create a tool to export a solidworks file in a format that the new software can read. But that’s asking a lot from a company who can’t create a forum.

All of this screams incompetence to me. Incompetence from the top level leaders. Incompetence from the middle management that is in charge of implementing these ideas, and incompetence from the marketing department.

I think they’re used to Catia type users and think all CAD users are like that - so huge planes, trains and automobiles. They have no idea what to do with people who make toasters, automation equipment and kitchen utensils. They don’t understand converting one to the other is more than flipping a switch.