Robert Green Survey - Just How 3D are We? 1

[rollupswx]

How do you think this reflects the MCAD world?

http://www.cadalyst.com/management/just-how-3d-are-we-part-1-13713

http://www.cadalyst.com/management/just-how-3d-are-we-part-2-13748

 

[KevinDeSmet]

I'm confused, does totally 3d indicate model based definition as well or totally 3d with parametric drawings?

Certified SolidWorks Professional

 

[rollupswx]

I'm confused, does totally 3d indicate model based definition as well or totally 3d with parametric drawings?

e-mail them.

 

[ShaggyPE]

Mind you this article is based on data taken from surveys of people who subscribe to an AutoCad magazine. Of course those readers primarily use 2D.

We interviewed 200 kindergartners and have come to the conclusion that they prefer crayons over typewriters. duh.

Not to make a comparison of an AutoCad user with a kindergartner, that was not my intent... just an example.

Alternatively... We interviewed 200 Ford owners and have come to the conclusion that they prefer Ford over Chevy.

-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Pretty good with SolidWorks

 

[rollupswx]

However I do find that defining "Totally 3D" is misleading....

2D is not going anywhere anytime soon...therefore "Totally 3D" is a far fetched category and most likely not represented correctly...

From a response to the article, "I wonder how you define whether we are 3D or not. We model our systems, but then deliver 2D views...."

I had to go back and re-read the article, and I have come to the conclusion the survey was so poorly done as to be useless at best and misleading at worst.

When I do 3D it is a matter of course I will also generate at least some 2D documentation, and often more than I would have generated from a strictly 2D workflow. I just assume I will have an idw or dwg or slddrw along with the ipt, iam, sldprt or sldasm.

So while I define "Totally 3D" as using the 3D modeling tool as the default initial design tool from which all other documentation will be generated. The 3D model is the single source of truth for FEA, CNC and 2D documentation as required. I am also reluctant to call anything "Totally 3D" as I don't even think that is real world under any conditions. I am searching for a definition that entails 3D processes as the defining methodology, but I might start with a paper sketch on a napkin or a digital sketch. Art-to-part. What I am not doing is laborious 3rd angle orthographic projection line-by-line, arcs, hidden, sections, dumb dimensions... ...on and on.

I wonder how much of the MCAD community is doing traditional 2D orthographic projection - nothing more than electronic extension of the drawing board techniques.

 

[RGreen]

All,

I did the best I could to survey a broad spectrum of users from the published list of my electronic newsletter (

http://www.cadalyst.com).

It is really hard to break things down per software title with any granularity because I only get so many responses to work with.

Doing these types of surveys is harder than you think. But based on my industry experience with a broad variety of software (mainly Autodesk, SWorks and Bentley) I stand by the results I got. I find the trend line to be very interesting in that there hasn't been much change in the last two years (could be the recession at fault though).


PS - If AutoCAD is like a box of crayons then a lot of the world is getting built with crayons! ;-)

 

[rollupswx]

PS - If AutoCAD is like a box of crayons then a lot of the world is getting built with crayons!

And I'm sure at some point in history 95% of everything in the world getting built was from the drafting board.

There a viable MCAD companies surviving(thriving?)producing 3D tools. I'm not convinced that you have reached this audience in your survey.