Topic: AutoCAD + Microstation

[tjr]

Now I'm back to my original question?  Why should they?  If I'm building and selling widgets, I want my widgets to be the best widgets on the market, and I'll do what ever I need to do to keep them that way.  Why should I modify my widgets so that they work with widgets that aren't as good as mine?  What possible market advantage would that provide for me?  It would only allow the inferior widget company to sell his INSTEAD of me selling mine. I don't think so.

Autodesk and Bentley are not in the business of selling dwg and dgn files, they are in the business of selling design software. The file format is just a container for holding data, nothing more.

[CADaver]

Also for the record neither Cingular nor Verizon are manufactures of cell phones, they are retailers. Before I purchased my BlackBerry I had no trouble using the cell phone charger from my girlfriend's Razr (purchased from Verizon) with my Razr (purchased from Cingular).

And a DWG produced by a seat of AutoCAD purchased from Avatech is fully compatible with a DWG produced by a seat of AutoCAD purchased from eCad.  But just as the charger manufactured for your Blackberry probably won't work with your Razr,  A DWG manufactured for AutoCAD won't work with Microstation, nor will it work with Word or Notepad.

[CADaver]

Now I'm back to my original question?  Why should they?  If I'm building and selling widgets, I want my widgets to be the best widgets on the market, and I'll do what ever I need to do to keep them that way.  Why should I modify my widgets so that they work with widgets that aren't as good as mine?  What possible market advantage would that provide for me?  It would only allow the inferior widget company to sell his INSTEAD of me selling mine. I don't think so.

Autodesk and Bentley are not in the business of selling dwg and dgn files, they are in the business of selling design software.

Well there's your problem.  You're horribly confused about why they are in business.  They are NOT in business to sell design software AT ALL, they are in business for one reason and one reason only, to make money.  Using an open format limits that capability, at the very least it does NOTHING to improve that capability.

The file format is just a container for holding data, nothing more.

And Bentley has chosen a different container than Autodesk has chosen, one is not compatible with the other.  No biggie, no problem.

Here's the bigger issue, if you really need open format containers in which to store your data, YOU screwed up.  Why in the world did you spend all that money on an application that does not fit your needs?

[tjr]

Now I'm back to my original question?  Why should they?  If I'm building and selling widgets, I want my widgets to be the best widgets on the market, and I'll do what ever I need to do to keep them that way.  Why should I modify my widgets so that they work with widgets that aren't as good as mine?  What possible market advantage would that provide for me?  It would only allow the inferior widget company to sell his INSTEAD of me selling mine. I don't think so.

Autodesk and Bentley are not in the business of selling dwg and dgn files, they are in the business of selling design software.

Well there's your problem.  You're horribly confused about why they are in business.  They are NOT in business to sell design software AT ALL, they are in business for one reason and one reason only, to make money.  Using an open format limits that capability, at the very least it does NOTHING to improve that capability.

I'm not a simp, I know their primary objective is a profit. However you are being very presumptions when you say an open format will limit that capability, have you ever heard of something called a "happy customer". Perhaps you're too nearsighted to understand the value of an open drawing format, but I and others can certainly see the advantages. However Autodesk doesn't care, they have the CAD industry by the short and curly's and they know they can abuse that to lock end users into using their software to access their own data.

The file format is just a container for holding data, nothing more.

And Bentley has chosen a different container than Autodesk has chosen, one is not compatible with the other.  No biggie, no problem.

Was it even an option for them?

Here's the bigger issue, if you really need open format containers in which to store your data, YOU screwed up.  Why in the world did you spend all that money on an application that does not fit your needs?

First and foremost you can save your caps for someone else as I didn't screw anything up. We use AutoCAD for several reasons. One being we have a team well versed in it but mainly because it is what is dictated to us by our customers. If I had to estimate we currently issue 70-90% of our customer transmittals in DWG format by contract. The rest are distributed as either prints or PDF files. I would estimate that roughly 0.0001% of our drawings have to be issued in DGN format.

More importantly we ensure important drawing data, such as BOM data, is written out to an external database to later be collected by other processes such as our ERP system which in turn purchasing and manufacturing demand. However this method has points of failure that could be eliminated if our drawings could be read in real-time when the manufacturing release was executed.

I'm sure we aren't the only company in the world with these issues.

[tjr]

Also for the record neither Cingular nor Verizon are manufactures of cell phones, they are retailers. Before I purchased my BlackBerry I had no trouble using the cell phone charger from my girlfriend's Razr (purchased from Verizon) with my Razr (purchased from Cingular).

And a DWG produced by a seat of AutoCAD purchased from Avatech is fully compatible with a DWG produced by a seat of AutoCAD purchased from eCad.  But just as the charger manufactured for your Blackberry probably won't work with your Razr,  A DWG manufactured for AutoCAD won't work with Microstation, nor will it work with Word or Notepad.

I was merely pointing out that your analogy was off base. I'm well aware of the fact that the same product from different vendors will be interoperable.

[Keith™]

I'm not a simp, I know their primary objective is a profit. However you are being very presumptions when you say an open format will limit that capability, have you ever heard of something called a "happy customer". Perhaps you're too nearsighted to understand the value of an open drawing format, but I and others can certainly see the advantages. However Autodesk doesn't care, they have the CAD industry by the short and curly's and they know they can abuse that to lock end users into using their software to access their own data.

... and there you have it ... Autodesk's first concern is profitablility, that being said, it is in their best interest to "lock end users into using their software". That is likely part of their business plan, the same as any other business entity. If you have a captive audience, they have to buy from you.

Was it even an option for them?

If Bentley had wanted to utilize the DWG format, they could have. The DWG file format was already reverse engineered by the time Bentley was on the scene, in fact, Bentley had DWG support in 1990. Clearly, had Bentley wanted to follow the DWG format, they could have, except since DWG was an Autodesk implementation, Bentley had further problems with the changing format and translation of AutoCAD objects into Microstation objects. Nevermind that Microstation was designed for a niche market.

[dfarris75]

I was a pencil designer for a dozen years, it took well over four times as long and twice as many people to get a product through fabrication to construction.  With the current market demands on schedule and cost, doing what we do in the time we're required to execute for these prices would be impossible with a pencil.

Maybe it's time to slow down a little. The market has gotten spoiled by technology. It's like that frog in the boiling pot of water. Things keep moving faster and before we know it...

[Alan Cullen]

I agree.....not that I know what is going on......oops.

Sorry cadaver, I have been told you like to debate for debatings sake, and that is great by me....after all, I am only a newbie here.

dfarris75, I have seen that sig before over at CADTutor, I just can't recollect who you are, do you mind telling me?

[dfarris75]

rustysilo. remember?

[Alan Cullen]

Gotcha...cheers mate. Thanks.

[CADaver]

I was merely pointing out that your analogy was off base.

NO different than AutoCAD and Msta, but you call them scumbags for their effort.

I'm well aware of the fact that the same product from different vendors will be interoperable.

And different products won't be.

[CADaver]

Now I'm back to my original question?  Why should they?  If I'm building and selling widgets, I want my widgets to be the best widgets on the market, and I'll do what ever I need to do to keep them that way.  Why should I modify my widgets so that they work with widgets that aren't as good as mine?  What possible market advantage would that provide for me?  It would only allow the inferior widget company to sell his INSTEAD of me selling mine. I don't think so.

Autodesk and Bentley are not in the business of selling dwg and dgn files, they are in the business of selling design software.

Well there's your problem.  You're horribly confused about why they are in business.  They are NOT in business to sell design software AT ALL, they are in business for one reason and one reason only, to make money.  Using an open format limits that capability, at the very least it does NOTHING to improve that capability.

I'm not a simp, I know their primary objective is a profit.

And according to all scorecards they are doing quite well with their current format.

However you are being very presumptions when you say an open format will limit that capability,

If owners of Msta or Intellicad can seamlessly open and save DWGs, Autodesk will not be selling AutoCAD to those individuals or anyone else that buys <downloads> those products.  If you think otherwise, I'll question your opening statement in this post.

have you ever heard of something called a "happy customer".

Autodesk has thousands with their current format.

Perhaps you're too nearsighted to understand the value of an open drawing format, but I and others can certainly see the advantages.

Name two advantages to Autodesk for opening their format?  .... other than losing sales to other applications.

However Autodesk doesn't care,

They care about their profits, just as I do for my business and any other business owner for his.  Open format will reduce those profits.

they have the CAD industry by the short and curly's

You are quite free to use any other application out there for your data.

and they know they can abuse that to lock end users into using their software to access their own data.

Abuse??  How is that abuse?? They are somehow bad guys for being successful?  How the heck does that work?  Are you successful?  If so you're a scumbag if you don't share your work product with me??  Bull.

The file format is just a container for holding data, nothing more.

And Bentley has chosen a different container than Autodesk has chosen, one is not compatible with the other.  No biggie, no problem.

Was it even an option for them?

At the time the Bentley brothers developed their application, they were aiming at a level of compatibility with their sugar daddy corporation (Intergraph).  Autodesk's DWG wasn't on their radar until they realized it had sucked the lion's share of the PC CAD market out from under them while they were focused on a niche market.  Only THEN did the whining about open formats start.

Here's the bigger issue, if you really need open format containers in which to store your data, YOU screwed up.  Why in the world did you spend all that money on an application that does not fit your needs?

First and foremost you can save your caps for someone else as I didn't screw anything up.

If you 'NEED" an open format  for your data, and YOU chose a closed format in which to keep YOUR data, You indeed SCREWED UP.  If you didn't screw up, then you don't really NEED your data in an OPEN fopmat.  Make up YOUR mind.

We use AutoCAD for several reasons. One being we have a team well versed in it but mainly because it is what is dictated to us by our customers.

Then the format is your customer's choice, they are the scumbags.

If I had to estimate we currently issue 70-90% of our customer transmittals in DWG format by contract. The rest are distributed as either prints or PDF files. I would estimate that roughly 0.0001% of our drawings have to be issued in DGN format.

Then open formats would do little for you except reduce the development income of your application.

More importantly we ensure important drawing data, such as BOM data, is written out to an external database to later be collected by other processes such as our ERP system which in turn purchasing and manufacturing demand. However this method has points of failure that could be eliminated if our drawings could be read in real-time when the manufacturing release was executed.

Then maybe the issue is your BOM format, or your manufacturing application or your ERP system, which OPEN formats are they??  What format is the data exchange of your BOM??  What are the points of failure?? What part of any of this is Autodesk's fault??

I'm sure we aren't the only company in the world with these issues.

If the application doesn't fit your needs you are quite free to chose something else, just as many other company's do.

Profit Envy?

[CADaver]

I was a pencil designer for a dozen years, it took well over four times as long and twice as many people to get a product through fabrication to construction.  With the current market demands on schedule and cost, doing what we do in the time we're required to execute for these prices would be impossible with a pencil.

Maybe it's time to slow down a little. The market has gotten spoiled by technology. It's like that frog in the boiling pot of water. Things keep moving faster and before we know it...

Then my client's competitors hit the market first with their product and my client is out of business.  Not good for either of us.

[CADaver]

I agree.....not that I know what is going on......oops.

Sorry cadaver, I have been told you like to debate for debatings sake, and that is great by me....after all, I am only a newbie here.

No apologies required.  Everyone needs a hobby, and as a devout capitalist I enjoy discussing these topics with those who wish to punish success for no other reason than they are successful. 

"Lets tax the "windfall profits" of the oil company's", even though their profit margins are less than those of bottled water or coffee.  Where were these guys when the bottom dropped out of oil in the early '80's??  Oh yeah, they were loaning federal funds to Dodge, while oil suppliers went out of business.

"Oh look at the stock options of these horrible executives, the dogs."  But it's their company and their work product, why shouldn't they reap the benefits?

"Autodesk is a scumbag for not sharing their work product with wannabe-come-to-the-party-late upstarts", but where the heck were they in '82 when the guys from Autodesk gambled on breaking into the PC CAD market?

But hey that's just me, I may be wrong, just point it out and back it up.

[Mark]

So much blather .. if they wanted to promote interoperability, they would document and open the DGN format for everyone. As it stands, the file format is still strictly regulated by Bentley and is available only after asking for Bentley to give it to you. Further, it is available only to those who are Select members or a supporting member of the OpenDGN project.

Autodesk and Bentley to advance AEC software interoperability

[ http://www.csemag.com/article/CA6576592.html?desc=topstory ]

At a joint press conference on July 8, Autodesk Inc. and Bentley Systems Inc., two providers of design and infrastructure software, announced an agreement to expand interoperability between their portfolios of architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) software