I am going to start this open forum to get feedback from other "SolidWorks" users before I share my thoughts
My 1st question, did we just witness the beginning of the end for SWX desktop?
I wasn't there so maybe the vibe was different onsite but the online vibe was that this was more about the 3dExperience platform than SolidWorks. At least definitely feels less SolidWorks focused.
Does anyone have more details on this "Special Version" of SolidWorks they kept mentioning? wasn't there this year so not sure if they elaborated on the topic outside of the General Sessions
I am very curious about this as well. I watched a live from YouTube video talking about the hackathon and they were using a different software using "3dexperience platform" is what was mentioned.
Could have been anyone on the new platform apps you were seeing, 3D creator (X design - cloud base SWX) or 3D sculptor. As far as I know anything new is platform related
Hoping to get some people to chime in here, the good, the bad????
Did they show anything about Solidworks 2021? Just Googled it and.. nothing.
I did not see anything, anyone else?
That's usually the first thing I look for after the show ends.
On the Solidworks YouTube channel, they have "whats new in 2020" but nothing for 2021. It seems a bit premature to think about 2021 already in Feb 2020 isn't it? Did they normally talk about the next years release at previous SWW?
It has been part of the conference from the beginning, what they were working on in the next release of SWX
The word Solidworks was almost entirely purged from the general sessions and rarely mentioned. A couple of screenshots creeped in, but "Solidworks" would be shown on screen only if it was in an employee's title. Very few Solidworks employees made it on stage (2 or 3, maybe? Gian Paolo Bassi was one) . They couldn't even bring themselves to say "Solidworks User Group", it was only "User Group". The Tuesday session was a marketing pitch to clueless non technical management types who wouldn't be able to point out how unrealistic the design process portrayed would be for a very badly designed lawn mower. If the presenters had just spoken in their native French, they would have been easier to understand, even if you don't understand French. The 2021 SW preview was removed, as was the Model Mania awards.
All that said, probably 70% of the breakout sessions were about Solidworks, and all the ones I went to were pretty good.
If you are concerned that Dassault is increasingly mismanaging Solidworks, the general sessions would not change your mind. The breakout sessions would make you think that Solidworks has been successful in spite of Dassault's ownership, and not because of it.
The attendees can now share their thoughts directly with the organizers.
You should have received the link to the survey.
I agree, I thought they were going to do a better job of balancing what they were going to show, Some of the new "platform" & some SWX. The feeling i got from the general sessions was SWX was not to be mentioned or shown.
It's very difficult to explain how disappointed I am with this direction. If this is the theme of the general sessions what is truly the plan for SWX desktop, I am holding my breath waiting for the discontinue date to be released one of these days
I share your concerns. It is probably going to die slowly not by discontinuing but
by putting more and more resources away from Solidworks. If the top ten list is not
important anymore then they are more or less showing how they feel about Solidworks
and their customers.
I have been composing my thoughts and reactions to 3DXW2020, in my head, for the past week or more. I have been a solo SolidWorks Premium user since 2007, a SolidWorks Electrical user since 2012, a SolidWorks attendee since SWW2009, and now a 3DXWorld attendee. I have participated in alpha testing at SWW every single year. I own my own business so all of this is at my own expense. I have gotten to know a number of SolidWorks employees; a couple of them fairly high level decision makers. Reconnecting with them each year is one of the reasons I keep going.
I think it is important to not conflate SolidWorks, the family of products, with SWW/3DXW, the conference. The conference has some inherent constraints. Adding non-SolidWorks content to the main stage will come at the expense of some of the content we are used to. There are 11 breakout session slots, even if additional rooms and presentations are added (there were this year), we can still only attend eleven. SolidWorks, the family of products can expand, get lots of love and attention from Dassault, at the same time the 3DX platform matures and gets lots of love and attention from Dassault. It was shared with me last week that sales of SolidWorks and its family of products is VERY healthy; there are plenty of resources to go around. SolidWorks has become way to important to Dassault for them to mess up. They know there are customers who, due to business constraints, will not be able to go to a cloud only solution for decades, if ever. They also know that they need to have a cloud solution too; their competitors have shown that there is a market for this too. I believe from the sum of what I saw this week that they are working on both, and unlike many of their competitors, lots of options in between. This is at least partially conjecture on my part but what I see coming is the ability to add the functionality of the 3DX Platform to desktop SolidWorks. Imagine creating a new part in SW and using the 3DSculpter to add a shape feature to your part model. Or creating an assembly in desktop SolidWorks and adding a topology optimized part directly from xDesign or Simulia. I went to 3DXW2020 concerned about what the future of desktop SolidWorks is and came away confident that it is here for the long haul and it is going to keep getting better, like it always has. It is also going to get better in new ways. What we do not know is what the pricing structures are going to be, but SW customers are too important to Dassault for them to seriously damage the value equation.
As for the conference, it was the best one yet, but it contained a number of big disappointments. I had quite a few spectacular break-out sessions. I had excellent impromptu conversations before and after break-outs, at meals, at the Special Event, and at my VAR's event. More conversations with a bigger total value than all previous eleven conferences combined. I liked Nashville and the convention center, I am happy to go back. I was disappointed by the general sessions. First, they couldn't prepare sessions that fit the allotted time. This is not excusable when there are 5000 to 6000 paying attendees scheduled to be at break-outs after the general session. Both Monday and Wednesday the keynote speaker did not take the stage until the session's scheduled end time. Tuesday wasn't called a general session; there was a session for the designers and engineers another for the accountants and managers. I went to the session for the designers and engineers. This is the session that should have highlighted SW; instead it focused on the platform. I found the presentation shallow and pointless compared to what I am interested in. We all spend a lot of money, and set aside a lot of our time to attend this conference; to not be able to understand a presenter is unacceptable. Dassault MUST objectively score and screen every presenters' English speaking skills before approving them for the stage or for the break-outs. There are a number of tools available to do this. EVERYONE considered for the stage should be subject to this; no matter how important the message or the person, when a significant portion of the audience can't understand, their time is being dishonored. This will be five times more important if there are 30,000 attendees. I walked out of the Tuesday session at 9:30, I couldn't understand half the speakers and didn't find the lawn mower presentation the least bit interesting. This is the session that should have included Model Mania, Top Ten List, and What's New in SW2021. I found the Charles Adler uninteresting; I really liked Sam Rogers, Dean Kamen, and Mark Schultz. As for the Pitch Battle, I would rather see more about the products and how SW was used to design them than to waste time on the overly dramatic contest for venture capital.
In thinking about a 30,000 attendee conference, Tuesday morning needs to include a mass session for the traditional designer/engineer content and it needs to focus on the SW design tools, not the process management tools.This is the session that should have included Model Mania, Top Ten List, and What's New in SWnext.
I didn't attend the Top Ten List expecting Gian-Paolo to be there and give the speech he did, but I certainly appreciated it. I think there should be a break-out session just for that, in the largest break-out room available, on Wednesday afternoon, as last session, where he could address what is important to the most dedicated users and have a time of questions and answers. Based on this years top ten list session, I think it has the potential to be a popular and productive session for all.
I liked the food and I got through the serving line faster than ever this year. That said, they ran out of food for at least two meals and maybe three; that is really bad. There also was no coffee or soda or bottle water available midmorning or midafternoon, I really missed that. There were cups of water but that is hard to handle on the move.
To summarize; it was a valuable conference with plenty of room to be better.
What Kevin Bouwman wrote! That is exactly what I experienced this year.
BTW, Kevin, it was a pleasure meeting you!
The only difference is that I hated the food. Everything deep fried, nothing healthy, no variety.
The beer was great!
If 3DX brings something I am fine with that but I am sceptic.Sooner or later we will have to work with 2 applications that donot transfer design intent. If they put new functions in 3DX insteadof Solidworks I wonder what users will say. At some point you have
to choose between the 2, that is what it is about.
Many years ago it was suggested that SW would get the Catia kernel
but now, many years later CatiaX still cannot transfer data bidirectional
to Solidworks without loosing design intent.
At least another common modeller can direct edit Solidworks imported
geometry and change position/diameters of holes, angles and outerdiameters
of round, plates etc very easily and parametric.
Thanks for the feedback so far by everyone
My goal of this trip was too find out what is the platform. Now that I have seen it I am sure it won’t fit into my workflow
My biggest concern, moving forward how much effort will be put into SWX. I see a lot more efforts into the platform the SWX. Why couldn’t any of these new cool toys be built into SWX. Why do I always have to buy the new tools my R and D money helps support
I am very disappointed with the direction of the general sessions, it makes it really difficult to justify another trip. We lost all the SWX content, but I also think we lost the inspiration. I am not here for a Sales pitch on the platform. They are going to be begging people to join the platform.
Sorry but I am just a SWX users who’s been building a design system for many year’s and I am not about to start all over again.
Long live SWX World!
To answer you with my feelings not being tainted to the plus or minus from the previous posts I have not yet read those posts.
My feeling is NO. You sometimes had to listen closely to the words said but it was clear that Solidworks is not being replaced - it is being added to/expanded by these programs. That being said, when you add more large packages (programs) to an existing one it can feel like it is taking over, and there will be some overlapping of features or abilities - but it was clear from the sessions that were Solidworks based and the words that were used by GP and other upper level & Company people that these other packages are Add-ins to make a more complete package / environment or serve an area that SolidWorks does not. We already have several add on packages that go beyond what Solidworks does. Electrical, Visualize and others have been there for a while.
The packages added may be similar but have different features or methods.
Solidworks is Desktop based, other packages are cloud based or move in different directions than Solidworks. Each has abilities and shortcomings to being a complete - "one product does all".
Now I will read the other posts.
Not going away but definitely de-emphasized. Why re-brand it 3Dexperience World when the core product is SolidWorks, not 3Dexperience?
I agree but my issue is all these new add-on features keep costing me more & more money
When was the last time they added something significant into SWX that didn't cost us money
You help pay for these developments with the subscription, but there is no ROI on that investment
Rick McDonald wrote: You sometimes had to listen closely to the words said but it was clear that Solidworks is not being replaced - it is being added to/expanded by these programs. That being said, when you add more large packages (programs) to an existing one it can feel like it is taking over, and there will be some overlapping of features or abilities - but it was clear from the sessions that were Solidworks based and the words that were used by GP and other upper level & Company people that these other packages are Add-ins to make a more complete package / environment or serve an area that SolidWorks does not.
Rick McDonald wrote:
Not a critic on what you wrote but rather an expansion and my take on it all after reading up on it and seeing the talk by GP.
1. Programs that keep adding on more and more stuff are commonly known as bloatware and that is generaly not considered a good thing by the users. E.G.: iTunes use to be a lean mean music playing program with a library feature. Today it wants to do so much that it's no longer lean, as in that it has gotten hungry for space and memory, does way too many things and except the die-hard fans or the ones that just don't care, is being ignored by those that just want a program to play music in the background while doing other things.
FYI : SW2020SP1 = 15.2 GB in comparison SW2019SP5 = 14.3 GB, SW2019SP4 = 13.9 GB, notice the trend?
2. "Making more complete packages". How about they first make sure that what they have actually completely works as promised? Yeah sure they'll do lipservice to the entire 1 & 2 and no doubt the rank and file would like nothing more then to make the product the best it can be but the upper mangement, well for them it seems to be a nuisance that users want a stable and no bugs version. Let's be honest here, sure they say they listen but do they really? Consider that 2019SP4 was worse then SP3 in some very basic respects or that 2020 had to have an SP0.1 version. Listening and doing something about 1 & 2? Call me cynical, call me cantankerous but I'm not holding my breath.
3. "serve an area that Soldiworks does not" I.E.: creating even more of a behemoth then it already has become.
And charging you more for even more things most of us don't need nor want but because it's packaged with something we do need we have no choice put to fork out whatever they charge. Sure, first it's included into the package for the same price but after a while it becomes the excuse to charge you more.
4. To me it looks and sounds that Solidworks is not being replaced but step by step being assimilated. Resistance is futile (yes, a Borg qoute). The signs seem to be there that 'Solidworks' as a brand is being phased out.
This is only true just because there are no worthy customers presenting on 3DX yet, in two-three years, once some resellers and customers actually use 3DX the SWX presentaions will be long gone.
James Pare wrote: RickI agree but my issue is all these new add-on features keep costing me more & more moneyWhen was the last time they added something significant into SWX that didn't cost us moneyYou help pay for these developments with the subscription, but there is no ROI on that investment
James Pare wrote:
You used the correct wording "Add-On" rather than what I used "Add-In". To clarify, these Add-On Programs are not linked to the SolidWorks program like the true "Add-Ins" that we have in our pull down within SolidWorks.
These other programs are just that Other Programs. They are not linked directly to the SolidWorks program but are separate programs that can be used with SolidWorks to perform different functions or allow different abilities - like working on the cloud.
They are not part of your Solidworks subscription so they are not making that cost change. If you want these other programs you pay separately. So they are not "Directly" costing you money. However, I imagine R&D costs, etc. were taken from various DSS sources in some way and likely some was from the SolidWorks pool. This is just my guess with no foundation except it would be a logical conclusion.
Add on or add in
Both cost me money if I want to use these new items I help finance
? (More platform)
Would it not be nice to have freeform modelling like sculptor added to SWX?
The new fancy machine learning I see on creator, don't expect to see that in SWX anytime soone
Retrieving data ...