Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Autodesk criticised by architects

extranetevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 387 posts

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#261

Post by johnwalkr »

rjsw wrote: post #205
johnwalkr wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, although most native formats of mechanical CAD programs are binary so I think a standard tool would need to support it. I've actually been searching online for solutions for a while as well as thinking about trying to solve this problem. Ideally, you'd want to be able to see text such as: - Feature3, hole: diameter 3.0mm + Feature3, hole: diameter 3.1mm - Feature4, extrude: Sketch 1: dimension4 400mm + F…

We don't need yet another CAD interchange format. I have been working on STEP (ISO 10303) for 35 years. Every few years someone comes along to a meeting and declares that we need to start again and adopt their new model, they waste everyone's time for a bit then go away again.

That's interesting. Did some light reading just now and I see that STEP is already considering feature-based descriptions. I have lots more reading to do, I am pretty ignorant about STEP!

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#262

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

johnwalkr wrote: post #134
klft wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not want to question that, I was rather questioning the statement that "you'd be hailed as a revolutionary genius." if you introduce version control or package management. PLM software exists since a long time but I agree that it might not serve user needs optimally. But this is more a market failure than a technical problem.

I only know of one system (grabcad) that just offers simple version control for CAD. Most are the equivalent of JIRA, i.e. lots of features and bloat that sell well to managers. They work, but only if there are people dedicated to setting them up, enforcing workflows and maintaining them. Something simpler and more standardized is needed in the physical engineering space to become part of standard practice, like git…

>They work, but only if there are people dedicated to setting them up, enforcing workflows and maintaining them.

This is true for most business software and very true for something like a PLM, and double super extra true for Autodesk PLM where it’s so unintuitive, clunky, “ Enterprisey” that no one wants to learn or use it without being required to.

Now, consider it like a really bad JIRA but at $75-150 per month. I’m probably overselling it still.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#263

Post by ilamont »

imgabe wrote: post #5

There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Revit is the standard, and while it's improved a lot over the years it's still so ridiculously far from where it could be. I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X"…

> There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry.

Same is true for many other industries. I've been hoping for a Quickbooks contender for years, but Intuit has proven to be very adept at shutting down the competition by virtue of the fact that relatively few CPAs will work with any other software.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#264

Post by Ericson2314 »

tomxor wrote: post #236
poseva wrote: post #50

As an structural engineer and former Autodesk user, I completely agree with the letter. I always saw Autodesk as a company where software goes to die a slowly painful death. It started with Autodesk Structural Detaling. They bought the software from a small company, renamed the product... and that was it. It had the same bugs release after release... we as customers tried our best to report the bugs, but nobody liste…

Perhaps i'm being idealistic but if the cycle is that aggressive this screams for architects to start caring about buying FOSS. When you buy software it's an investment - you invest your time in integrating it into your workflow and your employees learning to use it... your investment is tied to the future of that software. If it's FOSS (funded), no amount of money autodesk throw at it can bury it's source code, buyi…

I think it's definitely possible. Look at Blender and GRASS GIS, some of the most successful open source projects among non-programmers of all time. Architecture tool is merely the midpoint between those too domains, right? :D

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#265

Post by tootie »

SenHeng wrote: post #92
heimatau wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an emerging EE, I fully agree. I honestly believe it could be done with solid quality. Early today I saw this very old video of Elon at SpaceX with their design software [1]. It's amazing to me that this video was six years ago. Revit is the prized gem. Whomever creates it, focus on Revit and focus on the pain-points. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY

I saw that Leap Motion [0] video almost 10 years ago and have wanted to have one ever since. Sadly, it seems they didn't sell enough to sustain theirselves and have mostly concluded their incredible journey [1]. I had a few friends that worked in 3D modelling them and they really wanted to try it out for sculpting. I guess actually swinging your hands around in air like Tom Cruise in Minority Report was too tiring fo…

Leap Motion was recently acquired by a company that builds ultrasonic haptic devices. The standalone USB Leap Motion sensor is still available for like $80. I've done some work with it (and the haptic device) and it's extremely underwhelming. It's equivalent to voice dictation versus typing. It feels miraculous at first but there's a lot of edge cases (like hands going vertical or occlusion) and there's simply no good UX patterns for gestures. Keyboard and mouse is faster and more accurate in 99% of scenarios.

Google actually one-upped Leap Motion with Project Soli that's in the new Pixel phones It can track minute finger gestures in a much smaller form factor using radar. It similarly doesn't have any killer app that actually makes it useful for much of anything.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#266

Post by elliekelly »

MH15 wrote: post #243
twelvechairs wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not just Autodesk, all big software shops tend towards low innovation. Look at Adobe, ESRI, even Microsoft office etc. Core products often haven't changed appreciably in 20 years - the business/money isn't in innovation, it is in having proprietary file formats that are industry standards and bundling big packages of software together that makes it hard to shift off the platform.

With Adobe I'm extremely worried about their acquisition of Algorithmic, the makes of Substance Painter and Substance Designer. I use these tools in 3D animation/texturing, they are truly fantastic tools. Before Adobe bought them, they offered a purchase option, now it's just subscriptions of course.

I have such a love/hate relationship with Adobe. Their software is so useful. I want to love it. But they basically infiltrate my entire computer in order to install/run it and I’ve been burned by their shady billing practices so many times I now have a prepaid Visa from CVS that’s exclusively for my Adobe subscription. I fundamentally do not understand how a company can simultaneously be so awesome and so awful.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#267

Post by krewast »

syshum wrote: post #198
fsloth wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large AEC clients actually prefer subscriptions. It's OPEX vs CAPEX. Purchasing a license comes with a huge CAPEX cost, while paying a monthly fee is OPEX so looks much less scary in the budget.

I always love comments like these, Having been through this cycle a few times at different companies, the bean counters always love OPEX until you move everything to OPEX causing that annual budget to explode then all of a sudden they want to "Reduce costs", so people start shifting things to CAPEX until that budget explodes then they want to "Reduce annual capital spend" so people start shifting thing back to opex..…

> bean counters and MBA's live in this mythical land where $100,000 over 5 years or $20,000 a year is some how different

There are differences and they are far from mythical!

A big one: Liquidity. If you spend $100,000 today, you all of a sudden have a $100,000 less in your bank account. That may limit what you and your team can do this year - because budgets are finite. If you have the option to pay $20,000 each year over 5 years your liquidity goes down by that amount each year. Much easier to plan and usually less risky.

Another one: Flexiblity. If you don't need the product or service after year 3 any more, stop it. You paid $60,000 instead of $100,000. Less. Money. Spent. (And yes, it also goes into the other direction (pay more than $100,000 if you use it longer) but that's a trade off many businesses are willing to make. 5 years is a long time, things change.)

Last but not least: Opportunity costs. Paying $100,000 at once is expensive because it means you can't invest the money into something else that generates interest. If you pay $20,000 each year it means, that you still have $80,000 in the first year, $60,000 in the second and so on. Use this remaining money to invest it into something that creates interest for you (bank account, stocks, index fund, ...). That's another win! (And also the reason why big companies pay their bills as late as possible - it adds up for them!)

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#268

Post by tootie »

heimatau wrote: post #56
imgabe wrote: post #5

There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Revit is the standard, and while it's improved a lot over the years it's still so ridiculously far from where it could be. I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X"…

As an emerging EE, I fully agree. I honestly believe it could be done with solid quality. Early today I saw this very old video of Elon at SpaceX with their design software [1]. It's amazing to me that this video was six years ago. Revit is the prized gem. Whomever creates it, focus on Revit and focus on the pain-points. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY

Musk is espousing a UX fallacy by saying that a more "natural" interface is superior. Natural interfaces have a shallower learning curve for beginners, but CAD designers are all going to be expertly trained in their software. This is why pros always know the hot keys even when the mouse is simpler. Hot keys are faster. Learning how to pan, tilt and zoom with a mouse and keyboard is an 1 hour lesson that they will apply for 20 years and never worry about again.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#269

Post by dna_polymerase »

tomxor wrote: post #236
poseva wrote: post #50

As an structural engineer and former Autodesk user, I completely agree with the letter. I always saw Autodesk as a company where software goes to die a slowly painful death. It started with Autodesk Structural Detaling. They bought the software from a small company, renamed the product... and that was it. It had the same bugs release after release... we as customers tried our best to report the bugs, but nobody liste…

Perhaps i'm being idealistic but if the cycle is that aggressive this screams for architects to start caring about buying FOSS. When you buy software it's an investment - you invest your time in integrating it into your workflow and your employees learning to use it... your investment is tied to the future of that software. If it's FOSS (funded), no amount of money autodesk throw at it can bury it's source code, buyi…

> Perhaps i'm being idealistic but if the cycle is that aggressive this screams for architects to start caring about buying FOSS.

Look at the city government of Munich. They tried to adopt Linux and FOSS but failed after years of internal issues. Proper support and industry adoption are important properties not easy to emulate for FOSS.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#270

Post by brudgers »

imgabe wrote: post #5

There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Revit is the standard, and while it's improved a lot over the years it's still so ridiculously far from where it could be. I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X"…

The multi-billion dollar opportunity is acquisition by Autodesk. There's no multi-billion dollar opportunity in Revit add-ons.
Post reply on HN