Who got to choose their CAD software?

[cadtag]

To Cadtag and Patrick,

So - do you keep an eye out to see if there is other CAD software out there that might give you a competitive edge?

Actually, quite often. I've worked with a number of different CAD packages over the years, from VersaCAD in the 80s to the DWG workalikes out today. and for 60% of what goes out the door in my day job at the mega corp, the free-to-use-for-any-purpose draftsight package would do the job. Throw in the Bricsys and Graebert packages, and that percentage would go to over 90.

At home, although I have a personal license of Map 2015, I'll use Draftsight for the large majority of design layouts, from cabinets or decks, to tile patterns.

At Megacorp though, there's zero interest in reducing costs by investigating alternatives/options to the entrenched incumbents.

[dgorsman]

"Mega corps" usually have a long history, and those in the executive offices have a similarly long memory for discontinued support and the cost, time, and headaches associated with jumping from one platform to another. Stability (not just software but systemically as well) is more important than saving a few thousand dollars over a decade or two. Larger companies like AutoCAD will likely be around for some time. Smaller clone developers, maybe, maybe not. Maybe the big company already has a need for Civil3D - not much point in trying to support a number of different platforms when you already have AutoCAD tools in place.

[Paul Munford]

So - my buddy was asking why people are so Evangelistic about their CAD software. I am of the opinion that many people don't get to choose their CAD software, for many of the reasons we've discussed.

Do you ever find yourself becoming defensive about the CAD software you use when comparing it to the competitors?

[cadtag]

"Mega corps" usually have a long history, and those in the executive offices have a similarly long memory for discontinued support and the cost, time, and headaches associated with jumping from one platform to another. Stability (not just software but systemically as well) is more important than saving a few thousand dollars over a decade or two. Larger companies like AutoCAD will likely be around for some time. Smaller clone developers, maybe, maybe not. Maybe the big company already has a need for Civil3D - not much point in trying to support a number of different platforms when you already have AutoCAD tools in place.

Well, in this case it would mean saving a few million dollars (just in subscription) over a few years, not decades. And, given that the stability management wants means that the annual subscription upgrades typically get installed on user's desks on a four or five year cycle, that's multiple millions simply down the drain. I'll also tend to disagree about long memories -- the C-suite in publicly traded companies is always more focused in this quarters/next quarters results than remembering anything as ancient as the year before last.

Autodesk does have a solid track record for lasting over the past thirty years - and while that's no guarantee of future performance, it's a good indicator they will. However, there's less assurance that the future direction of Autocad will be in alignment with corporate requirements/needs. 'Cloud' services for one example -- unusable by the 10K licensed seats here, yet funded by our license fees. And, there's always the long history of Autodesk abandoning products and leaving no forward path - from Generic CAD to WorkCenter to Actrix to Impression and on and on. As Adesk becomes more of an social/service/marketing/entertainment software business than a design software business, the CAD portion of their revenues is a smaller piece of a larger pie. Good for us stockholders though....

A better answer than relying on either small clone developers (although I'm not sure that Graebert actually fits that description) or the whims of a major software publisher is the promotion of open standards, open and documented formats, and interoperability. Sadly, that conflicts with the ingrained big vendor's belief in customer lock-in.

UPDATED INFO:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/06...-app-aperture/

Here's a perfect example of a major software vendor bailing on their paying customers in favor of their other business lines, and 'vision'.

[dgorsman]

So - my buddy was asking why people are so Evangelistic about their CAD software. I am of the opinion that many people don't get to choose their CAD software, for many of the reasons we've discussed.

Do you ever find yourself becoming defensive about the CAD software you use when comparing it to the competitors?

Usually only when there is mis-information or misleading information, especially if it is blatantly wrong. Good examples of that are not using Windows because of instability (even though I've seen one BSOD in enough years to lose count, lack of care with BETA releases/"cool toy" installs, etc.); "The developers said program _____ is going to be discontinued" even though I KNOW otherwise; or "Your software doesn't properly implement our universal data language" even though they proudly proclaim that only their software does this (not very universal, then, is it?).

A lot of the arguments stem from peoples inability to separate themselves from the issue. They want feature X, so its a travesty it hasn't been implemented (those who want everything to run under Linux can be bad for that); they feel feature Y is useless and waste of time, therefore its bad for everybody (those who dislike the Ribbon are good examples). They refuse to acknowledge good points of things they oppose, and bad points for things they support.

[cadtag]

Usually only when there is mis-information or misleading information, especially if it is blatantly wrong. Good examples of that are not using Windows because of instability (even though I've seen one BSOD in enough years to lose count, lack of care with BETA releases/"cool toy" installs, etc.); "The developers said program _____ is going to be discontinued" even though I KNOW otherwise; or "Your software doesn't properly implement our universal data language" even though they proudly proclaim that only their software does this (not very universal, then, is it?).

A lot of the arguments stem from peoples inability to separate themselves from the issue. They want feature X, so its a travesty it hasn't been implemented (those who want everything to run under Linux can be bad for that); they feel feature Y is useless and waste of time, therefore its bad for everybody (those who dislike the Ribbon are good examples). They refuse to acknowledge good points of things they oppose, and bad points for things they support.

I'll pretty much agree with this. Evangelists gotta preach and haters gotta hate. And both like doing that. Since I didn't have a voice in corporate software decision making here, I'm certainly not about to get defensive about what the company runs.

[Wanderer]

I'll pretty much agree with this. Evangelists gotta preach and haters gotta hate. And both like doing that. Since I didn't have a voice in corporate software decision making here, I'm certainly not about to get defensive about what the company runs.

~nodding~ I haven't really got much of a voice here, either.
I've got a couple of managers inquiring about getting a new lease management software, because they don't like the one tacked on with the asset/space management software we currently use.
~shrugs~ It's all the same to me, support-wise, if it makes my users happier, it makes my job easier (for the most part, but, I obviously voice valid exceptions if I think any proposed software won't do what they expect it to).

[jaberwok]

Back in 1985 I wanted my boss to buy a CAD package (I don't even remember the name) to run on the, then new, Atari ST - I was a big fan of Atari then.
The boss bought AutoCAD instead - and a new PC XT.
When I started as a contractor, I used several different packages but about 70% of the clients were using AutoCAD. Then I started noticing that some staff people (mainly the absolutely useless ones) had City & Guilds certificates on their desks. So, I enrolled for a C&G course (in those days they were all specfically AutoCAD based). In 9 weeks I filled in the gaps in my knowledge and took the exams for 3 (usually 1 year) courses but I first had to create the files that were supposed to be provided as part of the exams because no-one else had reached the point of taking the exams so the instructor hadn't yet created the files.

From then on my business was in being quite good at mechanical design, very good at engineering drawing and very fast at using AutoCAD.

I've dabbled with many other systems since but the market has never been clear about which one system, if any, was going to be all-conquering so I just stuck with AutoCAD.

[dkoch]

Architect working for a medium/large architectural/engineering firm. When I started nearly 31 years ago, all work was hand drafted. First CAD system in the office was a ComputerVision system that ran on a minicomputer (kept in a room with special cooling provisions) that supported two workstations, which, I was told, ran $25K each (not including the main computer). If I recall correctly, up to 6 additional workstations could have been added to the minicomputer. We had two shifts of dedicated operators; the instruction manuals filled somewhere around 10 feet of shelf space. I was still an intern when this was acquired and no one asked my opinion about it. I did have some limited experience using it, but would not claim to have been very good at it.

Shortly thereafter (fall of 1986), I was part of the first group sent out to be trained to use AutoCAD (version 2.5) on those newfangled PCs. Once management was convinced that drafting could be done on the much less expensive PC workstation, we acquired two, which were set up in dedicated stations and time was scheduled (and billed to the project, in addition to the operator's time). We continued to use the ComputerVision system and, in the beginning, text was such a drag on the PCs that we were drawing linework on the PCs and then transferring the files to the ComputerVision system for notes and final sheets. (Pre-paper space!)

As PC power increased, along with owner demand for the use of CAD, we eventually acquired more PCs and finally put one on everyone's desk (circa R11).

While there were ongoing discussions about which software to use, and, I believe, an occasional client request for MicroStation files, the powers that be stayed with AutoCAD, as the de facto industry standard. There was a major evaluation of then available software as we considered upgrading from R14 to AutoCAD 2000/Architectural Desktop 2. We looked at MicroStation (TriForma), AllPlan and possibly one other. We had sent teams to Exton (Bentley headquarters) to do a test project to see whether we could still do everything we needed to do, with the same or less effort (I was excluded from that effort). Ultimately, we chose to stay with AutoCAD, given the existing investment in training/staff. We did move to what is now the AutoCAD Architecture and AutoCAD MEP vertical products (with MEP mostly used "as AutoCAD").

Over the last six or seven years, we have been moving to make Revit the software of choice. Almost all major new projects use it, and many smaller ones do, as well, depending upon the project manager, availability/format of existing files and experience of assigned staff.

So, even though I am now the CAD/BIM Manager, I did not have any direct say in what software I have used over the years.

[cadtag]

the thing that's been apparent for many years now, is that the customers of CAD software vendors, whether Adesk, the Brothers Bentley, Dassault, Graebert, the Belgians or the Russians, etc etc etc, are only rarely users. Especially with large accounts, the check writers/deciders are up in the C-suite, and have at best a very limited understanding of what the software is capable of and what its limitations are.

Those who both buy and use their own software have an incredibly small voice when they spend hundreds of dollars in subscription/licensing per account, vs the CIO who drops a million or so every year. Sort like the GM of a car dealership buying all his mechanics tools from Harbour Freight instead of SnapOn.