Chrysler Split Over Which CAD Software to Use

It does not only exist in larger companies, smaller as well with as few as 20 people, thats with fabrication personnel.

When choosing software, you have to decide which is the best....in the long run. back in the 80's and 90's desktop software the lion share of the market being AutoDESK, while larger companies had SDRC, ProE, CADAM and Catia. but CADAM if I recall was $100,000.00 per seat. And the companies that had it was not using it to its capabilities. (or so called capability)

And the decision on making what's hot today can change.

When Solidworks came along and put the pressure on AutoDESK, AutoDESK try to catch up (technically) with its releases of Inventor back in the late 90's, 2000. I saw they had a long ways to go, its better now or I should say more of a level playing field,

And when you look at a dinosaur like Chrysler making a change, it has such a huge ripple (more like Tsunami) effect, or Fiat for that matter,

I question that changing software to one or the other is not worth it. But developing a patch to integrate both softwares would be the key.

Why, because if the marriage between Fiat and Chrysler ends in divorce, who gets to take care of the transition migration of aborted cad softwares upgrades.

p911

Good call, Phoenix. I am not sufficiently-well financed to where I can afford $3000 or $10,000 or $100,000 seat software- even for my one-seat operation. I do find, however, I can exchange drawings (including mark-ups) for the most part with those who insist on AutoCAD or Solidworks formats- using free software. There are, of course, limitations to my approach, and it would not be the best approach for such a major operation as Fiat/Chrysler (assuming they last together long enough to make a difference). However, I suspect most of the major software packages offer the same sort of import/export features found in my free software. The key is to settle on an output format standard that can be imported into your software of choice. This results in a whole lot less being spent by engineers and designers learning a whole new set of tools.

I would think that a more important issue would be, which language is to be used on fabrication drawings- English or Italian? While part of the answer depends on where the fab shop is located, this is getting to be less and less important as time and technology advance, but still can be a critical issue, especially during pre-fab design reviews...

the import/export is for the geometry.

If there are any animation nodes or construction references/tie ins, these are lost. and these are what you would want transfered. of which takes the time to construct, due to revision or development savings later on.

Language or text syntax may be less of an issue through automation fabrication, but still needed.

When I was engineering manager of a small fab and design shop (60 employees). I had just enough information to get the part cut/machined/fabricated enough to verify tool set-up and offsets on machine with majority of information based on the geometry itself. worked out great but the communication between engineering and shop floor had to be constant. And that had its benefits.

p911

one thing I have to add, with minimum info other than geometry this was an internal thing, anything that was jobed out, there was more information until an understanding was established with an outside contractor. Otherwise they felt very insecure with the lack of typical info.

p911

All of the major CAD packages have 3D import/export capabilities; ie, STEP or IGES formats. Unfortunately, this transfer process results in mostly dump clumps of 3D models, totally lacking in the feature tree stored in the original model; ie, a hole is no longer a hole with, for example #10 screw clearance data. It' just a .201 diameter void.

The feature info is built into the proprietary data format of the CAD system and is almost always lost when exporting. The CAD vendors jealously protect their data formats so creating a direct translator is impossible without paying a ton of money and entering into nasty non-disclosure agreements, if they would even agree to that in the first place.

Lastly, the 3D model is just one piece of the puzzle. 2D drawings made from the 3D model have bi-directional links that enable the drawing to change if the model changes, or vice versa. I have yet to see a neutral data format (STEP/IGES) that can correctly translate both a model and its associated drawing files appropriately.

And I don't even want to think about complex assembly data with thousands of fasteners involved. Then throw in any electrical, hydraulics, lubrication, FEA/FEM system complications. Mucho data lost there in CAD system transfers.

The amount of legacy data that could be potentially lost or made irrelevant in this Chrysler/Fiat squabble is mind boggling.

BTW, it is often possible to recover feature data lost in translation but, in my experience, it's often easier just to recreate it from scratch.

Hooker

that is what I was getting at, those of use that have been around translating between cad software since the 80's some the geometry that was transfered were nothing but dogs or a waste of time, depending on the situation. One had to be well verse to eliminate or delete the lines giving trouble to be able to import it, and anything deleted was lost.

But instead of having a direct translation between one software to another, basically a one off translation, is to have a third party software that retains the legacy information during export into, and then translated to import into the second cad software. Retaining all or as much as possible the construction nodes and legacy information.

I realize that it is easier to recreate it in a small scale, but with the size of these 2 corporate giants and its subsidiaries. recreating would not be feasible and is out of the question.

I also realize that the cad proprietary info is protected quite strictly, but with these two giants do have one huge advantage and that is that they are customers with a lot of seats, and they should use that.

It may be wise for them to form an alliance between the 2 automakers and 2 software developers to make this happen.

p911

I agree it would be wise.

When I was with ComputerVision CAD in the 80's we had special agreements with several large companies (Westinghouse was one) where they paid for access to our source code and data storage format. They used this info to design direct data translators/integrators to ancillary systems like MRP II, ERP, Process Planning, CFD, etc, and other design systems.

I think that would be the wisest route for Chrysler/Fiat as an interim solution until a more long term fix can be determined for the disparate CAD system problem.

The main point to keep in mind is that the technology is changing so fast that any solution is not likely to be permanent in any case. And that's also presuming that the Chrysler/Fiat partnership lasts any length of time.

Hooker