DISQUS

SmackReader · 1 year ago

Thanks for the article but the pile of acronyms makes it really hard for me to understand what you are saying. please use them less often.

craigsink · 1 year ago

It seems that this is best left up to the software provider (SolidWorks) because whatever decision is made, they must follow up with a correct approach. It does seem like there are benefits of DirectX with the apparently stricter standardization. Its always nice to eliminate variables as long as that doesn't cut into the performance and/or capabilities of the software. At the end of the day as a user, I want good graphics without having to spend a ridiculous amount of money, and get consistent results on multiple stations.

Pete Yodis · 1 year ago

Josh,

A couple of points to re-emphasize. What intrigues me most about support of DirectX/Direct3D is the graphics hardware available that could run CAD software much better at a much lower price. Case in point is the new ATI 4850/4870 graphics engines. These are absolute performance monsters compared to the nVidia Qaudro line. Pound for pound they can compute much faster and have fatter lanes for transferring data back and forth. For around 200-300 dollars one of these can be had. To get the most comparable hardware solution for a "CAD workstation card" - you would have to spend thousands of dollars more - silly. It seems the OpenGL market is charging the CAD workstation market more - because it can. The bolded section in your post from the AutoDesk employee does confirm this idea.

Secondly - it seems like SolidWorks may be married to OpenGL becuase of the Real View fluff. In my mind I would rather have acess to a 200-300 card that could best anything currently costing thousands of dollars versus having real view capability. Real view doesn't really provide much value to me. Others may disagree. As hardware gets better and we see programs like PhotoView 360 used more - it may get to a point where PhotoView 360 is being used all the time - and realview goes away and the benefit of OpenGL as far as graphics eye candy becomes moot.

As far as MAC users are concerned... Charles Culp made an excellent point for MAC users running SolidWorks under dual boot. If SolidWorks did support DirectX - then MAC users would be able to use the card that came with their computer to properly drive SolidWorks. Now thats some irony - DirectX could actually help MAC users with running SolidWorks under dual boot.

Josh M · 1 year ago

Thanks for the re-points Pete. I'd love to be able to use those cards. I'm looking at laptops now and the FX cards drive up the cost. I've used GT cards and like them as well as the ATI, but the ATI are just awful of SolidWorks of course. It does seem like a "because they can" situation.

That's a great point about the Mac users as well. Even did a post on modding a GT to Quadro on a Mac. Would be nice if they didn't have to do that.

aldean · 1 year ago

for some good ol geeky story nonsense, have a poke at Renegades of the Empire about the three guys that cooked up Project Chrome at Microsoft (which eventually got, sort of bastardized into DirectX) and the shenanigans they got up to.. I think the authors name is somebody Drummound..

Josh M · 1 year ago

man, thanks Al, that's Chrome reference is a blast from the past. Weird, since today Google brought out their new browser technology called 'Chrome' - wonder if it's a play of what those hooligans were attempting to do with it. Still I think the browser should be shaped around 3D, instead of 3D worked into the browser. who's working on that stuff?

aldean · 1 year ago

I dunno, I'm not convinced about 3D as a UI metaphor for everyday.. I like my desktop, I think it works, but then, I'm pretty anal about organization, folders and stuff.. I think I'm too old..

Josh M · 1 year ago

dude, I'm so over clean and organized I delete my files off my desktop and end up having to recreate them. I'll have to show you my folder organization in barca. ahhhhhhy.

***Al had to delete your post. it had all your contact info in it! you're right though. we can find much better stuff to do over there. what am I thinkin.

Mike · 1 year ago

While I don't doubt the validity the argument for Direct3D (who can't argue that money talks). This is strangely contrary to industry moment at the moment towards open source and portable solutions nearly universally.

Portable platform independent standards are coming about in nearly all other sectors of software allowing users to store information in the 'cloud' and developers to create platform independent web and desktop apps allowing users to take their information anywhere on anything they want.

Strangely enough CAD and 3D modeling developers have become the lame duck; following at a very protracted pace to the rest of the industry to embrace open standards (we still don't have an open source answer for DWG; which Autodesk controls ruthlessly).

Honestly I view this as very bad for the industry as a whole. As users continue to switch in droves to alternative Operating Systems (Mac OSX, Linux, even a few UNIX) and methods of communication and work (smart phones, light laptops without the horsepower to run many things) fleeing the junk that is Vista, and Windows Mobile they will increasingly demand open standards so that they can access their own information anywhere and on anything.

To illustrate the point, PC World (perhaps the most widely accepted 'geek' magazine by non-geeks) had an article this month about switching to Linux for small business to avoid the Vista and the ever increasing fees associated with Microsoft per-seat licensing for servers.

As pointed out several places Direct3D is mainly used on computer games, for which there has been a declining demand on the actual PC. Portable (Nintendo DS) and console (Wii, PS3, XBox) games tend to, and have been, the path to big money in gaming for a long time. Much of the software development for these systems and for Direct 3D and OpenGL has been to support advanced quick-render, shader, and VR developments. While this does benefit CAD rendering with more realistic and quick rendering it does not focus on primary 'primitive' object modeling and parametric approaches rapidly gaining steam in the industry. Workstation graphics cards are tuned in this regard and call for a more expensive workstations
as it is; despite using Direct 3D or OpenGL.

Any way you slice it it seems that the CAD industry is just needs to pull their heads out of their own rear-ends and see what is happening all around.

I'm in support of OpenGL but it would be equally beneficial if Microsoft just opened up it's Direct 3D and Direct X implementations.

Jonatas Esteves · 9 months ago

Well, look's like Microsoft is investing good resources on getting very qualified industry people to write senseless praises to their inferior products and APIs.
Those Autodesk's member's quotes look like one of those joke posts you know.
.
We can see their marketing department's good work everywhere nowadays. Thought, this is their only department that actually does a good work.
.
[ ]'s

D Mytty · 7 months ago

It shouldn't be Open GL vs Direct X but rather Open CL vs Direct X. That C vs. a G makes all the difference.

Solidworks will likely be looking to move into Open CL as it's both Open GL friendly (allowing for code reuse) and it brings the power of GPU's to Simulation analysis (FEA is GPU friendly).

Ryan · 5 months ago

I am really new to all this information but had a question. Mac just introduced that on their new operating system the will allow an Open CL format if that is what you call it and I was wondering with this new format will Solidworks be able to run on my Nvidia GE Force graphics card.

Josh M · 5 months ago

Nope, as far as I know. No support for the Open CL format. You'll still ahve to softmod the geForce! fun hackery for you!