Solidworks Package Costs

[KQuigley]

I posted this on the main SW fourm recently (and amazingly it has not been removed yet!). Wondered what folks here thought or have any experience in using the new platform. Especially with regards to data storage costs.

https://r1132100503382-eu1-3dswym.3dexp ... fLtq-5N1gw

Text in case that link fails:

The other day on LinkedIn a brave reseller put up actual prices on their website for buying the three Solidworks 3D EXPERIENCE packages in the UK. Now the said reseller primarily services the AEC sector so maybe they were not quite used to the standard SW smoke and mirrors routine trying to get a simple price, so kudos to them I say.
Suffice to say that I've had numerous quotes over the past few years for the 3DX packages, and it always comes back to this. What is in it for EXISTING SOLIDWORKS CUSTOMERS?

In case my UK colleagues don't know what is coming:

SOLIDWORKS 3DEXPERIENCE STANDARD (which includes desktop Solidworks Standard package with the cloud link/xDesign (or 3D Creator, or whatever Dassault marketing choose to call it this month) - £3072/yr/per user +VAT

SOLIDWORKS 3DEXPERIENCE PROFESSIONAL(which includes desktop Solidworks Professional package with the cloud link/xDesign/xShape/Visualise - £3588/yr/user +VAT

SOLIDWORKS 3DEXPERIENCE PREMIUM(which includes desktop Solidworks Premium package with the cloud link/xDesign/xShape/Visualise- £5100/yr/per user +VAT

These are for new subscriptions. No details on existing customers on active mainetance who want to upgrade (I was given a cost for this a couple of years ago but was told it was "under review" and the likely plan was a one off Year 1 reduction, then going up to the full cost Year 2 - but that might have changed).

Now the elephant in the room here is data. Last I was quoted(and it is not listed anywhere) these packages include 25GB of cloud storage data per user per year. If you want more (and let's face it, you will) last cost I had was £79 per 25Gb per year. So doing a realistic typical scenario, ONE customer project folder for us, for just the Solidworks files is currently running at 950GB. If I include all the associated files (PDFs/JPEGs/Other file formats) it runs to 1.8TB. So for that one customer if I wanted to move my files to the SW cloud I'd need to pay a minimum of an extra £3000 each year on top of the subscription charges. For context, our Dropbox business acount (5TB) is £360 a year.

I've asked on here and the old forum these same questions. I've asked the CEO during exectutive fireside chats why the high costs. I talk to a lot of resellers - I've yet to meet one who is happy with the level of data pricing. I've yet to meet one existing customer who has switched to the new platform and wants to pay these prices. The only people I know using the new platform are those using the Makers package and those on the free startup package - and a couple of them have already said they'll be dropping it at the end of the year.

So where does that leave us? Alienation of the existiing user base. New customers using freebies or hugely reduced packages. This situation cannot go on. I have used Solidworks for nearly 25 years now. I don't want to have to drop it - it really will be a total pain to do that - but times are challenging and we require value. I'm not seeing that any longer with Solidworks and I don't see a future in it if the master plan is high priced subs. Fact is, if I was starting a manufacturing or design business there is no way I'd use Solidworks now. But so many of us did invest in it early on that we have years of legacy data and drawings. If the legacy data was just 3D I'd switch now, but the issue is the drawings - and ALL the CAD vendors know this. Drawings are what keeps people using a platform. We can recreate 3D geometry easily enough but a 200 sheet drawing package is not something you want to be doing!

So if anyone out there wants a great startup idea - new CAD system that opens native SW drawing files and recreates the links from native SW parts and assemblies. Don't even need to be able to edit them in SW format - as long as they open intact. Editing would create files in the new format and new links.

Will await this post being kicked off, but I'll save it and stick it on LinkedIn if it does.

[AlexLachance]

It most likely didn't get removed because just like 99% of the other posts on that platform, they get lost within a few hours.

[Arthur NY]

This "transition" from SW to 3DXP has been just about THE most atrocious FUBAR of a handoff as they could have ever hoped for. Like if this were one of the 4 x100 relay races DDS dropped the baton at least 5000 times. I remember being at Solidworks World when they announced that it was now going to be called 3D Experience World and like afterwards none of us even knew that it was announced. Just from the initial transition, about 10 -12 years ago when they were doing something with the code to make SW run on Catia's kernal but then denied that it was happening. Matt L even wrote an article about this.

I feel like that Phil Collins song, "In the Air Tonight"..... Even back then we could smell that something was changing. DDS would continuously deny "No No No, we're not doing away with Solidworks'. Not as an excuse but to have THIS bad a FUBAR I really think that they still, to this day, have thought the whole thing through. It's been like shoe string and ducktaped this whole thing together. For things to still be THIS cloudy about pricing at this point is just 100% being dumb.

Back in the day I remember potential users asking.... "Hey where can I download a demo of Solidworks, ya know to give it a try see how it works" and responses from VAR's were always "Hey let me come in and give you a demo first THEN you can install it with the 4 CD's or 2 DVD's that we give you with a special serial number. Meanwhile just about every other mid-range and other CAD packages were just offering direct downloads and they certainly weren't needing 4 CD's or 2 DVD's worth of data to download.

But alas.... much like you Kevin.... I've been asking this question for sometime now. Solidedge and Inventor are the two comparable packages at or around the same price point and maturity.

OnShape is also coming along quite nicely but definitely not a direct alternative...."Yet". Their biggest "Con" is that it's 100% browser based which does have 1 few upsides aka no installing needed..etc but as you can imagine some companies are not allowed to have their data stored in the cloud. Also it would be nice if there were an "offline" mode that would allow for use of the software when no internet is available.

You'd think that VAR's would at least be willing to put out the base pricing of 3DXP but more and more, at least here in the US, the number of VAR's has gone from around 100 to maybe now 30 or so (maybe even less). A lot of VC money has gotten into the VAR game and they're now just gobbling each other up. So this means less competition and more strong arm tactics that the different owners from each VAR get together and starting to tell the OEM's what to do. Back in the day DDS would tell a VAR to jump and they'd say "How High"....now the VAR's can push back just as hard because of the range of territory that they cover.

I don't see this getting any easier in terms of just getting straight forward answers.... from either DDS or the VAR's. I'm sure this new one that you mentioned might be asked to take it down once DDS finds out or they could have their VAR license taken away.

[zxys001]

My local data or my choice of cloud storage. Otherwise, eff them.

[KennyG]

@KQuigley Not familiar with the 3Dxperience SolidWorks, but given that it includes SolidWorks Desktop, is it still is the same and you can still store files anywhere you want and don't have to use the 3Dx cloud? And can you still buy or subscribe to plain ole SolidWorks Desktop, or are they making that more expensive to "coax" you into the cloud?

[RichGergely]

@KQuigley Not familiar with the 3Dxperience SolidWorks, but given that it includes SolidWorks Desktop, is it still is the same and you can still store files anywhere you want and don't have to use the 3Dx cloud? And can you still buy or subscribe to plain ole SolidWorks Desktop, or are they making that more expensive to "coax" you into the cloud?

I can't see how they would allow you to store on the desktop/local server because standard solidworks desktop costs more then that. If it was a true 'Standard desktop' it would be a great way to save a tonne of money and I assume there is no backdating on years lost subscription.

[jcapriotti]

@RichGergely I'm sure that's a 1 year "term" license. They already offer that with just plain SolidWorks desktop with no 3dx product.

[KQuigley]

Just to be clear, the prices I quoted were per year pricing. This is the issue for existing customers like us.
we would move from paying around £1200 a year per license to stay on maintenance to paying about 3x that amount every year per seat to move to this new platform. Then ON TOP of that we have to pay data storage charges of £79 per 25GB PER YEAR.

[Frederick_Law]

Sounds like cable TV

[mike miller]

Sounds like cable TV

It's like cable TV, except more expensive because cable TV is 2D and 3D'sperience is 3D. See?

[SPerman]

@mike miller how was the transition to Solidedge? Do SW parts and drawings import as seamlessly as they claim? Do assemblies keep their mates when imported?

[mike miller]

@mike miller how was the transition to Solidedge? Do SW parts and drawings import as seamlessly as they claim? Do assemblies keep their mates when imported?

We never spent much time trying to do the whole structure because our SWX data was pretty bad. Any time you have multibody parts, it will be almost impossible to migrate them and have a useful data set without breaking them out into individual parts. So, we migrated parts and recreated assemblies and drawings *correctly* to eliminate future problems. We tried migrating a few drawings, but couldn't find the right secret handshake to do it. I know it can be done because users are reporting bugs with, say, a section view not coming through right. We don't have that many part drawings so it was only a few weeks of dedicated work at the most.

We're now pretty much done with our migration. The next step is to move from a Windows folder structure to Teamcenter. That will be fun. I know I laid out the realistic expectations for migration in more detail a few months ago. Not sure where that post is.

ETA: I recommend getting a trial of SE and doing some migration on your own or with a good VAR looking over your shoulder. Tell them if it goes well you'll get on camera for them!

[Arthur NY]

@SPerman You can get geometry in from mainly Solidworks, Inventor, Solidedge, Creo..... through something called 3D Interconnect. At least that's what it's touted as being able to do. While you won't get a direct 1:1 in terms of the feature tree, mates etc it maintains a link so that you can edit the model in the original software, say Solidedge, and then this will update in Solidworks.

Take this with a grain of salt because that then means if you want real editability your company would need to own both software's and while I've seen this around here and there it's not a major thing that I've seen a lot of companies wanting to do.

[SPerman]

@mike miller

Teamcenter is incredibly powerful. With that comes incredible complexity (not to mention price.) PDM is but a mere shadow of what TC is capable of.

Fortunately, I think multibody parts are an abomination, so that won't be a problem for me. But it sounds like it is still more or less starting from scratch. Even if the drawings imported properly, there is still a lot or work redoing the assemblies in SE.

@Arthur NY

I'm going the other way. Trying to find the least painful solution to replacing SW.

[Glenn Schroeder]

@mike miller

Teamcenter is incredibly powerful. With that comes incredible complexity (not to mention price.) PDM is but a mere shadow of what TC is capable of.

Fortunately, I think multibody parts are an abomination, so that won't be a problem for me. But it sounds like it is still more or less starting from scratch. Even if the drawings imported properly, there is still a lot or work redoing the assemblies in SE.

So you think this should be an Assembly? Why?

[bnemec]

So you think this should be an Assembly? Why?


image.png

Not to answer for Scott, but I must be in similar boat as he, because multiple part numbers per file are an abomination where I work as well. It all depends on what the design outputs are. Yes, what you show of a plate with beam welded to it would be three part numbers, with three separate drawings and three BOMs even. The plate with the raw material defined in some way (another part number in ERP), the beam also with material called out which is also another part number in ERP but probably not CAD, and then the weldment with a bom of the plate and beam and ERP would add weld wire. Just in case anyone is wondering, if there's a similar part that has the beam 6" longer, well there would be another part number for the longer beam and another part number for the longer weldment.
Then they would live on through the years all have several revisions for various reasons and we would copy those parts to other similar but different parts as well as use them in another five dozen where used and they all get revised for various reasons through the years. Then some would be obsoleted (in CAD and ERP) with the where used being switched over to a replacement part or themselves obsoleted.
That is part of the story of why we would never model a plate and a beam as one file where I work. I don't know much about the details of your job but I assume most of those parts aren't maintained and manufactured and propagated for several decades? Looks like a project folder for this bridge or corner or stretch of highway and when it's done that folder is put out to pasture. Maybe copy some things from it but not going to reference parts from that project for the next thirty years right?

[Glenn Schroeder]

. . . That is part of the story of why we would never model a plate and a beam as one file where I work. I don't know much about the details of your job but I assume most of those parts aren't maintained and manufactured and propagated for several decades? Looks like a project folder for this bridge or corner or stretch of highway and when it's done that folder is put out to pasture. Maybe copy some things from it but not going to reference parts from that project for the next thirty years right?

Yes, that's correct. Also, I don't have to worry about multiple part numbers, and don't use any PDM.

[SPerman]

I will preface my response by saying that I do very little sheet metal work, and I don't do anything that involves structured systems or weldments. (Our machines bolt together, no welding required.) So it is very likely that there are good reasons others follow different work flows.

The short answer: it is two parts that get welded together. Why isn't that an assembly?

bnemec does a good job of giving the long answer.

At my previous job we made these, and there was never a multibody part in the system.

[TTevolve]

That would be 2 part numbers for us, one for the plate with a drawing showing the machined holes, and one for the assembly where it would be called out with the beam. For us the beam is just our material part number with the cut length on the BOM

[Glenn Schroeder]

I will preface my response by saying that I do very little sheet metal work, and I don't do anything that involves structured systems or weldments. (Our machines bolt together, no welding required.) So it is very likely that there are good reasons others follow different work flows.

The short answer: it is two parts that get welded together. Why isn't that an assembly?

bnemec does a good job of giving the long answer.

At my previous job we made these, and there was never a multibody part in the system.

image.png

There are good reasons for using multi-body Parts. As mentioned earlier, I don't have to worry about part numbers, so why should it be an Assembly? And while that's not the case here, my weldment Parts often have relations between bodies, so if I made them an Assembly I'd have external references that otherwise wouldn't be needed. While I'm not afraid of external references, and do use them, I don't want to have them when they aren't needed.

If I was using some form of PDM I might feel differently, but in my situation I don't see any reason not to use them, and am convinced they're better than Assemblies.

By the way, you mentioned hardware. The only time I have a multi-body Part is when it's all welded together. If it has hardware, and they pretty much always do, then it's an Assembly (unless nuts get welded to the Part).

I guess to sum it up, in some situations, and in some workflows, multi-body Parts might be an "abomination", but that's not true in every case.

[Dwight]

Sorry to continue off topic, but all our off-the-shelf commercial items are one file, no matter how many bodies. If they articulate in some way, like a hinge or drawer slide, then we have configurations to show that.

Dwight

[AlexLachance]

I will preface my response by saying that I do very little sheet metal work, and I don't do anything that involves structured systems or weldments. (Our machines bolt together, no welding required.) So it is very likely that there are good reasons others follow different work flows.

The short answer: it is two parts that get welded together. Why isn't that an assembly?

bnemec does a good job of giving the long answer.

At my previous job we made these, and there was never a multibody part in the system.

image.png

I think a simple way to image what you guys are trying to explain is this; Try explaining to a person in the shop that's looking for a model file, that the part number he is looking for is actually a body inside a part. Not many people outside the engineering world will understand this. We even created a "code" specific for multibody parts simply to distinguish them from everything else.

For instance, a part would be ITEM-001. An assembly would be ITEM-A001 and a multibody part would be ITEM-M001. ITEM being the category in which the part would go.

So then, people are able to easily know the category, if it's a part or assembly/multibody and the numbering of it. It also makes it so that none of our numbers cross over each other.

ERP stuff

Anything that's external component can be whichever as it has no real incidence.

[Frederick_Law]

Config (and multi-body) is great when you are the only one using it.
Try to export a config assembly with config sub assy and parts to another shop. With part numbers and BOM.
Yes, it can be done. I haven't seen many do it "properly".

If SW get cutlist and BOM to work together properly without all the work around and custom macro, multibody could useful.
I used weldment. If I put same weldment in assembly more then once, BOM only count it once.

The cost of using SW.

[AlexLachance]

Config (and multi-body) is great when you are the only one using it.
Try to export a config assembly with config sub assy and parts to another shop. With part numbers and BOM.
Yes, it can be done. I haven't seen many do it "properly".

If SW get cutlist and BOM to work together properly without all the work around and custom macro, multibody could useful.
I used weldment. If I put same weldment in assembly more then once, BOM only count it once.

The cost of using SW.

I use a cut-list that lists all bodies to export to our ERP and haven't really encountered issues, though it was a chore to set-up correctly.

Every file has a code assigned to it that our ERP looks at. If the code is empty or does not exist, as an external file would generally be, then our ERP will ignore what is contained inside this assembly/multibody part.

If the part is a multibody part but has one of the single-part codes, our ERP will throw off an error.
If the part is a single body part but has the multibody part code, our ERP will throw off an error.
If the part is whichever but doesn't contain any code, our ERP will only process the top level (to the extent that it requires)


Basically we have codes for parts such as P, C, S, U, B, which can be combined depending on what operation it is. P-B would be a part cut on our plasma and requiring bending for instance. Our assemblies use @$$ for Welded assemblies, ASM for Mobile(flexible) assemblies, MS for multibody parts and there are 2 other assembly codes that are used to define the final processes of production of our products.

P.S. @$$ is an auto-filter on this site.