A Brief History of Finite Element Method and Its Applications to Computational Electromagnetics

Stefano Selleri was born in Bologna, Italy, in 1966. He received the Laurea cum laude degree in electronic engineering from Bologna University, Bologna, in 1991, and the Ph.D. degree from Parma University, Parma, Italy, in 1995. Since 1997, he has been a Researcher with the Information Engineering Department, Parma University, where he became an Associate Professor in 2002, and has been a Full Professor and the Head of the Department since 2013. Since 2012, he has been a Chair of the IEEE Photonics Society Italian Chapter. His research interests include numerical methods for electromagnetic field analysis in conventional and photonic-crystal fibers and waveguides, fiber-based amplifiers, and optical sensing.意大利帕尔马大学信息工程学院的院长

paper 的link:

A_Brief_History_of_Finite_Element_Method_and_Its_Applications_to_Computational_Electromagnetics

写的比较全面的FEA史。有三个好玩的地方。

1. Johan Bernoulli in 1696 proposed the problem of the shortest time path connecting two points at different altitudes A and B

这个从高点往低点滚珠子的游戏,玩过的大佬太多!

Indeed, Isaac Newton, Jakob Bernoulli, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz, Ehrenfried Walter von
Tschirnhaus, and Guillaume de l’Hopital provided their own solution. In particular, Leibnitz exploited a piecewise linear approximation, which was a first step in his development of differential calculus, which he finally published [6], independently and shortly before Newton [7].

2. 看过一篇老学长的paper,说在中科院考了冯康的硕士,又考了第一名可以出国,冯说要学有限元跟我混就可以了!

鬼佬说While practice was going fast, theory lagged. The first proof of convergence of FEs might be traced to Feng Kang [28], but the paper, being in Chinese, was overlooked. 

冯教授放的卫星被无视了!论文1965发在国内!

F. Kang, “A difference formulation based on the variational principle,” Appl. Math. Comp. Math. (in Chinese), vol. 28, pp. 963-971, 1965.

3.  ANSYS (ANalysis SYStems) ported its punchedcard codes to Apple II in 1980, allowing for a first true graphical interface. 1980年代,Ansys还在玩打孔卡片!不过用在苹果二上!

In electromagnetism, Zoltan and Nicholas Cendes (Figure 3) founded Ansoft in 1984, marketing
HFSS (high frequency structure simulator). Ansoft, after a long partnership with Hewlett-Packard, was finally acquired by ANSYS in 2008. HFSS is currently the standard,
de facto, in FE analysis for electromagnetic waves.

电磁界Ansoft代表行业标准!


n5321 | 2025年6月13日 23:25

Development and Application of a Computer-Based System for Conceptual Aircraft Design

Cees Bil was born on November 5, 1955, in Oud-Beijerland, The Netherlands. His educational journey began at the Peter Stuyvesant College in Curaçao, Dutch Antilles, and continued at the Zernike College secondary school in Groningen, The Netherlands.

From 1975 to 1981, he pursued higher education at the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Technology. During this time, in 1979, he became a student-assistant to Professor ir. E. Torenbeek. Under Professor Torenbeek's guidance, he earned his 'ingenieur' degree, specializing in analytical and numerical aircraft design optimization.

In 1981, Cees Bil participated in the Lockheed International Research Institute exchange program, spending six months at the systems engineering department of the Lockheed-Georgia Company. After graduating, he returned to the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Technology as a research-assistant. He has held the position of assistant-professor since 1986



1988年的博士论文。

看上去有一点真实感!在洛克希德的系统工程部门呆了6个月。

Computer-Aided Engineering in Aircraft Design

Computer applications have become commonplace in many areas of design and engineering. Advances in computer technology have led to continuous improvements in computational performance and memory capacity. With the introduction of single-user workstations, either standalone or networked with other processors and peripheral devices, significant dedicated computing resources have become available to engineers at a relatively low cost [Ref. 82].


Beyond the traditional function of solving large-scale numerical problems ('number crunching'), additional computer capabilities have emerged. For example, 4D graphics workstations allow real-time object visualization for animation and simulation. Special-purpose machines for symbolic manipulation have been developed for implementing knowledge-based systems and other applications in artificial intelligence [Ref. 72]. Since the beginning of the computer era, the aerospace industry in particular has played a leading role in applying these new technologies to improve aircraft development and manufacturing.

航空业引领CAE



A Historical Overview

Before 1960, computers were hardly integrated into the design process. They were mainly used for running self-contained analysis programs, usually in a batch-mode environment. Each department or design team had its own specific analysis codes, generally developed and operated by specialists. However, the interchange of design information between these 'isolated islands' was still a manual task, making it time-consuming and error-prone.

In 1950, the technical feasibility of displaying computer-generated pictures on a CRT was demonstrated at MIT [Ref. 99].

By 1962, after significant advances in interactive computer technology, this new technique was implemented in the first experimental drafting system, SKETCHPAD.

里程碑——SKETCHPAD。绘图工具,伊凡·苏泽兰 Ivan Sutherland 在1963年写作。因为这个成就,伊凡·苏泽兰在1988年获得图灵奖。世界上第一个交互式电脑程序。

In 1965, the Lockheed Aircraft Company developed the Computer-Aided Drafting And Manufacturing system (CADAM) [Refs. 18 and 117], one of the first commercial drafting systems still in use with many aircraft manufacturers today. Around 1980, CADAM capabilities were augmented with a specific 3-dimensional system called CATIA (Computer-graphics Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application system). CATIA was also developed by an aircraft manufacturer, the Avions Marcel Dassault - Breguet Aviation company [Ref. 22]. At present, a wide range of CAD/CAM systems are commercially available on various types of computer hardware. Drafting and modeling systems are usually associated with Computer-Aided Design (CAD).——绘图建模业务

The introduction of interactive computer graphics capabilities prompted a change in the scope of computer applications. There was a growing awareness of the potential benefits of computer application in the overall design process. This initiated a trend towards integrating self-contained engineering programs—such as mesh-generators for structural analysis, geometric modeling, and NC tooling—into design systems. Typically, engineering programs are interfaced with and configured around central database systems.--好像只是讲讲而已。

Gradually, the role of the computer evolved into a powerful design tool, practically indispensable for the design and manufacturing of today's complex and efficient aerospace vehicles. The infrastructure of computer systems that provides overall support for all design and engineering activities, up to manufacturing, is generally referred to as Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE).

A classification of currently available CAE systems, according to their dependency on application type, design phase, and discipline, is provided in Figure 1.1 [Ref. 51]. With traditional CAD/CAM systems, practically any object can be geometrically defined and visualized with a high degree of detail and accuracy. FEA在CAD的加持下打开了新世界?Therefore, these systems are categorized as extremely application independent.

Because of their fundamental solution to the problem, computer-assisted engineering systems, such as those for structural and flow analysis (CFD), are also generally applicable. Inherent to using these systems is the requirement for the object to be known in considerable detail, which involves a large amount of data and relatively long computing times. Consequently, these systems can only be efficiently used in the detailed design phase when major configuration changes are no longer expected.

CAE面临的问题-数据量太大,计算时间太长,只能在细节设计的地方应用

as yet, Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) has not fully established itself as an accepted design technique in the initial, i.e., conceptual and preliminary, phases of the design process. Several general factors have hindered CAE's penetration into the configuration development phase:

影响CAE应用的三个因数——说得不错!

  • Heuristic and Intuitive Nature of Conceptual Design: Conceptual design is typically not a predetermined and strictly rational process. Its heuristic and intuitive nature is less suited for the formalized structure required by computer programs.

    工程师设计的时候常常是思维发散,启发式、直觉式的,要高度固化,要求输入格式化的数据有难度!——本质上是很多工程师对自己的产品理解得不够,大部分的设计都是维护性质的。只是改原有产品的若干参数而已!

  • Lack of Transparency in Computer Programs: Computer programs can appear less transparent to the designer. Hidden or obscured design decisions may confuse the decision-making process, leading to results that are not accepted or only accepted cautiously. This is especially true when many design parameters are varied, such as in automated design, where the analysis can become too complex to understand the physical relationships between different disciplines.

    工程师对计算机程序搞不清,对这个黑盒子里面吐出来的结果跟填进去的数据之间有什么关系不是很清楚。一些隐藏的、矛盾的参数会把人搞晕,最后获得的结果数据,哪些能用,哪些不能用,不确定。

  • Need for User-Friendly Interaction: Close interaction between the computer and the designer is essential and requires special attention to a user-friendly communication interface and ease of operation.

    交互模式不好!做不到易用性!

    我们可以解决这三个问题!

Computer applications in the pre-design phase are generally restricted to (large) custom-coded programs developed and used on an ad hoc basis.计算机应用都是定制的 Since 1965, research has focused on integrating design methods into synthesis programs. A classic example is SYNAC (Synthesis of Aircraft) for military aircraft configuration development at General Dynamics [Ref. 91]. A more recent example is the ACSYNT-program (Aircraft Synthesis) developed by NASA [Ref. 15]. This program also forms part of Northrop's Conceptual Design System (CDS) [Refs. 105 and 106].

Some of these synthesis programs even offer the option to automatically perform sensitivity studies and aircraft sizing. However, the incorporated design methods and their respective input and output variables are pre-selected and cannot be easily modified by the designer. 设计参数不能改,最后application 难以scale up!Therefore, these programs often require reprogramming or additional code for each new application not accommodated by the original program, which resists innovative design. Additionally, the time required to adapt the program may render it obsolete before it becomes productive. Due to the built-in design procedures and processes, designers tend to adjust their way of thinking to the capabilities and mode of program operation.

Essential for the development of a generic preliminary design system that the analysis methods are considered as input to the system, similar to data, rather than being integrated, i.e., fixed, into the system itself. Thus, these modules, embodying the design knowledge, should reside outside the system, where they can be easily modified and reorganized by the designer and tailored to the specific design problem structure and aircraft category. Boeing's Computer-aided Preliminary Design System (CPDS) [Ref. 132] is a typical example of this concept.


Potential Benefits of Computer-Aided Engineering

Although the objectives for introducing CAE may differ per industry and application type, some general areas of practical and economic potential can be identified concerning aircraft design [Ref. 70]:

  • Reduced Design Time: CAE can reduce the development time needed to introduce a new design. Early introduction and availability, ahead of competitive designs, can be an advantage.

  • Improved Product Through Better Design: Within a given timeframe, more alternative design solutions can be considered, potentially leading to improved design quality.

  • Greater Design Capacity: For a given design staff, several design projects can be accommodated simultaneously. A faster response to customer queries and requests is also possible.

  • Solving Outsized Design Problems: CAE introduces opportunities and capabilities that are practically impossible to achieve in a traditional design environment. Sophisticated analysis codes require computer-assisted pre- and post-processing.

  • Reduced Design Cost: A reduction in design and development cost can be expected, particularly in the areas of drafting and manufacturing [Ref. 54].

In principle, these advantages also apply to conceptual design. However, even though at least 80% of a project's development and production cost is related to decisions made in the early stages of design, the actual investments during conceptual design are relatively small. Therefore, emphasis is generally placed on improving design quality rather than cost reduction:

  • Improved Efficiency of the Design Process: Automation of routine and repetitive activities relieves the designer of standard tasks. Formalization of design data improves data exchange between disciplinary teams and downstream design levels.

  • Improved Design Quality: Within a given time/cost frame, more design alternatives can be evaluated. Sensitivity studies, trade-off studies, and multivariate optimization can be more easily applied in an integrated design environment.

Although the procurement of CAD/CAE hardware and software is costly and its implementation will undoubtedly impact a company's organization, infrastructure, and working procedures, these initial problems do not outweigh the long-term benefits. The implementation of CAE in the aerospace industries and research laboratories is well underway, as a better concept is essential for a better aircraft design.


The Aircraft Design Process

Developing a new aircraft type demands a substantial financial investment. Because of this, the decision to launch a new aircraft project is always preceded by extensive market surveys. These surveys aim to gauge commercial prospects and identify the specific requirements of potential customers for future air transport.

However, conceptual and preliminary design studies are also conducted for other reasons, such as assessing the impact of emerging technologies or exploring the feasibility of alternative concepts, even without the immediate intention of building the aircraft. After all, a genuinely new aircraft type emerges only about every 20 years!


The Design Synthesis 跟电机设计差不多!

Aircraft design isn't generally a continuous or straightforward process; it involves many repetitive procedures and feedback loops.(是不是类似电机的一次、二次、十次、十一次送样?) However, it's common practice to divide the overall aircraft design process into three logical phases, as illustrated in Figure 2.1 [Ref. 124].

The primary objective during the conceptual design phase is to develop a global definition for several design configurations that best meet the overall design requirements.

  1. A key characteristic of conceptual design is design synthesis: the designer attempts to combine all technical disciplines – such as weight and balance, aerodynamics, stability and control, performance, costs, and noise – into a well-balanced design solution. Since only limited design information is available at this early stage, relatively simple analysis methods, known as Class I methods, must be employed. These prediction methods are typically derived from (semi-)empirical and statistical analyses of existing aircraft designs.——设计目标
  2. A selection of the most promising conceptual designs are then analyzed using more sophisticated methods, such as finite-element modeling and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). At this stage, the design staff is typically divided into disciplinary teams, each with their specific specialization. A final selection is made, and the design configuration is "frozen." ——engineering analysis 来了!
  3. In the detail design phase, the aircraft is designed at a component level, resulting in a large number of engineering drawings. Wind tunnel experiments and structural tests are also carried out. At this critical juncture, management must decide whether to "go-ahead" and build the aircraft, as development costs will increase progressively beyond this point. ——出工程图!

While the general concept of the ADAS system does not restrict its application to a particular design stage, it is primarily intended for conceptual design.


The Search for the Optimum Design

To develop a suitable design system, it's essential to identify the basic activities and procedures involved in the initial stages of design. Design is generally an iterative process that begins with an initial, tentative design configuration, referred to as the baseline design. Given the design requirements and objectives, the configuration is repeatedly modified in subsequent design cycles until a satisfactory design solution is found.

A design cycle, in turn, can be divided into three basic steps:

  1. Design Definition: A new or modified design configuration is geometrically defined in sufficient detail.

  2. Design Analysis: Suitable analysis methods are utilized to compute selected design characteristics.

  3. Design Evaluation: The design is evaluated by comparing the analysis results with the given design requirements and objectives. If deemed necessary, the design configuration is changed, and the process repeats.

This procedure can be represented in a schematic flowchart, adapted for implementation on a computer (Figure 2.2).



Figure 2.2 illustrates that conceptual design is fundamentally a search process: design data and analysis methods are manipulated until the process converges on an acceptable design solution. In mathematical terms, four key ingredients are involved:

  1. Independent Variables (Design Parameters): These can take arbitrary values within specific limits. Design parameters can be assigned a value either directly by the designer or indirectly by an executive program. Design data that remains constant throughout a study are called design constants. Typical examples of design parameters include wing aspect ratio, wing loading, thrust/weight ratio, and tailplane dimensions.

  2. Dependent Variables: The values of these variables depend on the independent variables. They represent design characteristics like performance criteria, cost, noise, etc.

  3. Analysis Methods: These define the physical relationships between the independent and dependent variables. Analysis methods can range from relatively simple to extremely complex, depending on the required accuracy and the available input information.

  4. Design Requirements and Figure of Merit: These are used to assess the feasibility and efficiency of the design configuration. Design requirements impose technical constraints that may stem from operational performance, mission requirements, airworthiness regulations, technological aspects, and practical considerations.

It is common practice in conceptual design to select the primary wing and tailplane parameters such that the aircraft meets the defined mission requirements (known as "sizing"). However, it's often found that several different design concepts can represent a feasible design. The entire collection of feasible designs is referred to as the design space. An additional requirement, a figure of merit, may then be considered to select the best possible (feasible) design. This process is called design optimization.


Procedures for Design Optimization

There are three fundamentally different procedures that a designer can employ to search for the best conceivable ("optimum") design [Refs. 113 and 126]:

  • Traditional Intuitive (Optimum) Design Approach: In this approach, the designer relies mainly on intuition and experience to select and change design parameters.

    • Advantages (+):

      • The designer can fully utilize experience, augmented by proven and simple design methods.

      • Simple or no programming is required.

      • The number of designs to be analyzed is limited.

      • Maximum use is made of calculated results.

      • No a priori choice of one merit function is needed.

      • Arbitrary, though limited, number of variations and design modifications are possible.

    • Disadvantages (-):

      • No guarantee that a real optimum is obtained.

      • No useful results are produced outside the designer's experience.

      • It is time-consuming, leading the designer to resist desirable changes in design specifications or previous decisions.

  • Explicit or Parametric Optimization: This procedure involves generating and analyzing a multitude of designs, each with different parameter values. All designs are subsequently evaluated, and the "best" design is selected.

    • Advantages (+):

      • It is rooted in the industrial approach.

      • Requires relatively simple programming.

      • The designer has complete control over decisions.

      • No a priori choice of a single merit function is needed.

      • Sensitivity of off-optimum design conditions remains visible.

    • Disadvantages (-):

      • No guarantee that a global optimum is obtained; it may lie outside the selected design space.

      • Only practical for a limited number of independent variables (e.g., 3 or 4).

      • Many designs are evaluated, but only a few are actually used.

      • The designer is not encouraged to extend the number of variables, as the amount of data to be analyzed increases exponentially.

      • Changes in design specifications make previously generated results obsolete and are resisted.

  • Implicit or Multivariate Optimization: This technique requires the design process to be fully automated. The figure of merit and design requirements are quantitatively formulated as an objective function and constraints, respectively. An optimization algorithm (optimizer) changes the specified design parameters (free variables) based on mathematical information acquired during the optimization process.

    • Advantages (+):

      • Potentially leads to improved design quality due to the rigorous approach.

      • Especially useful for multi-variable systems.

      • Effect of "biased" decisions is eliminated.

      • Changes in design specifications are easily met.

    • Disadvantages (-):

      • Programming and debugging are difficult.

      • Optimization algorithms are not always effective.

      • Convergence problems may occur (no solution is found).

      • No insight into design sensitivity; only one design is obtained.

      • Inexperienced designers may produce and accept unrealistic results.

In the order presented, these optimization techniques involve a higher degree of design automation, where control of the search process is delegated to the computer. By comparing their pros and cons, it can be concluded that these three optimization techniques are complementary. Therefore, an effective design system should give the designer the freedom to choose a suitable combination for a given design problem.

paper后续的地方价值不大了!




n5321 | 2025年6月13日 21:53

Developing and Using CAD/CAM/CAE Systems in Boeing

他山之玉,想要攻石!哪里下载?!

一篇题目看上去不错的paper


CAD: Forming the Industry

这个paper不知道写得怎么样!



n5321 | 2025年6月8日 17:44

An Interview on John A. Swanson at 康奈尔大学

Really, really, really nice to be here. I think this is the first one of these events I've done in person in a really long time. And it's just wonderful and hello to our hybrid audience out there as well. We know there's a whole bunch of you. But I'm especially glad that we're here today for such an important event, an event that honors Dr. John A. Swanson as a 2021 Cornell Engineering Distinguished Alumni Award recipient.

Dr. Swanson is a triple read classes of '60 to '61, BMI '62, and MS '63. And he joins a small and truly extraordinary group of Cornell engineers. Can we honor with this award for having left an indelible mark on their professions, on Cornell and on the world.

His curiosity and his determination very early in his career led to one of the most significant developments in simulation engineering, as well as the founding of Swanson analysis systems, known today as ANSYS Incorporated, an industry leader in CAD CAM and multi-physics engineering simulation software for product design, testing and operation. And the finite element analysis software that John developed in the late 1960s transformed the way that engineers and designers perform complex calculations and analysis across a broad spectrum of industries.

John has been recognized for his contributions with a number of honors and awards, including the John Fritz Medal from the American Association of Engineering Societies, something that's often described as the Nobel Prize for engineering. That puts him in the same category with a few other people that you might have heard of, like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, George Westinghouse, Orville Wright, and no fewer than seven other Cornellians.

And in 2009, John was elected to the National Academy of Engineering, recognizing his accomplishments at the highest level in the field of engineering.

In 1994, John sold ANSYS and he retired as chief technologist five years later? Yes, you're nodding like he retired because the air quotes around "retire" are deliberate since what he's done since 1999 would fill a resume on its own. So it's kind of hard to look at that list of achievements and say, "Oh yeah, he retired, definitely retired."

Speaking personally as well as for Cornell, I am really, really glad that John decided to retire in name only because in the last two plus decades, he's made a second career of engineering education and philanthropy. And Cornell has been fortunate to be a beneficiary of both.

A great advocate for the training of practical engineers, John has spent much of his time working with and investing in engineering programs here at Cornell, at the University of Pittsburgh, where it happens, I taught early in my career and where the John A. Swanson School of Engineering is named for him, at institutions around the country where he shares his experiences and his passion for engineering.

In recent years, he has been a strong advocate for an investor in renewable energy. In fact, earlier today he served as distinguished lecturer for the engineer, sort of the energy engineering seminar, sharing his thoughts on how to move the current electrical utility distribution network, what we usually referred to as the grid, a much greener approach with the use of carbon free resources.

He's donated solar panels to the university. And he inspired and funded a project to convert one of our diesel tractors to biodiesel. Biodiesel. Both of which provided opportunities for engineering students to gain hands-on practical experience. While at the same time moving us closer to a carbon neutral campus and a sustainable future.

John's extraordinary generosity with his time, knowledge, skills, and resources have had an enduring impact here at Cornell and beyond. He supported faculty like Mario Land Van der Meulen in the Swanson Professor of Biomedical Engineering, capital projects like Swanson Atrium and Nuffield Hall and the Swanson biomedical engineering suite and Weill Hall, programs like the Swanson engineering simulation program. And always, always our students, there was support of the engineering student project teams, The academic excellence workshops, and the John A. Swanson undergraduate scholarship.

John has strengthened the educations of so many Cornell engineers and its impact on our students and alumni will continue for many years to come.

And while we're here to recognize today John's contributions to engineering, I hope the engineers will understand if I take just one detour because I can't stand up here in front of you and not acknowledge the Swanson and particularly Janet's incredible support for our College of Veterinary Medicine, for which we are all so, so very grateful.

John, on behalf of Cornell University, I congratulate you on this most deserved honor. Thank you from all of us for everything you've done for Cornell, Cornellians, for the Cornell mission and for our world.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. So first of all, let me just say on behalf of the college, welcome. This is a relatively new award for us and this is the fun part for me actually, is having a role in this conversation with John. I guess I can take this off. We're just going to say no. Was going to say, you can have it having this conversation. The John is actually going to be a highlight of my day and maybe my first year as dean of the college.

So what I'd like to do in the next few minutes you've got together John is to just sort of first take you back to where you came from, sort of the underpinnings of your values, your success, your impact on. I want to get a sense for the middle, the things you did at Ansys and so forth. But ultimately want, you know, maybe force you to help me look to the future as we think about clean energy, think about sustainability. In fact, think as a campus about how we made the campus carbon-neutral in a living laboratory contents. So that's sort of the arc of what I'd like to do. So let's start to the start, right?

So I've read in several places the important role your mom played in your upbringing, your commitment to excellence. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about that, but that's sure they have. There is a teaching award here at Cornell, the Darcy Jewish Watson Award, and the fine print. And Nat says, the way I look at is an expectation of excellence. We weren't said we have to. This is just part of the environment. You will be number one. You will do well. You will say, Oh, yeah, the things that are my basic core came from just that expectation. There was not really discussed. It was just there, there were no question about it. My father died when I was four, so she was a school teacher. She became an elementary principal, lasted about six months of Dan decided she'd rather teach students. And I understand completely why that is. And I'm sure you do as well. But anyway, she was the focus and she did a good job. Hence, the recognizer and UI, I have enough of a core which is extremely strong, but it's not forced because that's, that's who I am. That there was no other choice. So I am who I am as somebody once said, move forward.

Thank you. Well, that's pretty good. So then so you came to Cornell. That will tell how little the mode that dwell and let, let, let me explain the selection process. Bearing mind a school teacher of fifth grade in a small file. I think there's a mike. I think something has gone back and you're going anyway, a small school, 12 in our graduating class, 3 in my older brother's graduating class. So not a high revenue position. But then also questions. You came to Cornell. Cornell was, was a desire, but not necessarily achieve. Actually we rank to colleges by how cheap they were. And so I had three colleges in New York state. One up in the North, one in Albany and one here I won't name names. But then the good news was I got National Merit Scholarship, was of course, the game changer, somebody at that time. So let's invest in the future. And this is what they caught. I hope that, I hope they're happy with it. Yeah. Sorry.

So Cornell was it. Now, I have to say that at time engineering was five years. National merit scholarship was four years. I'm not quite sure how it happened, but somehow Cornell found a year and a half worth of financing. And so I explained to students this morning that be aware that you are valuable. Yeah, I didn't realize at the time I thought doing for me, but I didn't realize that I was doing for you as well. So that that's an understanding that has come to me later years that the student is the most valuable resource that we have here. So that got me to Cornell engineering was not a question. My had a high school guidance counselor, Mrs. stamps it and we discuss what I should be doing. But I took adaptive EPA amputated and adaptive know whatever the word is for what you could do. Well, I took those tests and I had two choices. I had engineering and I had order to get to the disaster happened. Phenols lawyer. Now, the reason for the lawyer was that I read every period mentioned books there ever was. And so I knew everything about very basic law and nothing probably about real law now. But anyway, I went to engineering.

Now, a high school was so small that our class size was typically small. Trigonometry, I was the class. The Mrs. Thompson who taught boasts, bath and other stuff, uh, gave me the book. It said the exam is on this date, be ready. So I did, I did all the exercises and all the books and I was ready. Now, unfortunately, I missed a question. Perfection is expected when I only got 98. Mrs. Thompson with battle for me because I explained to her that my answer was in fact the correct answer. Do you want to Albany and convince them that both answers are acceptable? Mla and I got my eye on it so that another influence was minutes times. But Mr. stamps, that was also on the damn damn committee because at the time that we're going to put flood control DAM north of Upton and wipe out the whole rest of the valley. So I got a good view of political activism because we didn't learn a whole lot of biology. What we're learning a lot about dam building and NAM defeated at that again was business stamps. That's how I got to Cornell.

I didn't have enough to buy food, so I had to work for a living. One of the worst shocks in my life was my first chemistry test. Yeah. Well, it was shocking was all of this to other students were saying it was it was rough. And I was you, I thought it was pretty easy. I failed. Not by much, I'm going to 59, but it was still failing. And then that caused me to reassess what I should be doing here. So I took a job at Willard Straight organize my schedule and gotten a lot better and that was the last one I failed as well. So we do learn our life lessons. I think that's enough for that question.

Yeah, I know that's a pretty thorough answer. You almost answered all the questions so that, you know, so at a, I'm a little bit afraid to ask this question, but I think one of the, one of the things we pride ourselves in as academics is the impact on people and especially on young students. Helping them find their way, understand your strengths. So can you talk a little bit? I mean, who were the role models at Cornell? Who are the people who had the biggest impact on you?

Well, I'll, I'll try on that. But it's not going to the answer. You want to hear it? Because basically, through our life, I was pretty much self-motivated, independent. So I remember laboratories where we had a team laboratory. I would write the report with the blanks where the numbers go. And we go in, we do the experiment, write down the numbers, do the calculation. And, you know, I live teams that very well. So, but I'm not sure that I got an inspiration from the distance because it was a team effort.

As far as professors, the one I remember most even now is not for what he taught, but for how you ask questions. And I remember the final exam question verbatim. Was, can a Cadillac push a Volkswagen bug across the road without the formula, basically parcel for the Cadillac to move the car out of its way? You know, that that's an engineering question but not phrased the way we would expect that to be. You don't expect What's the moment of inertia will not work, or what's the coefficient of friction that yeah, This one. Yeah, here's the problem. And yeah, so yeah, I think about that question and say, I could still solve that. But it was really frightening at the time because we hadn't thought about putting the pieces together.

And the and then when they got into the industry, you know, what surprised me was how the simplest things were the most important. The two most informed formula, we're Mc over I and p over a. And if you use them, maybe with a coefficient or something. But you could do almost everything in designing a nuclear rocket with b over a and Mc over I. And so I learned that it's easier to take an exam if you understand the basic concepts and derive everything else. Damn time. Now so and a third skill I had was, I could remember lectures verbatim, just a couple notes in the margin, and then I could replay them. So I have to think that I'm not your normal student. I am who I am. Self-motivated. Hobo? Yes. Every milestone motivated. And I think I knew I had to be done and I went data and you did it. I didn't nearby beating a stick over me or whatever. And those are the best students, by the way, amylase, right?

So, so, so just moving forward because that I found as a, an academic who's advice, some really outstanding PhD students. The traits you describe are things I recognize many of these students. So you left Cornell, went to work for Westinghouse? Yes. I want it to do why I didn't declare engineering degree and my masters for engineering. So I want to do nuclear, but I also was interested in space. So a nuclear rocket, rocket was the Mars rock. And Mars mission. And we were going in 1980. Now, obviously that program didn't go very far. It's still floating in the wings somewhere, but I'm waiting from calleds a help us out here. But it has nap and yeah. So yeah, that was Westinghouse. I got there with my nuclear degree and they said, Well, we really got enough nuclear people how to bone, you can stress animals, mouses, and sign it. Yeah, That's why I learned PRA and MCI were born, So I I did quite a bit. But they have a graduate program. And my supervisor came to me and said, Can I put you in for the PhD program? And being young naive, I said sure. That, you know, not not treat recipients and deliver. The next fall, I was back to three courses for trimesters, trimesters per year, and a full-time job. And there's nothing like driving to Pittsburgh and even try to find a parking space. Yeah, that was a stressful part of it, was finding the parking space for the evening courses. But I got through it and came dissertation time. And I approached it in my usual creative or dumb, depending upon how do I look at it? I wrote up a detailed proposal, what I was going to do, eight pages. And they said, okay, that looks good. I went off at three months later I did it. I wrote all the software where all the graphics wrote all the dissertation, and Westinghouse printed it up for me and I walked in with eight volumes of PhD dissertations that I've done. Where do I get my degree?

Now, the loophole was you didn't have to do residents if you're working interrelated, how does nicely then suppose though that no longer there, it disappears several days after I left. And so you say I make, my advisor disappeared also, he went back to South America, although there was some turmoil at a time. So the just curious about how you fit it in. So did you go to school that my uncoded you? They ended the program. So I was able to do all my coursework. It was three courses per trimester, three premises a year. So it was 2007 courses. And yes, it was. And it was about three-quarters of our drive. But yeah, that's yeah, I don't understand suffering very well side I just suffered through and that's that's what I had to do. So that's what I did know.

Awesome. So look, my understanding is that the, you know, the the the platform that be describing those answers, yes. Basically started out of that the later days of Westinghouse. Let me tell that story. Yeah, of course. That we had a problem with. Our design wasn't perfect. And we had an axis symmetric problem where something was cracking. And I hadn't no tools to work on this. I said, well, suppose I make a network of springs and see how the load flows and see if I can learn anything from that. Now our sponsors were Joint Atomic Energy Commission and nasa. And so I waited for review and they showed him laugh. And I don't try to learn anything from them. They said, Hey, that's what Ed Wilson is doing at the University of California, Berkeley. Why don't you go on top then? So I did, I went out, solved the problem, brought the two boxes of cards back with me and said, Okay, backtracking a moment.

I never saw a computer at Cornell. Thank sense. So when I got to Westinghouse, they had a computer and they taught me a class in Fortran. And of course I loved it because you do it once the stays done. Yeah, I was banging out equations on a calculator, but I program them and I know that was it. I can take that half the day often or run 10 times as many analysis. I discovered computers. So then I got to software. I brought in a software for a couple of colleges, universities and government labs. And of course, be, who am I? We wrote them all and make them better or make it easier or whatever on or maybe just because I don't like to write it. But anyway. So anyway, I did a two-dimensional axis symmetric. I did two dimensional planar up programs for shells or programs for plates. I wrote programs for three-dimensional solids. And then I looked at it and I've done the same thing 56 times. Why don't I do it all at once? So I went to the west thing else research labs and said, I would like to develop software. And they said, we'd like you to run your stress group at time I was the manager of the stress groups. So I was discouraged. In fact, these literally said stop, keep on. She gets reflected in the morning and go back to managing stress group.

My philosophy on management was within baskets gets to I, somebody will tell me what what's important and I'll work on that. So yeah, I was I was not strictly management material, but I managed to fake it enough to do the job. But then you, then the, this software to do develop became successful as a product that Islam. And basically I half ago that I had, it was clear that the handwriting was on the wall. They saying it was clear that we were not going to Mars. And if we don't go to Mars, we don't need this thing we're working on. So something's gotta, gotta go and it's probably all the employees and all the software and everything. So I went out looking for a job there. And to do what I wanted to do, and I could get either one, but not both. So I started a company.

Now, people, okay, they say, Well, isn't that a risky thing to do? How could you do that? And I had job offers in my pocket and I had enough money to last a couple of months. And I could go out and do consulting at any number Westinghouse locations and others. So the risk was not that great and the rewards turned out to be quite, quite massive. So those were hard time developing software because you'll use punch cards, carry them into the computer. You would run the job, put the job into rotten, you wouldn't run it. It runs sometimes night, you go in the next morning, look at and find out why never went right. They find out, well, what went wrong and fix it, put it in again, and go off on your consulting job. Come back in the evening, you look at again, it's audio. So in that laborious manner, we actually developed some good software. But it's no, nothing strong or as much different news stories about spilling all your cards. So there's always a diagonal line from the top of the deck. Everybody puts a diagonal line. So when, when not enough, when you dump the cards, actually it's a card reader people that pick them up and they go and they give you back a pilot guard and say Sorry about that. So yes, the line on the top of the cards is in fact true. Also the Christmas wreath. And also true.

Well, good Sue though you so again, fast-forwarding 990 fork was the year yeah, I'll use old. You sold ANSYS and US did on the basically, the question is why always, and the why was it got too big? I like programming. So my philosophy was I'll manage on Monday and our program on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. At some point, as you get to a certain size, that model doesn't work anymore. At that point. Now you've got conflict. I'm not good at conflict as Jeremy, I think. So. So at that point, I said somebody else can run this. I didn't solve a vessel that didn't exist. So I sold it to TA Associates. They took it over and put it allows the manager. But the second one they got really right. It has thrived dramatically since then.

So I'm going to ask you hard question, okay? Yeah. So sight of the the sort of technical accomplishment, what are you most proud of? Your time advances of time at Ansys. There were things I called I named power something. There was power graphics, there's power dynamics, wasn't thick, I'll put that there were those and those words, signs, we got order of magnitude improvement. In one shot. The graphics went from slow to flash. Also, I did a, a user interface which was long before Windows or anything else. In fact, IBM put it up for a national award for design. And it was a little slow until I got a little book that explain how to do graphics without doing multiplication and division on just the inner. And it sparkled. If it was just phenomenal, that things that were taking slow, we're instantaneously things with flashing and so on.

Another one that comes to mind is when somebody came to us and gave us a color graphics terminal. Now we've been using tectonics terminals that just draw lines on a green screen. Here's colors. So what's the obvious thing? What we'll call are the ones who did that, not colorblind. So as the story we did, I call it, people said that first. I forgot. I call it the polar and say, what do you think of this? They said, yeah, I said, well suppose we fill in the space. So instead of calling the line, we call it the areas magic. You know that everything now is done that way. But it was just the inside of invert the problem. Don't color the lines. Go to the spaces between the lines. Yes. So things like that. I remember well, there are times when I said, Hey, I read it and we celebrated and, and it turned out to be a dot. And then I had another one that we can make great strides here. And I programmed it all up and it had a fatal flaw. Yes, I don't remember those other than there was a problem, but I don't think about them a lot. And that's good.

That's really good. So again, I'm going to career jumps. So this next question, John could spend two hours because I just isn't an hour long talk, so just bear with him here. Alright. So you know, then you left ANSYS permanently? Yes. And, you know, I I'm just listening to you and imagine that We're still full of energy, full of creativity. How did you decide we didn't, this wasn't a minute and just kept the peace because I spent ten years as a consultant for it. Yes. Yes. Okay. So eventually, that was not too long ago. I found I was paying more for the lawyer bills and I was getting from that answers all. At that point, economics says, it's probably not worth doing this. And, you know, my, my consulting job and answers is interesting because I could do the projects and nobody else wanted to do the ones that had no glory attached. Ansys would stress test the software, trying to solve bigger and bigger problems to stay ahead of the market. And if they find some limitation, they call me up, say, Hey, yeah, make this bigger, like 1000 times bigger. All right. Now so often it was something I said, well, we'll never have more than something. And so that limit was built in. And sure enough, a few years later, we had, you know, we thought we'd have a customer who had more. So our objective was to just get there before the customer doesn't fix it. So the customer never say that that was quite successful. Now, what was your question? Not somebody I wanted to get you'd be unanswered. I'll beyond that. Yeah.

So I wanted to get you to the energy and the answer. We get there. My oldest son got solar panels in California where different market interesting. And I said, Well, if I can get solar panel, I should have solar panels. So I got solar panels and I say, well, this is a good thing actually that I can get cheap energy and it's green, but it doesn't have to be, you know, I could sell it on the economics. Yeah. You can't afford not to do this as opposed to, oh, it's green. You gotta do this. You can't sell. Mean that you, I'll do this by each cell. You can save a lot of money doing this. And it's green. Yeah, that sounds pretty well. Dogma. And that now I'm doing the same thing with electric vehicle. I'm having more trouble because it's green, but I'm not sure the economics are there. Yeah, so I'm, I'm having to learn a different strategy which I haven't figured out what it is. It's got muddy. Yeah, it was just, these are interesting technical problems. Notice I didn't do windmills. Now, no idea. I can't put windows on my on my roof or on my property. So I've got no interested windmills because the zoning does the lock so that I can to electric vehicles, I get a solar panels. So those are the ones I chose.

And so talk to me, you know, So tell me a little bit about, um, I mean, this is great, but tell me a little bit about what drove you to found green key village. And he was actually the contractor who had done my solar, came to me and said, Hey, I'd like to do more of this as a piece of properties become available. It'll hold a 100 houses. And why don't we create a Green Village? And so can you tell the audience what green key villages I'm going to evaluate? Is it all? And all green community. All the energy is developed through solar panels. Every house as solar panels. Every house is also designed to be as energy efficient as possible, is gone blown and installations. It's got high resistance windows. Everything is designed for energy efficiency. And we basically warranty of them to be net 0 energy. We don't say net 0 price because electric company keeps adding monthly fees. We're not covering for that, we're just covering for the the energy. And it's been relatively successful. We're about 50 houses in 2019, 20 that are available.

There is a story behind the land acquisition. It was about a 100 acres and there was a builder who had put in roads and some sewer lines and so on. Unfortunately, there's a downturn in the economy and he suffered. So the bank got the property. Well, not the end of the story. The bank with under and another bank got the proper. So it was on the market for around about $990 thousand. But he said to me, I think we can get it for half that. We bid a 0.5 million for it and got it for 650. Yeah, so that was sort of the impetus. We've got this piece of property as partially developed. We can do this. And it started slow. But now, well, the supply chain problem is labor problems had us because we got it house sold, but not close because electric meters not in, yeah, in the lecture bidders with delayed three weeks because for some reason micro meters or don't wait three weeks. Yeah. Yeah. So there are real life issues that focus around me are nothing to do with renewable energy. But we've prevailed. We are, We're still solvent and building houses. There are about four or five other infrastructure.

So one of the things that when I read about this project, I think of the fact that Cornell ones to be carbon neutral by 2030 and see and use someone who's actually had this sort of underground experience or not. But, you know, that, that was the purpose of it for me, It's a laboratory and a demonstration. This is what the world looked like in residential. And I've had a goodly number engineering Deans. You're invited out to look at it. And I've had it brings peace and yaw. The environmental groups take tourists and so on. So it's a debit for me, it's a demonstration. And so, and so big lessons because we have the same principle as well, we would like to use successes on campus to teach the world, to do certain things, sort of living laboratory concept. I wonder if you have any advice for us.

I've got another story. You'll see. I think you have to suffer through this that the Chancellor at Pitt came out of Washington DC where he ran the bureau standard laboratory. Him, if he Seidel up to me one time at a board meeting. He said, China, we've got a net-zero house. You really ought to see it. I said, Oh, is it lived in. He said No, but got an instrumented. I so I've got 25. They're all if you come to Florida and I'll show you that it's not in anyway, ask your other questions and then we'll actually but you answered your own question. So my y I have allowed my question was lessons for us, lessons for you, lessons we'll Cornell. So we're thinking, now this is not a few houses, this is a community of 30 goes, as you heard me say my lecture this afternoon. I think Cornell is an interesting case, because Cornell's energy need is not electricity so much as heat. And heat is a my opinion, understudied phenomenon. Yeah, nobody has focused recently on what is the problem with a time delay? Heat is hot in the summer called the winter. What can we do with that? You know, the answer to that. There's gotta be take the heat from the sovereign put in the winter, he took a course from the lake. Now that didn't work. So you need a hotlink. Now you're looking for it and geothermal. You're looking for hot lake? Yeah. I'm not told that you're going to find it. So I gotta look at Plan B and C. But plan B is basically find a way of storing large quantities of energy. And if you phrase it that way, The way to do that as phase change. And I tell the whites pond story briefly, whites pond prose. Every winter we chopped up the ice, we put it in the icehouse, buried and sawdust and use it all summer. Yeah. So what's the inverse of whites pond? How do you chop up the co the the heat of the summer, store it in whatever you're storing in the face. During the winter. Ice is a phase change material as paraffin as it turns out, better ones, Yeah, yeah.

So we are going to veer off rates. So one of the things that you've done sentences, you've become an incredible, you and Jeannette will become incredible philanthropist giving education initiatives, not just here at Cornell, Pittsburgh, and many other places. I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about some initiatives that you've supported with your proudest. Okay. Well, let let me ask the question. Didn't ask that was why are you doing this? Well, you can answer the Atlantic. The why you're doing this. As I said, engineering was good to me and it's given to me. When I gave to me, American bank note company gave to me. A lot of people gave to me. And I'm certainly not taking it with me. So I've gotta figure out what's the most creative ways of giving it back. And I think we've been quite successful at that. It's not all gone. We've discovered a charitable gift annuities with Schar for a poor boy was scared to death and being poor. Charitable gift annuity is a guarantee contract. Money forever or until we bought by whichever comes from. So we do that. Well, people have also asked me, how do you our UCL successful as philanthropy? How do you choose such interesting and beneficial project? And I say, I don't, I go to the university and say, what do you need? Yeah, or they come to me and say, Hey, we want to study teaching methodology. This is what's most important to us. I just talk to Helen. She asked me with latest gift, how do you want to fine tune it and it's not I don't know. I don't yeah. You will know better what what you need at that time that I could ever know. So, so basically it's a matter of listen to what you want. Maybe helping us think through, but not necessarily saying that's the only answer you may want to go some other way. And I'm not going to forget that.

Yeah, that's great. So, um, so look in the interest of time, I'm going to ask you just one more question. Okay. That's that's the sort of question that Dean has this grade. So during the course of the day today, you interact with adults or I had a great time that you had a great time. I can tell from the talk at lunch. But I guess the question is, what gives you hope? But I mean, based on these interactions, are there gaps, are there things we should be thinking about? Does the college in terms of how we educate?

Well, thanks for your basic rules and I'm emphasizes both courses. One basic rule is follow the money. Yeah, it's all economics. Now, if you can't do the economics, nothing else follows. So now, who benefits? I've struggled with Professor Gao and he's talking about health. And I said, Okay, who benefits from a healthier population? Who is going to be behind us? Who's going to make a lot of money if we have a healthier population. And in my, you know, my first thought was insurance companies. Yeah, there's nothing better for an insurance company than a healthy person if they're insuring their health. Say, you gotta find out, yeah, you can't just say, let's make the world healthier. You're going to find out who has the money and the desire to benefit for being healthy. So yeah, that's a core lesson, but I don't think you've ever hear that taught. So systems and yeah, I was accused the system psyche. And I'm complimented by that because I think that's probably a good thing. And probably something that Cornell as a leader.

And so if I can paraphrase, so what you're saying is that we need to basically allows students almost as a knee-jerk to marry the engineering systems and economics is that there's another way to consider that those are the driving force. No matter how theoretically you are or how intelligent you are if you can't get the money behind it or convince somebody that this is the future. It's going to stay at the university. Hi on the shelves. If you can get somebody excited about it. Who's got money? You know, that? Yeah, I was almost convinced we're going to get fissured energy, fusion energy. Just because the professor says, Yeah, we're going to do this. There's going to be breakthrough as here's one already. It's not 30 years off, it's only 20 years off. He and I are going to talks or because we don't necessarily agree on the timescale, though there's some there's some really interesting things there, but I'm going to stop because John and I can go on. I mean, we have a lot of similar interests. So what I would like to do those open things up for members of the audience, including by the way, persons on Zoom have any questions? We have some runners in the audience and I think you can probably just saw, unlike with permission of the controllers, to ask you a question from from zone. So any questions from the audience for John?

So it's hard to get first app, we got one good or free.

Hi John. Hi, my name's Sam. I'm a student here. And I guess one of my big questions is, how do you go from a technical degree and a lot of technical experience out of college and starting your own company and learning all the skills that are required to manage and start a business like that.

Well, let me be clear that I didn't know where I was going when I started. And I said explaining to students via lunch, that's life. Yeah. Yeah. Just just go somewhere and, you know, the passable but you have no idea where it's going to be. Yeah. So when I started as a software company, I expected to get maybe five employees and writing software. And just because we like to write software, I had a I think it's the tenth anniversary ceremony was 200 employees. And I told that particular story and ask the obvious question, what are you all doing here? Yeah, but yeah, but we also had a philosophy. We don't hire anybody, we can't pay, you know? So they were a side effect of the fact we were quite a cash cow. And it's much bigger cash cow now than it was then. But to have predicted when I first started where it was going to end up. Don't even bother wasting the time. Go somewhere this interesting. Go somewhere that you can at least pay for your food and then push it beyond that. And if it doesn't work, find somewhere else, this don't try to predict life. It's, it's just, I think anybody here can probably test. Yet. You could never have predicted where you ended up with. Whereas don't stress offering 55 to find a good job, do something interesting and the pieces will fall within a similar with education, I say to people, go to the master's level, but don't go beyond that until you go out and see what the real world is like and what's really needed. And that if you're really lucky or even if you're pretty good, yeah. The company will pay for whatever else they need from you because you are valuable. I keep emphasizing that. I don't think at the age we start out, we realize what a valuable resource we are. But the people who were working for, I hope, do.

Great. So couple other questions.

Hi, I'm David Erickson, director of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. We've met before. I dive in. Let me, at Cornell now we have a lot of students that go on and did this same kind of do the same kind of thing is you got work a little bit, start a company and many of them do all kinds of great things on the way. Making lots of successes, maybe not as big as you, but, but in many cases. And I'm wondering, I assume and all the success you, how you must have at some point made some mistakes early on in the day's events as well. I don't want no, no, No one. Okay. Well, then I'd have to ask question. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Carry out. I've got curious looking back, you know, all the things that went right. What are the things that we couldn't take away?

Well, let me be clear. There have been a lot more failures than successes. One success wipes out a whole lot of failures. That's right, yeah, for example, I invested heavily in photovoltaics. I had a company and we had a goal up a dollar a watt. And that was an ambitious goal, is now 35, 40 cents a lot and the company doesn't exist. Yeah. So yeah, some things are within your control, some things are not. Now, I personally say we got to a dollar Watt were successful what B, and move on. So what, what's, what's the big learning then per? Well, that's a big learning is also a good money after bad. Good. Let it pull the plug at an appropriate time. Don't don't try to ride it all the way down. Like your memory. It'll give us another field isn't somebody who's very busy?

A Zoom question? Yes, we do have a Zoom question. They want to know what kinds of problems would inspire high-schooler to choose civil, mechanical, bioengineering today in all areas of engineering. But I think, in my opinion, is engineering as the world's greatest career. And it's also one of the most respected. Now, let's please keep it that way. Yeah, don't, don't screw it up. Because engineers are what make the world work. I think the answer to that is yes, show people what engineering is. Show people what engineers do, show how exciting it is. Show him how much influence they have on the future and show him all that and they're not interested in it. He would probably it's probably a lost cause and move on to the next person.

Hello. My name is AACU being moody. I'm a senior ECE. So I was wondering. So in terms of knowledge, the relation between knowledge and engineering, when you go to solve a problem, how do you get all the background information you need? Say to solve a problem or what are the key points that you target?

Let me go slightly sideways on that. When I first started teaching ANSYS, I said always start small. If you're going to go and auto crash analysis, you have one mass rep a car and one spring. Understand that? Then you can start modifying. You can put the mass on wheels and allow it to rotate a little bit when it hits a wall, and so on. So each, each new simulation should be a endorsement of what's happened before. Not a surprise. Yeah, if you get a surprise and simulation, you didn't understand the problem. Now, I'm not quite I think that relates to what your question was. And that is basically start at the start small and work your way up. Don't try to solve the big problem without understanding all the pieces to it. I got you.

Thank you. And was there a Zoom question?

Okay. So looks so i so I'm going to wrap things up, John, to say train first, first. Thank you. And a manager, you're an incredible person to interview because interviewer doesn't have to ask the questions. The questions I had for the question gets answered.

But but look, so I want to just say on behalf of the college, we've had this tremendous run a 150 years as a college graduating leaders who by virtue of their research, their entrepreneurship, and just they're just Ackerman. Build technologies, build companies may change that impacts the world. And in my first year as dean, one of the things I've enjoyed the most was getting to meet leaders like you, who in many ways don't just exemplify, I think what is good about our college and good about our society in the ways that they usually think about, but who are actually values-driven people, people who consistently demonstrated commitment to some sort of higher purpose that ultimately has the impact on humanity.

This is the sort of character or characteristic, I would argue that brought me here to Cornell 21 years ago. This idea that you have this Ivy League institution that embraces the best of the IV and the broad education that Ivy League schools provide. But sort imbues it the technical rigor, right? So you can create the John Swanson who goes out there and does something no one else has ever done. But then at the end of that career turns around and says Mike, you Just out that I'm just going to give it all away. I'm just going to support initiatives and having higher Taiwan thing. Years ago we set up trust for his three boys. So they've got there. Yeah. I don't have to fear from them because I could live forever and they're set anyway. And if I go, they don't get it. Well, so that's the mess. That's nice security. Now the other hand, charitable gift annuities would make me very vulnerable to colleges and so on. If they say, Oh, get rid of him, we get a big a, big a Daubert been done. So if something happens to be, I I've pointed people to the various places to go. Look.

I'm sorry, I interrupted you. I I I should have started by saying the question and answer phase is open. So this is where I get the Buddha speaking to see you.

Hey, John. Congratulations. I mean you are you an example for all of us? And it gives me tremendous pleasure on behalf of my colleagues in the college to present you with our distinguished alumnus award. I think as you know, this award is relatively new in the college's history. And I'm glad to be the dean presenting this award to you. And I have Asiana, I think a view, Q&A. I think a view. I think of you as the engineers engineer on someone I admire a whole lot. So congratulations Jenn. This this is where we get to it.

I'll take it now, but can you tell me? Yeah. Yes. You should just leave it then. Never mind we're driving application or if they put into mine and I get to shake your head. Yes, I'd be fun to get grants and shot. Thank you. Thank you.


n5321 | 2025年6月8日 17:20

PLM will change the way you work --Interview with Francis Bernard



CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006

The Stand of Dassault Systemes: “PLM will change the way you work!” Interview with Francis Bernard and Laurent Valroff, Executives of Dassault Systemes Russia Corp. Aleksandra Suhanova (CAD/CAM/CAE Observer) aleksandra@cadcamcae.lv

Observer: Dear Mr. Bernard and Mr. Valroff! Today Dassault Systemes (DS) and its strategic partner IBM are known as the most respectable companies on the CAD/CAM/PLM market. During the past year since we’ve met last summer and you granted us the great interview, Dassault Systemes has undertaken several critical decisions and steps to broaden and revise its product line, to acquire several companies, to strengthen its positions on the markets of the key regions. The respectable company’s image demands new comments from you. So, let’s start, if you don’t mind!

Observer: For the beginning I offer you to concentrate on DS operations in Russia. Could you please retell us about the progress in the process of Dassault Systemes Russia formation?

Laurent Valroff (L.V.): First of all, the new name of the company – Dassault Systemes Russia Corp. – exists and has been registered since August last year, 2005, with its representative office located here in Moscow. This is a commitment to a very long-standing strategic investment of Dassault Systemes on the market and this is a first milestone for the future growth and presence of DS here in the region. As you can see, we have extended our office facilities, making more room available for our growing team.

This year we continue to increase the number of our employees in the competence centre – our technical staff, whose main mission is to support our business-partners and the customers in implementing and setting up our PLM solution. Another important role of our technical team is to deliver a solid education plan for our business-partners, which we are focusing on right now. Because our products are evolving very quickly, new features are appearing on the market two times per year with every software release. As long as DS is committed to bring on the Russian market several new products, our technical team has the challenge to get up-to-date skills and deliver this knowledge to our business-partners and customers and support them.

But I would like to point out the first role of our business-partners, which is to be the first PLM focal point of our customers. They will be covering the whole portfolio of DS solutions represented in Russia, starting from CATIA, ENOVIA and introduction of DELMIA to the Russian market. These I would say are the major axes of development for this year. Of course, we won’t stop on that and will continue to grow in the years to come.

Observer: Besides growing your team inside DS Russia’s office, do you have plans to enlarge the number of your business partners to establish a better coverage of Russia and the CIS territory?


(Page Break/Side Bar Information)

Laurent Valroff Laurent Valroff was born in France. In 1998, he graduated from the Lyon School of Management as well as from the Finance Academy in Moscow. He started his career as a junior analyst in Consulting by joining the Moscow office of Accenture in 1998, and then moved to the Paris office. As a consultant, he specialized in Supply Chain management and ERP implementation. His first experience in the pharmaceutical, consumer goods industries in Russia brought him in 2000 to the telecommunication sector where he served different consulting assignments for a major French Telco company in various countries in Europe. His recent achievements include the design and deployment of a pan-European new Sales and Distribution business model. In 2005, Mr. Valroff joined Dassault Systemes to run the newly established branch for Russia and CIS countries, and is today acting as Country Manager.

Francis Bernard Francis Bernard was born in Hanoi, Vietnam. After graduating from the Ecole Nationale Supérieure de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace in 1965, he joined Dassault Aviation in 1967 as a theoretical aerodynamics engineer. There, he specialized in the theoretical definition of aircraft and established a CAD/CAM department where he launched CATIA in 1977. In 1981 he set up Dassault Systemes, a subsidiary created by Dassault Aviation to further develop CATIA, and was appointed President. Under his direction, Dassault Systemes established a partnership with IBM to market CATIA worldwide. In 1995 Mr. Bernard was appointed Executive Committee Advisor, Member of the Board. He is currently responsible for executive marketing and business missions in order to expand Dassault Systemes’ success in emerging markets (such as Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Asia Pacific, etc.), in new industry segments like plant design and shipbuilding).

“Like Windows, Dassault Systemes with its V5 platform is an “operating system” for PLM”. Francis Bernard


CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006 8

L.V.: As we stated a year ago during our first interview to your magazine, we also need to increase our business-partner network. Here it is important to understand, that one of Dassault Systemes Russia (DS Russia) main missions is to grow the efficiency and the capacity of our business partner network. So, with HetNet Consulting, Bee Pitron and Mebius – our three business-partners – we go in that direction. Using different scenarios we are committed to grow the number of our partners who can distribute our PLM solutions, because it is important for us to cover the entire Russian market and its different geographies, because it is a huge country. I hope during this year we will have new partners aboard. It is important for the penetration we would like to achieve.

Recently we also started to look at the possibility to increase the number of PLM Education Partners in Russia; I mean organizations, which are able to provide professional PLM education services to our customers. So, we started with the Novosibirsk company LEDAS, which officially became Dassault Systemes PLM Education Partner. And we will continue as it is another axis of how to extend our reaches in Russia and to get closer to our customers.

A very important point of attention for us, indeed, is to deliver and ensure that our business-partners have the most updated product knowledge, because customers expect a strong service for their applications. The good thing is that today customers are more looking for partners to get services and support, which was not necessarily true in the past, when very often, Russian companies believed that everything could be done in-house. Customers are now changing and ask us to help them define, implement and deploy their PLM transformation in a controlled and accelerated way. Our attention on the level of skills of our business partners is indeed much higher. Their Education Plan includes not only getting up-to-date knowledge on DS products, but also methodological training on developing high value PLM consulting services. This kind of training started with HetNet Consulting and I think everybody sees the benefits to move to high-value services. When necessary, we also bring to Russia Dassault Systemes consultants that come here to provide support to our business-partners and customers.

Yes, you are right, it is a key point of our attention, customers’ requirements are increasing and our goal is to invest in the technical and service teams of the DS ecosystem. We even see requests for services like management consulting services, engineering services for car and airplane design for which we can use the power of our service partner ecosystem. The good thing is that we see the increased level of maturity of our main customers that now understand PLM as something that will change the way they work. It is not only about technology acquisition, not only about software purchasing, it is about implementing real PLM environments. A holistic approach to PLM is needed, and no longer: “Just provide me software, the technology, and I will do the rest by myself.”

Francis Bernard (F.B.): This process very much coincides with a strong reorganization trend of the manufacturing industry in Russia, and a change of mindset to bring and deliver world-class technology. For instance, build cars and airplanes, which are meeting world-class standards. That was not a case before. This is where our PLM solution is necessary.

Observer: Because IBM and its partners were established and operated on the Russian market long before DS Russia foundation, we feel it fair to ask, has DS Russia managed to enter correctly (successfully) into an already existing and functioning business?

L.V.: I think, in 2006, since a year ago, now in most of the operations we have created momentum. At the beginning, there was a time of questions and expectations that gave rise to a certain level of scepticism. Today, when talking to the management team of the DS ecosystem the feedback I got is very positive. They are satisfied and understand the value DS brings them in developing the market and penetrating the industry in Russia.

F.B.: In fact, for the business-partners it is a benefit, because they are still partners of IBM, but DS Russia is coming on the side of IBM to deliver more support. Now it is support, given locally. We have established strong technical and sales relationships with the business-partners, and we perform continuous joint activity on customer’s sites and management of their relationship.

L.V.: For business-partners to have the software editor coming to the market and investing significantly to serve and support them is certainly something they received very positively. The value of our presence here in Russia goes in different directions: the presence of the software editor, access to product knowledge and releases much in advance, business infusion with DS PLM local and worldwide expertise, direct connection with the DS ecosystem in the world. Business partners and customers can get access to any DS specialist of every industry or every

CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006 ÌÀØÈÍÎÑÒÐÎÅÍÈÅ È ÑÌÅÆÍÛÅ ÎÒÐÀÑËÈ 9 product. To sum up, for business-partners there are three main values of DS Russia presence: the business value, service and support value and relationship value.

Observer: Do you coordinate DS Russia operations and work with the work of IBM business-partners, who are simultaneously your resellers? To what extent and what in particular has been coordinated? Do you set up any financial targets and tasks, for example for the year 2006?

L.V.: Along with IBM we do coordinate their work and for every business-partner we set the financial target on a yearly and quarterly basis. We do manage closely the commercial plan and progress of our partners to push sales up. Some general indicators of business growth are revenue of course, but also the number of new customers. As we are expanding on the Russian PLM market we started to catch up the situation there. DS PLM solutions are not in a leadership position in Russia yet, as they are all over the world in all major markets. It is Francis’s and my objective to develop here and to correct that.

Observer: Can you please name examples of DS Russia achievements made during the past year? Do you have something in particular what would be worth to mention (boast of) in Observer for its readers, including your users and competitors?

L.V.: The first achievement you’ve been witnessing was the PLM Forum Russia 2005 in Moscow in October last year. The event gathered more than 500 people from almost all industries and many academies, from all the members of our ecosystem. We think it was a very strong event because it represented to a certain extent the setup of DS Russia on a permanent basis. It is a very encouraging indicator that brings justification to our strategy.

The second achievement is the launch of the localization of our PLM solutions with our DS corporate central Research and Development organization (R&D), starting with CATIA this year. First of all, it is managed directly with Dassault Systemes R&D organization. It means that the localized versions of DS products are not a local solution. The development and delivery of Russian localization has been integrated in the mainstream DS R&D processes. This is DS approach not only for Russia, but also for Japan, China and other regions. This is a good indication of the investment DS is doing for our market, which in many cases is different from what some other software editors are doing by using their own local technical teams to provide the translated Russian versions of the software. We believe this approach is more secure for our users: new releases are consistently upgraded in Russian language. This fact differentiates our approach to product strategy.

Relating to CATIA we have selected and we work with a partner – an international software translator – who is experienced working with different vendors, like Oracle, for example, and already worked with DS on the Chinese version of our software. Our objective is by the time of the upcoming PLM Forum Russia 2006, which is scheduled on October 12th, to demonstrate and announce CATIA in Russian language on the market for those customers, who would like to have CATIA fully in Russian starting from Version 5 Release 17. For other DS products in Russia we are going to follow the same localization approach.

Observer: What is all your resellers’ in Russia and CIS total revenue for 2005 achieved in the sphere of providing CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM solutions? What is the growth rate in comparison to 2004? Are you ready to make public the amount of sold CATIA, ENOVIA or SMARTEAM seats in Russia?

L.V.: To give you the indication of the momentum in 2005, we can say that in comparison to 2004 the growth rate observed in PLM for Russia and CIS was between 40-50 per cent. Our objective and expectation for the future is to achieve more than double-digit growth on a yearly basis.

F.B.: We do not break data of sold seats by regions and separate countries; we present it only on a corporate level. Also, everybody has to be careful comparing these data, because it may include seats given away to educational institutions. And there are still many black licenses on the market unfortunately. To my estimation globally in Russia the overall CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM market is in the range of 100 million dollars per year. When I say 100 million I mean a range from 60 till 120-150 million dollars. Actually, nobody knows that, I may be wrong by a factor of two! Sometime we have customers with the much known names that are coming to us, having already 100 illegal CATIA licenses. They don’t want to be named, of course, but there is a growing awareness, that the situation cannot stand like this too long.

CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006 10

L.V.: Yes, we have to be careful with the data for two reasons. First, the corporate figures can be edited and verified, as it is used by analysts on financial markets. There is a high level of reliability. At a country or regional level, there are no editing requirements and there is no impact of the financial markets. So it is more a sales strategy. Moreover, on the Russian level I am not sure, that anybody can have enough data to make relevant and meaningful analyses. Because if you look at the international analyses, the one your magazine makes – “Kings and Cabbage” – the information you combine, cross check and analyse to formulate some meaningful messages for your readers is much richer, than what you can ever get on the Russian market. Because you need to know the installed base to measure the relative progression, you need to compare product lines and industry segments to conclude about some dynamics. Of course, what is important for us is to know where we see the perspective segments of the market. I hope that this year we will be able to communicate more broadly about the wins, which are the important indicators of the penetration and achievements. In the future, it is possible that we progressively disclose wins that DS Russia and our business partners have achieved.

Regarding piracy we see an interesting momentum too. At the major corporations and newly formed industrial holdings there is more and more understanding, that software value is a part of the asset of the company. Black licenses bring zero dollar value to the company. So, our message is to protect the investment, when you invest – you design and manufacture products and you found your strategy on tools, technology, solutions, that are reliable and secure, that you will get services and support. In Russia there is a growing financial or industrial approach to software investment. It is important to increase the value of the company’s asset. Large corporations perceive this message well and we are working with them, helping to migrate to legal software usage. That gives these companies access to us for receiving services, support and competitive software offerings.

Observer: In the continuation of the conversation about large industrial holdings and concerns, which are being founded in Russia, we are interested if DS Russia is working and has entrance to the newly formed United Aircraft Construction Corp.? Your competitor PTC openly stated about the success in that direction…

F.B.: In fact, we are in touch with many players in automotive and aerospace markets. But as I said before the situation in Russia is quite different from what we see in Western Europe or USA. These companies are going through a complete reorganization process today. However, we have established the relationship and we try to understand what is going on there. We also understood that these companies have priorities, which are above PLM itself – just to reorganize the company, to negotiate about how to integrate engineering and manufacturing plants, etc. Yes, we are in this game.

L.V.: Yes, you are right, we are working with all aerospace players in Russia. There are many and complex driving forces that will ultimately result in the foundation of United Aircraft Construction Corp. (UAC). We work with a dozen companies that make up the Russian entire aeronautic market and will be a part of UAC soon, whether it is in PDM or CAD/CAM/CAE sphere. I would say that these companies are driving a progressive consolidation of UAC. We also observe very carefully the process of formation of this holding to position ourselves accordingly. DS is the number one PLM provider and CATIA the undisputable standard in the civil aeronautical industry worldwide, so it makes sense that the future civil aeronautical business unit of UAC runs on DS PLM solutions.

As a conclusion I would like to add, that since late 2005 we observe an acceleration of this new phenomena, which is the formation of large industrial holdings, and we stay in touch with all the industries, where PLM is addressable. We work with the management teams of these companies. But, as you can imagine, it takes some time to build and establish a PLM strategy with holdings of that size, which are under creation and reorganization. DS is dedicated to bring PLM business values to all customers in Russia, bringing its international PLM expertise and leadership to the major Russian industry players.

Observer: The coolness of the relationship between Dassault Systemes and IBM was successfully used by your competitors. Today PTC became IBM’s friend, they signed a cooperation agreement and even representatives of both companies have met here in Moscow to discuss possible cooperation ways in Russia. From your point of view here in Russia do PTC and IBM have a real subject for discussion? Is there any potential perspective for such a possible cooperation?

F.B.: Personally, I don’t think there is a big potential for cooperation. IBM and PTC have done the same in China also. There may be a case-by-case relationship mostly between IBM service organizations and PTC for Windchill on Demand implementation. This may happen. But we also have relationships with IBM top management people from its headquarter office in New York City and from there we know, that IBM will not establish any kind of relationship with PTC, except some tactical very limited actions, if it allows them to sell services. IBM will not set up any kind of relationship to sell software products; to do joined marketing activities with any of our competitors, like PTC and UGS.

Observer: And still... If earlier you made friendship with IBM against PTC and UGS, then logically would be to continue that incipient partnership. PTC with IBM is forwarded against you. Can IBM be a friend simultaneously for two competing vendors similarly productive?

F.B.: No, I don’t think so. First of all, Dassault Systemes is not dependent on IBM as much as it was the case 10 years ago. Right now around 50 percent of our revenue is coming from IBM and 50 per cent – from DS direct channels. Even 10-15 years ago 95 per cent of our revenue came from IBM’s side. So the IBM weight becomes more and more a smaller share in DS total revenue. And this trend will go on. But even with time, when IBM will generate only 10 percent of our revenue it will stay forever a strategic partner for us.

CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006 11

As IBM is doing more and more services, then like any service company it has to keep some neutral position to deliver consulting services to its customers. Its service teams can implement different PDM systems on the customers’ site. But IBM will never sell PTC software itself. Frankly speaking, the probability of that is very low.

L.V.: Our message is that the nature of the relationship between IBM and any other PLM vendor can never ever match the nature of the partnership between IBM and Dassault Systemes. Certainly it can be tactical, for a certain product, it can involve a non-PLM organization of IBM, but the core of the relationship – IBM/DS commitment to PLM – remains the same.

Observer: Recently on the 31st of May here in Moscow Observer have given a talk – Round table – with three UGS vice presidents. The same as you do, they do evaluate very high Russian potential and have set a target for UGS representative office and resellers to quadruple its business in Russia by 2010. We have also participated at “PTC InnovationForum 2006”, where PTC claimed to have 100 per cent growth in Russia in the past year 2005 and great perspectives for 2006. Logically you would have to set up something against such expansion to Russia of your competitors. The question is – what are your plans to offset and what are you going to do?

F.B.: First of all, the issue to quadruple the business in Russia by 2010 is not unrealistic. Just a few weeks ago Dassault Systemes announced our target at the worldwide level to the analyst community that is to double our revenue by 2010 in comparison to the present situation. That means we will be moving from approx. one billion Euros to two billion Euros. As long as Russia is an emerging country the growth rate here is bigger, than at other well-established countries, like France and Germany, for example. So, for us doing two times more in Russia, than the average growth level is a realistic issue. Even if I compare what we will achieve in 2006 with the numbers of 2004, then for two years we have doubled the revenue in Russia.

It is true, that UGS is our main competitor in Russia. We feel its pressure, because UGS was here in Russia much before us. This is a reality. But we take the Russian market very seriously that is why last year we’ve created Dassault Systemes Russia Corp., built an ecosystem and we are growing our staff and relationships with our business-partners. We are pushing hard. However, I don’t think we are late on the market. First of all, before DS had other priorities, secondly, IBM was here before us. Even before IBM, during the USSR time, even without us knowing, there were some CATIA black licenses. We will grow in Russia according to the market potential and we run in Russia the strategy we use in other geographies.

L.V.: When you compare us to UGS, you have to consider not only the PLM business we have, but also our affiliate company SolidWorks, which has a separate office in Russia. UGS deals altogether with middle-range and high-end solutions. Now we are speaking only about PLM and its growth, supporting it with the equivalent level of investment. If you compare the joined achievements of DS Russia, reseller of ABAQUS/SIMULIA and SolidWorks office to UGS results, then the revenue we got is equivalent to what UGS has. Moreover, we have ENOVIA MatrixOne product, which is not sold in Russia yet, and it has some interesting potential for future growth.

Observer: At the beginning of our interview you mentioned about DS Russia’s willingness to introduce on the Russian market product DELMIA for digital manufacturing. Your main competitor UGS is also following that strategy, introducing here recently acquired Tecnomatix. Do you see in Russia customers, who are ready to implement it and need to simulate manufacturing processes?

F.B.: First of all, UGS has done the same what we did much before. We acquired DELMIA in 1995, which is ten years before they acquired Tecnomatix. I don’t think the integration reached by UGS and Tecnomatix is as big as we have with DELMIA. Because if you work on a DELMIA work seat, you use the same interface and database as if you are working in CATIA. DELMIA is completely integrated to our PLM solution. Actually, we have a rule in the company that we never compare our own products performance with the competing, we can only say what we can do for the customer and what he can achieve using our solution. It is true that on the worldwide level we compete with Tecnomatix every day in the automotive industry, but we have very strong customers there and we are nearly standard in the aerospace market. Because DELMIA can read the geometry from other systems we have good examples when DELMIA coexist in the company with other CAD/CAM solutions. And vice versa, some of our customers, who use our PLM tools, use also Tecnomatix for digital manufacturing. Sure the level of such integration is not as big as with our own PLM solution. Moreover, I agree with you on the point, that Russia is an emerging market and the number of deals we get with DELMIA here is still relatively small.

L.V.: In Russia we have started to sell DELMIA this year by establishing a network of two DELMIA resellers, who are simultaneously our business-partners. We enriched the product and solution portfolio they are providing to our customers. And we are developing DELMIA competencies in DS Russia office to provide an efficient support to our business partners and customers. The first deal with a customer from the shipbuilding industry is under finalization that is

(Image: Francis Bernard and Anastasia Kuznetsova, Marketing Manager, DS Russia) CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006 12 why we cannot publish the name. As soon as it will be done, we are going to promote it. The aerospace and automotive industries certainly present interesting perspectives. Overall we have observed a strong customers’ interest in our digital manufacturing solutions in Russia, many of them are very keen on understanding what DELMIA can do for them. Now we are in contact with all aerospace and automotive companies introducing them our digital manufacturing solution. DELMIA is catching the attention. What is interesting, customers almost come to us by their own initiative to see the product. I am quite in line with what you have observed on the market with regard to such products, but there is a demand for DELMIA on the specific markets like aerospace, automotive and a bit of shipbuilding. It is not all the markets, of course. But those big companies are very much interested to understand and to deploy the production planning processes simulation tools. We see three coincidences in Russia: first is a strong push towards re-development of the manufacturing industry, which has been underfinanced in the last 15 years. The second point is a strong push for more cooperation between Russian and foreign industrial companies. And at the same time there is a strong push from technology providers to support the re-development and re-capitalization of the Russian manufacturing industries.

Observer: If you don’t mind I offer you to move to the corporate and international relations. For a long time inside Dassault Systemes a situation regarding its own CAE system was not clear, and this was the weak point in the competitive battle. But recently appeared SIMULIA – what is it: brand name, platform, product line for realistic simulation and analysis? If I as a customer would buy SIMULIA today, then what would I get – CAE tools from CATIA, Nastran or ABAQUS?

F.B.: Right now SIMULIA is a brand name, not even a platform. It is a vision to address simulation in order to digitally optimise the product before it will be actually created. Now we have to transform this vision into a strategy and our portfolio. Mark Goldstein, CEO of SIMULIA, is in charge for implementing SIMULIA vision into real life and for making us a leading company in this domain. Today his division has ABAQUS for non-linear analysis, FEA (finite element analysis) tools from CATIA portfolio. The third part of SIMULIA is formed by our CAE partner products, like LMS, MSC Software, ESI Group who are addressing different parts of analysis, going from crash analysis, to suspension analysis, thru durability, noise and vibration, fatigue, acoustic, structural and thermal simulation etc. Mark Goldstein’s main objective is to step by step cover all the analysis domains. What needs to be done is to reach very good integration of all the components with PLM solution. For example, in the best case the customer does not even see that he is outside CATIA and works within a partner’s product application. Today this is true already for LMS software, because they have adopted CAA V5 platform even with their own customers. So, the objective for SIMULIA will be to cover everything throughout DS application, as well as software of our partners in a completely integrated way. This is the main task we are giving to ourselves. So, to answer your question, if a customer is buying SIMULIA today he gets ABAQUS or software X from partner Y, depending on his needs. The integration of the software will be implemented step by step.

Observer: Was it worth to pay such a high price – 413 millions for ABAQUS, if its year revenue was only around 100 millions? Can you justify such big spending? How long will it take to get return on investment: 4 or 5 years?

F.B.: First of all, ABAQUS was a very successful company as well as a product. They are very profitable and well respected on the market. The company has key accounts in automotive and aerospace industry. For DS it was a good acquisition not only because they are making profit, but also because more than 60% of their customers were not DS customers. This fact extends our penetration on the market. We’ve bought this company because we had cash money to do that. Instead of using this money for hiring new staff to do the same job, we preferred to buy a company, because with this we are winning time and get expertise just in one day. This has a value. Now, if we have money to pay for this value and if our financial expert estimates, that it is worth this money, and then we safely perform the acquisition. Imagine, you have 400 million dollars of cash, what can you do with it? You can put it in a bank and get around five to ten per cent revenue every year. Or you can buy a company like ABAQUS and get 20 per cent revenue, because the company is very profitable. Acquisition of ABAQUS was better than anything else as a financial investment for DS. Secondly, this move expands our market penetration, our product portfolio and our customer set. With it we won in many aspects.

Observer: Do you really see the big need on the market for the products like ABAQUS? Does the strategic meaning of ABAQUS is really so high? But maybe you have allowed respected Daratech to mislead yourself regarding estimations of the growth rates for CAE business in the near future?

F.B.: As I told you already, the money we spend was the best investment, even without considering the other things. We are convinced that all the products in the industry will be digitally defined. And if you cannot simulate those products before they are created in reality, you cannot say that you have made a good product digital definition. It means that simulation is becoming as important, as the design itself. In fact, it is completely interconnected with the design. Actually, I don’t care what are in Daratech and other analytical agencies reports, because simulation is absolutely a key factor. I can tell you, that even before I started to develop CATIA - 30 years ago, the objective was not to do design, but to make simulation. In Dassault Aviation the objective was to optimise the airplane through aerodynamics and stress analysis. Because the plane has to be as light, as possible, but strong enough to support other stresses. So, we created design capabilities to store the input of that analysis into the computer, not for design, but for analysis. Nothing is more important than analysis. I mean, you need to have design to manufacture the product, and you need analysis to optimise it. It is like three legs of the table to make it stable. The legs are: design, simulation and manufacturing.

CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006 13

Observer: Dassault Systemes stated, that is not intended to engage IBM in the ABAQUS and SIMULIA sales, but will do it independently. How did IBM react on that?

F.B.: I cannot say there was a specific reaction from the IBM side. IBM is our strategic and long-term partner, however we have to make our life and make the decisions regarding our business by our own. IBM is doing the same itself. So, here is no any specific problem. Of course, case-by-case IBM could be involved in ABAQUS relationships with its customers, playing a role of software integrator. This is business as usual.

Observer: For a long time and quite successfully Dassault Systemes is collaborating with MSC.Software, one of CAE market leaders, and owns nine per cent of this company’s shares. How will the acquisition of ABAQUS and development of SIMULIA influence on the relationships between DS and MSC.Software?

F.B.: Nothing could be absolutely clean everywhere. MSC.Software is a mix of a competitor and CAE partner for us. This is real life. It is difficult to have a partner with no competitor view to anything you have. Moreover, many of our CAE partners really compete between themselves. ABAQUS, MSC.Software, LMS are our CAE partners; they do compete in some way, but not completely, as they are not working on the same territories. These companies see a value in having and sustaining partnership with DS, because it gives them integration, what their customers are looking for. This is like many software products are running on Windows platform that means they do compete with each other in some way. Like Windows, Dassault Systemes with its V5 platform is “an operating system” for PLM. So, to answer your question, there is no conflict between DS and MSC.Software, but there is a competition between ABAQUS and MSC.Software.

Observer: Another recent DS acquisition – MatrixOne Company, well known PDM/PLM market player. In the DS portfolio you already have two PDM systems: ENOVIA and SmarTeam. Why it was necessary to throw away 408 millions of dollars for one more system?

F.B.: First of all, it is clear for us, that what we regard as PDM – in reality is a huge domain, which depends from what kind of data you have to manipulate, how many users were collaborating, how many files you have to manipulate and share, etc. Today to cover this huge domain one united system doesn’t exist. It appears that MatrixOne is addressing the set of capabilities and a set of customers, where we were not at all presented with our portfolio. A very large number that is 65 per cent of MatrixOne customers were not DS PLM customers. These customers work in High Tech, electronics, CPG (consumer product goods) and chemical industries. In fact, these are four new markets for us. Initially, DS addressed seven markets that covered manufacturing industry (automotive, aerospace, shipbuilding, plant design, machinery, Electrical&Electronics devices, consumers goods), and after MatrixOne acquisition we cover already eleven markets. For our own current customers MatrixOne is offering a set of capabilities, that we were not able to offer with ENOVIA VPLM or ENOVIA SmarTeam. The best illustration is one of our largest historical CATIA users –Japanese company HONDA that uses simultaneously ENOVIA and MatrixOne. They are happy about our acquisition, because for some time already they were asking us and giving ideas how to progressively make synergy and to integrate ENOVIA VPLM and MatrixOne. The reaction of the market and MatrixOne customers has been excellent. I think, for DS it is a good opportunity.

Observer: Though MatrixOne has many advantages, company’s financial positions were not the best ones. Four years continuously MatrixOne was unprofitable, working on the four markets that you have mentioned. Why you count that DS will be successful there? Where do you see the key point for success?

F.B.: The main point of success will come from our wide geographic coverage. The key challenge of MatrixOne was its dealer channel, which had to be extended. The synergy between MatrixOne and ourselves comes from our capability together with our business-partners to better address the market. In other words, part of the benefit for MatrixOne will come from better coverage of the market. The second part of the benefit will come from the synergy between MatrixOne as a technology and a product with our PLM solution. We spent a lot of money on that acquisition, because we believe it was worth to pay. They have approximately 500 people, with very strong R&D organization, with very good skills in their technology. We believe it was a good decision for DS.

Observer: After merger finishing with MatrixOne, Dassault Systemes announced, that structure of product lines and departments of DS, involved in PDM/PLM is revised. Now following your statement, there are three product lines: ENOVIA VPLM, ENOVIA MatrixOne and ENOVIA SmarTeam. Could you please make clear for our readers the distinctive features, purposes and spheres of implementation for each of three?

F.B.: Yes, you are right, we have reorganized our company with the ENOVIA brand. These three sets of the products are under the same brand. That means we have Joel Lemke,

(Image: Laurent Valroff and DS Russia Technical team) CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006 ÌÀØÈÍÎÑÒÐÎÅÍÈÅ È ÑÌÅÆÍÛÅ ÎÒÐÀÑËÈ 14 CEO of ENOVIA Corp., responsible for these three sets of the products. He is able to organize the work himself to integrate those products. He will work with the customers and will look for the best way and the level to which the products could and should be integrated. There is also one R&D manager to cover everything. For better explanation of the destination and differences between each set of a product I will show you a scheme (see picture 1). Here you can see Dassault Systèmes’ integrated model that interlinks representations of the Product, the manufacturing Resources (tooling, factory and operators) and the production Process. PPR (Product, Process, Resources) is a fundamental building block of Dassault Systèmes’ PLM strategy and is found in CATIA, DELMIA, and ENOVIA. This integration means that when a user makes a product design change in CATIA, the change is reflected in the associated manufacturing processes definition in DELMIA and the resources data stored in ENOVIA.

ENOVIA SmarTeam is good to manage simple data when the number of documents is not very big. It provides collaborative product data management for small and midsized projects, engineering departments of larger organizations, and across supply chains.

ENOVIA MatrixOne is necessary when a customer has a huge number of users, it may be 10 or 100 thousand users, huge number of documents and part files, but simple data. It is about collaborative product development business processes. In other words, you unify collaboration between the large extended enterprise, but with relatively simple data: documents and files. For example, imagine I am making computers and working with one thousand suppliers. This solution is showing the way in which I am going to manage the relationship between the companies that work together, to do the computer assembly as quickly as possible.

ENOVIA VPLM is the solution for 3D collaboration around the virtual product model for complex products and manufacturing processes. It provides, for example, unique values when you have to deal with complex digital mock up data working for example in automotive and aerospace industries.

The fourth part consists of the combination of the software, like the case with HONDA, who needs both, ENOVIA VPLM and MatrixOne.

Like all major PLM market players we are doing with PDM since the mid 80s. It is 20 years already. Step-by-step we have learned how big this domain is. In fact, it is all related to collaboration. When we speak about collaboration, we have to analyse, what kind of data we have to exchange and with which to collaborate. The only product on this picture (see picture 1) we have developed by ourselves is ENOVIA VPLM, the rest were acquisitions. However, even our ENOVIA has a long development story, including the acquisition. Like with SIMULIA, this structure is kind of “puzzle” consisting of pieces. We agree that there is no integration between ENOVIA VPLM and MatrixOne. The fact is that we have customers using only MatrixOne, we have customers using only ENOVIA VPLM, but we have also customers, using both these systems. On them we will learn what kind of integration and synergy must be implemented between the two solutions. My main message to say is that acquisition of MatrixOne is benefiting to this company because we have extended channels, but it will be also beneficial to ENOVIA, because its customers will look at MatrixOne as a good add-on to manage their extended enterprise. The integration question is not an issue for us. When we bought MatrixOne, our objective was not immediately to phase out the program and to use the resources and technology to our portfolio. The objective was: we bought a company, which has a value. Through the synergy with DS they will become more successful, because we have more contact with the customers, and we will continue to work with the customers to see, what we should do.

Observer: In the last year interview to our magazine you, Mr. Bernard, told a phrase, which became famous since that time: “We manage SolidWorks absolutely separate from our PLM business”. We got the approval on that from SolidWorks COO Jeff Ray during his recent interview to Observer. We think this is official point of view of DS, your strategy and tactics concerning your affiliate company SolidWorks. However SolidWorks recently has bought Conisio – new PDM system for itself. On the base of that we can conclude, that today SolidWorks is following the modern strategy to provide the middle range companies with the middle range PLM solution, as both its competitors – UGS and Autodesk – are doing with announcing of their own middle range PLM solution. From our point of view SolidWorks is doing the same, but it is not allowed to call it middle range PLM, probably because of the fright of internal competition. How can you comment this, please?

F.B.: First of all I think it is natural that they have to go to CAM and PDM as well, because their customers request it and it is a way how to stay competitive on the market against their competitors. This is a rule of the game. So I am not surprised they have moved there, because we move in the same direction only at the higher level. I think the difference between us and SolidWorks is that they have a completely different distribution model – it is very easy to buy SolidWorks package in one day and their distribution channel has nothing to do with what we do. They sell and do not need to set up a long-lasting relationship with their customers. You know, CEO of SolidWorks John McEleney every evening gets a message on his mobile phone with the total number of sold SolidWorks seats. So, their main task

(Image: Pict. 1) CAD/CAM/CAE Observer #4 (28) / 2006 15 is to grow the user base. SolidWorks is more like a commodity that you buy. However, we sell more sophisticated solution, which in many cases includes services to implement it. Our task is to learn the specifics of each industry, to know exactly how to build a car’s door, or to make a styling of a car. SolidWorks is not in this kind of spirit. SolidWorks and its competitors’ main task is to develop a solution, which is not industry dependent, business-process dependent, but which is doing the best possible job for the customer, who wants to buy a system, which is easy to use, easy and quickly implement. Of course, if a customer has several SolidWorks seats, they need to have a way to collaborate and that is why they need a PDM system. As long as they do design, certainly they need to add functional for manufacturing and CAE. But they do it with a very different spirit, than we do. DS software is allowing making cars and airplanes, but SolidWorks is delivering a tool to do something for the customer, not specific to cars and planes. I am sure, that SolidWorks sales and marketing people say, that their system can do everything. But in everyday life our PLM solutions’ sales people experience very limited competition with SolidWorks sales channel, when they are selling so called middle range PLM. In fact, PLM is very misleading. The difference between SolidWorks and DS is in culture, distribution channel and the way to address the customer needs.

L.V.: A good illustration of this is the recent SolidWorks event held in Russia, which was named as PLM Forum. Today there is a tendency or more a communication trick to call everything “PLM” and to blur the boundaries between what PLM used to be historically – a high-end CAD system, that have been progressively integrated to PDM, simulation and factory environment – with a “product-centric” CAD, that has been enhancing its functionalities, but still has not even a vision of PLM. We highly respect SolidWorks; it showed a tremendously good performance. As a mark of respect, our affiliated company has a lot of freedom to decide its own strategy, as we are setting just the simple boundaries. The good thing that distinguishes us from other PLM vendors here in Russia is that I, as DS representative, am not dealing with SolidWorks and I am not involved there, because they have their own strengths, recognition and strategy. Speaking about competition between SolidWorks and DS sales people: it may happen, but as Francis told you last year, on the worldwide basis the risk of overlapping or competition does not exceed the 5% mark from all the deals. I’ve checked that question with our business-partners and they told me, that the risk in Russia is around 5-10%. It is a bit more in Russia, because of the price pressure and because the integration with all OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and foreign companies is not so strong here as in other countries. Actually, we all benefit from the messages that PLM brings to the market for customers to realize, that it is a key core stone to transform the industry. PLM alone cannot make the transformation, because there should be a composition of technology, know-how, best practises and an environment. For me personally, I see a big difference, since the past year, when I came to my position. The momentum in 2006 is huge in Russia; the mentality has been changed also!

Observer: If there is anything you would like to express for our big Russian-speaking readership, you are welcome to do it.

F.B.: I would like to point out that DS is very committed to the Russian and CIS market. For us it is one of the key drivers for the expansion and better geographical coverage, to address all the new markets where we see a good potential. Obviously, Russia has its strong and weak points, which we learn in order to adapt the way we sell in this country. Because for us as I said before Russia is a challenging market under heavy reorganization. This is new to us in comparison to other countries we work in. We will continue to expand to develop a larger ecosystem, to have more resources for our customers in this country.

L.V.: My final words to the Observer readers would be the following. First of all, Francis, all DS Russia’s team and me are pleased with how well we have been received by our customers, business-partners and the market in general since the past year. Words towards us were mostly positive. The attention to DS Russia implementing its permanent organization in Russia has been high. The second thing is that we are fortunate to be in the middle of the reorganization process of the Russian industry. We all committed to serve our clients, to bring PLM technologies and solutions to our clients, to make their transformation successful. Every day we observe new consolidations in the industry, mapping of the industry by sectors of activities. It has key importance that we work closely with these companies, to make their transformation successful, to help them to become international competitive players. From their side, they are coming to us, asking to help them to realize that. We are strongly convinced that our experience and PLM solutions have a compelling value for the Russian industry; that would be a good driver for us to grow in the next years.

Observer: Thank you very much, gentlemen, I highly appreciate your answers and comments!

Moscow, the 4th of July, 2006

Dassault Systemes Russia is sending its invitation to all CAD/CAM/CAE Observer readers to come to participate at the PLM Forum Russia 2006, which will be held by Dassault Systemes in Moscow, October the 12th, in the Radisson SAS Slavyanskaya hotel (www.plmforum.ru). We will be happy to see every customer, interesting in PLM and willing to understanding DS products, strategy and the great platform of the whole our ecosystem. All our partners will be at the PLM Forum to demonstrate their solutions and products. And I hope by that time along with Observer magazine we will be able to disclose more of our achievements on the Russian market during 2006 and our PLM plans for the next year. In that great time of the year we will be happy to welcome all of you to join us at the PLM Forum Russia 2006.


n5321 | 2025年6月8日 17:08

60 Years of CAD Infographic: The History of CAD since 1957

The computer-aided design landscape has been shifting and evolving for 60 years and will continue for 60 more. 

60 years ago, the “Father of CAD,” Dr. Patrick Hanratty created the first numerical control system, which would later become Computer Aided Design, or CAD. The precision, versatility, and adaptability of CAD designs revolutionized the engineering, architecture and manufacturing landscape. The importance of CAD cannot be overstated.

While the history of CAD closely parallels the history of the computer, there have been many innovations and iterations along the way. With its introduction in 1957, CAD was still decades ahead of the small and affordable computers that would make the software available to anyone. Pencil and paper would remain the primary way “draftsmen” created designs for another 30 years. But the groundwork was laid for things to come; CAD software would eventually become a fundamental tool for nearly every industry.

Is your digital catalog future-proof? 

Learn how you can provide CAD to your customers online

The idea of CAD has grown from simple 2D designs into complex, multi-layered 3D structures with kinematic movement and detailed metadata. Similarly, the CADENAS digital catalog has paralleled innovations in the CAD industry. The eCATALOGsolutions platform is continually evolving to provide native formats as soon as they are available, often before they are publicly available. Whether you launch your CADENAS eCATALOG in 2001, 2017 or 2027, all of the CAD models you provide your clients will remain backward compatible and “future-proof.”

History of CAD

 

History of CAD Highlights:

 

ProgramDateCreatorDescription
Blueprints1861By: Alphonse-Louis Poitevin  Alphonse-Louis Poitevin invented the first blueprints using iron ferro-gallate and light. His process let designers make copies of architectural drawings, reducing the chance of losing information or making errors when transferring designs between team members.
PRONTO1957By: Dr. Patrick J. Hanratty
(the “Father of CAD”)
 

PRONTO was the first commercial, numerical-control programming system. It sparked everything that is CAD.

 
Sketchpad1963By: Ivan Sutherland  Sketchpad was one of the first design systems to use a graphic user interface. Using a light pen on a CRT display, users could constrain properties in a drawing. Sketchpad also created the use of “objects” and “instances.”
DAC
(Design Automated by Computer)
1963By: Dr. Patrick J. Hanratty, General Motors, and IBMDr. Patrick J. Hanratty, General Motors, and IBM partnered to create DAC, an early graphic CAD system. Computer scientist Douglas T. Ross coined the name CAD (computer-aided design).
CADAM
(Computer-graphics Augmented Design and Manufacturing)
1965By: IBM/LockheedCADAM introduced CAD to aerospace design.
CADD
(Computer-Aided Design & Drafting)
1966By: McDonnell Douglas
(now merged with Boeing)
  McDonnell Douglas and other manufacturers started releasing internal CAD systems like CADD, which was used for parts layouts and geometry work.
PDGS
(Product Design Graphics System)
1967By: FordFord developed an internal CAD system called PDGS.
Digigraphics1967By: Itek  Itek released Digigraphics, one of the first commercial CAD systems. The system cost $500,000.
Computervision
(now under PTC)
1969By: Philippe Villers and Martin Allen  Computervision sold one of the first commercial CAD systems to Xerox.
ADAM
(Automated Drafting and Machinery)
1971By: Dr. Patrick J. Hanratty  This interactive graphic system was written in Fortran and designed to work on virtually all mainframe computers. Approximately 90 percent of today’s commercial drafting programs can be traced back to ADAM.
Synthavision1972By: MAGI  Synthavision was the first 3D solid modeling system. It rendered images with ray-tracing.
Unigraphics
(now NX)
1973By: United Computing  Unigraphics provided 2D modeling and drafting. It was a high-end, easy-to-use software used by many corporations that set a new gold standard for CAD software at the time.
NURBS
(Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines)
1975By: Dr. Ken Versprille  While working under Computervision, Dr. Ken Versprille introduced NURBS to CAD. NURBS helped define surfaces and is still widely used in engineering today.
GLIDE
(Graphical Language for Interactive Design)
1977By: Charles Eastman  GLIDE had many of the same features as modern BIM.
CATIA1977 1981By: Dassault Systèmes  CATIA, a multi-platform CAD software still in use today, introduced engineers to 3D modeling.
IGES
(Initial Graphics Exchange Specification)
1980By: U.S. National Bureau of Standards
(now National Institute of Standards and Technology)
  IGES is a neutral CAD format that lets users transfer their 3D designs between different CAD software programs. Once STEP was released, IGES was no longer updated, but it is still accepted in many places.
GEOMOD1981By: SDRC
(Structural Dynamics Research Corporation)
  SDRC developed GEOMOD, their geometric modeling product. Featuring NURBS (Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines), this model generator was based on precision and accuracy.
Autodesk/AutoCAD1982By: John Walker  ohn Walker founded the company Autodesk, which released AutoCAD. AutoCAD was the first CAD software made for PCs instead of mainframe computers.
Radar CH
(later ArchiCAD)
1984By: Gábor Bojár  This was the first BIM software available for personal computers.
MiniCAD
(Now Vectorworks, Inc.)
1985By: Richard Diehl/Diehl Graphsoft  MiniCAD was the best selling CAD software for Mac computers.
AutoCAD 3D1985By: Autodesk  Autodesk started offering 3D modeling systems.
Pro/Engineer
(Now PTC Creo)
1988By: PTC  This was the first mainstream CAD program that brought the ideas of Sketchpad (interactive, easy to use, fast) to life. Based on solid models, history-based features, and the use of constraints, it transformed the CAD industry. It was written in UNIX’s X-Windows, making it faster and more user-friendly.
CADENAS1992By: Juergen Heimbach  Founded originally as an engineering firm, CADENAS realized the potential of the engineering IT age and eventually founded eCATALOGsolutions.
Building Design Advisor1993By: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory  This BIM system could perform simulations to determine how buildings and components function and give feedback to design teams.
AutoCAD R131994By: Autodesk  This version made AutoCAD 3D compatible.
STEP
(Standard for the Exchange of Product Data)
1994By: ISO (the International Standards Organization)  STEP took over for IGES as the new format to use when transferring 3D models. The initial 1994 release of STEP made it an international standard for models, and it’s still the most used format today.
eCATALOGsolutions1995By: CADENAS  CADENAS entered the native 3D CAD model market with its eCATALOGsolutions digital product catalogs that featured multiple native CAD formats for the first time.
SolidWorks1995By: Dassault Systèmes  SolidWorks allowed more engineers than ever to take advantage of 3D CAD technology.
Solid Edge1995By: Intergraph  Made as a PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) software, Solid Edge was a response to the success of SolidWorks. It functioned on Windows and provided solid modeling, assembly modeling, and 2D orthographic views.
CATIA Conferencing Groupware1996By: Dassault Systèmes  This was CATIA’s first internet-ready system, and it allowed teams to review and annotate CATIA models simultaneously. It was quickly followed by Unigraphic’s iMAN web author and CoCreate’s Openspace Web.
Inventor1999By: Autodesk  Inventor was more intuitive and simpler to use, and it allowed designers to create complex assemblies in record time. It is still in use today.
Revit2000By: Revit Technology Corporation  By finding conflicts between BIM objects in models and making necessary adjustments, Revit transformed BIM. Revit is one of the most popular BIM systems used today.
SketchUp2000By: @Last Software  SketchUp was released as an easy-to-use, 3D modeling tool for several different fields, and it’s still widely used today.
AutoCAD 360
(Now AutoCAD mobile)
2010By: Autodesk  Autodesk released a mobile version of their system, allowing designers to work outside of the office.
A360
(Autodesk 360)
2012By: Autodesk  This system moved CAD to the cloud and allowed teams to work on the same design simultaneously. Others followed.
3D CAD Models App2013By: CADENAS  CADENAS released the first 3D CAD models app for manufacturers. The app allows industrial marketers to display their products anywhere and at any time.
Onshape2015By: John Hirschtick and John McEleney  Onshape is a completely cloud-based CAD system that lets teams collaborate on one design simultaneously.
Mindesk2015By: Gabriele Sorrento  Mindesk lets users view projects through virtual reality.
Microsoft HoloLens2016By: Microsoft  HoloLens offers full-scale, holographic models.
3DfindIT.com2019By: CADENAS PARTsolutions  3DfindIT.com is a visual search engine that crawls billions of 3D CAD and BIM models in hundreds of manufacturer catalogs available worldwide.
CAD-to-AR for Inventor app2019By: Autodesk  CAD-to-AR allows users to view Inventor models in augmented reality.

Original History of CAD infographic from 2017:

The History of CAD

Original Infographic : Alexis Barnhorn / Research: Laura Caudill / Update: Kelly Obbie

 

Get the Free eBook

See how the world’s top manufacturers sell more products by creating an exceptional digital customer experience.

Download Now 


n5321 | 2025年6月8日 17:03

50 Years of CAD

The first CAD system was created in the early 1960s. Modern CAD programs have never caught up.

In January, 1963, Ivan Sutherland, a PhD candidate at MIT, submitted his thesis, titled “Sketchpad: a man-machine graphical communication system,” describing his work in creating what is now recognized as one of the very first interactive CAD systems.

Sketchpad ran on MIT Lincoln Labs’ TX-2 computer. It was, at the time, one of the biggest machines in the world, with 306 kilobytes of core memory. It differed from most contemporary computers, in that it was designed to test human-computer interaction. In addition to the standard complement of I/O devices, the TX-2 had programmable buttons for entering commands, an oscilloscope/video display screen (addressable to 1024×1024 pixels), a light pen for input, and a pen plotter for output. It was, in a way, the first personal computer, albeit one that took up an entire building.

Sutherland-at-TX-2

Ivan Sutherland on MIT Lincoln Labs’ TX-2 computer.

Unlike earlier computer applications, which were batch oriented, Sketchpad was interactive. Using the light pen and input buttons, you could draw directly on the screen, using a crosshair cursor. The program supported points, line segments, and arcs as basic elements, but allowed these to be saved into master drawings, which could be copied or instanced. This facility was used to create alphanumeric character glyphs, and electrical schematic symbols.

One thing that made Sketchpad really stand out was its constraint management subsystem. It not only supported explicit constraints, added to entities after they were drawn, it supported implicit constraints, created as entities were drawn. For example, if you started to draw a line, and brought the cursor close to the endpoint of another line, it would snap to that endpoint. And it would remember that the two lines were connected. If, while editing, you moved one line, the other line would move with it.

Sketchpad included 17 different types of constraints, including vertical, horizontal, perpendicular, coincident, parallel, aligned, equal size, and more. These native (or “atomic”) constraints could be combined, to create more complex relationships. Sketchpad even allowed the visual display of constraints on screen, using icons (symbols) to represent each type.

With the constraint system, it was possible to loosely sketch a shape, then add geometric and topological relationships to modify it into the exact shape you needed. It was even possible to use constraints to do structural analysis of lattice trusses, such as might be found on cantilever and arch bridges.

bridges-diagram

Visually, Sketchpad was surprisingly interactive. It supported rubberbanding when drawing or editing entities (so the entities would stretch as you moved the cursor.) It supported dynamic move, rotate, and scale of entities (meaning that they moved, rotated, and scaled as you moved the cursor.) It not only supported zoom and pan (dynamically, of course), but did so transparently—even when you were in the midst of another drawing or editing operation.

Sketchpad was designed to be extensible, with provision for adding both new graphical element types, and new constraint types. Shortly after Sutherland submitted his Sketchpad thesis, Timothy E Johnson submitted his Masters thesis describing Sketchpad III, a 3D version of the program. About the same time, Lawrence G. Roberts submitted his PhD thesis, where he had added support to Sketchpad for 3D solids, including assemblies and real-time hidden line removal.

Timothy-Johnson-Sketch

Timothy E. Johnson

While it’s likely that Sketchpad would have gotten plenty of attention on its own, Sutherland, Johnson, and Roberts each made 16 mm movies, demonstrating their work. A combination of these films was used in a 30-minute program in 1964 for Boston TV station WBGH. (A film that appears to be an edited version of this is on YouTube. Just search for “Ivan Sutherland.”) Further, both Sutherland and Johnson presented papers on their work at the 1963 Spring Joint Computer Conference.

Sketchpad pioneered some of the most important concepts in computing, including the graphical user interface, non-procedural programming, and object-oriented programming. If you use a computer or smart phone, you’re using technology pioneered by Sketchpad.

Sutherland didn’t rest on his laurels after Sketchpad. He went on to run ARPA (the predecessor of DARPA.) He co-created the first virtual reality and augmented reality head-mounted display. He co-founded Evans and Sutherland, where he did pioneering work in the field of real-time hardware, accelerated 3D graphics, and printer languages. He was a Fellow and Vice President at Sun Microsystems. He taught at Harvard, University of Utah, and Caltech. Now, at the age of 74, he is heading up research in asynchronous computing at Portland State University.

sketchpad

circuits diagram

As a result of his work on Sketchpad, and his many subsequent contributions to computing, Sutherland has received a dazzling array of honors, including the National Academy of Engineering First Zworykin Award, the IEEE Emanuel R. Piore Award, the ACM Steven A. Coons Award, the ACM Turing Award, the IEEE John von Neumann Medal, and, most recently, the Kyoto Prize.

Alan Kay, himself a recipient of many honors for his pioneering work in computing, has described Sketchpad as “the most significant thesis ever done.” At one point, he asked Sutherland, “How could you possibly have done the first interactive graphics program, the first non-procedural programming language, and the first object-oriented software system, all in one year?” Sutherland’s response was “well, I didn’t know it was hard.”

What about CAD?
As easy as it is to trace the lines of influence from Sketchpad directly to Apple and Microsoft, it’s a little harder to trace the lines of influence from Sketchpad to today’s modern CAD systems. Mostly because those lines are so pervasive.

Anyone who went from MIT into the CAD industry in the 1960s or 1970s—and there were many people who did—was influenced by Sketchpad. Even Jon Hirschtick, a mid-1980s MIT graduate who went on to found SolidWorks, was influenced by Sketchpad.

Despite Sketchpad’s significance, no modern CAD systems actually trace their roots back to Sketchpad. There are a few good reasons for this: First, Sketchpad was a proof-of-concept program for human-machine interaction. Sutherland never intended it to be the basis of a commercial product. Second, Sketchpad was designed to run on the TX-2, a non-commercial research computer. It would have been difficult to port it to a commercial computer (and it’s questionable whether there were any commercial computers at the time that had sufficient capacity to run Sketchpad.)

The high costs of computing, and the lack of sufficiently good graphics display hardware made commercializing Sketchpad a practical impossibility. It wouldn’t be until 1969 that Applicon and Computervision were able to begin delivering commercial CAD systems that could actually produce drawings economically.

The deeper story
What I’ve written so far about Sketchpad could be found in Wikipedia, or in most simple histories of the CAD industry. But there is a deeper story. It starts with this observation: Sutherland never called Sketchpad a computer-aided design system. This, despite the fact that, among those supervising his work on Sketchpad were the very people who had coined the term, and defined the requirements, for Computer-Aided Design.

In December, 1959, The Mechanical Engineering Department and Electronic Systems Laboratory of the Electrical Engineering Department of MIT entered into a joint project, sponsored by the US Air Force, to explore the possibilities for something they called “Computer-Aided Design.”

The next year, in October, 1960, Douglas Ross, head of the Electronic Systems Laboratory’s Computer Application Group, published a technical memorandum titled “Computer-Aided Design: A Statement of Objectives,” laying out his vision. A month later, Steven Coons and Robert Mann, of the Mechanical Engineering Department’s Design and Graphics Group published a complementary memorandum, titled “Computer-Aided Design Related to the Engineering Design Process,” laying out their philosophy of approach. While each group had a somewhat different philosophy, their common goal was to evolve a man-machine system which would permit a human designer to work together on creative design problems.

At the time, MIT was uniquely qualified to take on this research project. They had the TX-0, a research computer that was optimized for exploring human-machine interaction, and, located at MIT Lincoln Laboratory was the TX-2, an even bigger research computer.

During the winter of 1960-61, Ivan Sutherland spent some time working on the TX-0, using its display and light pen. He got the idea that the application of computers to making line drawings would make an interesting PhD thesis subject. In the fall of 1961, Professor Claude Shannon signed on to supervise Sutherland’s computer drawing thesis. Among others on his thesis committee were Marvin Minsky and Steven Coons.

Though Sutherland was not a part of the MIT Computer-Aided Design Project, he was given tremendous support. Wesley Clark, then in charge of computer applications at Lincoln Laboratory, agreed to give him access to the TX-2. By November, 1961, Sutherland had the first version of Sketchpad working. This version, based on an internal project memorandum authored by Coons, could draw horizontal and vertical lines, and supported zooming of the display. In his thesis, Sutherland said “this early effort in effect provided the T-square and triangle capabilities of conventional drafting.” It was definitely more of a computer-aided drafting system than a computer-aided design system.

The version of Sketchpad described in Sutherland’s thesis was quite a bit more advanced than that first version. Based on a suggestion from Shannon, it supported both line segments and arcs. Sutherland also incorporated concepts developed by members of the Computer-Aided Design Project, including plex programming (a precursor to modern object-oriented programming), the Algorithmic Theory of Language, the Theory of Operators, and the Bootstrap Picture Language. This version of Sketchpad also included a constraint solver developed by Lawrence Roberts.

Sutherland gave a presentation on Sketchpad at the 1963 Spring Joint Computer Conference. Also speaking there were Coons, whose presentation was titled “An outline of the requirements for a computer-aided design system,” Ross and Jorge Rodriquez, who presented “Theoretical foundations for the computer-aided design system,” and Robert Stotz, who presented on “Man-machine console facilities for computer-aided design.”

Sutherland, like many other people who have accomplished great things, stood on the shoulders of giants. Clark had designed the TX-2, a computer perfectly suited to creating an interactive drawing program. Engineers at Lincoln Laboratory had optimized the design of light pens. Shannon had created information theory. Roberts had contributed solver technology. But it was Ross and Coons who provided Sutherland with many of the conceptual underpinnings that helped make Sketchpad really stand out.

Even though Sutherland wasn’t a member of the MIT CAD Project, Ross and Coons were happy to support and promote his work. They had a much larger vision for Computer-Aided Design, but Sketchpad was an excellent proof of concept, and reflected well on them.

Ross, writing in 1967, said “Sutherland’s skill, inventiveness, and diligence in expressing these powerful concepts in a smoothly functioning system, making maximum use of the powerful features TX-2 Computer, enabled Sketchpad to bring to life for many people the vast potential for computer-aided design. In particular, the widely distributed movies of Sketchpad in operation have had a profound influence on the whole field of computer graphics.”

The lessons of Sketchpad
Sutherland never wanted to create a computer-aided design system. He wanted to create a computer drawing system. That such a system could be used for drafting, or as a tool for engineering design was of secondary importance to him.

Sutherland, in his paper Technology and Courage, said “Without the fun, none of us would go on!” In Sketchpad, he went as far as he could with computer drawing software while still having fun. Taking it further would have been more like work than fun (as many CAD developers have discovered over the last 50 years.) In the process of creating Sketchpad, Sutherland discovered that the most challenging impediment to making such a system practical was in the performance of its display system. In 1968, he co-founded Evans and Sutherland, and tackled that problem.

Sutherland created two versions of Sketchpad: one that did drafting, and one that did design. Even today, people who see the movies of the design version of Sketchpad are blown away by its capability. Yet, what capabilities do they look for when they go to buy 2D CAD software? Drafting.

Over time, a number of companies have developed Sketchpad-like 2D design programs featuring constrained sketching. They’ve mostly failed in the market. At the same time, AutoCAD, a simple 2D drafting program grew to become the world’s most popular CAD program. It only got constraint capabilities in 2010—some 47 years after Sketchpad had them.

The place where Sketchpad-like capability has found acceptance is in 3D feature-based modeling. The sketching modules for programs such as Pro/E and SolidWorks are very much like Sketchpad. At least, in capability. Where they fail in comparison to Sketchpad is in extensibility.

Possibly the most valuable lesson from Sketchpad may be taken from the observation that Sutherland actually built two versions of the software. When he found that the first version couldn’t be easily modified to do what was required, he started over, and built on a clean—and carefully designed—software architecture.



n5321 | 2025年6月8日 16:56

Founding and Developing SolidWorks and Onshape

Today we’re speaking with Jon Hirschtick, who is a legend in the CAD industry. If you’re not familiar with Jon by name, you’re familiar with his software. Jon is currently Chief Evangelist at PTC, where he focuses on Onshape, the world’s first and only cloud native CAD and PDM system, which includes rendering collaboration, workflow, analytics and many other tools. John was the General Manager, CEO and is the co-founder of Onshape. Prior to Onshape in 1993, John founded SolidWorks and served as CEO, group executive and board member until 2011, watching the platform grow to two million users and over $500M per year in revenue.

Moncur: Jon, what a treat to have you on the show today. What inspired you to become an engineer?

Hirschtick: It was a combination of things that started when I was a child. I found that I really liked building things. There’s something incredibly cool about building something and then watching it work. However, I didn’t grow up in a household where we built things. I grew up in a small apartment in Chicago, and the only tools we had were a pair of pliers and a screwdriver in the kitchen drawer. We didn’t take apart cars or build anything around the house. But a friend of mine was into electronics, and he invited me over to work on some electronics projects with his father. We built electronic circuits, and from that point on, I was hooked.

This interest in building things was more fueled by the space program when I was a kid, which is making a comeback now. But back in the 1960s and 70s, watching rockets take off for the moon was incredibly inspiring. I also started subscribing to magazines such as Popular Science and Popular Electronics. These experiences collectively drew me toward the world of engineering.

Moncur: You eventually founded SolidWorks, a company that revolutionized the CAD industry. I’ve heard stories that the funding for SolidWorks came from experience gambling in Las Vegas. Is that true?

Hirschtick: Yes, that’s mostly true, though there’s a bit more to it. I was in a financial position to start SolidWorks because of my previous experience as a professional blackjack player with the MIT Blackjack Team. This experience allowed me to go for about a year without any real income while I was starting SolidWorks. I needed to rent office space, buy a phone system, and purchase computers, which were much more expensive relative to today’s prices. My ability to fund these initial costs came from the money I had made playing blackjack.

However, it’s important to clarify that this wasn’t company money being gambled. The money I used to start SolidWorks was all personal, earned from my time with the blackjack team. It’s a bit of a wild story, and since then, there have been movies, TV shows, and books about the MIT Blackjack Team. But at the time, it was really just a lot of hard work, much such as engineering itself. People often think gambling, especially in the context of blackjack, is incredibly exciting — and it is — but it’s also a ton of work.

Moncur: In the early 90s, AutoCAD was the dominant name in CAD, with Pro/ENGINEER also making significant strides. How did SolidWorks manage to get its foot into what was essentially AutoCAD’s market?

Hirschtick: That’s a great question, and you’re right to highlight AutoCAD because it was indeed the dominant player at the time. SolidWorks was founded in 1993, which was 30 years ago, and the world was quite different then. AutoCAD was viewed almost as a monopoly in the CAD market. It was the standard CAD system for 2D drawings, and people using it were literally laying out lines on a drawing. This was before the era of taking views of a 3D model such as we do today.

At the same time, Pro/ENGINEER, which came from PTC, was making waves in the 3D space. It wasn’t the first 3D product, but it was the first one that really worked well for engineers who needed to create product models. So, one had AutoCAD dominating the 2D market on DOS-based PCs, and Pro/ENGINEER leading in the 3D space on expensive Unix workstations, which were difficult to use with command-line interfaces and strange UIs.

The opportunity we saw with SolidWorks was to create a system that combined the best of both worlds. We aimed to have the 3D power of Pro/ENGINEER, the cost-effectiveness of AutoCAD, and the usability of Windows, which was just starting to become the standard for personal computing. We believed that this combination would be the winning formula for bringing advanced CAD capabilities to every engineer, and that’s exactly what we set out to do with SolidWorks.

Moncur: That’s fascinating. So, what were some of the biggest technical challenges team faced while developing SolidWorks?

Hirschtick: There were several major technical challenges we faced. First and foremost, nobody had ever built a solid modeler that worked on a PC or on Windows before. People had built little ones, but engineers need a lot of power in their tools, and no one had successfully created a system that could deliver that on a Windows platform. Windows itself was a bit of a “green banana” at the time — meaning it was still developing and wasn’t fully ready for what we needed it to do.

Another significant challenge was that we were the first successful production-level CAD system to use component technology. This meant we licensed chunks of technology from other companies, such as the geometric modeling engine from Unigraphics, which is now part of Siemens. We also licensed translators and other components. At the time, the prevailing wisdom among CAD insiders was that one couldn’t build a serious application using component technology; they believed that to build something real, everything needed to be created in-house. It was like saying, “If you want to build a Tesla, you need to have your own battery plant,” because no one had ever built an electric car at scale without doing so. But times change, and we were able to prove that one could build a successful CAD system using licensed components.

Finally, building a CAD system is just incredibly hard. One must be a little crazy to even try. The challenges of integrating complex functionalities, ensuring system stability, and delivering performance were immense. We were not only pushing the limits of what was possible on the software side but also on the hardware side, given the limitations of PCs at the time.

Moncur: How long did it take before SolidWorks started gaining traction with engineers?

Hirschtick: It took about three years to start gaining real traction. We shipped the first product at the end of 1995, and the first users started adopting it in 1996. However, at that time, the functionality of SolidWorks was a bit light compared to today’s standards. The feature set back then had many things were missing. But you must remember that expectations were lower in the mid-90s. People didn’t expect as much from a CAD system as they do now.

It wasn’t until about seven or eight years later that the system really hit its stride and became a mature product. By 2004, SolidWorks had become a solid product that could compete well with other systems such as Pro/ENGINEER. Engineers who had initially struggled to transition from systems such as Pro/ENGINEER to SolidWorks eventually found that SolidWorks was much easier to use and offered features that made their work more efficient.

Moncur: Was there anything that surprised you about how users were using SolidWorks, or by its success?

Hirschtick: SolidWorks largely did what we set out to do, so there weren’t many surprises regarding how it was used. We built the product with a specific vision, and it was used largely in the way we intended. However, I was surprised by the scale of adoption and the size of teams that started using it. People were building bigger things with SolidWorks than I might have anticipated, and the size of the teams using it was also larger than I expected.

As for the magnitude of success, I always had the feeling that SolidWorks was going to be huge. I remember getting into an argument with a vendor one day who didn’t believe in what we were doing. I told him, “If you make us successful, we’re going to be a bigger customer than all other customers today put together.” At the time, that probably sounded arrogant, but it wasn’t — I just believed in what we were building. What I didn’t fully grasp was how big the CAD market would get. The place in the market was pretty much what I thought it would be, but the overall size of the market grew far beyond my expectations. We once thought that SolidWorks might reach $300M in revenue, but today, it’s generating over a billion dollars annually.

Moncur: After the success of SolidWorks, what led to Onshape?

Hirschtick: The idea for Onshape came from visiting SolidWorks users and seeing the frustrations they had with installation issues, version control, and data management. I’ve always spent a lot of time visiting users and customers, understanding their problems, and figuring out how to solve them. Back when we first launched SolidWorks, it was great news — it was easier to use than Pro/ENGINEER, had a Windows UI, and ran on a PC. But as SolidWorks grew and more people started using it, new challenges emerged.

I remember visiting a medical company in Boston that was using SolidWorks to design heart valve repair systems. Before we even got into talking about the product, they spent two hours venting their frustrations about the problems they were facing. They had 24 users and were struggling with installation issues, version compatibility, and data management. They had to buy special computers for everyone, and installations failed half the time. They couldn’t get everyone on the same version of SolidWorks, which led to issues with file compatibility. They were running multiple versions of the software, and it was causing all sorts of problems.

On top of that, they had issues with their PDM (Product Data Management) system. They had set up a vault to manage their files, but they couldn’t get everyone to properly lock files.


n5321 | 2025年6月8日 16:38

The World According to Jon Hirschtick

What was your start in the CAD business?

I left Computervision in August ’83. You’re lucky I have a good memory for dates. It was a year later we raised venture capital. It was very hard to raise venture capital for SolidWorks. Nobody wanted to invest in it. People turned us down.

Why?

The feeling was the market was done, that everyone used AutoCAD. Autodesk had a monopoly. And down the street, there was PTC.

You know PTC is having their annual user meeting just a few blocks away?

Yeah.

What do you think of PTC?

I have a lot of respect for PTC. I have a lot of respect for all the CAD companies really. There’s a lot to admire. Mike Payne came to us [SolidWorks] from PTC.

But back then, they were about to give you any money?

Everyone turned us down. You have to remember at the time, AutoCAD was almost generic for CAD. AutoCAD was to CAD what Google is to search. It was more than what Apple and Android is to phones. That’s a biopoly. There were other CAD programs, but basically AutoCAD owned everything in a huge way.

You tried for venture capital, like Shark Tank?

We went to venture capital investors, but it wasn’t like Shark Tank. That was invented for entertainment. We were going into conference rooms, meeting with investors. It was painful. Again, AutoCAD had a freaking monopoly. Everyone had AutoCAD. Period. Then, PTC was coming over the top with 3D. PTC was a juggernaut on execution. You didn’t want to get in their way. Let’s see, who would be like that today? Salesforce?

PTC and AutoCAD had this monopoly on the 2D side, the low end, and PTC on the 3D side, at the high end. People didn’t realize there was anything besides PTC at the high end. PTC was executing relentlessly quarter after quarter—an incredible sales force. It felt like they were taking over the world. And here we come along with “Oh, our idea is to put 3D CAD on Windows.” They looked at me like I had two heads.

Sounds like you hit a wall.

It was a struggle. We could not get investors to invest. They thought it would be very difficult to build [3D parametric history-based CAD] and that there wasn’t room in the market. They felt like CAD was a solved problem. But I believed in it and kept working on it. I told our team we will get funding. I can’t tell how long it will take.

Where was the company located at this time?

In my house.

Where did you grow up?

I grew up in Chicago. I worked for a bit as a professional magician. I did balloon animals and magic tricks.

And card tricks?

That got me going with cards. But that was a part-time job.

This was during high school?

Yeah. I was a good student. I went on to MIT. I started programming computers in 1975 during high school.

[We are interrupted by our waiter, who reminds us to order, leading to a study and commentary of the vast and varied menu and some reminiscing about previous meals we shared together. Hirschtick remembers our giant fish (a branzino) served whole in an Israel-themed restaurant in LA along with pan-Asian restaurants—similar to this one—where he has eaten, what he likes and dislikes. He doesn’t care to share food.]

And creamed spinach?

Creamed spinach? More like spinached cream.

You’re from Chicago. You must have a favorite steakhouse.

In Chicago? When I was a kid, we didn’t go to steakhouses. But these days, my three favorites are Gibson’s, Gene & Georgetti, and the Chicago Chop House.

Remember you promised to show us the best Italian beef in Chicago?

I remember. Then we didn’t go. Next time we’re in Chicago. Engineering.com is in Toronto? Nice town. When’s the next basketball game?

[Hirschtick, a true sports fan, is referring to the NBA championship series between the Golden State Warriors and the Toronto Raptors.]

It’s tonight, actually.

You’ve got to watch that. That’s a big deal. Speaking of championships…. Not to gloat but….

Here we go. Go ahead. Boston’s championships…

We could have another [championship] on Wednesday: hockey. Boston Bruins vs St. Louis Blues, game seven.

Big sports fan, Jon?

Yeah, I’m a sports fan. I most enjoy baseball. Then football, hockey and basketball when they’re in the playoffs. I probably average one game a year live in hockey and basketball. How about you—hockey?

That is the default for us [Canadians]. But the Raptors have got the whole city [of Toronto] excited for the first time [about basketball]. But Boston has been very fortunate with its sports teams. Is the Patriots’ football dynasty like Golden State’s basketball dynasty?

Our football dynasty is like the basketball dynasty if the Warriors win for another decade. Then you could say they are the same. How many championships do they have? Three?

It would be three in a row if they win this year.

How many total?

That would be five total.

They’ve won five? That’s pretty good. We’ve won six championships in football. I don’t know if you noticed. Let’s see, not one World Series but four.

Since ’02, we’ve had 19 championships. In the last 17 years, which covers 18 seasons, we’ve had 17, I think. That’s six Super Bowls, four World Series, a Stanley Cup and a basketball championship. That’s 12 championships in 17 years.

Now you’re just bragging.

And right now, we are one good hockey game away from holding three of them simultaneously.


n5321 | 2025年6月8日 16:38

Founding Memories From 1993—— Jon Hirschtick

EARLY DAYS: SolidWorks founders in 1994 (from front to back) Dr. Constantine Dokos, Scott Harris, Bob Zuffante, Mike Payne and Jon Hirschtick go over details in the first beta release of SolidWorks. Not shown: Tommy Li.

Happy 25th Birthday, SolidWorks!

It’s hard to believe it’s been 25 years since we founded SolidWorks on December 30, 1993. SolidWorks disrupted the engineering world, taking the platform leap from UNIX workstations — which were only affordable to an elite few — to Microsoft Windows, which was available to nearly everyone.

For those of you born after the introduction of Windows, it’s worth noting that in the ancient 1980s, when I was a student at MIT’s CAD research lab, one seat of CAD could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The CAD vendor sold you not only the hardware and software as part of a “turnkey system,” but also the official computer table and chair. Not kidding. The idea of you buying software that you could run on your own personal computer was considered a fantasy.

It was also the age of desktop publishing when industry news was formatted for paper booklets in 3-ring binders rather than the Internet. Anyone remember Steve Wolfe’s influential “Computer Aided Design Report”?

I saved the October 1995 issue, which features headlines such as “The Windows 95 Era Begins” and “Move Over Pro/E: The Next Generation Has Arrived” (which was a review of the first release of SolidWorks). At the time, there were at least 100 times more PCs than UNIX workstations, noted Wolfe, so Microsoft could spread its software development costs across a much broader base of customers.

“Microsoft can afford to develop ease-of-use features that UNIX systems don’t enjoy,” he wrote. “For example, Windows lets workers check the status of a print job by clicking on an icon and reading the job queue. UNIX forces workers to memorize and type a command from the command prompt.”

Remarkable, huh? A leading technology publication is marveling over the wonders of a printer icon that you can click and get your computer to print! That’s a bit of historical context for the origin story of SolidWorks.

Skeptics told me over and over again that CAD would never work on a PC. It wouldn’t be fast enough, they said. People will never switch, they said. But you all know the ending to that story.

In the spirit of celebration of those 25 years, I’d like to share a few artifacts from my personal archives. Some of these mementos have never been publicly seen before, so you might even consider this post to be the launch of an unofficial SolidWorks Smithsonian. Time to get nostalgic…

SolidWorks Was Originally Named “Winchester Design Systems”

I love hearing company origin stories and learning how companies chose their brand names. Amazon almost was called “Relentless,” but friends of founder Jeff Bezos reportedly warned him that the name sounded too “sinister.” According to Business Insider, other names that Bezos seriously considered were “Awake.com,” “Bookmail.com” and “Browse.com.”

When SolidWorks was founded, it wasn’t initially called SolidWorks. We gave the company the temporary name, “Winchester Design Systems” so that we could take our time in coming up with a really great brand name. I picked “Winchester Design Systems” based on the fact that the company was born behind that second floor window of my 2-bedroom condo at 50 Edward Drive in Winchester, Mass.

I don’t know who lives there now, but they probably have no idea how many amazing products have come to life since 1993 because of our then-brand-new CAD system that was created there.

SolidWorks Was Almost Called “OmniCAD”

“OmniCAD” sounds like a nefarious conglomerate where a supervillain might work in the next “Iron Man” movie. “PowerCAD” sounds like a nutritional supplement you might mix in your protein shake. What you see above are some letterhead (remember letterhead?) mockups of possible company names before the emergence of the SolidWorks company name. I vividly remember hanging these potential company names on the wall of my office to test which ones felt right. When you’re brainstorming names, it’s always helpful to visualize how your ideas look in print.

Our software vision, of course, wasn’t impacted by the name we chose for the business. Perhaps in an alternative universe, “SolidWorks” would retroactively sound as odd as these names above.

I remember playing around with word fragments on a legal pad when I was at the Daratech VAR Conference in 1994 and just liking how “solid” and “works” sounded together. SolidWorks was built before the Internet existed (believe it or not), so we didn’t have to worry about whether the URL was available. As an aside, SolidWorks.com was one of the first 100,000 websites in the world, and I remember a board meeting when we actually debated the merits of investing in a website or not! You can see the original 1996 SolidWorks site here as archived by the Wayback Machine:

The Original Feature Manager Concept Sketch

No matter which 3D CAD system you use today, a Feature Manager is a standard part of its user interface — something you take for granted. But before SolidWorks, there was no such thing as a Feature Manager. There were features of course, but the only way for users to visualize feature order was to, as we observed pre-SolidWorks users doing, maintain handwritten lists of features on paper. Can you imagine doing that today? So we built the first Feature Manager, which was born in 1994 from this rudimentary concept sketch.

Who Was the First SolidWorks Customer?

There are two people who can rightfully claim to be the first SolidWorks customer. Dr. Bill Townsend, founder and CEO of Barrett Technology (a leading robotics company) was the first to give us an order for SolidWorks.

The first customer to actually pay us was Kendrick Vanswearingen, an engineer from Addison, Illinois. Just like Chinese restaurants proudly display their first dollar of revenue, I saved a copy of his check, the first check ever received by the SolidWorks Corporation.

Channeling Andy from “The Office”

Looking back, I now realize how much of a remarkably special time this was in my life — and how these moments don’t come along very often. My daughter once made me a handwritten sign quoting Andy Bernard (actor Ed Helms) from the final episode of “The Office” when he said, “I wish there was a way to know you were in the good old days before you’ve actually left them.”

That’s how I feel when I look at some of these SolidWorks artifacts. I know that SOLIDWORKS is spelled with all caps now, but for this post, nostalgia demands going with the original capital “S” and capital “W.”

You’ve heard of the San Francisco 49ers and the Philadelphia 76ers, of course. I like to think of my SolidWorks colleagues and customers from 1995 or before as the “SolidWorks 95ers.” You 95ers will always be a very special group to me and each other.

To everyone who helped build SolidWorks over the past 25 years, whether you are a “95er,” joined later or are part of Dassault Systemes, I just want to say thanks again to all of you. It was an incredible ride. I hope you enjoyed taking a look back at some history.


n5321 | 2025年6月8日 12:56

About Us

普通电机工程师!
从前只想做最好的电机设计,现在修理电机设计工具。
希望可以帮你解释电磁概念,项目救火,定制ANSYS Maxwell。

了解更多