Autodesk + Instructables: For Makers? 77
ptorrone writes "MAKE magazine has published an in-depth look at what the recent acquisition of Instructables by Autodesk means for makers and the DIY movement. MAKE suggests it wasn't about getting the millions of members or projects at Instructables or upselling Autodesk tools. Instead, the acquisition was more about creating many Instructable-like communities around Autodesk's new free and trial tools including their 3D printing site and service, Autodesk123D."
It would be worse... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are three companies that would be worse than Autodesk in this role:
1. DSS.
2. Altium.
3. Microsoft.
I mean, of all things, Autodesk? The guys who make poorly designed, expensive CAD program that only keeps its market dominance because of its semi-documented, closed file format? One that ported its engine to OSX but "forgot" to bring any of the modules that make their software in any way useful?
That never ever touched Linux (and is worse than Solidworks with Wine)? That abandoned all Unix ports of their software many, many versions ago? (well, Pro/Engineer and CATIA bested them by abandoning an existing Linux port, apparently just to spite users).
That never did, nor ever promised to give a fuck about any "community" other than corporate managers who make purchasing decisions?
That never ever open sourced anything?
That thinks, anyone sane would use crippled "free" tools specifically made to frustrate the user, to do design of anything that matters?
Re: (Score:1)
Fight for the blender in this dark times!
Re: (Score:2)
As long as Blender won't replace that piece of shit they call a UI it'll remain stuck in the "also ran" category.
Re: (Score:2)
Blender DID replace its GUI, you imbecile.
But Blender is not a CAD program.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Moving a few things around and changing the labels of every third button does not qualify as a real replacement.
2) AutoTurd isn't the only thing in Autodesk's product line. Compared to the UI of 3ds Max or Maya (aka space bar hell) or Blender barely even wins a consolation price (for just showing up).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, I remember using PSPICE/CaptureCIS/whatever in school. It was powerful, but it hated us all. Sometimes it would just do something random that no one would be able to explain, other times you'd have to perform some ritual to get it to simulate your circuit without shitting a brick. My favorites, though, were the Donuts of Doom, which it would stick in your schematic where it thought you had a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the Discreet days there was a prototype which ran on RHEL, but further development (e.g., .NET integration) has made sure that'll remain a dead end.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it probably matters to those three guys who actually use that incomplete port.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right about the corporate-orientated business plan though. But what do you expect when their main clients are architects and planners? They market to the segment that buys their software. Don't shoot them for that.
You mean, they market to the only segment that can afford their software because it's overpriced? Ex: Altium, who destroyed the whole hobbyist EDA software market by buying up everything from it, and only selling it in one over-expensive, bundle.
"Bring their modules" to the Mac... implies you're a bitter Mac-head who'd LIKE to run AutoCAD if you could... maybe you should have bought a few components which would have cost half what your Mac cost and assembled them yourself, then you could have the same toys as me, no?
I probably could care less about OSX and all software that runs on it, but that won't be much.
OSX port could indicate that company is committed to cross-platform development, what usually means sane file formats and modularity. What would, in its turn, mean Linux po
Re: (Score:3)
Being a draftsman, I have to disagree with you. I've never seen another CAD application that had so much polish. It's extremely customizable in the user interface, as well as in function, yet it's also very, very stable. Sure, you might be able to find a car you wouldn't mind driving for less than the price of AutoCAD, but the typical use for it, is on projects that pay several tens of thousands of dollars, maybe even hundreds of thousands. If you're in a business that needs CAD work done, AutoCAD is well w
Re:It would be worse... (Score:5, Interesting)
Autocad is a claw hammer. Solidworks is a ball-pein hammer. They can both "hammer," but each is better for a particular job. You should choose the appropriate tool depending on the objective. Do you need to pull nails, or shape sheet metal? (sorry, no car analogies today.)
I've been using Autocad since about 1985
Re: (Score:2)
I never did find a scripting language in solidworks, not saying it isn't there. AutoLISP isn't great, but better than what I found in solid works. Also I never did master the "dynamic blocks" in solidworks.
Also autocad != solidworks, inventor ~= solidworks.
Solidworks was nice for doing 3D stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth be told, I've never used Solidworks. I've used AutoCAD a great deal though, as well as Microstation and a number of less expensive CAD applications. AutoCAD was initially developed before GUIs were well developed, so its command line is central to its operation, and even after all of this time, it still hasn't abandoned that for the trappings of a GUI interface. While the option remains to build your work space around toolbars (and even that accursed "ribbon" that Microsoft introduced with Office, but
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're right, in the sense that Instructables sucks enough that I wouldn't mind at all if they were dragged into the abyss and it was made that much easier for competitors to replace it.
Visiting that site is just a miserable experience--you have to be logged in to access the most basic of features, or worse, a paid membership, which it's always trying to foist on you, and otherwise it's full of ads. It has some great content--thanks to the user-community that puts up with them. But the longer it ta
Re: (Score:1)
Check out CommentHow.com [commenthow.com], a site still in its infancy, but where all the viewing options are available to everyone, logged in or not. (Commenting and posting articles requires a login of course.)
All content will be public domain, Creative Commons Attribution, or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, meaning everything can be remixed. That's why every article has a "Copy this Article" button, letting users base their how-to article off someone else's. That lets them extend it, translate it into their
Re:It would be worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember finding a video for my painting instructor and being shocked that it cost $500 for a DVDR copy with no right to back it up and being told that that's more or less just what films for schools cost.
Same sort of thing with AutoCAD, it is expensive, expensive enough that it's not affordable for anybody that isn't working in the industry. But, if you're drawing up plans for a multimillion dollar project, the cost is a pittance comparatively speaking compared with the other costs involved. And ultimately as long as everybody else is using that software that's what you'll get.
Not that it makes it right mind you, but that is how that works. I'm skeptical that this is a good thing ultimately for the folks that use the site.
Re: (Score:1)
this is the same point I made in my recent post, starting from the fact that Autodesk locks CAD worse than Microsoft locks office documents , see http://stop.zona-m.net/2011/08/autodesk-buys-instructables-wait-a-moment/
Re: (Score:1)
That abandoned all Unix ports of their software many, many versions ago?
Ermm. thats not true at all really. I'm always up for a bit of Autodesk bashing but Maya, Mudbox, 3DSMax, Softimage, Flame all run on Linux. In fact its CAD which is the odd one out really in their product lineup. Also the Area community isn't too shabby tbh. Oh, and FBX is pretty open really. I'm not an Autodesk fanboy by any means I'm an old Alias/Wavefront fanboy who is still bitching about some of the weird things they've done to Maya.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Their software, not things they bought. AutoCAD ran on Unix before they microsof-ified its interfaces.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It took about 10 years for
Re: (Score:2)
[fluff skipped]
Were you trying to make some kind of a point here?
The community to be built is more like linkedin rather than facebook. Targeted not to the masses but to future professionals. It is the same think that Solidworks is doing with First. That is community of robot builders that will form a clique well into early professional life and will insure Solidworks sales.
Linkedin is a community without communications. It's basically for people to announce their presence. It helps to maintain a list of connections and keeping resume posted in some accessible way, but it does not encourage participants to do anything, least of all to copy each other's preferences and idiosyncrasies. The best Autodesk can do with it is "hey, see, there are so many people claim that they used AutoCAD for something!"
If Autodesk's current effort t
I knew it! (Score:1)
I when the advertising started, I knew they were angling for their big cash out. Well, looks like they got it. Here's to hopeing they choke on the money their community made them.
Resistance is Divine... (Score:4, Informative)
Autodesk continues their 'Innovation through Acquisition' stormtrooper march.
March 31, 1997 Softdesk Inc. .OBJ File format)
May 6, 1998 Genius CAD-Software G.m.b.H.
March 16, 1999 Discreet Logic Inc.
April 22, 1999 VISION Solutions
January 24, 2001 Gentry Systems
September 24, 2001Buzzsaw
February 21, 2002 Revit Technology CorporationAugust 6, 2002 CAiCE Software Corporation
December 18, 2002 truEInnovations, IncMarch 4, 2003 Linius Technologies, Inc
February 24, 2004 MechSoft, Inc.
March 2005 COMPASS systems GmbH
May 10, 2004 Unreal Pictures
June 10, 2004 AVEVA
December 17, 2004 CAD ISV
June 16, 2005 Colorfront Ltd.
July 6, 2005 c-plan
August 22, 2005 Solid Dynamics, SA
October 17, 2005 Alias Inc. (Maya Wavefront
August 6, 2007 Skymatter Inc (Mudbox)
August 9, 2007 NavisWorks, Inc.
August 20, 2007 Opticore AB
August 28, 2007 PlassoTech (CAE)
November 25, 2007 RobobatMay 1, 2008 Moldflow Corporation
May 7, 2008 Kynogon SA and REALVIZ SAJune 26, 2008 Square One Research (Ecotect)
October 23, 2008 Avid's Softimage, Co.
December 17, 2008 ALGOR, Inc.
December 2009 VisualTAO (PlanPlatform)
February 17, 2011 Blue Ridge Numerics, Inc.
So long Instructables... It was nice knowing you...
Re:Resistance is Divine... (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as capitalism encourages this, it will continue. Don't blame the child, blame the parent.
I would also like to add that they retain the teams and platforms - gosh they still have seperate 3DS MAX and Maya teams! I'd like you to use those finely-honed research skills to compare and contrast this with, say, IBM, or M$...
Re: (Score:1)
Who's Karl? Someone on the board of Autodesk, or the reincarnation of Karl Marx?
Either way, I'm flattered, apart from the fact that Karl is most probably male. But then again, Margaret (context, think for a second!) was treated as and measured against the men, and she took that stick and hit them over the head with it!
This has to be nicest AC I've ever met.
Re: (Score:1)
Right, I've googled it, and concluded two things:
Carl Bass is President and CEO of Autodesk, so if you're referring to him, you spelt his name wrong, but I'm reasonably flattered.
And, as I already suspected, Karl Marx would be correctly spelled if that's who you're referring to, and I'm more flattered than I would be if you were referring to Carl, above.
Thanks for the little research idea, anyhow. Rachel
Re: (Score:1)
Communities? (Score:3)
Since I actually know a couple of 3rd party software developers for Autodesk with UIDS under 1,000... I remain highly skeptical of Autodesk's commitment towards any community.
From what I remember Autodesk "absorbed" a lot of people's hard work into their own software and said the developers legally had no recourse. I'm fuzzy on the exact details, but from what I remember, one of my friends was making good money with their 3rd party software and then all of the sudden it was gone.
So if Autodesk totally screwed over its entire development community years back, what makes you think they have a real commitment towards supporting anybody but themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Technologically, instructables is just another CMS-driven site, nothing particularly notabl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's the go-to place because that's where everybody goes.
c.f.: the network effect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's a Facebook to their MySpace, but since this came up on Slashdot, I'm plugging my new site: CommentHow.com [commenthow.com]. The site still in its infancy, but where all the viewing options are available to everyone, logged in or not. (Commenting and posting articles requires a login of course.)
All content will be public domain, Creative Commons Attribution, or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, meaning everything can be remixed. That's why every article has a "Copy this Article" button, letting u
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocritical (Score:2)
it means the first attack has begun (Score:3)
autodesk is about as anti-open anything as you can get. they are 100% against any kind of open standard for anything.
combine that with the power of patent lawsuits, and you can pretty much kiss free 3d-printing goodbye in the United States.
their plan is to make you pay for every single last triangle in your STL file, claiming they somehow invented triangles.
Clear now: A common open CAD data structure needed (Score:5, Interesting)
This report of the sale of Instructables to Autodesk makes it clear to me that the free software community needs a common drawing data structure and a set of user drawing interchange utilities.
The world of free drafting and CAD doesn't have the many little component drawings available to the users of AutoCAD proprietary drafting software. From the previous poster's comments, AutoDesk is unlikely to make any user data files or data structure information more available in the future.
I just finished spending 2 months reviewing many of the free CAD programs. I am looking for programs and applications to design a solar water heater installation, a radio antenna, a fractal made out of wire, an electrical circuit and a wagon. Is there anything yet to match sheets of quad paper, a .5 mm mechanical pencil and a HP-48 calculator and some assorted handbooks?
What AutoDesk seems to have, that is never released by AutoDesk, is the Autocad user drawing data structure and the little drawings of ready to use components.
What is missing from PythonCAD, Qcad, Blender, and Varkon is libraries of little drawings called "components". (An interesting program is the Beta prototype "Fritzing" for designing Arduino breadboards. Fritzing is all about placing components and drawing wires between the components. It has a delightful simple data structure for doing this.)
The whole world of CAD or mechanical drafting programs is wrapped up in incompatible islands of proprietary user drawing data structures. It seems to spring from business based engineers who want to be paid directly for every single use of their engineering knowledge.
Since it is partly free and it does run on Linux (with Wine), I like Google Sketchup. The drawing app is genius, the user data structure is proprietary and the data can be exported only using the $500 professional version of Sketchup. I wish they would publish their user data structure.
It would be both fun and a first class challenge to write conversion utilities to convert files from Sketchup to Blender, from Sketchup to PythonCAD and Qcad. From the CAD programs back and forth to SAGE and Xnec2c. Here is an interesting problem in doing user data structure conversions: When doing the file conversion, you need a way to not throw away data that one program uses and another doesn't. One way is to provide for internal comments within the user application data structure for each drawing application. And figure out how to keep each comment together with some active point within the data structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, Draftsight is very good and the closest you'll come to an Autocad clone. I've found a few minor bugs but it's more than made up for that by being free.
Autocad itself is a yawn. It's not getting better. Also, the vast army of middlemen you have to wade past to even buy a copy is depressing. There's something about the while experience that is pre-Internet, or like AutoDesk is in some alternative universe where the internet got made proprietary and stuck like sand in glue.
Re: (Score:1)
www.opencascade.org
'nuff said. Do your homework.
Re: (Score:3)
Done!
Re: (Score:1)
Well, there are a few "open" CAD data formats that could be used:
1. STEP (ISO10303)
2. CGM (ISO/IEC8632)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/ISO_10303 [wikimedia.org]
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Computer_Graphics_Metafile [wikimedia.org]
HTH
AC
FreeCAD is 3D, more like Inventor or SolidWorks (Score:3)
see http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/free-cad/index.php?title=Main_Page [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:1)
What Autodesk is up to (Score:4, Interesting)
Autodesk already has a deal with TechShop - if you're a TechShop member, you can get a 6-month free license for Autodesk Inventor, their high-end CAD package. The intent is to increase the pool of people who know how to design and make things. Those are the people who use Autodesk products.
Inventor takes weeks to learn, but is worth it if you're doing serious mechanical design. It's the attention to detail, like having a library of about 75,000 standard parts like bolts, nuts ("would you like a lockwasher with that?"), and bearings. The parts aren't just pictures; the system has strength and wear data for them, and can do the engineering calculations for a bolted joint or a bearing. It can handle moving parts, nested subassemblies, finite element analysis, wiring harness layout, piping - all those things which are a giant pain in real world design.
123D is a toy-level Autodesk Inventor. The 3D and graphic visualization tools are there, but not the engineering calculations or the big parts libraries. Some parts from those libraries are distributed free with 123D, but without the engineering data. It's easier to use than Inventor, but it's definitely a CAD program,not a drawing program. It seems to be designed to get people thinking about mechanical design in the way it's done professionally. That makes sense from Autodesk's perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
wow, this is the best comment i've seen on /. in forever.
Maybe Autodesk will be more responsive... (Score:2)
... and not try to keep things like this quiet:
"How I discovered Instructables' email database had been stolen"
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-I-discovered-Instructables-email-database-had/ [instructables.com]
other options (Score:2)
my guess is that clones and compatibles (bricscad, cadopia, progesoft,,,) are making them nervous.
people are starting to realize there are other, cheaper options.
they are losing their lock-in.
No OS X Version (Score:2)
I've been playing with various cad programs to design things for my MakerBot (my standard is OpenSCAD [openscad.org] and TinkerCAD [tinkercad.com] for example) and last night I watched some of the videos of 123CAD and it looked quite nice. I went to the download page and... nope. Windows only.
So I checked their forum and it seems that a Mac version is the most requested feature.
It's a neat looking program though.
My own OSCOMAK effort, maybe it inspired others? (Score:2)
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/ [kurtz-fernhout.com]
http://www.pdfernhout.net/sunrise-sustainable-technology-ventures.html [pdfernhout.net]
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html [kurtz-fernhout.com]
At least I tried to get the ideas out there. But great minds think alike, so it may well be independent invention. :-)
Good luck to the new merger. Too bad it is not centered aroun free and open source software for the CAD side.