Onshape is better than SolidWorks EPDM, because...

caradon

Onshape is better than SolidWorks EPDM, because... (fill in)

Dries

caradon

Let me kick this off...

• because Onshape doesn't create unwanted versions when a design change is 'checked in'.
  
• because Onshape allows concurrent users to work on the same document at the same moment.
  

Dries

stevehess

Here's some more.....

• Because you are ALWAYS working on the latest version of the design.
  
• Because there is no checkin or checkout required.
  

kevin_quigley

Er...obviously...because it comes with the core package!

caradon

KevinQuigley said:

Er...obviously...because it comes with the core package!

I'll expand...

• because EPDM is a pain to manage from an IT point of view.
  
• because managing the EPDM infrastructure often takes more resources than actually using the system in production.
  
• because many IT guys are convinced their magical virtual machines -with virtual storage (read: not necessarily physically available...)- can handle any application. So they decide to virtualize EPDM, compromising stability/responsiveness/speed/support/...
  

Plus... We cannot/may not upgrade to the latest version of SolidWorks before EPDM is upgraded, which can be several months after a new 20xx release.

Dries

kevin_quigley

Dries that is my point. Build it into the core product and you dont have to worry about it. Bolt it on, and you are hit with extra costs, extra admin overheads and delays in implementation of new versions.

caradon

Let me kick this off...

• because Onshape doesn't create unwanted versions when a design change is 'checked in'.
  
• because Onshape allows concurrent users to work on the same document at the same moment.
  

Dries

stevehess

Here's some more.....

• Because you are ALWAYS working on the latest version of the design.
  
• Because there is no checkin or checkout required.
  

kevin_quigley

Er...obviously...because it comes with the core package!

caradon

KevinQuigley said:

Er...obviously...because it comes with the core package!

I'll expand...

• because EPDM is a pain to manage from an IT point of view.
  
• because managing the EPDM infrastructure often takes more resources than actually using the system in production.
  
• because many IT guys are convinced their magical virtual machines -with virtual storage (read: not necessarily physically available...)- can handle any application. So they decide to virtualize EPDM, compromising stability/responsiveness/speed/support/...
  

Plus... We cannot/may not upgrade to the latest version of SolidWorks before EPDM is upgraded, which can be several months after a new 20xx release.

Dries

kevin_quigley

Dries that is my point. Build it into the core product and you dont have to worry about it. Bolt it on, and you are hit with extra costs, extra admin overheads and delays in implementation of new versions.

jon_hirschtick

Thanks all. One of the reasons we are here is that we observed all these problems users had with PDM, version control, checking out, copying, etc. and realized that we needed to start from the beginning with a different kind of system architecture.

Aaron_Easton_Nickovich

It's funny how none of the reasons this new modeling software is better is because of improved modeling tools. This just goes to show how seriously messed up file management and doc control has gotten.

I'd agree! I seriously don't care about a better spline tool or a faster way to make a square, because my work flow at this moment is now determined by how carefully I construct my model so it doesn't get destroyed when either myself or a colleague makes a design change in the future.

kevin_quigley

Aaron, i was answering the question asked. IMHO I don't care how good the file system is if the core modelling tools are not up to scratch. For me it is geometry first, everything else second. Roght at this moment in time OS has a way to go before the geometry is sorted to the level that I could consider it as a primary tool.

billy2

no vault!

one database, one design, one place to get things done, sweet!

pete_yodis

I think all the reasons mentioned so far show the advantages of a system like Onshape over EPDM. For me, the configuration of EPDM has been long and laborious and one of the major Advantages Onshape might have. For companies already using EPDM, are there plans to help import the data from a current PDM system into Onshape? I could see this as a major sticking point for companies wanting to switch in due time, or is Onshape just targeting startups and companies that are not involved with PDM yet? Curious to hear how the data import might work in these circumstances.

stevehess

@PDY‌ Onshape will definitely support migration from and connection to existing PDM & PLM systems.

pete_yodis

Thanks Steve. Connection to existing PDM & PLM systems... interesting. What about import of revision history from a system like EPDM?

lougallo

As someone who had been implementing, coding and using EPDM for a dozen years (back in the Conisio days) I have to say there are many truths here. There are a number of things that come to mind, but one that continues to come up is no hardware or IT to manage and cross platform.