11 ms·

There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Revit is the standard, and while it's i

by imgabe 6y ago

There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Revit is the standard, and while it's improved a lot over the years it's still so ridiculously far from where it could be. I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X" to almost anything outside software and you'd be hailed as a revolutionary genius. For Revit specifically, version control for construction drawings or a package manager for Revit families would both be huge.

303bookworm 6y ago
Some of those exist, a friend of mine has a startup that's essentially "Git for building plans" (https://shapedo.com/ https://shapedo.com/)
- somewhereoutth 6y ago
  If the intention is well realized then this can be a great product. Horrendous name though (for English first language speakers anyway), 'do' is the fallback - most primitive - verb for any kind of action implying a lack of precision or importance: "I'm doing the dishes" vs "I'm polishing the cutlery". There is also an unfortunate embedded word in there too.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lifeisstillgood 6y ago
So sideproject should be find the leading software in a dozen industries and map out what is / not working (maybe do sales safari style discovery?)
jamescham 6y ago
This is exactly right—we now live in a world in which most jobs are knowledge work, and we should look to those who are the most productive (and lazy) knowledge workers: software developers.
klft 6y ago
> Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X" Product lifecycle management (PLM) software provide such features.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  For what it’s worth, first hand experience here, Autodesk’s PLM is IMO quite awful.
  - klft 6y ago
    I do not want to question that, I was rather questioning the statement that "you'd be hailed as a revolutionary genius." if you introduce version control or package management. PLM software exists since a long time but I agree that it might not serve user needs optimally. But this is more a market failure than a technical problem.
    - johnwalkr 6y ago
      I only know of one system (grabcad) that just offers simple version control for CAD. Most are the equivalent of JIRA, i.e. lots of features and bloat that sell well to managers. They work, but only if there are people dedicated to setting them up, enforcing workflows and maintaining them. Something simpler and more standardized is needed in the physical engineering space to become part of standard practice, like git has for software.
      - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        >They work, but only if there are people dedicated to setting them up, enforcing workflows and maintaining them. This is true for most business software and very true for something like a PLM, and double super extra true for Autodesk PLM where it’s so unintuitive, clunky, “ Enterprisey” that no one wants to learn or use it without being required to. Now, consider it like a really bad JIRA but at $75-150 per month. I’m probably overselling it still.
wappa 6y ago
Most of these already exist in their cloud offerings
thdrdt 6y ago
I can't speak for Revit but people are looking to switch to Blender from 3dsMax. The problem is not that Blender can't do what 3ds can but it lacks industry standard tooling compatibility. But still a lot of people in the industry are starting the switch to Blender. So change is coming.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It’s rarely the tool itself that’s the issue, it’s the fact that the entire workflow is built around that tool. Any potential rival must not only match what the incumbent provides, but exceed it so obviously that reworking decades old pipelines is worth it.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    You're perfectly describing the reasons for hanging onto legacy <anything>. Manufacturing and distribution supply chains in and out of China being a pertinent large-scale example. The pearl is the story, not the speck of grit.
- krautsourced 6y ago
  People are always talking about switching to Blender (me included) - but they don't. Because as sad as it is, once you start to actually work with it in serious projects, you noticed all the things that hobbyists who hail Blender as the second coming never care about. I wanted to give Blender another got at replacing Cinema 4D for us (since their new licensing). I got used to the UI, though it's not nearlly as intuitive as C4D, but when I started working with larger scenes, it came out that Undo steps in large scenes could take 20 seconds easily. I mean...wtf? That is probably one of the most essential functions you can have in an editor. Apparently they are working on fixing that. Eventually.
  - keith___talent 6y ago
    C4D is beautiful software - Blender is making strides, maybe 3 years it would take, but Blender is in feature acquisition mode, not improving the codebase/current functionality.
asiachick 6y ago
I feel like this is one of those places where open source probably doesn't work. Maybe it would require a change in culture. I don't know CAD but in 3D software for movies/games most studios use expensive software (Maya, 3DSMax, Houdini, etc). The market for that software is relatively small and the effort to create and maintain it larger than many many other projects. So, the price is high. But, if they didn't make it hard to copy most companies would arguably not pay because they see it as a large expense. Especially for smaller companies if it was easy to copy and they could they would (and often do). My point is getting that same money out of them instead for an open source solution (because the open source solution will require just as much income to maintain) is unlikely. Blender is eeking by so maybe the tide is turning.
- sprafa 6y ago
  As far as modelling goes you can now model in almost anything you want (Blender/Maya/whatever). Maya is the default for animation pipelines, since it has the more robust animation tools. Houdini is for FX and sims, and Houdini is STUNNING in its development speed at the moment. Each of their software updates has 100+ features a year, and these are complex overhauls or entire new toolkits. I don’t know anyone in 3D who isn’t salivating at what’s going on with SideFX and Houdini.
  - pzone 6y ago
    Houdini has also cracked the market open to indie pricing. Autodesk has finally offered $250/year subscriptions for Max and Maya after sustained pressure from SideFX’s offering.
heimatau 6y ago
As an emerging EE, I fully agree. I honestly believe it could be done with solid quality. Early today I saw this very old video of Elon at SpaceX with their design software [1]. It's amazing to me that this video was six years ago. Revit is the prized gem. Whomever creates it, focus on Revit and focus on the pain-points. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY
- SenHeng 6y ago
  I saw that Leap Motion [0] video almost 10 years ago and have wanted to have one ever since. Sadly, it seems they didn't sell enough to sustain theirselves and have mostly concluded their incredible journey [1]. I had a few friends that worked in 3D modelling them and they really wanted to try it out for sculpting. I guess actually swinging your hands around in air like Tom Cruise in Minority Report was too tiring for most people. I wish Apple had bought them and integrated them into the macbooks instead of the touchbar. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_Motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_Motion [1]: https://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/ https://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/
  - zingplex 6y ago
    The Leap Motion is still on sale. https://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/ https://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/ I had one when they first came out and while the tracking accuracy was quite good, it wasn't good enough for doing any precision work. Every so often the tracking would skip and glitch.
  - johnwalkr 6y ago
    I remember being really annoyed at the reaction to that video. Here's 2 headlines from the first page of hits: "Elon Musk Waves His Hand and Designs Rocket Parts Out of Thin Air" and "Elon Musk to build rocket ship parts with hand movements through the air, and 3D printing". His tweet before that video was "We figured out how to design rocket parts just w hand movements through the air (seriously). Now need a high frame rate holograph generator. Will post video next week of designing a rocket part with hand gestures & then immediately printing it in titanium". That's really disingenuous. First of all, it looks like a typical demo made by an intern and some toys. Second, mechanical engineers don't need or want that type of interface. Actually manipulating and rotating CAD is such a small part of the process the time sink (aside from all the design and documentation aside from CAD) is adding dimensions and relations to geometry and relations. This video is the equivalent of a software developer's manager showing off a visual programming language and declaring text-based languages and keyboards are obsolete.
clusterfish 6y ago
It seems to me that breaking into this industry, that is, defeating network effects that work to Autodesk's favor, would actually be harder than building the superior product itself. Anyone on the inside, am I wrong? Would your company readily switch to a superior product, retrain its employees for it, deal with business partners who haven't heard of that new product, etc.?
- wappa 6y ago
  No way - you would have to teach all your employees - new software, and existing know-how templates will be all gone. Plus compatibility issues with your sub contractors would be nightmare. Productivity lost by adopting new tools would render firm non-competitive in this thin margin business, will likely make your P/L red.
  - amelius 6y ago
    What if the software has an almost identical UI?
    - piva00 6y ago
      It doesn't matter if you can't simply import Revit projects into it and work as usual. That is how Excel got its foothold into the spreadsheet market dominated by Lotus 123 at the time, you need to support the current de facto file standard for that industry/task.
      - iggldiggl 6y ago
        There's also the plugin ecosystem to consider - ranging from small things you might have self-written or exchanged with other users over the years for your workflows or to add missing functionality [1], to complete commercial add-on packages adding big chunks of domain-specific functionality. [1] Some of which frankly should just be built-in, but either way it wouldn't make creating a replacement any easier.
      - neutronicus 6y ago
jalk 6y ago
Was looking into creating some tooling for the construction industry perhaps 15 years ago as drawings were send over emails with all the version nightmares that creates. Some Danish government agency had a ‘Digital Construction’ project going on so I initially thought I was too late. After a couple of years all they had amounted to was creating a ton of convoluted documents defining common CAD drawing layers. I’ve since moved on but I would not be surprised if drawings are still send by email between architects/engineers/contractors. Perhaps that agency has created a 50 page spec for tracking versions in the file name ;-)
- tacticus 6y ago
  There are a fair few doc management for construction companies around now. So i'd be surprised if any large project wasn't using a managed or self hosted one today. and several of them have fancy tools that can pull in 3d models and the like. (oracle bought one that i worked at)
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    I've hired an architect at a "big" construction firm (they regularly manage multistory hospital construction) to design some "medium" buildings and remodels. When I visited his office to talk through some change orders (I'm thinking this was about three years ago?), it was all Windows shared folders and carefully constructed file names.
    - tacticus 6y ago
      :O I wonder if they moved to different solutions when they started bringing in subbies? for a counter example. I'm currently getting a small house built and the near by land developers are mostly using the SAAS solution I worked at to manage the construction\design of each subdivision.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        I've hired numerous subcontractors who don't use email. These guys require printed plans. Hell, the local fire inspectors require printed plans, even though they prefer not to fill out paper inspection reports. People who haven't used change control have a hard time imagining what they're missing.
darkwater 6y ago
Some users implement version control using the NTFS/Windows file history feature on shared drives where the projects are saved.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  This has saved my hide a few times, on the occasion I remember to think of it. Such an underrated / understated feature.
amelius 6y ago
The same holds for EDA (electronics design automation).
- johnwalkr 6y ago
  EDA is at least simple text formats that work well with git, etc. I've seen lots of good version control of EDA using standard tools. I don't think I've ever seen good version control of mechanical CAD. The files are large, binary, not really diff'able, and almost every file is touched in every session. And the proprietary "Product Data/Lifecycle Management" tools are expensive, bloated and hard to use.
  - rjsw 6y ago
    Mechanical CAD doesn't have to use binary files.
    - johnwalkr 6y ago
      That's true, although most native formats of mechanical CAD programs are binary so I think a standard tool would need to support it. I've actually been searching online for solutions for a while as well as thinking about trying to solve this problem. Ideally, you'd want to be able to see text such as: - Feature3, hole: diameter 3.0mm + Feature3, hole: diameter 3.1mm - Feature4, extrude: Sketch 1: dimension4 400mm + Feature4, extrude: Sketch 1: dimension4 425mm To get there, I'd propose a new CAD interchange format as the current ones are more like polygon meshes. I prefer this over some standard API as that would probably be broken in 10 years when you go back and check a part's history but you're not using the same CAD program anymore. Then, my hypothetical standard version control system would: - control read/write access to files to prevent unintentional file changes due to rotated views, etc. The user would have to manually select which files are checked out/active. This might require a plugin to the CAD programs, so I may rethink this. - Upon commit, the user adds comments, then all changed files are exported to the new interchange format - text based diff is generated - CAD with color highlights is generated This is a pretty intensive operation, but it doesn't need to be instant. I think I would allow branches and make a workflow to automatically show conflicts based on diffs and CAD, then the user would manually resolve conflicts, declare a branch merged and select the files to go into main branch. After typing that, I am wondering if centralized control of read/write and one branch is the only way. In the short term, I think an MVP could be scripted: - Before commit, user selects which files are to be kept and other files are rolled back to previous version and writes the commit message - Updated files are exported to STL (there are many tools available to compare STL files visually) - A tool generates combined/subtracted STL files for each updated file - git commit - git notes to cross-reference the combined/subtracted STL to the commit message - Nice to have: built-in STL viewer Github is supposed to have STL Diffs but it took me forever to find an example on github because everyone commits files as _v1, _v2 (highlighting my complaint that version control is not part of standard practice). Only to find out they removed this feature. Grabcad has been great for me but I need to find an on-premises solution.
ilaksh 6y ago
Spend $20 million paying Blender and FreeCAD/CalculiX developers to build an open-source system. Add another $10 million and take advantage of overseas rates and create a marketplace for support, bug fixes, plugins, etc.
- Narkov 6y ago
  You then (maybe) have a product...but no ecosystem. You can't just convince an entire industry to switch tomorrow and you've just sunk $30m+ into a "maybe".
  - simonh 6y ago
    And that’s £30m that benefits your competitors just as much as it benefits you. Hard to justify the ROI on that. It can be done though, maybe a foundation approach where high tier members get increased input into the product roadmap.
Hokusai 6y ago
> There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity If I was able to build such a software that has potential on stealing Autodesk software. And Autodesk showed at my door with $50,000,000 in cash. I would sell it so fast that I would be flying in a hired private jet to some island free of the pandemic by next morning. The rational is simple. I will make up some numbers: If I have 1 chance in 1,000 to get 10 billion, that is an expected value of 10 million (10b/1000). 50 millions is way better return than the expected value of 10 million. Facebook, Google, Apple, Oracle, Adobe, Autodesk... any of them has deep pockets to buy any one that has a chance to steal their business. It is a good deal for the challengers, because is a all-cash no-risk opportunity better than any expected value. It is a good deal for the big-ones as they protect their business and some times they get a good deal (YouTube). The consumers, the economy and society as a whole are the big losers in the deal.
- jasode 6y ago
  >If I was able to build such a software that has potential on stealing Autodesk software. And Autodesk showed at my door with $50,000,000 in cash. I would sell it so fast [...] The rational is simple. I will make up some numbers: [...] The part missing from your hypothetical scenario is that founders have egos and many would rather keep ownership of their company and don't want to work for someone else. (I made previous comment about this.[0]) Yahoo made offers to buy Google and Facebook but we obviously know that Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg did not become employees of Yahoo reporting to their boss Jerry Yang. They said "no sale". In Facebook's case of being the buyer, Kevin Systrom of Instragram said "yes" to Zuckerberg but Ev Williams of Twitter said "no".[1] If you're a founder of a successful startup and Autodesk/Facebook/Google come calling with an offer of (m|b)illions to buy your company, you can listen to them but you don't have to sell. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21419098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21419098 [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/04/the-three-reasons-twitter-didnt-sell-to-facebook/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/04/the-three-reasons-twitter-...
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    I wouldn’t trust Autodesk though, they’ll probably just blow up your house and disappear your family if they feel threatened.
dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
> I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. It happens in all industries. For example InDesign currently has a dominant position as a DTP tool. However, after so many years it still doesn't support many basic functions such as multiple indexes (Index of People, Index of Places, etc.). Adobe simply doesn't care because there is no competition (Affinity Publisher is not there yet, and Scribus has its own quirks, although got much better recently; paradoxically Quark finally got competitive, but they don't support multiple indexes either...).
jffhn 6y ago
>how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Every time I think of how great the tools for building software (IDEs, etc.) are, that’s what I think next. What could help is having more devs with knowledge and interests in other domains, and not only focused on software itself, for example by interleaving software and non-software courses in students curriculums.
chrstphrknwtn 6y ago
I tend to think it's the other way around in some respects... software development is almost entirely writing text files to describe a huge variety of things (processes, networks, UIs, etc). In a lot of ways it's good, but text files are not obviously the best way to make software.
aardvark179 6y ago
Version management for more structured data is hard. In a previous job we did extensive work on it in the GIS domain, and even having everything backed by a long transaction version controlled data store, resolving conflicts was not always easy. We did a lot of work on ways to automatically resolve conflicts, and it was only worthwhile for large customers who could set up good rules for their workflows (e.g. if you moved a pole in as part of a resurveying workflow then that position should take preference even if other changes happened to the pole). We can handle this sort of thing in software because we can try compiling something, see it has errors, and fix the obvious syntax problems that have been introduced by a merge or rebase. We have tools that make it easy view and copy data from a previous version, and all of this makes things easier. For more structured data those low level conflicts need to be handled much better so that the user can concentrate on the higher level aspects. If they need to restore sub structures deleted in a merge then they need to be able to see those, so our version control starts to bleed right through the tool chain.
ilamont 6y ago
> There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Same is true for many other industries. I've been hoping for a Quickbooks contender for years, but Intuit has proven to be very adept at shutting down the competition by virtue of the fact that relatively few CPAs will work with any other software.
brudgers 6y ago
The multi-billion dollar opportunity is acquisition by Autodesk. There's no multi-billion dollar opportunity in Revit add-ons.
jiveturkey 6y ago
> for anyone who can unseat Autodesk oh, is that all
AkshatM 6y ago
PlanGrid, my former employer and YC graduate, does in fact offer a version control for construction drawings. They offer the ability to export from Revit into PlanGrid. PlanGrid was bought in 2018/2019 by Autodesk for 875 million, though, so good luck escaping the Autodesk family :D

by imgabe 6y ago

303bookworm 6y ago

Some of those exist, a friend of mine has a startup that's essentially "Git for building plans" (https://shapedo.com/ https://shapedo.com/)

somewhereoutth 6y ago
If the intention is well realized then this can be a great product. Horrendous name though (for English first language speakers anyway), 'do' is the fallback - most primitive - verb for any kind of action implying a lack of precision or importance: "I'm doing the dishes" vs "I'm polishing the cutlery". There is also an unfortunate embedded word in there too.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lifeisstillgood 6y ago

So sideproject should be find the leading software in a dozen industries and map out what is / not working (maybe do sales safari style discovery?)

jamescham 6y ago

This is exactly right—we now live in a world in which most jobs are knowledge work, and we should look to those who are the most productive (and lazy) knowledge workers: software developers.

klft 6y ago

> Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X" Product lifecycle management (PLM) software provide such features.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
For what it’s worth, first hand experience here, Autodesk’s PLM is IMO quite awful.
- klft 6y ago
  I do not want to question that, I was rather questioning the statement that "you'd be hailed as a revolutionary genius." if you introduce version control or package management. PLM software exists since a long time but I agree that it might not serve user needs optimally. But this is more a market failure than a technical problem.
  - johnwalkr 6y ago
    I only know of one system (grabcad) that just offers simple version control for CAD. Most are the equivalent of JIRA, i.e. lots of features and bloat that sell well to managers. They work, but only if there are people dedicated to setting them up, enforcing workflows and maintaining them. Something simpler and more standardized is needed in the physical engineering space to become part of standard practice, like git has for software.
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      >They work, but only if there are people dedicated to setting them up, enforcing workflows and maintaining them. This is true for most business software and very true for something like a PLM, and double super extra true for Autodesk PLM where it’s so unintuitive, clunky, “ Enterprisey” that no one wants to learn or use it without being required to. Now, consider it like a really bad JIRA but at $75-150 per month. I’m probably overselling it still.

wappa 6y ago

Most of these already exist in their cloud offerings

thdrdt 6y ago

I can't speak for Revit but people are looking to switch to Blender from 3dsMax. The problem is not that Blender can't do what 3ds can but it lacks industry standard tooling compatibility. But still a lot of people in the industry are starting the switch to Blender. So change is coming.

ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s rarely the tool itself that’s the issue, it’s the fact that the entire workflow is built around that tool. Any potential rival must not only match what the incumbent provides, but exceed it so obviously that reworking decades old pipelines is worth it.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  You're perfectly describing the reasons for hanging onto legacy <anything>. Manufacturing and distribution supply chains in and out of China being a pertinent large-scale example. The pearl is the story, not the speck of grit.
krautsourced 6y ago
People are always talking about switching to Blender (me included) - but they don't. Because as sad as it is, once you start to actually work with it in serious projects, you noticed all the things that hobbyists who hail Blender as the second coming never care about. I wanted to give Blender another got at replacing Cinema 4D for us (since their new licensing). I got used to the UI, though it's not nearlly as intuitive as C4D, but when I started working with larger scenes, it came out that Undo steps in large scenes could take 20 seconds easily. I mean...wtf? That is probably one of the most essential functions you can have in an editor. Apparently they are working on fixing that. Eventually.
- keith___talent 6y ago
  C4D is beautiful software - Blender is making strides, maybe 3 years it would take, but Blender is in feature acquisition mode, not improving the codebase/current functionality.

asiachick 6y ago

I feel like this is one of those places where open source probably doesn't work. Maybe it would require a change in culture. I don't know CAD but in 3D software for movies/games most studios use expensive software (Maya, 3DSMax, Houdini, etc). The market for that software is relatively small and the effort to create and maintain it larger than many many other projects. So, the price is high. But, if they didn't make it hard to copy most companies would arguably not pay because they see it as a large expense. Especially for smaller companies if it was easy to copy and they could they would (and often do). My point is getting that same money out of them instead for an open source solution (because the open source solution will require just as much income to maintain) is unlikely. Blender is eeking by so maybe the tide is turning.

sprafa 6y ago
As far as modelling goes you can now model in almost anything you want (Blender/Maya/whatever). Maya is the default for animation pipelines, since it has the more robust animation tools. Houdini is for FX and sims, and Houdini is STUNNING in its development speed at the moment. Each of their software updates has 100+ features a year, and these are complex overhauls or entire new toolkits. I don’t know anyone in 3D who isn’t salivating at what’s going on with SideFX and Houdini.
- pzone 6y ago
  Houdini has also cracked the market open to indie pricing. Autodesk has finally offered $250/year subscriptions for Max and Maya after sustained pressure from SideFX’s offering.

heimatau 6y ago

As an emerging EE, I fully agree. I honestly believe it could be done with solid quality. Early today I saw this very old video of Elon at SpaceX with their design software [1]. It's amazing to me that this video was six years ago. Revit is the prized gem. Whomever creates it, focus on Revit and focus on the pain-points. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNqs_S-zEBY

SenHeng 6y ago
I saw that Leap Motion [0] video almost 10 years ago and have wanted to have one ever since. Sadly, it seems they didn't sell enough to sustain theirselves and have mostly concluded their incredible journey [1]. I had a few friends that worked in 3D modelling them and they really wanted to try it out for sculpting. I guess actually swinging your hands around in air like Tom Cruise in Minority Report was too tiring for most people. I wish Apple had bought them and integrated them into the macbooks instead of the touchbar. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_Motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_Motion [1]: https://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/ https://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/
- zingplex 6y ago
  The Leap Motion is still on sale. https://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/ https://www.ultraleap.com/product/leap-motion-controller/ I had one when they first came out and while the tracking accuracy was quite good, it wasn't good enough for doing any precision work. Every so often the tracking would skip and glitch.
- johnwalkr 6y ago
  I remember being really annoyed at the reaction to that video. Here's 2 headlines from the first page of hits: "Elon Musk Waves His Hand and Designs Rocket Parts Out of Thin Air" and "Elon Musk to build rocket ship parts with hand movements through the air, and 3D printing". His tweet before that video was "We figured out how to design rocket parts just w hand movements through the air (seriously). Now need a high frame rate holograph generator. Will post video next week of designing a rocket part with hand gestures & then immediately printing it in titanium". That's really disingenuous. First of all, it looks like a typical demo made by an intern and some toys. Second, mechanical engineers don't need or want that type of interface. Actually manipulating and rotating CAD is such a small part of the process the time sink (aside from all the design and documentation aside from CAD) is adding dimensions and relations to geometry and relations. This video is the equivalent of a software developer's manager showing off a visual programming language and declaring text-based languages and keyboards are obsolete.

clusterfish 6y ago

It seems to me that breaking into this industry, that is, defeating network effects that work to Autodesk's favor, would actually be harder than building the superior product itself. Anyone on the inside, am I wrong? Would your company readily switch to a superior product, retrain its employees for it, deal with business partners who haven't heard of that new product, etc.?

wappa 6y ago
No way - you would have to teach all your employees - new software, and existing know-how templates will be all gone. Plus compatibility issues with your sub contractors would be nightmare. Productivity lost by adopting new tools would render firm non-competitive in this thin margin business, will likely make your P/L red.
- amelius 6y ago
  What if the software has an almost identical UI?
  - piva00 6y ago
    It doesn't matter if you can't simply import Revit projects into it and work as usual. That is how Excel got its foothold into the spreadsheet market dominated by Lotus 123 at the time, you need to support the current de facto file standard for that industry/task.
    - iggldiggl 6y ago
      There's also the plugin ecosystem to consider - ranging from small things you might have self-written or exchanged with other users over the years for your workflows or to add missing functionality [1], to complete commercial add-on packages adding big chunks of domain-specific functionality. [1] Some of which frankly should just be built-in, but either way it wouldn't make creating a replacement any easier.
    - neutronicus 6y ago

jalk 6y ago

Was looking into creating some tooling for the construction industry perhaps 15 years ago as drawings were send over emails with all the version nightmares that creates. Some Danish government agency had a ‘Digital Construction’ project going on so I initially thought I was too late. After a couple of years all they had amounted to was creating a ton of convoluted documents defining common CAD drawing layers. I’ve since moved on but I would not be surprised if drawings are still send by email between architects/engineers/contractors. Perhaps that agency has created a 50 page spec for tracking versions in the file name ;-)

tacticus 6y ago
There are a fair few doc management for construction companies around now. So i'd be surprised if any large project wasn't using a managed or self hosted one today. and several of them have fancy tools that can pull in 3d models and the like. (oracle bought one that i worked at)
- jessaustin 6y ago
  I've hired an architect at a "big" construction firm (they regularly manage multistory hospital construction) to design some "medium" buildings and remodels. When I visited his office to talk through some change orders (I'm thinking this was about three years ago?), it was all Windows shared folders and carefully constructed file names.
  - tacticus 6y ago
    :O I wonder if they moved to different solutions when they started bringing in subbies? for a counter example. I'm currently getting a small house built and the near by land developers are mostly using the SAAS solution I worked at to manage the construction\design of each subdivision.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      I've hired numerous subcontractors who don't use email. These guys require printed plans. Hell, the local fire inspectors require printed plans, even though they prefer not to fill out paper inspection reports. People who haven't used change control have a hard time imagining what they're missing.

darkwater 6y ago

Some users implement version control using the NTFS/Windows file history feature on shared drives where the projects are saved.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
This has saved my hide a few times, on the occasion I remember to think of it. Such an underrated / understated feature.

amelius 6y ago

The same holds for EDA (electronics design automation).

johnwalkr 6y ago
EDA is at least simple text formats that work well with git, etc. I've seen lots of good version control of EDA using standard tools. I don't think I've ever seen good version control of mechanical CAD. The files are large, binary, not really diff'able, and almost every file is touched in every session. And the proprietary "Product Data/Lifecycle Management" tools are expensive, bloated and hard to use.
- rjsw 6y ago
  Mechanical CAD doesn't have to use binary files.
  - johnwalkr 6y ago
    That's true, although most native formats of mechanical CAD programs are binary so I think a standard tool would need to support it. I've actually been searching online for solutions for a while as well as thinking about trying to solve this problem. Ideally, you'd want to be able to see text such as: - Feature3, hole: diameter 3.0mm + Feature3, hole: diameter 3.1mm - Feature4, extrude: Sketch 1: dimension4 400mm + Feature4, extrude: Sketch 1: dimension4 425mm To get there, I'd propose a new CAD interchange format as the current ones are more like polygon meshes. I prefer this over some standard API as that would probably be broken in 10 years when you go back and check a part's history but you're not using the same CAD program anymore. Then, my hypothetical standard version control system would: - control read/write access to files to prevent unintentional file changes due to rotated views, etc. The user would have to manually select which files are checked out/active. This might require a plugin to the CAD programs, so I may rethink this. - Upon commit, the user adds comments, then all changed files are exported to the new interchange format - text based diff is generated - CAD with color highlights is generated This is a pretty intensive operation, but it doesn't need to be instant. I think I would allow branches and make a workflow to automatically show conflicts based on diffs and CAD, then the user would manually resolve conflicts, declare a branch merged and select the files to go into main branch. After typing that, I am wondering if centralized control of read/write and one branch is the only way. In the short term, I think an MVP could be scripted: - Before commit, user selects which files are to be kept and other files are rolled back to previous version and writes the commit message - Updated files are exported to STL (there are many tools available to compare STL files visually) - A tool generates combined/subtracted STL files for each updated file - git commit - git notes to cross-reference the combined/subtracted STL to the commit message - Nice to have: built-in STL viewer Github is supposed to have STL Diffs but it took me forever to find an example on github because everyone commits files as _v1, _v2 (highlighting my complaint that version control is not part of standard practice). Only to find out they removed this feature. Grabcad has been great for me but I need to find an on-premises solution.

ilaksh 6y ago

Spend $20 million paying Blender and FreeCAD/CalculiX developers to build an open-source system. Add another $10 million and take advantage of overseas rates and create a marketplace for support, bug fixes, plugins, etc.

Narkov 6y ago
You then (maybe) have a product...but no ecosystem. You can't just convince an entire industry to switch tomorrow and you've just sunk $30m+ into a "maybe".
- simonh 6y ago
  And that’s £30m that benefits your competitors just as much as it benefits you. Hard to justify the ROI on that. It can be done though, maybe a foundation approach where high tier members get increased input into the product roadmap.

Hokusai 6y ago

> There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity If I was able to build such a software that has potential on stealing Autodesk software. And Autodesk showed at my door with $50,000,000 in cash. I would sell it so fast that I would be flying in a hired private jet to some island free of the pandemic by next morning. The rational is simple. I will make up some numbers: If I have 1 chance in 1,000 to get 10 billion, that is an expected value of 10 million (10b/1000). 50 millions is way better return than the expected value of 10 million. Facebook, Google, Apple, Oracle, Adobe, Autodesk... any of them has deep pockets to buy any one that has a chance to steal their business. It is a good deal for the challengers, because is a all-cash no-risk opportunity better than any expected value. It is a good deal for the big-ones as they protect their business and some times they get a good deal (YouTube). The consumers, the economy and society as a whole are the big losers in the deal.

jasode 6y ago
>If I was able to build such a software that has potential on stealing Autodesk software. And Autodesk showed at my door with $50,000,000 in cash. I would sell it so fast [...] The rational is simple. I will make up some numbers: [...] The part missing from your hypothetical scenario is that founders have egos and many would rather keep ownership of their company and don't want to work for someone else. (I made previous comment about this.[0]) Yahoo made offers to buy Google and Facebook but we obviously know that Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg did not become employees of Yahoo reporting to their boss Jerry Yang. They said "no sale". In Facebook's case of being the buyer, Kevin Systrom of Instragram said "yes" to Zuckerberg but Ev Williams of Twitter said "no".[1] If you're a founder of a successful startup and Autodesk/Facebook/Google come calling with an offer of (m|b)illions to buy your company, you can listen to them but you don't have to sell. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21419098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21419098 [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/04/the-three-reasons-twitter-didnt-sell-to-facebook/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/04/the-three-reasons-twitter-...
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  I wouldn’t trust Autodesk though, they’ll probably just blow up your house and disappear your family if they feel threatened.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago

> I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. It happens in all industries. For example InDesign currently has a dominant position as a DTP tool. However, after so many years it still doesn't support many basic functions such as multiple indexes (Index of People, Index of Places, etc.). Adobe simply doesn't care because there is no competition (Affinity Publisher is not there yet, and Scribus has its own quirks, although got much better recently; paradoxically Quark finally got competitive, but they don't support multiple indexes either...).

jffhn 6y ago

>how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Every time I think of how great the tools for building software (IDEs, etc.) are, that’s what I think next. What could help is having more devs with knowledge and interests in other domains, and not only focused on software itself, for example by interleaving software and non-software courses in students curriculums.

chrstphrknwtn 6y ago

I tend to think it's the other way around in some respects... software development is almost entirely writing text files to describe a huge variety of things (processes, networks, UIs, etc). In a lot of ways it's good, but text files are not obviously the best way to make software.

aardvark179 6y ago

Version management for more structured data is hard. In a previous job we did extensive work on it in the GIS domain, and even having everything backed by a long transaction version controlled data store, resolving conflicts was not always easy. We did a lot of work on ways to automatically resolve conflicts, and it was only worthwhile for large customers who could set up good rules for their workflows (e.g. if you moved a pole in as part of a resurveying workflow then that position should take preference even if other changes happened to the pole). We can handle this sort of thing in software because we can try compiling something, see it has errors, and fix the obvious syntax problems that have been introduced by a merge or rebase. We have tools that make it easy view and copy data from a previous version, and all of this makes things easier. For more structured data those low level conflicts need to be handled much better so that the user can concentrate on the higher level aspects. If they need to restore sub structures deleted in a merge then they need to be able to see those, so our version control starts to bleed right through the tool chain.

ilamont 6y ago

> There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Same is true for many other industries. I've been hoping for a Quickbooks contender for years, but Intuit has proven to be very adept at shutting down the competition by virtue of the fact that relatively few CPAs will work with any other software.

brudgers 6y ago

The multi-billion dollar opportunity is acquisition by Autodesk. There's no multi-billion dollar opportunity in Revit add-ons.

jiveturkey 6y ago

> for anyone who can unseat Autodesk oh, is that all

AkshatM 6y ago

PlanGrid, my former employer and YC graduate, does in fact offer a version control for construction drawings. They offer the ability to export from Revit into PlanGrid. PlanGrid was bought in 2018/2019 by Autodesk for 875 million, though, so good luck escaping the Autodesk family :D