Upgrade AutoCAD. Or not?

Upgrade AutoCAD. Or not?

Term “AutoCAD” hereinafter is understood as basic AutoCAD. AutoCAD vertical applications as well as numerous custom applications are not AutoCAD improvements, i.e. the improvements of its main, basic features (of what is intended for all AutoCAD users).

Term “upgrade” hereinafter is understood as significant improvements of the existing features and/or the addition of brand new obviously useful features.

I’ve been thinking that upgrade is always a good idea, that it’s possible for any object, that when something is not upgraded, it’s getting outdated and fails.

However, reading forums, articles and communicating, I have discovered unexpectedly that this is not true for a very large number of AutoCAD users. For 80-90% (estimated data) the upgrade of AutoCAD is not in question – these users are either satisfied in general, or they have not mastered the most of its capabilities yet. Or they are old fogeys or something. Many experienced users are satisfied too – they earn on creating add-ons, which are not provided with AutoCAD.

Thus, there is a paradox: on the one hand, AutoCAD is more than 30 years old, on the other hand, there is neither user's request for the upgrade, nor the interest for any solution.

It is for the reason this software is over 30 years old that this is a paradox. While basic AutoCAD actions – drawing with graphic primitives – do not change all this time. The main results of the work in AutoCAD are still sets of graphic elements (drawings), representing graphic models, i.e. the models designed for visual perception, for human but not computer analysis. For negligible computer analysis at most.

The period of 30 years without an upgrade is very much for software nowadays. Maybe it is even too much. As a result, someday the majority of users migrate to another entirely different software, which may be more convenient, powerful and useful at the same time.

The direction of Autodesk’s actions is interesting. For last 15 years (correct me if I’m wrong) Autodesk has been creating and developing AutoCAD specialized vertical applications. At the same time, Autodesk creates, acquires, develops graphic products based on any platforms but AutoCAD. Moreover, in its specialized products, even based on AutoCAD, other data formats are used (not DWG). Many of these specialized products make use of BIM technologies, information and parametric modeling. The objects of these models are unavailable for basic AutoCAD. Since 2010's (I can be wrong, too) Autodesk offers cloud technologies and web technologies. A number of other brand new "technologies" and solutions are proposed while its’ meaning is mostly in their hipness and theoretic prospects. In other words, the main development of Autodesk products during about 15 last years is the introduction of new technologies in the form of specialized AutoCAD applications, or even the rejection of AutoCAD and DWG.

All this time nothing comparable in the degree of innovation, efficiency and scale happened to AutoCAD. And there are no indications that Autodesk has started or is preparing its upgrade. Instead, many known bugs or disadvantages of AutoCAD are not corrected for 5-15 years while most of the additions are introduced after being continuously used in other CAD systems.

Consequently, it may be assumed (but not stated!) that Autodesk itself considers the potential of AutoCAD to be mostly exhausted, while the company is looking for innovative solutions and is busy with other products.

Of all user estimations the most interesting and illustrative is that of the most qualified users (the minority of conditional 5-10%). They have essentially run out of AutoCAD capabilities and are interested in the solutions of different level such as BIM – on the basis of parametric modeling, information models. These expert users are not looking for (do not see?) internal AutoCAD capabilities for its significant development, i.e. they do not see its capabilities to solve the problems required. In particular, this results in the fact that they are not interested in AutoCAD upgrade. Whereas, these expert users form most opinions.

In other words, it may be assumed (but not stated!) that both the most qualified users and Autodesk are content and decide AutoCAD to be not promising. That is, they consider the creation of graphic models in AutoCAD to be obsolete or yet outdated approach.

This is the second paradox of the situation with AutoCAD – both experts and Autodesk itself can leave out of account the possibilities of AutoCAD upgrade. For example, Autodesk has created in 2011 and still maintains the custom application store. The latter can be somehow considered (not stated!) as AutoCAD development shifting to the users. Both experts and Autodesk itself may simply omit the point of no return for AutoCAD in terms of obsolescence due to delayed decisions.

However, this is a paradox for Autodesk and experts only in case they believe AutoCAD can be upgraded and is suitable for long-range objectives – first of all for BIM.

Thus, from this point of view the original question is changing: not “should” but “could” AutoCAD be upgraded? To be more exact: is it possible to turn AutoCAD into BIM tool as universal as it is for graphic modeling? This is an open question and the answer is too difficult for now as BIM itself is still too multivariate.

Since BIM is the most likely alternative to graphic modeling, the main possible AutoCAD upgrade direction should be its development into BIM tool. Alternatively, nowadays 70-80% of AutoCAD users (estimated data) use it as graphic modeling tool. Therefore, graphic modeling should be developed, too. In perspective, these two directions of AutoCAD development might touch someday.

BIM allows to create models that simulate not only object appearance, but also real properties of the object, real relationships between objects, real objects reactions on various events, etc. It also allows to carry out various computer analysis of models (including calculations), to manipulate model objects programmatically taking into account the relationships, etc. User demand for moving from graphic modeling to full-fledged computer modeling (to information models) is increasing and is likely to grow further.

The main BIM difficulty is apparently in its multivariance, in some potential common solutions not yet developed. To date, there is a vertical application or special software for each BIM subject area.

The lack of common BIM solutions for various subject areas leads to the great number (up to infinity) of vertical solutions and makes it difficuly or even impossible to combine data from different applications successfully or handle them jointly. Because of such non-universal approach same actions are implemented as well as similar or same partial tasks are solved differently in different vertical applications. Moreover, there are different approaches to same tasks within a single vertical application. Consequently, the possibilities of one company can be sprayed on too many software products. The proper dynamics might be lost, the proper quality of all the products might not be reached, etc. Today, there are AutoCAD vertical applications which development was stopped by Autodesk 10 years ago.

In other words, the decision to create separate specialized BIM vertical applications in different subject areas is a deadlock in the long run. From general considerations, it can be assumed that the fundamental solution lies in a standardized, unified approach to the creation, manipulation and provision of information model interactions.

Now, with information modeling, if it is performed in AutoCAD based applications, the role of AutoCAD is changed significantly – it turns from main and independent tool into an auxiliary tool, within which the modelling is produced by means of vertical applications. The question of AutoCAD upgrade is virtually withdrawn given that the existing AutoCAD capacities are sufficient for display, printing preparation and other information modeling service actions.

If it is possible to develop some common solutions for BIM partial, repetitive or common tasks, the choice of a single way of data definition will improve the situation and optimize the products. Such common solutions should be then added to basic AutoCAD as the base environment for all vertical applications. So it would be possible to extend the capabilities of basic AutoCAD by means of common BIM solutions.

BIM vertical applications and custom applications would be based on those AutoCAD solutions, what in turn would simplify the development and maintenance of applications, standardize data definition methods and facilitate the joining of disparate information model data, etc. Furthermore, AutoCAD itself would keep and expand its relevance as an environment for mass migration to BIM, contribute BIM development and expansion among greater number of users, contribute the development of information modeling.

During AutoCAD graphic modeling in drawings, object properties and relations are set directly by the user, representing the desired object state and relations with graphic elements sets. Almost any variety of features, properties and relations is not an obstacle for graphic modeling – almost everything can be displayed with common graphic primitives due to unlimited capacity of human interpretation. This is why AutoCAD is multipurpose and has the ability to create drawings in  almost every subject area, for almost every type of objects and object sets. This versatility is the reason for AutoCAD success and its continuing relevance.

The main drawback of AutoCAD graphic modeling – poor computer processing and analysis adaptability or inadaptability of models (consisting of graphic elements sets).

Therefore, the upgrade of AutoCAD graphic modeling could involve the migration from an almost solely graphic objects representation to simultaneous non-graphic identification of these graphic elements, to non-graphic definition of the displayed objects’ properties. This would allow to automate many processes of data manipulation, data processing, computation, data analysis, etc. In other words, AutoCAD graphic models could be converted to the form, well adapted for computer processing, interpretation and analysis using the non-graphic identifiers and characteristics definitions.

If these (or other) AutoCAD upgrade trends are promising, the results of analysis, discussions and tests will reveal. However, there are no either user discussions or Autodesk announcements on this subject. That is the question...

P.S. Anyway, augmentation of work speed, manipulated data volume and reliability (less number of fatal errors and corrupted drawings) is actual for AutoCAD. This is no upgrade, however these technical difficulties of large and complex models creation deprive AutoCAD of its prospect.

25.05.16

Alexander Sharov

Translation: Sheviakov Sergei