eureka gold vs solidworks
Robert Berger
used it, its been a beta version.
Robert Berger
USER3...@aol.com wrote:
> did anybody experience comparing both eureka gold and solidworks ?
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
USER3...@aol.com
Jan Bos
a web site available offering demo ???
reg.
jan bos
Robert Berger wrote in message <368D9797...@earthlink.net>...
>Eureka Gold 99 is not being released until January 15th. If someone has
>used it, its been a beta version.
>
>Robert Berger
>
>USER3...@aol.com wrote:
>
Robert Berger
Eureka Gold is a MCAD application that has been around for a number of years.
It is a hybrid modeler.They claim that there are approximately 11,000 seats
out there. I've never used it, but have heard that it is a capable
application. It was developed by an Italian company, CAD.LAB.
Last year the company moved its headquarters to the USA and Joe Costello (of
CADENCE fame) took over the company. In December they announced that they had
secured $17.5 million in second round VC funding and had changed the name of
the company to Think3.
The new version of Eureka Gold is supposed to be released on January 15th.
Think3 is trying a different approach towards price structuring. I believe
that they are going to give the application away, but charge a $2,000 per year
service contract. Up until recently, the old version of the application sold
for $12,000. They marketed it as a lower cost Catia. They have had very
little success up until now in the US market. I would not underestimate Joe
Costello, he's a sharp fellow.
Thats what I know...
Robert Berger
Michelle Pillers, P.E.
maintenance." Didn't know anyone in the CAD market was actually doing it.
I've brought this idea up on a number of times to software development
leaders all over (even Jon Hirschtick during a User Group mtg). Personally,
I think it is the wave of the future. You don't have to look far to see that
it is already happening. Look at the cell phone market. Look at Rhino.
It's a great way of grabbing market share.
In the long run, maintenance is all a software industry has left, after a
market segment is saturated. Why not get as many people as you can hooked on
your product as fast as possible?
Makes sense to me.
Michelle Pillers, P.E.
======================================================
EVOLUTION DESIGN ENGINEERING, LLC
Kirkland, Washington (425) 814-2216
http://www.edeinc.com
------------------------------------------------------
Commercial - Consumer - Industrial - HiTech - Medical
* Fast * Efficient * On-time * T & M or Fixed Bid *
* ACAD MechDesktop *FEA* 3D Dynamics * SolidWorks *
------------------------------------------------------
New service: Drag 'n drop rapid web-based prototypes!
Now only 1/4 the price of SLA's! http://www.edeinc.com/rp/
======================================================
http://www.edeinc.com/mpillers/
mailto:mpil...@edeinc.com
Robert Berger wrote in message <368F50C3...@earthlink.net>...
jbt...@connix.com
independents. For example, the amount of third party AutoCAD books is mind
boggling. Other CAD products suffer from a lack of third party support and
the user is dependant solely on a VAR.
One of the major ways Think3 will look to change this paradigm is providing a
much more advanced level of OEM training that will not require the user to
leave his place of business or hand a VAR or independent more money.
The market to grab AutoCAD 2D users is still wide open. Think3 believes that
in order to get those users they not only have to have an affordable program
but they need to change the way the potential user learns the package.
jon
mbia...@my-dejanews.com
I worked with CadLab in "betaing" their 1st release last year (and Clay Allen
with their most recent beta of the software this year). I was very impressed
with the surfacing capablity (as you might guess might interest lies). I
would rank its surface capability above ProE's. Being a surface/solid
modeler, makes it a very attractive and competitive MCAD for this market
place. The bad news: there user interface was horrible! Although it is a bit
more compliant to Windows than say, proE20, it definitely fits in to my "Wolf
in sheep's clothing" category. The previous release "plastered" the UI with
hundreds of unreadable icons. For instance, they actually had separate icons
for extrude and cut solid and extrude and cut surface. I hear from Clay,
that they've done a lot to improve the interface, and hope they did, because
there was alot to improve on! Their "non-manifold solids" approach is very
interesting in that they essentially treat surfaces as infinitely thin
solids, giving you the flexibility to work seamlessly between solid close
manifolds to "open" surface manifolds. This is important, because it gives
you "work-around" in the history tree to be able to execute features that you
wouldn't normally be able to accomplish with "solid-only" features. As I
stated before, they have some very powerful surfacing tools. Back then, I
asked them to build a capped surface on the end of a non-planar lofted
surface (i.e. the end of a swoopy kitchen appliance handle). They not only
accomplished it, they did it with only two curves and a point, G2 continuous,
and shellible. Very impressive! I hope to catch up with them (they are based
here in Santa Clara) and see what they've done with the interface.
Ayman Ibrahim
like a nitwit salesman without a clue...
On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 11:13:58 GMT, jbt...@connix.com wrote:
>Presently advanced CAD training is provided by CAD VAR's or other
>independents. For example, the amount of third party AutoCAD books is mind
>boggling. Other CAD products suffer from a lack of third party support and
>the user is dependant solely on a VAR.
>
>One of the major ways Think3 will look to change this paradigm is providing a
>much more advanced level of OEM training that will not require the user to
>leave his place of business or hand a VAR or independent more money.
>
>The market to grab AutoCAD 2D users is still wide open. Think3 believes that
>in order to get those users they not only have to have an affordable program
>but they need to change the way the potential user learns the package.
>
>
>jon
>
jbower
>
> In the long run, maintenance is all a software industry has left, after a
> market segment is saturated. Why not get as many people as you can hooked
on
> your product as fast as possible?
Michelle,
Not to be a wise guy, but how do you guard against people just getting the
new free copy every year, where do you draw the line? For example '99, I
get the free copy, next year the secretary gets one, in 2001 the
receptionist.....
It works with cell phones because you can't call without paying for the
access to the network, software doesn't work like that. Until people buy
into the idea of having access to the Internet and getting a permission
code from the main office (like a floating license on a network), this
wouldn't work (that I can see). This wouldn't be good either since, it goes
back to the old timeshare concept which I think stunk. I prefer software
companies to constantly have to improve their programs (obsoleting older
programs) in order to maintain their revenue stream.
John Bower
Michelle Pillers, P.E.
Good points.
-Michelle
jbower wrote in message <01be3a08$43b16080$d9ea...@jbower.ix.netcom.com>...