Let me just say from the top that I am an ABAQUS user myself, and that there is nothing intentionally "misleading" about my reply, just plain facts and verbatim quotes from the CEOs in the video interview. And the last time I checked we do (well, *I* do) actually live in a democratic country where opinions based on fact count for something. If anything I would ask you to look and listen more closely to the video interview before you make such elevated and frankly naive insinuations.
> The software(s) we use (Standard, Explicit, CAE etc) are **not** going away in favor of a new Catia integrated version.
First of all, check out Dassault CEOs comments on the "the merger of our existing simulation environment from the ABAQUS environment and the Dassult system will create a tremendous offer to the market" (3m:18s). I never said anything about it "going away" (that would be just plain stupid) only *integration*. When the Dassault CEO says three times the word "integrating/integration" (in reference to the Simulia Dassault/ABAQUS software, see 3m:42s 4m:09s 4m:26s) as an "enterprise platform" and also the ABAQUS CEO (Goldstein) says "We've been doing a great job serving a certain sector of the market and the size of that segment has certainly been enlarging over the last few years, but the opportunity that now presents itself to be able to deliver our technology as part of a general purpose scientific computing platform is quite exciting as we think about extending the reach of our technology to far greater degrees than anyone previously could have imagined". What does that say to you? If you would have read more carefully what I said, I was postulating that ABAQUS/A N Other software (probably the CATIA geometry engine or major parts thereof) would be *integrated* into a software similar to that of ANSYS/ANSYS Workbench offers. How is that dangerously misleading? That's not much of an extension to what the two CEOs were referring to.
And your statement
> ... is also misleading and dangerously close to sounding deliberately so. How about you continue the "imagine" scenario with something more like the truth: that being, can you image those people who do not use CATIA continuing to use the ABAQUS solvers with their choice of CAD and preprocessing software...
is confusing and naive, as Dassault will want to drive every penny out of acquisition and the ABAQUS software technology, which *may* mean integrating the current *very, very profitable* trend of the enterprise integrated FE/design/geometry packages. Exactly as the Dassault CEO stated. *Not* misleading; plain fact.
Finally, the ABAQUS marketing has been, to say the least, *unquestionably* lethargic over the last ten year period; indeed I'll stick with my "lame" description of its strategy relative to the ANSYS strategy. This is such a shame as I said previously, since it is a quality product. There is no denying this. Indeed, having talked to the UK support (
previously, now
ABAQUS were actually *very proud* of the fact that their software sold almost by word of mouth up until a few years ago, based on good reports from the nerd fraternity (me being one of them). Yes, more recently, the marketing has become more agressive, but it had to, because it was being driven into the ground by ANSYS and all of the other codes (ALGOR, COSMOS, ANSYS, etc.) considered more accessible, less expensive and more marketable by Joe Bloggs Design & Analaysis Consultancy (not put off either by astronomical learning curves and costs associated). When, other than maybe the last two/three years did ABAQUS ever advertise in the glossy GP engineering mags (The Engineer or Professional Engineering for example)? Never. Ever.
------------
See faq569-1083 for details on how to make best use of Eng-Tips.com