About the Authors

  • About the Author

February 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28        

« Simplifying the Autodesk Inventor 2012 Content Center - Part 2 | Main | Migrating to Autodesk Simulation 2012 - A customer's perspective »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jon Banquer

Has everything really changed? I don't think so.

Shouldn't a manufacturing toolbox include fully integrated CAM? I think so.

Autodesk continues to show they really don't understand manufacturing and what's needed because Autodesk has not purchased a CAM company or created their own CAM.

The change that's needed exists it's just not available from Autodesk and it's not very well marketed in the US. What it has that Autodesk Inventor doesn't is fully integrated CAM and built in internal PDM:



Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

Mark Flayler

I think CAM is on the Autodesk radar, but for most larger companies, for every 50 seats of Inventor there may be 3 seats of CAM software. If you look at smaller companies, that ratio will be a lot smaller. I think they will get there eventually, but this current statement is rather large in comparison to adding CAM to the portfolio.

I think built in PDM is the first step though. Let's get that in there!

John Evans

I would tend to agree. I can say that Autodesk is not ignorant to the CAM and manufacturing needs, it's simply a numbers and timing game. The need is driven by a few, and with great 3rd party apps available, Autodesk is not going to rush this aspect. PDM is definitely a current, larger need point, that should be addressed prior to further manufacturing developments.

Jon Banquer

I'm sorry but I don't agree at all. CAM is not something that just gets plugged in somewhere down the line.

Missler Software's CEO gets what Autodesk's Carl Bass doesn't get and it's very easy to see what it is by reading this interview that's totally void of any B.S.


Jon Banquer

It's #2 in the link above which shows where the huge difference really is.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

Mark Flayler

You have some valid points as mentioned, although you have successfully hijacked a post about PLM. Maybe you can add some context where CAM fits into PLM and what this means for a CAM user?

How about the fact that this can save companies millions of dollars in implementation and start up of PLM where other attempts have failed before.

Jon Banquer

I haven't hijacked anything. All I've done is made it clear where and why Autodesk has failed and continues to fail. The same can be said of SolidWorks.

There are no fully integrated CAM applications for either Inventor or SolidWorks no matter how much marketing and fanbois claim there are. I explain why this is the case for SolidWorks here.


The same condition I lay out in the link above exists for Inventor.

Machining job shops I work with have zero interest in PLM. The reasons they don't have any interest in PLM can be found here:


Getting a machining job shop to implement PDM is next to impossible unless the PDM is internal to the CADCAM application they adopt.

With the following CADCAM program PDM is internal and is the foundation on which the CADCAM application is built. In this CADCAM application PDM can't be turned off or removed. Because it's internal and not external, and because it's very well written, it's easy to use and actually enjoyable:


Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

scott moyse

Hey Guys,

What should happen, is Autodesk Acquires & implements Missler and all its TopSolid goodies!

Then we get the best of all worlds.



The comments to this entry are closed.