Announcements
IMPORTANT. Forum to be archived in several phases. You can no longer submit new questions - but can only answer existing threads until Oct 17th 2016. Please read this message for details
Mechanical Desktop (Read Only)
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Announcement concerning Discontinuation of Mechanical Desktop

92 REPLIES 92
Reply
Message 1 of 93
sjbosley
2779 Views, 92 Replies

Announcement concerning Discontinuation of Mechanical Desktop

This is a copy of the annoucement sent to subscriptions customers earlier today:

Autodesk has terminated development of Autodesk® Mechanical Desktop® and will no longer release new versions of the product. This decision was made to allow Autodesk to focus on the development of the Autodesk® Inventor® and AutoCAD® Mechanical product lines.

As a result of this decision, Mechanical Desktop 2009 becomes the last version of the product to be made available.

Autodesk recognizes that our customers have created many Mechanical Desktop files containing their intellectual property. To protect this data, Autodesk is taking the following actions:


- In accordance with section 2.2.3 of the Subscription Terms and Conditions, Autodesk Support will continue to provide product support for Subscription customers for a period of no less than three years after the removal of Mechanical Desktop from the Inventor product line.

- Autodesk will continue to make Mechanical Desktop 2009 available for download with future releases of Inventor.

- Autodesk will continue to support the DWG Import wizard for Mechanical Desktop parts, assemblies and drawings.

- Despite anything to the contrary in our Subscription terms and conditions or our license agreement(s), Autodesk will allow customers the right to continue using earlier versions of Mechanical Desktop with Inventor releases.

For additional information, please contact your reseller.

Thank you for choosing Subscription for your Autodesk products.

Sincerely,

The Autodesk Subscription Team

Posted by Simon Bosley
Product Manager
Autodesk

92 REPLIES 92
Message 21 of 93
Anonymous
in reply to: sjbosley


Don't be ignorent, some companies have spent a lot
of money on this software and on producing with it. And Autodesk is
not offering them any more relief then to swallow it. Great.


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">


It actually makes it more efficient in large designs. All
other 3D modelers also have the multiple file type formats for that same
reason. There will come a time when everyone will have to change.


--
Dennis Jeffrey, Autodesk Inventor Certified
Expert
Autodesk Manufacturing Implementation Certified
Expert.
Instructor/Author/Sr. App Engr.
AIP 2008 SP2, AIP 2009-SP1
PcCillin AV
HP zv5000  AMD64 2GB - Geforce Go 440, Driver: .8185
XP
Pro SP2, Windows XP Silver Theme

href="http://teknigroup.com">http://teknigroup.com
Message 22 of 93
Anonymous
in reply to: sjbosley


Not ignorant. I wrote two books on Mechanical Desktop. I know
it's strengths AND weaknesses inside and out. There are some things that MDT is
best suited for... and some areas that Inventor wins hands down. I use both...
and have since the original versions of both products.

 

However, there will come a time when everyone will have to
switch. Don't put your head in the sand because you prefer MDT. That is a
dangerous course of action.


--
Dennis Jeffrey, Autodesk Inventor Certified
Expert
Autodesk Manufacturing Implementation Certified
Expert.
Instructor/Author/Sr. App Engr.
AIP 2008 SP2, AIP 2009-SP1
PcCillin AV
HP zv5000  AMD64 2GB - Geforce Go 440, Driver: .8185
XP
Pro SP2, Windows XP Silver Theme

href="http://teknigroup.com">http://teknigroup.com
Message 23 of 93
Anonymous
in reply to: sjbosley


Oh, so we're all suppose to feel good about
spending 13 years building a business and customer base that we now cannot
contunue to serve.

I get it,...the old scr*w you
attitude.

Somehow that just doesn't seem funny.

 

I'll use the software as is for as long as possible
and move over to the only other acceptable software for my customer base (Pro
E).

Then I can tell Autodesk Scr*w you the same way
they have us!

 

Aug


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">


Not ignorant. I wrote two books on Mechanical Desktop. I
know it's strengths AND weaknesses inside and out. There are some things that
MDT is best suited for... and some areas that Inventor wins hands down. I use
both... and have since the original versions of both products.

 

However, there will come a time when everyone will have to
switch. Don't put your head in the sand because you prefer MDT. That is a
dangerous course of action.


--
Dennis Jeffrey, Autodesk Inventor Certified
Expert
Autodesk Manufacturing Implementation Certified
Expert.
Instructor/Author/Sr. App Engr.
AIP 2008 SP2, AIP 2009-SP1
PcCillin AV
HP zv5000  AMD64 2GB - Geforce Go 440, Driver: .8185
XP
Pro SP2, Windows XP Silver Theme

href="http://teknigroup.com">http://teknigroup.com
Message 24 of 93
Anonymous
in reply to: sjbosley


Some of the Pro/E data formats:

 

.prt - Part File

.asm - Assembly file

.drw - Drawing (2D) file

.dwg - dwg export file (no association back to model or
assembly)

 

How are these different than Inventors?

 


.ipt - Part File

.iam - Assembly file

.idw - Drawing (2D) file

.dwg - dwg export file (no association back to model or
assembly)

Inventor .dwg - Associative to the model and assembly files, but not
editable in AutoCAD

 

Here are some usage paths between Mechanical Desktop/AutoCAD Mechanical and
Inventor:

 

Inventor parts and assemblies may be fully detailed with AutoCAD
Mechanical, instead of being detailed in an Inventor IDW file. This will result
in full use of AutoCAD style dimensioning, standard blocks etc. This AutoCAD
mechanical file is fully associative back to the Inventor part and assembly
files and will reflect any changes made in the original source files.

 

Mechanical Desktop part and assembly files, complete with 2-D layout sheets
can be fully translated into Inventor part, assembly and fully associative IDW
2-D drawing layouts or sheets as they are called in Inventor.

 

Mechanical Desktop part files can be utilized in Inventor assemblies "as
is" without translation. Should the MDT part file need editing, all editing will
be done in mechanical desktop.

 

Autodesk's stated in the original post, that they would continue to provide
Mechanical Desktop 2009. They are not abandoning current users.

 

*******************************************************************

If everyone is truly concerned about the inability to move over to Inventor
at some time in the future, please post a request here and I will schedule a
free live online training session for all concerned were you will be able to see
just how all of the methods that I just explained work. You will be able to ask
any question during the session and I will be glad to answer any question that I
can regarding your issues.


Please understand that I've always been a fan of Mechanical Desktop, and then
I made a very similar emotional decision regarding Inventor when it was first
announced over 10 years ago. Possibly many or most of you tried Inventor through
the years, and may have also made an emotional decision because it was so
different than AutoCAD and Mechanical Desktop. It took me until Inventor 5.3 to
understand why Autodesk decided on a different path for 3-D modeling.


 

 
--
Dennis Jeffrey, Autodesk Inventor
Certified Expert
Autodesk Manufacturing Implementation Certified
Expert.
Instructor/Author/Sr. App Engr.
AIP 2008 SP2, AIP 2009-SP1
PcCillin AV
HP zv5000  AMD64 2GB - Geforce Go 440, Driver: .8185
XP
Pro SP2, Windows XP Silver Theme

href="http://teknigroup.com">http://teknigroup.com
Message 25 of 93
danielfloren
in reply to: sjbosley

Mr. Bosley,

Please explain if you can, the specific reasons that are behind Autodesk's discontinuation of Mechanical Desktop.
I for one would really like to know why as an AutoCAD user from the very beginning and a loyal customer, that I'm now
being told that I no longer matter to Autodesk.

Thank you for your time,

Daniel L. Floren
Sr. Design Engineer / Drafting Dept. Supervisor
Applied Machinery Corp.
Houston Texas
Message 26 of 93
danielfloren
in reply to: sjbosley

Mr. Jeffrey,

You present a valid point with regard to moving to Inventor. However, unlike you, I was not allowed to waste valuable production time and company resources playing around with and trying to learn the ins and outs of Inventor when it first appeared. Most of the companies I have worked for over the years did not want to make the move to Inventor due to the high cost of the software and the time required to train their designers to be productive with a new 3D design package.

It one point, a company I worked for did try to move to Inventor and SolidWorks as well. They sent one designer to an Inventor training class and another to a SolidWorks class. Both designers were Mechanical DeskTop users and they both were dam near as good as I was using Mechanical DeskTop. I suspect you understand why the company tried Inventor and SolidWorks at the same time...!

After both classes were complete at a very high cost in dollars and lost production time I might add, I gave both designers the same task to complete. To make things even more interesting I sat down in front of Mechanical DeskTop to perform the same task. Would you like to make a bet as to who finished the task first? How about who finished second...??? Please note, this task include producing a set of 2D drawings 4 to be exact that for all intents and porpoises had to matched our company standard.

Just for the record,

Mechanical DeskTop..... 1 hour 12 min. Senior Engineer signed off the first issue drawings.
SolidWorks................... 5 hours 31 min first issue not approved. 1 call to support Rev-4 approved total hours 12 hours 43 min.
Inventor......................... After screwing with the task for 2 days and 6 calls to support I pulled the plug.

Maybe just maybe if we had a week or two (or YOU) the task could have been completed a bit sooner.

Final note: After 4 months of evaluation of both Inventor and SolidWorks the company went with SolidWorks as it's 3D development software.
And still uses it today.

I do not doubt that given enough time, all the Mechanical DeskTop users out here now in limbo land because of AutoDesk could conceivably learn to use Inventor well enough to once again be productive and save their companies money. I however don't see many companies in this financial climate sucking up the cost involved in required training and lost productivity. And trust me when I say REQUIRED TRAINING...!!!

But then again, what do you think is leading AutoDesk to belive we will all make the move to Inventor...? I don't know about the other MDT users but in my Book... Loyalty works both ways.

In my opinion, for what it's worth... Mechanical DeskTop should be broken out and re-tooled as a stand-alone 3D design tool not requiring an Inventor license or AutoCAD Mechanical to run. As far as continued support for MDT-2009 it could continue as it is now, NON-EXISTENT.

Think of it this way, MDT is as good as it will ever be and / or was intended to be. So, don't waste money trying to improve something that is not broken. The users improve it every day by adding there own Lisp code and VB routines. Just rename it every now and then, ie; MDT-2010 and offer an up-grade that includes user improvements at a reasonable cost to cover LISP and VB additions and shipping and handling.

I think you'd be AMAZED to find out how many users would stay loyal and continue to use MDT-2008 / 2009.

Okay, your thoughts...!!!
Message 27 of 93
danielfloren
in reply to: sjbosley

Mr. Jeffrey,

You present a valid point with regard to moving to Inventor. However, unlike you, I was not allowed to waste valuable production time and company resources playing around with and trying to learn the ins and outs of Inventor when it first appeared. Most of the companies I have worked for over the years did not want to make the move to Inventor due to the high cost of the software and the time required to train their designers to be productive with a new 3D design package.

It one point, a company I worked for did try to move to Inventor and SolidWorks as well. They sent one designer to an Inventor training class and another to a SolidWorks class. Both designers were Mechanical DeskTop users and they both were dam near as good as I was using Mechanical DeskTop. I suspect you understand why the company tried Inventor and SolidWorks at the same time...!

After both classes were complete at a very high cost in dollars and lost production time I might add, I gave both designers the same task to complete. To make things even more interesting I sat down in front of Mechanical DeskTop to perform the same task. Would you like to make a bet as to who finished the task first? How about who finished second...??? Please note, this task include producing a set of 2D drawings 4 to be exact that for all intents and porpoises had to matched our company standard.

Just for the record,

Mechanical DeskTop..... 1 hour 12 min. Senior Engineer signed off the first issue drawings.
SolidWorks................... 5 hours 31 min first issue not approved. 1 call to support Rev-4 approved total hours 12 hours 43 min.
Inventor......................... After screwing with the task for 2 days and 6 calls to support I pulled the plug.

Maybe just maybe if we had a week or two (or YOU) the task could have been completed a bit sooner.

Final note: After 4 months of evaluation of both Inventor and SolidWorks the company went with SolidWorks as it's 3D development software.
And still uses it today.

I do not doubt that given enough time, all the Mechanical DeskTop users out here now in limbo land because of AutoDesk could conceivably learn to use Inventor well enough to once again be productive and save their companies money. I however don't see many companies in this financial climate sucking up the cost involved in required training and lost productivity. And trust me when I say REQUIRED TRAINING...!!!

But then again, what do you think is leading AutoDesk to belive we will all make the move to Inventor...? I don't know about the other MDT users but in my Book... Loyalty works both ways.

In my opinion, for what it's worth... Mechanical DeskTop should be broken out and re-tooled as a stand-alone 3D design tool not requiring an Inventor license or AutoCAD Mechanical to run. As far as continued support for MDT-2009 it could continue as it is now, NON-EXISTENT.

Think of it this way, MDT is as good as it will ever be and / or was intended to be. So, don't waste money trying to improve something that is not broken. The users improve it every day by adding there own Lisp code and VB routines. Just rename it every now and then, ie; MDT-2010 and offer an up-grade that includes user improvements at a reasonable cost to cover LISP and VB additions and shipping and handling.

I think you'd be AMAZED to find out how many users would stay loyal and continue to use MDT-2008 / 2009.

Okay, your thoughts...!!!
Message 28 of 93
danielfloren
in reply to: sjbosley

If I read your reply to Aug really fast, it almost sounds like you care... NOT...!!!
Message 29 of 93
Anonymous
in reply to: sjbosley


Daniel,

My main issue with IV is the format and file
system.

I need the dwg format to be compliant with
submittals.

I need a system that can be achieved and retrieved
easily.

I don't need links to libraries and parts and
assemblies to a drawing.

 

I localize my parts and assemblies and can carry
projects in a single file (parts, assemblies, and all drawing
sheets).

In this respect IV is a total mess.

That does not even take into account the file space
needed.

 

I did a comparison on a set of cabinets from IV and
MDT. The single MDT file was just over 8 meg, the IV files amounted to just over
42 meg.

 

Aug
Message 30 of 93
danielfloren
in reply to: sjbosley

Aug,

I agree 100% and most if not all MDT users will also agree. The problem is, AutoDesk is not looking at this from a perspective of a mechanical designer working in a fast passed production enviroment. They look at everything they do as if a very large (ie; GM) company with many departments needing acces to the same part/assemblies/dwg files from all over the company...! From personal experance I know Engineering firms love Inventor. However they don't work in a production enviroment where file storage is scarse. They have servers with Terrbyte storage and typically create drawings that are totally useless to the real world.

Lets see, the last time I checked GM does not use Inventor...!

Well anyway, this is a mute subject. AutoDesk will do what it wants to do and screw the little guy.

Sorry, no spell check... no time.

Daniel
Message 31 of 93
Anonymous
in reply to: sjbosley


I've thought I'll never discuss that matter
anymore due the waste time.

This is obvious that MDT is far more advanced
program versus IV and others in all aspects due it's uniqueness.

I just want to make a wish list.

There was a add-on in earlier version MDT
called Dynamic Designer.

It was integrated in MDT as a toolbar or stand
along prog.

You were able to dynamically simulate assembly
within MDT.

Unfortunately they discontinued it for MDT and
integrate it for IV and Solide Edge?

Looks like they bet on the wrong horses since IV
has own simulation and Solid Edge is not as popular as MDT.

Their web site:


So if MDT users interestig to add this feature to
program you can

send them message.

I will be the first one who buy it.

Al

 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
If
I read your reply to Aug really fast, it almost sounds like you care...
NOT...!!!
Message 32 of 93
sjbosley
in reply to: sjbosley

Dear Mr. Floren

As a company we've made the decision to focus on Inventor as our flagship 3D product. We understand that Mechanical Desktop is still an excellent solution for certain segments of the manufacturing industry and that we have customers, yourself included, who would prefer to continue using Mechanical Desktop.

We have taken specific steps to minimize the impact of this change.

First we will continue to provide activations for another three years and our QA organization will continue to test the data translation and migration capabilities to protect the intellectual property contained in your existing Mechanical Desktop files.

Second we have incorporated many of the best aspects/key features of Mechanical Desktop into recent releases of Inventor with the intention of providing you with the "best of both worlds". This process is driven by customer input with the goal of making Inventor the best alternative to Mechanical Desktop.

I realize that any change of this nature is not without cost but I urge you to also consider the benefits of moving to Inventor. This is an extremely capable and stable product that has benefited greatly from lessons learned with Mechanical Desktop. There are many, many customers who have successfully made this transition and who use Inventor for the creation of complex assemblies and production drawings.

Sincerely

Simon Bosley

Message 33 of 93
ed.galicki
in reply to: sjbosley

I can't believe how you guys betrayed us.

I have just convinced one of my biggest clients to switch from Pro-E, which they used for years, to MDT. They bought the new MDT-2008 and have started working into it - and now this.

You have lost me at a subscription member. I will not be renewing. I will go back to Pro-E, or even Solidworks. I can't believe you are giving up any part of the market, even if it is a small part. I keep every customer, even the ones who only do an hour or two a month or less. Maybe you have such a big market share somewhere else that you feel you can throw us MDT users in the trash.

You also ruined MDT when you made the version that will not allow materials on parts so you can make some transparent to see components inside an assembly. This is one of the stupidest things I have see Autodesk do in many years. But now you have topped that by throwing all MDT users in the toilet and flushed us.

You have also made me look like a total idiot to customers that I have persuaded to switch to MDT. They have assemblies built, and cannot see inside them without some kind of idiotic solution like ACIS out and ACIS in to another drawing - and manually apply materials to some of the hundreds of parts in the assembly. Do you have any idea how ludicrous this solution is?

Goodbye - it has been a nice long relationship since about 1987 - but you have closed the door on it.

Ed Galicki
San Diego, Ca.
Message 34 of 93
ed.galicki
in reply to: sjbosley

I am also using MDT6, and cannot find anything that can keep up with it. I have designed, drafted, and helped fabricate and assemble and test several million dollars worth of extremely advanced systems, electrical, high voltage, optical, medical, etc etc. None of the other versions beyond will allow what I can do in a microsecond with MDT6.

I recently convinced some of my bigger clients to switch to MDT, from Pro-E, but they had to buy MDT2008; and they can't even make components like enclosures transparent so they can see components inside them. Totally ridiculous. The can't think anything of me except that I am an idiot now.

If you want to form some kind of group or gang to make continuing with this more possible please contact me.

I am so absolutely disgusted that they would throw us MDT users in the toilet after we supported them and enabled them to make all the changes and 'advances' over the years. Now we don't count for anything, like human waste.

Ed Galicki
San Diego, Ca. Edited by: ed.galicki@dds-sd.com on Nov 13, 2008 10:28 PM
Message 35 of 93
ed.galicki
in reply to: sjbosley

I feel exactly like you do or more - keep in touch if you find any solutions that can work MDT especially 6 any longer than it looks like now. Do you suppose there is a way to get someone who purchased MDT on my insistence, and got stuck with MDT-2008, to be able to load MDT6 instead? Edited by: ed.galicki@dds-sd.com on Nov 13, 2008 10:25 PM
Message 36 of 93
Anonymous
in reply to: sjbosley


Look for the AMCHLAY lisp on the internet. Use it to put the parts on a
separate layer and use materialattach to attach the material to the layer. Works
fine here.


--

Jason Rhymes
3D Solid Power Toys
including Multi Solid
Stretch

href="http://www.acadianagraphics.com">http://www.acadianagraphics.com

 


 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
can't believe how you guys betrayed us. I have just convinced one of my
biggest clients to switch from Pro-E, which they used for years, to MDT. They
bought the new MDT-2008 and have started working into it - and now this. You
have lost me at a subscription member. I will not be renewing. I will go back
to Pro-E, or even Solidworks. I can't believe you are giving up any part of
the market, even if it is a small part. I keep every customer, even the ones
who only do an hour or two a month or less. Maybe you have such a big market
share somewhere else that you feel you can throw us MDT users in the trash.
You also ruined MDT when you made the version that will not allow materials on
parts so you can make some transparent to see components inside an assembly.
This is one of the stupidest things I have see Autodesk do in many years. But
now you have topped that by throwing all MDT users in the toilet and flushed
us. You have also made me look like a total idiot to customers that I have
persuaded to switch to MDT. They have assemblies built, and cannot see inside
them without some kind of idiotic solution like ACIS out and ACIS in to
another drawing - and manually apply materials to some of the hundreds of
parts in the assembly. Do you have any idea how ludicrous this solution is?
Goodbye - it has been a nice long relationship since about 1987 - but you have
closed the door on it. Ed Galicki San Diego, Ca.
Message 37 of 93
ed.galicki
in reply to: sjbosley

I agree strongly - except that I think it should be kept at the MDT6 level so the parts in an assembly can have materials added so you can easily see through, for example, an enclosure, to see parts inside. Now you have to do ACIS out and ACIS in to do this. Absolutely ludicrous. Pathetic. Edited by: ed.galicki@dds-sd.com on Nov 13, 2008 10:27 PM
Message 38 of 93
ed.galicki
in reply to: sjbosley

I have been trying to get this to work but not with that lisp program. I put the part properties on a layer, and then autocad properties of the part on that layer, then the insertion of thepart in the assembly on that layer and it still doesn't work. I will try this program to see if that will work. Thanks for the next thing to try.

eg
Message 39 of 93
Anonymous
in reply to: sjbosley


Alot of these renders (
href="http://www.acadianagraphics.com/examples.htm">http://www.acadianagraphics.com/examples.htm
) were
done with MDT 2007 and this technique so I know it works, just took some getting
use to.


--

Jason Rhymes
3D Solid Power Toys
including Multi Solid
Stretch

href="http://www.acadianagraphics.com">http://www.acadianagraphics.com

 


 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
have been trying to get this to work but not with that lisp program. I put the
part properties on a layer, and then autocad properties of the part on that
layer, then the insertion of thepart in the assembly on that layer and it
still doesn't work. I will try this program to see if that will work. Thanks
for the next thing to try. eg
Message 40 of 93
ed.galicki
in reply to: sjbosley

I found AMCHLAY.LSP on a board but when I downloaded it the dialog box was missing so it will not run. Any idea where I might find the other part so I can try it?

Thanks

Ed Galicki

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report