This was a very difficult decision to make, investing in a CAD platform to adopt for years to come. In the end, I dropped PAD from consideration for strategic reasons even tho I got great feedback on it from two people who’s opinions I value.

By strategic reasons I mean that PAD was acquired by an Asian firm. I don’t have a problem with foreign ownership (!); the issue was the direction in which the firm would be likely to concentrate their product development. For the most part, Asia didn’t have a CAD system but now they do. The market is ripe for the pickings and I have no doubt they’ll clean up. It’s a total win situation. However, resource limitations being what they are and in comparison to the potentiality of profit of the given specific market regions, it makes little sense strategically to continue to invest the resources in the U.S. market. Competition for the CAD pie here is too competitive. Iow, if I owned the company, I’d employ greater expenditures in development (and marketing) toward the Asian market, not here. The situation is such at this point that I imagine that sales are quite brisk there and growing. Infrastructure (training, translations etc) should rightfully be directed toward the market of greatest potential.

As I imagine sales are brisk (maybe they are not, I don’t know) and with a lot of work on their plates (to get there if they’re not), further enhancements have not been developed in the PAD system. Specifically, all the other leading CAD companies now have 3D modules -not that I’d use it- but the failure to have implemented 3D modeling at this late date, speaks to the general state of the development of the software. Again, not that I’d need it but by all indicators, development is lagging. Frankly, if I owned PAD, I would be unconcerned about adding modeling at this point. I’d have a huge untapped market on my home turf and it’d be kind of dumb to do something “sexy” (as Miracle describes it) for a foreign segment of the market where my sales were already lagging and is increasingly competitive, just to keep up.

Summary: As I didn’t want to risk the potential of having to reinvest in another product down the road depending on what may or may not come down their pipeline later, it was easier to eliminate PAD from consideration. Like I said, my reasons were strategic, it had nothing to do with the quality of their software.

I am in the process of buying a CAD program and am deciding between Optitex and PAD. I am wondering why you chose Optitex. It seemed a little more complicated to me (as well as a little more expensive). Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated as I feel very stuck with my decision making process!

Thanks, Jane

BTW, I keep checking sourceforge for an apparel specific, open source CAD program. I keep hoping someone will pick up the banner and force competition among the apparel CAD creators. Of course, I may have to bone up on coding and do it myself….either that or save up enough cash to buy what I want.

You can’t buy even a non-apparel specific program for under $500.

I make bags and I would love to try stuff virtually before I cut and sew expensive material

Ouch, that really ups the ante…virtual modeling (another animal altogether) packages start at 6-7,000 but since they have to be rolled into a cad program to run, you’re talking 13,000 easy.

DH mentions sourceforge and asks whether you know C++.

I make bags and I would love to try stuff virtually before I cut and sew expensive material… I’m still very new to all of this.

Take care,

Mike

Style has approx 56+ pieces. Separate pieces, pieces cut as a pair (2per) count as 1 piece. If they can’t be cut as a pair (like front yokes and lower fronts), they count as separate pieces. The collar counts for two pieces total because there’s a “top” and undercollar, of which the undercollar is a pair, it still counts as only one.

If dies were going to be made (meaning oppositional/directional dies would be needed), I’d look for ways to reduce the number of one way pieces, opting for a slight design change to the yokes (it’s only the inset placement and notching that is different from left/right) and making the undercollar one piece. The latter two are dictates of “mass production” vs cutting smaller runs, presumably by hand.

As such, both Kaaren’s (52) and Mack’s (61) estimates were within equal range of 56+ pieces altho Kaaren gets bonus points because she provided an itemized list. I think this is right but I’m a bit fried right now.

Shell/contrast:
Front yokes-2 (RSU, not 2per)
center front panel 2 (not 2 per)
side panel (2, 2per)
collar 2
back yoke 1
back center 1
side back 2 (2, 2per)
undersleeve 3
upper sleeve 1
Sleeve cuff 1
front facing 1
back neck facing 1
front yoke insets 2
back yoke insets 2
cuff insets 3, can be 4
fringe blocks
welt pocket 2
26 total shell/contrast pieces

Linings:
pocket bag 1 (folds)
front 1
side front 1
back 1
side back 1
sleeve 2

canvas/fusible:
front yoke 1
front 1
back (upper) 1
back yoke 1
collar 2
front facing 1
back facing 1
upper side front 1
upper side back 1
lower side front (hem) 1
lower side back (hem) 1
back (hem) 1
sleeve cuff 1
under sleeve (lower, hem) 1
insets, front 2
insets, back 2
insets, cuff 3/4
welts 1
wigan (not really a piece, but a measure of goods)
sleeve head (ditto)

approx 56+ pieces
As such, both Kaaren’s and Mack’s estimates were within equal range. Kaaren gets bonus points because she provided an itemized list. Pretty good Kaaren! Now I have to figure out a prize for you!

I’m really interested in following your journey into the digital pattern-making. It’s really fascinating and I can’t wait to hear more!

canvas and fusible:
front 6
sleeve hem, sleeve head, shoulder pads
back 2
chest shield? 1
Nagging sense I’m missing something vital.

Now I am too tired to continue work on the project I was doing. I need to take a break from my break visiting your site!
Kaaren