Selecting a modeling kernel is a major decision for software companies and developers, and once a choice is made, switching is rarely considered unless significant issues arise. With plenty of debugging to do, feature requests, and support to provide, along with a perceived lack of ROI, switching modelling kernels is perceived a high-risk, minimally rewarding undertaking.

Despite this, we are seeing a growing number of companies deciding to switch to Siemens Parasolid and seeing significant success as a result. Here, we share some of the recent experiences on why the conventional wisdom seems to have some holes in it.

Reason #1: Those Forced to Switch by Acquisitions do Better with Parasolid

An increasing trend in the 3d engineering software industry is the strategic acquisition of software vendors. The breadth of the Parasolid ecosystem eases this transition for many organizations. When your application is built on the same modeling kernel, functional interoperability is automatic. But it’s not uncommon that, the acquiring company’s internal modeling kernel differs from that of the newly acquired applications. Supporting multiple kernels leads to inefficiencies in both development and cost, prompting many companies to reevaluate their technology strategy after an acquisition. Whether or not the acquired software company had a problem with their existing modeling kernel, it is likely they will be faced with a decision whether to migrate to or from Parasolid.

Of the 3D engineering software companies we have seen switch to Parasolid, we have seen many experience accelerated growth. A good example of this is Solid Edge, after moving to Parasolid, saw increased sales due to new features unlocked through using Parasolid and the interoperability it brought with other Parasolid-based applications.

A good example of this is a partner of Tech Soft 3D, Ansys, who use Parasolid across their organization. Speaking of their experience after an acquisition, Principal Product Manager Roman Walsh explained, “We were able to get them up and running in under 6 months, and powering the complex sweeps and geometry editing they want with our Parasolid Kernel.”

Of those who move away, very few have similarly successful experiences, despite a huge amount of effort. This is a strong piece of evidence as to the quality and relative superiority that Parasolid can provide developers.

Reason #2: The Positive Effect of Ubiquity

The ubiquity of Parasolid creates pressures that further increase the advantages it offers developers. As many in the industry will know, some of the leading vendors have switched to Parasolid from competing kernels. Any business-savvy person will know that losing these large names likely has a negative impact on development and support – lower numbers of users forcing lower revenues, reducing the resources at their disposal. This potentially means longer support times, fewer developers, fewer new features, more unsatisfied customers, and the cycle continues.

Very simply, we don’t want to see you get caught in this kind of situation. Migrating to Parasolid sooner rather than later can mitigate risk associated with relying on a financially and resource strained technology.

Reason #3: Developing on a Strong Foundation

Recently, we discussed “5 Trends in the CAD industry for 2025 and Beyond”, and highlighted the need to develop specialized features in specialized markets. Many of our partners are implementing complicated functionality on top of modeling kernels. If those innovative developments from your organization are built on a modeling kernel that is at risk of end-of-life, what will that mean for your product?

Parasolid is the de facto standard modeling kernel in the market today, and that comes with a high degree of stability, reliability, and interoperability that other vendors simply cannot match. While the future is never certain, developers value not only the strength of Parasolid, but its longevity and stability.

This has happened in the past when a vendor announced the end of support for their modeling kernel. Existing ISVs with software built on this kernel complained, and asked to continue service, as they were happy with it. The vendor complied and support continued. However, after several years, one CAM company finally made the switch from the deprecated kernel to Parasolid. Their only regret? They wish they made the switch sooner.

Reason #4: All CAD Data from Obsolete Kernels Must be Converted

While developers should worry about the obsolescence of the features they create, the CAD data created by an aging kernel could be just as much at risk. Any information created by a kernel that ceased to offer service would need to be converted, representing a tremendous effort. The pace of end-user data is ever-increasing, and the migration of CAD data is a crucial decision for developers to consider.

Reason #5: End Users Care About Efficiency from Upstream to Downstream

When 3D CAD systems were new, their use was typically limited to a specific 3D design, like the surface of an airplane. The workflow was limited; design data was printed and converted to 2D, and passed to manufacturing as needed. There was little need to know how the 3D data was generated, how the shape was represented, or how it was saved.

The advent of the Digital Thread, the seamless flow of data that connects different phases of a product's lifecycle - from design and engineering through manufacturing, operation, and maintenance - creates a complete digital record that enables real-time decision making, traceability, and continuous improvement. The benefits of a single kernel from beginning to end are huge, offering simplicity and integrity of data management.

Recently, we met a software engineer at a trade show who was developing a quotation system for mold and die parts based on Parasolid. He said models from non-Parasolid CAD systems frequently had unintended seams in the ejector pins, which needed to be removed before quoting or manufacturing. The data that came from the Parasolid-based system did not have such issues. He told me he was happy to receive Parasolid-based data, because of the accuracy and stability it offered.

Reason #6: Parasolid users get more from a thriving ecosystem

In contrast to the struggles of less implemented kernel vendors, Siemens’ Parasolid continues to grow and dominate the market. This offers compounding market inertia, with the Siemens team getting access to more development resources and more customer data and workflows. The community of Parasolid users are benefiting from this, with increased interoperability as the user base grows. By exchanging geometric data with X_T, Parasolid format files, the data exchange process becomes more stable and easier. Even when using intermediate formats such as STEP (Parasolid -> STEP -> Parasolid), the data exchange process is still relatively smooth and error-free.

Reason #7: Tech Soft 3D Offers the best Data Exchange and Visualization tools to Parasolid Users

Since 2000, Tech Soft 3D has been the exclusive worldwide reseller of Parasolid. Soon after we began reselling Parasolid, Tech Soft 3D created a bridge between Parasolid and HOOPS Visualize to provide users with the leading 3D visualization technology of Tech Soft 3D.

Since 2009, Tech Soft 3D has offered native Parasolid integration with HOOPS Exchange, empowering the import 30+ CAD formats into Parasolid as well as export to several interoperable formats such as STEP. In the modeling kernel migration, HOOPS Exchange can be used to transfer legacy data into Parasolid. Because the tight technology partnership, Siemens Parasolid now resells HOOPS Visualize and HOOPS Exchange from Tech Soft 3D.

While switching kernels can be intimidating to consider, there are many cases where developers should consider licensing Parasolid. When switching modeling kernels, we believe you need the best partner to be successful. Tech Soft 3D offers the development and market experience you need to make this process as painless as possible. Contact us to learn more, ask questions, and get coding.