Like many long-time users, I became a raving fan of Microvellum not because it was easy, but because it was powerful. It gave us the ability to build “rocket ships” (Zach Holland at Concepts in Millwork) - not just boxes - as long as we understood the data. It was a platform, not a prescription. It didn’t tell you how to build cabinets or how your shop drawings should look. It gave you the tools and trusted you to use them so that you could take your products to whatever level you desired.

That's what set Microvellum apart from every other software - customizability. The ability to dive deep into data and modify, develop, and create new products tailored to a user's needs and imagination. Couple that with Microvellum's Solid Model Tools and any design dreamed up by an architect or designer could now come to life with all the manufacturing data behind it. That flexibility attracted users who wanted to stand out from the competition. In other words: fans weren’t just buying software - they were buying freedom.

But I’m worried that era is ending.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Over the past few years, it’s felt like innovation has slowed to a crawl. Aside from the Foundation Library and subsequential updates, we haven’t seen many meaningful improvements in the core tools or from user feature requests since the last TechCon in 2019. Solid Model Tools? Stagnant. TrueShape nesting? No progress. Customization requests - even when willing to pay for them - are increasingly met with a flat “no,” especially around post processors and tool file enhancements.

Instead, the messaging has seemed to change: don’t customize. Use the software as-is. Follow the default path. Conform. Submit. 

I get it. There are pros and cons to allowing users to customize their libraries and data and costs associated to develop requests for clients - But Microvellum wasn’t built on conformity - it was built on possibility.

I miss the days when these forums, and the many feature requests that are being shared here, actually made it into the product development roadmap - and were clearly communicated that they would be included in an upcoming release.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Let’s talk BricsCAD. Yes, AutoCAD has been resting on its laurels for far too long, and it's fair to explore alternatives. But for many, this "mandatory" transition from OEM to BSB has been rocky. Performance aside, workflows have been disrupted. Based on what I’ve read and experienced, the sentiment seems to lean negative.

Now, skepticism is growing. And the question of how long the integration with full AutoCAD will remain is key for anyone who is not looking to make the switch to BricsCAD. I imagine developing and maintaining Toolbox for two platforms will quickly become a challenge and costly, and we all know which one is on the chopping block.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Which brings us to the Innergy acquisition. On the surface, it was positioned as a “nothing will change” type of move. But what if nothing changing is the real problem?

We’ve seen this before. MicroManager (Microvellum's ERP solution) was “going to be great”… until it wasn’t. Development quietly halted. Is Toolbox on the same path? What does the real future of Microvellum look like? I've heard it stated, "we (Innergy) don't want to upset the Microvellum fanbase"... is that a forever statement? Or is it one with a short shelf life (planned or otherwise)? Let's face the facts here, rarely do acquisitions, especially software acquisitions, permit two software to continue as they do. Eventually, one absorbs the other - the ROI to develop both simultaneously in the long run just isn't there.

I hope I'm wrong, because Microvellum is so close to being everything (aside from an ERP, insert Innergy) a cabinet shop or architectural millwork company needs. From our perspective at Master Millwork (and my personal opinion as well), we don’t need a complete overhaul or a new design platform - just some targeted innovation and improvements:

Library updates are minimal to us (not sure if others feel the same), but every software can build boxes - that's the easy stuff. We need Microvellum to build everything else.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I’m writing this not to complain, but to start a conversation. If you’re a fan of Microvellum - current or former - how are you feeling about its direction? Are you embracing the new approach, or would you love to see the continued development of the freedom to build "rocket ships"?

Let’s keep the discussion going. Maybe, just maybe, someone will listen.