Welcome to the archive pages of upFront.eZine, the e-newsletter that since May 1, 1995 has been reporting on the business of the computer-aided design software industry.
Our newsletter is always free, and is funded through advertising (Thank you, advertisers!) and by reader donations. We love hearing from our readers!
To subscribe or to write an email directly to editor Ralph Grabowski, click here. Join the nearly 5,000 subscribers who enjoy receiving their upFront.eZine Monday mornings by email.
Read the Back Issues
We keep all issues since 2012 posted -- in full! -- for your browsing comfort right here on this Web site. Use the links to jump to the first issue of each year:
Ever since 1995, upFront.eZine has been working hard at keeping alive the history of our beloved CAD industry. These our back issues are for your convenience bundled by year into a single ZIP file.
Read Our Fine Print! Copyright 2022 by upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. All right reserved worldwide. "upFront.eZine," "Inside the Business of CAD," "eBooks.onLine" and "WorldCAD Access" are trademarks of upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. All trademarks are acknowledged as belonging to their respective holders.By accessing this Web site in any manner, you agree to settle disputes by arbitration within the city limits of Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada with the arbitrator selected by upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. Letters sent to the editor are subject to publication. Letters to the editor may be edited for clarity and brevity. Translations and opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. Article reprint fee: $480.
Issue # 1,136 | Inside the Business of CAD | 8 August 2022
Limited number of customer-countries for Russian nuclear plant design software firm Neolant
There is profound irony that programmers in Russia are responsible for much of the CAD software we in the West use every day, yet Russian CAD firms have made little headway exporting their own end products to us.
Software with names like nanoCAD (an AutoCAD workalike), T-Flex (MCAD), and Kompas-3D (also MCAD) have at some point been marketed in the West; doubtless they are obscure to you.
Firms that write foundational code that helps Western firms develop CAD software have, however, found success. Firms like C3D Labs (kernel components) and LEDAS Group (contract programming) receive more than half their income from outside Russia.
When David Levin arranged for me to tour Russia in 2009, the number-one question CAD vendors asked me was how to sell their products in the West. I told them they faced the daunting task in converting their user interface and documentation from Russian cyrillic to English and other languages; from Russian design standards to Western ones; and, toughest of all, thinking in the way that Western marketing thinks.
(I wrote about the firms I visited in The Russian CAD Market, available from ebooksonline/2015/07/rcm.html for $126.)
Thirteen years ago, Russian firms still dominated their home CAD industry. Western software mostly was bootlegged. Autodesk Russia then found success in making AutoCAD users legit by offering an older version (with its lower hardware requirements) for $1,000 initially — a quarter the US price. With time and with the urgency of being compatible with globalization, Western firms like Dassault Systemes, Siemens, Autodesk, and PTC came to dominate CAD in Russia.
We were surprised when Putin made the ill-fated decision to invade the sovereign country of Ukraine, and then he was surprised at the speed of the backlash from Western countries — given that Russia is the world’s largest exporter of oil and wheat.
For Western CAD firms, it turned out that pulling out of Russia was an easy decision: it made them look good, while losing only 0.5%-2% of their global income. They could just about pencil that in as a marketing expense. For instance, last quarter PTC lost $4 million from ending its operations in Russia, a pittance compared to the $81 million PTC says it lost in the same quarter due to the stronger US$.
Coping Strategies
Cover of isicad magazine showing Siemens being substituted by Russian CAD firms in a soccer metaphor
So, what is happening behind the new iron curtain depends on who you are.
Russian Users of Western CAD Software: The “lucky” ones are the ones with permanent licenses; they can keep right on working. Those with subscriptions might be blocked when the next payment is due — depending on where payments are handled. (Not all Western tech firms have cut off existing customers.) Those who depend on cloud-based software are at greatest risk.
Russian CAD Firms Selling Largely in Russia: With Western firms leaving, local firms face a bonanza now that they have a market less encumbered by competition. Here are some of the Russian CAD programs that could be substituted for Western ones:
Western CAD Software Discipline Russian Substitute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Russian CAD Firms That Found Success In the West: They set up bank accounts and cloud servers in other countries, and continue working with non-Russian customers.
Russian and Ukrainian Programmers Working for Western Firms: From news reports, some have left the country. Nemetschek Group said, “Our brands have taken immediate actions to protect our local people [in Russia or Ukraine?], from organizing visas to providing refugee housing to financial support.”
Russian Government: It launched a program to encourage Russia-developed technology. Here is a list of some of the support mechanisms that the government proposed early on, although I do not know how many came into effect:
Subsidies to develop software
Jobs offered to foreign workers with no need to approve work visas
0% tax rate for critical tech companies
Loans at 3% interest for firms that do not lay off staff
Preferential mortgage rates and exemption from military service for techies
Discounts on insurance
Free TLS certificates for entities whose certs are revoked
More recently, the Russian government allocated 37 billion rubles over two years for “software import substitution” — to develop new, local software that can substitute for non-Russian programs. Thirty-seven billion sounds like a lot, but amounts to only 600 million in US dollars; we recall that it took a hundred million to develop Onshape. On the other hand, software development costs are much, much lower in Russia than in USA.
As David Levin reports in the August, 2022 issue of isicad (Google translation to English), there are restrictions on the use of the funds:
Only the two best proposals in each field will be funded
There must be no conflicts of interest with government departments or existing customers
Existing firms are not eligible for support
The software must be exportable, so that 2/3 of its income comes from outside Russia
Winners decided in September and development to begin in October
Independent software vendors have found success in Russia, but government-funded initiatives have not, historically. A decade ago, for instance, the government funded a made-in-Russia RGK geometric kernel for CAD that nobody uses; its Web page was last updated in 2014.
What Ralph Grabowski Thinks
Photo credit: Dmitry Neymyrok, Reuters
The Russian developers I spoke with want to be at peace with Ukraine, but would not go on record in saying so. They are, unfortunately, affected by the historical delusions of a single man.
It is nevertheless fascinating to see the impact of technology developed by Western countries. PLM, in particular, is a key program that Russian firms have found difficult to write their own and that matches Western capabilities, and so Siemens Teamcenter is deeply entrenched in much of Russian industry.
To end, I’ll leave you with an article in which Russian CAD developers agonize over the next steps to take in developing substitute-local software: “We Can Do Without Siemens.” In it, developers ask themselves, by how much can we untangle ourselves after one-two decades of incorporating technology from Western firms?
For instance, domestic developers all use Windows as their OS platform, and switching to Linux would give them independence — but at what point should they divert resources to rewriting all of their their CAD code for Linux?
Programs of disentanglement and independence (by Russia as well as China) will be successful in neither the short nor the medium term.
PS: If you would like to help the people of Ukraine in a practical manner, Missions without Borders is a charity that was already working in Ukraine before war broke out and so is well-placed to assist, and is one that upFront.eZine has supported for many years: worldcadaccess.com/blog/2022/03/practical-help-for-ukraine.html.
Business Advantage released its annual survey of CAD trends, in which 557 respondents took part, rating their use of 19 aspects of CAD by way of three parameters: awareness; perceived importance; and current and future usage. The result is a 97-page report, from which I reproduce a figure above.
The most important statistic is that 2D drafting is still very, very, very important — while there is little use in CAD of sexy, marketing-driven tools. You can get a copy of the report (after registration) from business-advantage.com/landing_page_CAD_Trends_2022_MFG.php.
- - -
IntelliCAD Technology Consortium releases a robust-looking IntelliCAD 11.0 to its members:
Increased ways of working with Revit and Microstation files
Pre-release of the new IcARX API compatible with ObjectARX
Updated SDKs in ODA 2022.12, Windows 11, and Spatial ACIS 2022
Connect map data to PostgreSQL, MySQL, and WFS servers
New UI elements, like 3D positioner, view cube, visual style controls, model flythroughs, and section planes
Members adapt the core code with their labeling and verticals, and then sell to the public. www.intellicad.org
- - -
Spatial division of Dassault is no longer providing code for older operating systems after release 2023 1.0: 32-bit Windows will supported for two more years, and Red Hat 7 is dropped. On the good news front, Spatial will start to support Linux for ARM with release 2024 1.0. www.spatial.com
- - -
Here are some of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:
I started on Generic CADD back in the ’80s. When Autodesk shut it down, I went to Visual CADD at www.TriTools.com. It’s basically the same thing as Generic. You would adapt right away. - Warren (via WorldCAD Access)
The editor replies: Visual CADD development seems to have stopped with v9 beta in 2018, but I am willing to be corrected on that.
- - -
I used Generic CADD for years. I loved it, and could create anything with that software and my Calcomp 8-pen plotter. I resisted the move to AutoCAD so much that I changed my role at the firm I was working for so I would not have to use CAD anymore! LOL
One of my favorite memories is from when I was working late into the night and calling a very responsive tech support team in Bothell, WA [Generic CADD’s head office]. They were awesome, laid back, and really knowledgeable. I actually enjoyed being put on hold: it seemed I would always get to hear the song Wicked Games by Chris Isaak long before that song was a hit in Nebraska. Those were the days! - Jeff Ahl
Re: BIM
The three basic Rules of Plumbing:
Cold on the right
Hot on the left
Stuff flows downhill
It is useless stuff like BIM that is ruining CAD software companies. They are concentrating their resources on useless stuff rather than the basic drafting software.
Name the number of CAD software packages that can produce a proper 3D isometric perspective view from their 3D model. I can count them on one hand, and have five digits left over. - Lewis Balentine
The editor replies: There certainly is a disconnect between what is possible (cloud, VR, BIM, PLM) and what is required, although some CAD firms have been working semi-automating repetitive drafting tasks, which drafter will find useful.
Spin Doctor of the Moment
“We are seeing more usage intensity and higher quality than previous versions of our operating system.” - Satya Nadella, ceo, Microsoft, speaking of Windows 11
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donated towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
Kevin Kaurin: “Thanks for keeping us informed and entertained! Pax et Bonum 1 in your retirement.”
Neil Peterson, Open Design Alliance (small business donation)
Jeremy Powell, Vectorworks (large business donation)
Philip Erickson
Michael Shook
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,135 | Inside the Business of CAD | 1 August 2022
Zsolt Kerecsen (at left) and Shesh Gorur talk about the future framework for Graphisoft’s CAD software
The Graphisoft division of Nemetschek Group last month revealed plans for the future of its design software, based on technology that’s happening today.
I found it interesting that ArchiCAD was never mentioned by name, but perhaps that was not intentional. On the other hand, a name change would make sense, as “Archi” is too specific to architecture and I’ve always found “ArchiCAD” an awkward name to pronounce — is it “ar-[k]-icad”, “ar-[sh]-icad,” or “ar-[guttural ‘ch’ in the throat]-icad?”
Graphisoft’s Framework For the Future
The company has been developing a new CAD framework that has a desktop part and a cloud part — calling it “adaptive hybrid.”
Graphisoft’s model for its hybrid framework
The “microkernel” (dark gray in the figure above) runs on the desktop and contains services common to all programs, such as licensing and file loading. On top of it runs code for general BIM [building information modeling] functions (medium gray), along with modules with code specific to each discipline (in blue), such as structural steel design. As Graphisoft supports more disciplines, they are added here.
The area (in pink) encircled by the dashed outline can become an OEM [original equipment manufacturer] platform for customers who want to build their own BIM system.
The design cloud hub (in light gray) provides public access to the BIM stack. It appears to skip general BIM authoring, i.e. design.
By making its software modular, Graphisoft will find it easier to make changes to the system. New features are either tightly or loosely integrated, on the desktop or in the cloud, depending on where they fit best. “This is how we set up Graphisoft for the future,” said Mr Kerecsen.
At the same event, Graphisoft laid out its roadmap to 2025:
Graphisoft’s roadmap for its architectural software
Roadmaps give customers reassurance that better things are coming in the future. On the other hand, customers might think, “What? I have to wait until 2025 for automation!” and look for a nimbler competitor.
Or Graphisoft might find that future features, like “smooth extensibility,” aren’t actually possible, or that over time different technologies becomes priorities in programming — or another Black Swan event occurs, such as the covid lockdown or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to disrupts plans.
What ‘Adaptive Hybrid’ Means
The new framework is called “adaptive hybrid,” because it is designed to adapt to the design mode the customer is in — desktop or cloud — and switch. Customers with powerful hardware probably prefer to run in desktop mode; with lightweight machines, in cloud mode to access remote server computing.
Other firms moving desktop CAD wholesale to the cloud have floundered, and so Graphisoft is placing a foot in each camp, staying with the desktop as its firm foundation. Some of its technology is already server-based (like centralized file sharing), and so could be cloud-ified easily.
Adding In Today’s Buzzword Technologies
When Mr Gorur asked about “buzzword technologies,” Mr Kerecsen seemed to hedge. I understand his hesitation, because what seems exciting last year can prove to be a dud next year.
He listed the following technologies as “disruptive” and that might find a place in the framework:
Graphisoft layering optional technology onto its new framework
Augmented reality — potentially helpful for viewing models in-situ
Artificial intelligence — perhaps helpful with repetitive tasks, such as for robotic processes
Machine learning linked to A.I. — might be helpful with generative design and algorithmic design, such as finding the best floor plans
Blockchain — could be helpful in handling distributed licenses
AR. Some of these disruptive technologies are already available to ArchiCAD users, such as viewing 3D models with BIM/X, and algorithmic design through a link to Grasshopper. They have been available for some years now.
A.I. We have seen Bricsys use A.I. to assist with dull, repetitive work, and now we see Graphisoft looking at A.I. in the same way. Quite a let-down from the excitement of beating humans at Go.
Generative Design. The current ceo of Graphisoft, Huw Roberts, was for a time in charge of generative design studies at Bentley Systems. That there has been no big push in that direction with his move to Graphisoft is enlightening; I find that generative design tends to be more popular with marketing departments than with designers.
The hype over apparently-disruptive technology is inescapable, as the technology world, which is a growth market no longer, looks for the Next Big Thing. At some point, you gotta realize that you’re 60, and you just can’t do the things you used to be able to do. (The first CAD program is now approximately 60 years old.) Quite fitting for a 60-year-old industry that the last Next Big Thing was a medical condition, covid.
Going further, I would argue that none of those technologies are disruptive, which I define as “tech that replaces.” Rather, they are options that some users will find useful, and so will add them to their toolboxes.
When Hybrid Framework Becomes Available
When will the future be realized? Again, Mr Kerecsen hedged, giving no date. We know that grand predictions of moving CAD to the cloud tend to fail, such as Solidworks 6 never shipping and all Autodesk software not being available only on the cloud by 2018.
He noted that Graphisoft began working on the framework a few years ago, and then two years ago added plug-ins. Through continuous development, the company plans to add more over time. “I cannot say it will be finished at some point,” he concluded.
What Ralph Grabowski Thinks
Three decades ago, the future of computing was going to be all-in-one software (remember Lotus Symphony?). That flopped. Two decades ago, the future was collaboration, and that kind of happened with many CAD programs. A decade ago, the future clearly was moving all CAD software from the desktop to the cloud, and that didn’t happen.
In all cases, these initiatives were driven by vendors’ desire to lock users into their platforms. Symphony flopped because it demanded hardware excessive for the times. Machine-to-machine collaboration is okay, but talking in person is better. The cloud is superior at a few CAD functions, but worse at many others.
Today, software vendors like Graphisoft and ZwSoft (I wrote about Project Wukong in upFront.eZine #1,101) are roadmapping a future that combines all-in-one software with collaboration, the desktop, and the cloud. It’s what makes sense today; it might not tomorrow.
== Okino’s PolyTrans|CAD Software for Professional 'Load & Go' 3D Conversions ==
For over three decades, mission-critical 3D conversion software from Okino of Toronto has been used effectively by tens of thousands of professionals. We develop, support, and convert between all major CAD, DCC, and VisSim formats. CTO Robert Lansdale and his team tailors each package to the specific conversion requirements or problems of each customer.
Popular CAD data sources we support include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.
Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.
FreeCAD 0.2 is released for Windows, MacOS, and Linux on Github. The latest version improves tree views, multiple-edit modes, section cuts, BIM to 2D, and more. For the full what’s-new list, see wiki.freecadweb.org/Release_notes_0.20.
- - -
“The cost of paying staff to watch their computers churn through opening large Revit files or processing large volumes of data can be significant,” Ideate Software tells us, so they have a solution: Ideate Automation 2.0 scripting software that runs these kinds of tasks in the background (some require additional software):
Export designs to PDF, spreadsheet, health data, and quantity take-off files
Issue documents, COBie data drops
Search for elements that Revit’s built-in browser can’t find
Analyze non-standard styles and annotation clashes
Dassault Systemes reports Q2 revenues up 11% (in constant currencies) to $1.38 billion, with Solidworks growing ‘only’ 8%, because of China’s Covid-19 lockdowns, even though total revenues from Asia (which includes China) were up 13%.
Congratulations on your pending retirement. - Henry Sommer
The editor replies: Interesting read. I am gonna bet that when the concrete subs got the 3D models, they generated 2D drawings, away from the public relations department!
- - -
Happy retirement (I don’t quite believe that) and thanks very much — really, for a major part of my enjoyment and understanding of computing in ‘my hobby is my business’ Architecture.
In particular, after years struggling at great initial and annual cost with Microstation Triforma, while happily using an old-version no-annual-cost AutoCAD for 2D, I came across upFront eZine just as you were describing BricsCAD, including its newly re-engineered BIM, which I immediately bought at low cost and got 3D + 2D integrated in familiar, efficient AutoCAD workstyle. That transformed my work, I’d even say my life.
And more. I rewrote my understanding of your descriptions of BricsBIM in my own words on the BricsCAD forum, which got an email of appreciation from [then-]ceo Erik de Keyser. Then an invitation to speak at BricsCAD Conference 2015 in Munich, where I delivered an illustrated talk: my journey in architecture, artistic, cultural and practical; an appeal for the off-angle, freeform, as opposed to the rectilinear assumption, which only BricsBIM’s approach had a hope of fulfilling. It was a lot of fun and went down very well, although it wasn’t what Erik was expecting!
And I’ve enjoyed meeting you at subsequent BricsCAD Conferences, exchanging emails, and seeing them in upFront eZine.
I hope I get to hear if you find yourself doing anything else interesting in the computing world. I’ve said same to Dave Edwards. - Tom Foster
The editor replies: I am glad to hear that I was able to be of some help to your career. I will continue to write on my blog, WorldCAD Access at worldcadaccess.com/blog.
Notable Quotable
“Given that infectious viruses are outside the wheelhouse of virtually everyone who talks about politics for a living, the correct disposition for public commentators in this pandemic has always been humility, a tone that does not come easily to many of us know-it-alls.
“[The] most important truths will not be revealed by sloppily using transient data we barely understand to reinforce ideological priors.” - J. J. McCullough
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
Steve Hunter
Malcolm Davies: “Happy Retirement Ralph. Thank you for the many years of wisdom and information.”
Stanley Przybylinski: “The PLM Economy (a phrase I coined while at Dassault to refer to the companies that make money off of industrial PLM strategies) will be the worse for your silence. That said, retirement is not far off for me and I am looking forward to (my) silence.”
Stephen Schuller: “Thank you for the writing!”
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,134 | Inside the Business of CAD | 25 July 2022
WikiIfc displaying an IFC model
Executives of new firms from time to time quietly tell me about their projects that are in stealth mode. The most (in)famous perhaps was Visio’s stealth purchase and redevelopment of Project Phoenix (IntelliCAD). Sometimes, a new company declares itself to be in “stealth mode” for the marketing mystique. Sometimes, employees acccidently splash details on sites like Linked-In.
Today, we have the reverse: the product is public, but the ceo wishes to remain under wraps for now: “Products above personalities,” is how he put it. I know him, his company, and location, and can vouch for him; we have been exchanging emails since 2016. Last year he told me, “I am waiting for something to fructify — if that happens, it will make a good story.”
Then last month he updated me: “You can try to guess the product by googling (or binging) ‘free online IFC viewer’. After I tracked down WikiIfc.com, he explained, “We already have regular users, uploads of 10-15 real life IFC files per day. And no, I don’t intend it to remain a viewer.” (Files you upload are used to improve the viewer, and are not sent outside the company.)
“WikiIfc will focus on collaboration, analysis, and correction. Machine learning [ML] is going to be used heavily. The advantage of it being an online viewer is that the ML analysis program grows smarter with each upload. We have a wealth of AI [artificial intelligence] engineers here.”
Q&A
WikiIfc displaying a complex piping model
Grabowski: How did WikiIfc came about?
Anonymous: I have been developing CAD applications for different disciplines for a couple decades now. Of them, BIM interested me the most as it was an interesting problem to solve, with a limitless scope.
Then when covid hit, there was an existential crisis, “What can we do?” This time I wanted something large, something I could work on for, say, the next 20 years. This IFC project is open-ended.
In the area where I live, there was an RFQ [request for quotation] to write BIM-checking software. The idea was to upload IFC files, and then have software crunch the files to report parts that didn’t conform to the building code. We didn’t win it, but we got inspiration from it, given that the bids came in the range of $20 to $50 million.
That told me that there is a market, that there is a need. Some architectural councils specify 3,700 rules. So our idea is to check BIM models for conformity using automation, instead of humans.
Grabowski: How do you plan to differentiate yourself?
Anon: A typical conversation at an architectural office goes like this:
“Do you use BIM?” “Yes.”
“What software do you use?” “We use BIM.”
I realize that they mean Revit, and that they are talking about just the authoring part, the 20% of the entire lifecycle of a building. And everyone [BIM software vendors] is going after this one slice.
Well, we are going to look at a tiny part of authoring, such as correcting metadata. When designing, you have no time to make sure the right BIM information is getting in there. So, we want to do everything, except modeling.
Grabowski: What are some of your ideas for expanding your online IFC viewer?
Anon: What is my vision? Our product, WikiIFC, is not stealth, because I believe it should not be hidden. People should be using it, and we learn from what they are doing with it. I’m putting features out there to see which ones stick and which don’t, to see what people are doing, and then enhance the features.
WikiIfc is going to be model-oriented. (For other firms, the model is an afterthought, and so their products are document-oriented.) The types of things we want it to do are check that all the pieces are spatially in the correct place.
Another part is standards. You don’t reinvent the wheel; authorities want everything to follow standards, which makes it faster to build. So WikiIfc will attach standards. I plan to start with the low-hanging fruit with a 80/20 strategy of which rules are used the most. While there are other programs attempting to do it, they are very document-oriented.
You’ll be able to place views, sections, place notes, link views of the live model, such as ‘click on note 5’ to see a specific viewpoint, and then edit it collaboratively.
I want it to run on iPads to use it on-site. Click on views to quickly get to the area in question, which is faster than viewing the entire model.
I’d like it to split the model to disciplines, called ‘federated views’.
It needs change management, which supports maintenance after the building is completed. Upload a file, we calculate the delta, and update the main model.
Grabowski: Who funds you?
Anon: We are self-funded. I am open to innovative funding ideas.
Grabowski: Are you solo or do you have a programming team?
Anon: I have a team. WikiIFC was conceived in August, 2020, and went online January, 2021.
Grabowski: Where did the name come from?
Anon: Wiki is Hawaiian for “quick” but due to Wikipedia, wiki has come to mean “information.” I want WikiIFC to be quick (it now loads large models in 90 seconds) but also to provide information.
To make it quick, we compile C++ to the browser, which is super fast and hides the code, unlike JavaScript. We run it on a multi-core CPU.
Canadian portable 3D measurement firm Creaform, now a business unit of Ametek, celebrated its 20th anniversary in June. 20.creaform3d.com/milestones
- - -
MachineWorks offers source code to show how to transfer 3MF files with Polygonica to and from STL and PGS formats, which avoids the need to employ API [application programming interface] calls.
MachineWorks provides software for CNC [computer numerical control] simulation and verification, with its Polygonica software handling polygon mesh modeling. www.polygonica.com
- - -
progeSoft releases the M1-compatible version of iCADMac 202, an AutoCAD-workalike that’s able to handle 5K monitors. New functions include constraints, sheetsets, and improved PDF printing.
Permanent licenses ensure this software can’t ever be locked out remotely. See the full what’s-new list at icadmac.com/product.
- - -
Members of VDMA (German Association for Mechanical and Plant Engineering) are demo’ing use-cases in storing these kinds of CAD-related data in blockchains:
Forgery-proof exchange of 3D printing and process data
Unequivocal identification of printed components
Storing history of CAD model creation by multiple users in the blockchain
Full proof of the authorship of data (useful in court cases)
President Bob Mayer of IMSI/Design retired at the end of June after nearly 40 years in the PC CAD business, most notably selling TurboCAD.
- - -
Dave Edwards ends his PragArchDesignTech newsletter, in which he explained and critiqued architectural design software. Here is his final issue: pragarchdesigntech.substack.com/p/im-done.
- - -
COO Paolo Guglielmini will be replacing Ola Rollen as president and ceo of Hexagon AB at the end of 2022. Mr Rollen continues as chairman of the board.
- - -
Siemens Digital Industries (the latest name for UGS) adds electronic design collaboration from Mentor Graphics to the new release of NX, which no longer suffers the indignity of being assigned a number at its release. Also added are codeless feature templates, algorithmic modeling, and a new topology optimizer.
Or, as the German headline to the press release put it, “NX von Siemens ermöglicht eine bessere disziplinübergreifende Zusammenarbeit und Wissenserfassung.” To celebrate, the company posted a launch video to YouTube:
- - -
Here are some of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:
Here’s my take on why a lot of BIM applications will fail: engineering support.
Engineers want to be able to take the architect’s BIM and create their drawings and be able to run their calculations. It’s this last part that throws a lot of applications under the bus. Do walls show up as walls? Do rooms and windows allow for HVAC calculations? Are materials transferred for structural calculations?
All very important to their work, and some don’t want to recreate the BIM in their preferred application. - Dave Edwards
- - -
Re: Retirement
I’ve been somewhat out of the CAD world for the last year and only popped in every so often since then, but I was surprised to read today that you are retiring. I’ve been a reader since sometime in the ’90s, maybe around about ’96 when we first got Internet in the office!
I just wanted to wish you a happy retirement and to thank you for the incredible work you have done over the years. - M. J. Smyth
- - -
We met years ago at a Solidworks press shindig.
Three years ago, after about 35 years gainful self-employment writing about factory automation tech and management strategies for trade journals and corporate clients, including several years of semi-retirement (not that I told my clients that), I too decided to end the ‘every 30 days’ deadline and retire. - Lary Gould
Notable Quotable
“How to connect with an ethernet cable:
Connect cable to device and then to a switch or router.
Enjoy.
How to connect with WiFi:
Find wireless access point or router.
Make sure signal is strong enough.
Walk to access point and push WPS button.
Walk back to device.
Enter password anyway, because the WPS button didn't work for some reason.
Re-enter password because your fat fingers messed up.
Enjoy.
WiFi has a useful purpose, but replacing ethernet ain't one of them. - Wade Burchette
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
Michael Starr: “I have enjoyed your column only over the last three years, having discovered it by accident.”
Larry Gould
william doran
Ross Goulter
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,133 | Inside the Business of CAD | 13 June 2022
Infurnia running in a Web browser and producing a kitchen design
Infurnia is doing it backwards. First, they developed a interior design package that runs in Web browsers, and now they are porting it the desktop.
The aim of Infurnia is to build an design platform for architecture, interior design, and construction at a “disruptive” price. After I mentioned the company in an earlier issue of upFront.eZine, Lovepreet Mann contacted me to explain the company plan in greater detail. He is a co-founder of the firm and its chief marketing officer.
The eight-year-old Infurnia spent the last two years re-architecting their Web-based software to make it multi-platform. “Multi-platform” does not mean it runs in a Web browser on any kind of device, as some other CAD vendors have described it; for Infurnia, multi-platform means running the code native, locally, on desktop computers with Windows and MacOS, as well as in browsers.
The company took the reverse route after it determined that browser-based software, which tends to be written in JavaScript, is not powerful enough to compete with the best design software out there. So, they rewrote most of the code in C++, with a thin UI layer on top. This was such a big job that they stopped taking new customers during the rewrite.
As of today, they have a proof-of-concept program running native on Windows, with the full version planned for next year, along with a MacOS version. Infurnia will also run in VR [virtual reality] environments, for which they have a viewing app working. All the versions run the same code, and access a single database.
Mr Mann showed me simultaneous editing on multiple platforms. He added a wall in the Windows desktop version, which showed up in the browser version.
“Being Web-based Web-first, helps us,” Mr Mann said. “We do not have a file format, per se. We store data in a database, which can be accessed by API [application programming interface] calls. Any properly authorized app can access it; a design license from Infurnia is not needed.”
“Design data is decoupled from the software,” he said. “Data belongs to the user; Infurnia simply defines it.” There is no longer a need to rely on a specific software program, should it be able to access an Infurnia database.
The core of the software can be embedded through an SDK [software development kit] in other apps, which gives, say, structural software its own UI and access to the data only it needs, such as for procurement, from the Infurnia database.
Q&A
Infurnia specifying wall layers
Ralph Grabowski: Who would prefer Infurnia?
Lovepreet Mann: We have several large clients, like Livspace and Spacewood.
We began writing software for modular furniture in 2016, then added a floor planner, then a detailed parts modeler, while working towards the long-term goal of architecture. Our code base is done, so we can really develop fast now.
We want to be self-reliant. We use funding from the interiors division to fund our development on the architecture side. It is currently free to users, so that we can get feedback from them.
Grabowski: What is the goal for your architecture software?
Mann: It should handle every kind of architecture construction in the industry, from small homes to big buildings. If something can be built, then it should be able to be designed in Infurnia.
We plan to have programming by scripting, like Grasshopper.
Grabowski: Were you following Onshape’s approach to the CAD market?
Mann: It is somewhat similar to Onshape, but more like Figma[a collaborative interface design tool]. Onshape is not truly multi-platform.
The problem with Onshape is that it places all the computation on the back end [on remote servers]. We don’t see Infurnia going in this direction [because it runs code locally on the desktop].
Grabowski: Is India your target market?
Mann: India is a good launch base, but we plan to sell it throughout the world.
Grabowski: The drawback to expanding architectural software internationally is that every country, every state might have its own design standards.
Mann: We have been so far focusing on the tech challenges. If we don’t have strong tech, we cannot penetrate the industry. But we recognize we have to deal with standards in different countries.
Grabowski: Do you have a plan to take on the established players in our industry?
Mann: There is a sense that there is no way the incumbents can be removed. But there always is one company that makes a breakthrough [such as when Solidworks on Windows disrupted Pro/Engineer on Unix]. It is when platforms shift that new entrants have an opportunity.
There is a shift to being able to do design on multiple platforms — on the Web, on VR. Autodesk, for instance, has not been able to shift AutoCAD to other platforms [fully].
Grabowski: Do you have a pricing model for the architecture software?
Mann: We plan modest monthly and annual subscriptions, like $50/month and $500/year.
Grabowski: How did you come up with the Infurnia name?
Mann: When we first thought about it in 2014, a flatmate suggested Infurnia — it is short for “interior furniture.” We thought the name would be temporary, but then it grew on us.
- - -
Infurnia plans to place an IPO [initial public offering] in July on the Indian stock market to raise the equivalent of US$5 million at a nominal valuation of $20 million. The plan is to grow the company to a billion-dollar unicorn over the next half decade.
Infurnia toggles between 3D viewing (above) and 2D floor plans (below)
What Ralph Grabowski Thinks
Having seen many firms fail in my 37 years in this biz (remember when all display-list processing vendors disappeared overnight?), I worry about new firms. I love their drive to make a difference, their enthusiasm in bringing better products to market, and their aim to displace existing firms — or at least exist alongside them. Some make it, most don’t.
My suggestion of a business plan to upstarts is develop your wow!-software, sell the firm to an incumbent too sclerotic to do it itself, and pocket the millions.
What Infurnia is doing is a huge job. Others attempting a similar path are walking it in reverse, such as PTC and Zwsoft rewriting their Windows-based CAD programs to run in browsers. Infurnia has an advantage in beginning with a smaller code base and working with more modern programming methods. I will be fascinated to see what happens to all three firms in the long-term.
== 3D Conversion of Ultra-Massive 3D Models via DWF-3D & Okino's PolyTrans|CAD ==
One of the most refined aspects of Okino's PolyTrans|CAD software is in transforming ultra-massive MCAD models of oil and gas rigs, LNG processing plants, 3D factories, and other unwieldy datasets into Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, and Unity (among others).
What often takes days using blindly incorrect methods takes minutes or an hour with Okino's well-defined optimization and compression methods using its DWF-3D conversion system.
Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.
Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.
AGACAD introduces what it says is the first software, called Smart Documentation, for automating the entire process of generating documents and drawings from Revit 2020-2023 models. Makes me wonder why Autodesk hadn’t done it yet. The software ships June 16. Lots and lots of details on how it works at agacad.com/products/bim-solutions/smart-documentation/overview.
- - -
LTS is computer jargon for “long-term support,” and now the Open Design Alliance offers it with all its SDKs as of v22.12. This means, for example, you can work with release 22.12 for two years, during which ODA ships out security patches and critical fixes, with little or no change to the code otherwise. More info at opendesign.com/releases.
- - -
Some of us have become tired of watching many conferences online, even though they are free. Hexagon is charging $149 to watch their conference taking place next week from your home computer, whether in real-time or on-demand later on.
In related news, Hexagon’s PPM (process, power, marine) division, based largely on their 2010 Intergraph acquisition, last week renamed itself “Asset Lifecycle Intelligence,” although the URL remains hexagonppm.com.
Letters to the Editor
Re: Another Way of Doing MCAD
I understand the need for brevity but the following statement is a little too brash for my taste: “Autodesk’s AutoCAD did 3D modeling from day 1.”
I have used AutoCAD from its earliest days, the first versions were definitely not 3D and only later was 3D functionality was bolted on — I don’t know which version. I have always found AutoCAD a rather clunky 3D modeler.
I was a Computervision Personal Designer reseller. The fact that Personal Designer could 3D models properly was the reason for its niche success. AutoCAD at that time was almost freeware due to the amount of illegal copies floating around.
(There was a specific architectural version called Personal Architect, which was very short lived. One of its features was that it supported the workflow of architects from conceptual to detail design.)
Most early 3D packages like Unigraphics, CADDS, and Personal Designer were direct modellers. Initially they were only surface modellers not solids. I now use Rhino for 3D surface modelling, but sometimes still miss some of the features Personal Designer had like associative geometry. Steve Ford did a wonderful job of porting CADDS to the PC. - Rene Dalmeijer
The editor replies: The word ‘direct’ is missing from the sentence. My apologies. It should have read that '“AutoCAD had direct modeling in its 3D from day 1 of solids modeling.” I was dimly aware of Computervision at the time.
I agree with the opinion that the 3D modeling in AutoCAD was dreadful for the most part: first none, then 2.5D, then wireframe, then solids modeling limited so as to not compete with Mechanical Desktop and Inventor.
Little known fact: AutoCAD did have 3D modeling from the very start but the programmers didn’t know how to implement it. Mike Riddle had written MicroCAD, which he contributed to the original Autodesk guys, who renamed it AutoCAD. He eventually settled financially with Autodesk and wrote FastCAD in assembly language. fastcad.com
Mr Dalmeijer responds: Do you know of a book about the history of CAD?
The editor replies: Dave Weisberg in 2008 wrote an exhaustive one, The Engineering Design Revolution, but even it gets some details wrong and misses out some chunks — as all histories do.
He made it available for free, but the official Web site no longer works. I hunted it down and found a safe copy online, which I am making available through my site: pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZOgHRVZm5EzgTXagkuDCOFFUJ5tyYidNBgy (10MB ZIP file of 24 PDF chapters).
- - -
With regard to “One day, I envision we might employ a clay-like modeling environment, poking and pulling a shape with our fingers through augmented reality, along with some kind of permission assistance,” you might take a look at 3dsystems.com/software/geomagic-freeform.
No augmented reality, but a haptic device to “feel” the “clay” model. It uses voxels. - Henry Lamousin
Re: Locating the Dystopia in Meta’s Utopia
Your Meta Dystopia Utopia reminded me of this conversation that I transcribed from a video well over a decade ago from a World Economic Forum discussion on Web 2.0 in 2007:
Bill Gates: “We need 3D. You’re seeing it on things like Xbox, where you have Xbox Live for 3D”
Off Camera: “Why 3D?’
Gates: “Well 3D: it turns out the world is in 3D. We used to have only UPPERCASE THEN WE GOT lowercase, and that was fun, then we went from black and white and got this colour thing, that was fun, but in fact 3D, you see glimpses of it, it’s gonna happen.”
And this, slightly edited to remove a country reference, from Douglas Adams:
"Virtually everything we were told turned out not to be true, sometimes almost immediately. The only exception to this was when we were told that something would happen immediately, in which case it turned out not to be true over an extended period of time."
- Robin Capper, New Zealand
The editor replies: In CAD, some talk of 3D being “just one more dimension” than 2D, when in fact it moves in complexity from just one plane to six planes, many of which are hidden from our view.
Re: Retirement
I will miss your reports, analysis and valuable opinion. Unfortunately I started reading upFront.eZine only a few years ago. What a waste. I could have been much better informed decades earlier.
I look forward to any writing you may do in your retirement. - Rob Snyder
The editor replies:upFront.eZine reported on Mr Snyder’s concept of TGN rigs in issue #1,115, which place focus on specific portions of the 3D model through a UI and an API, partially solving the six-plane problem.
- - -
To be truthful, I am upset that you will be ending producing upFront. I’m upset that I and the many others who read upFront will no longer have access to your thoughts which have a very wide range beyond simply CAD.
Unlike your neighbour who used to drive a concrete truck, there actually is no one to replace you. No one who has your depth of experience. No one who has your understanding. No one who will give their opinion free of commercial bias. No one who provides nuggets of technical information (you turned me on to wireless backlit keyboards). No one who shares their thoughts on so many things not directly related to CAD. No one who can provide others a forum to present their knowledge, thoughts and opinions. I will miss Notable Quotable and the emails you receive which helps us realize that we are not alone with our CAD frustrations.
Not receiving upFront each week will be a very big loss.
I wish you the very best post-UpFront, but honestly hope that you will reconsider. - Dairobi Paul
The editor replies: I plan to continue to write for other publications (their editors are relieved to hear this!) but will wind down this newsletter in mid-September. I hope to also continue writing for my WorldCAD Access blog.
Notable Quotable
“Since any criticism of Apple can result in excommunication, I feel unable to trust Websites that can get access to Apple’s stuff.” - Caps Lock
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
Robert Melnyk
Avontus Software Corporation (small business donation): “We appreciate your hard work in the newsletter that you’ve done over the years (decades actually). I was constantly blown away by your reporting on the CAD industry, especially lately as the pace of technology changes so fast. Happy retirement!”
Christopher Cleary
Nicholas Busigin: “Thank you for writing and publishing your ezine. Much appreciated over the years.”
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,132 | Inside the Business of CAD | 6 June 2022
BricsCAD Mechanical exploding an assembly
With 1988’s release of Pro/Engineer, Parametric Technology Corp (PTC) standardized an approach to 3D modeling that holds sway to this day. Its two Russian mathematician founders came up with a way to draw 2D sketches that were parametric, and then extrude/revolve them into linked 3D solid models that also were parametric.
“Parametric” means the mechanical design software uses formulas to control the sizes and positions of sketches and parts in models. The two are linked so that changing a sketch changes the model — hence the ‘parametric’ in the PTC company name.
Each step a designer takes along the way is recorded in a history of actions; editing an element in the history tree also changes related sketches and parts, allowing quick iterations of design ideas, like moving a hole or changing the size of a chamfer, without redrawing the model from scratch.
Nearly every MCAD program subsequently copied Pro/Engineer: Solidworks (the first parametric CAD software on Windows), Solid Edge, Inventor, you name it! Parametric modeling migrated to other disciplines, such as architecture and piping.
I should add that parametric design was not invented by PTC; a CAD system that linked 3D models was first developed in the late 1970s in England as 2.5D RUCAPS (Really Universal Computer-Aided Production System) for architectural design, later replaced by 3D Sonata, resurrected as Reflex, and finally purchased by PTC. Although Pro/Reflex failed in the architectural market, PTC found great success with its first-to-market parametric-based mechanical CAD, albeit on the Unix operating system.
The sketch/parametric/history approach, however, has drawbacks. Making changes to the history could take “forever” with complex models and, in some cases, regenerating new versions of the model unhappily crashed the system.
There is another approach. It skips 2D sketching and history trees entirely: designers draw 3D solid primitives directly, like boxes and cones, and then use Boolean and other operations to mold the parts into the final shape desired. This is how HP’s Co/Create (bought by, who else, PTC) and Autodesk’s AutoCAD did 3D modeling from day 1.
Today we call the second approach “direct modeling,” and despite it having a long history, it was resurrected by newer MCAD programs like SpaceClaim (ANSYS), Creo (PTC), and Fusion (Autodesk). The history tree is in danger of becoming history.
So, is a third approach to 3D MCAD possible? One day, I envision we might employ a clay-like modeling environment, poking and pulling a shape with our fingers through augmented reality, along with some kind of precision assistance.
BricsCAD Mechanical from Hexagon
BricsCAD Mechanical 2022 showing its user interface
Until that kind AR-based modeling becomes normal, if ever, let’s take a look at the different approach to MCAD taken by BricsCAD. It combines parametrics with direct modeling, leaves out the history tree, and makes sketches optional.
BricsCAD’s history is older even than Pro/Engineer’s, starting in 1986 as the Bricsworks company working on Architecturals, a 3D design program eventually sold to Bentley Systems as MicroStation TriForma. In 2002, the company now known as Bricsys came out with an AutoCAD-workalike based on IntelliCAD, yet a few years later rewrote all the code so that it could develop its BricsCAD at a faster pace.
There was, at the time, speculation Bricsys might adopt the old Architecturals code to the new BricsCAD. The company demurred, developing instead its own 3D modeling system based on the ACIS modeling kernel from Dassault Systemes’ Spatial and a 3D design system developed by programmers at LEDAS in Russia.
The LEDAS system combined parametrics with feature recognition and direct modeling/editing, to which Bricsys recently added a form of artificial intelligence. The system was good enough that Bricsys bought the intellectual property from LEDAS, as well as hired some of its staff. In a twist, however, BricsCAD employed LEDAS’ 2D and 3D parametric system, not Spatial’s, making it incompatible in that area with other design systems.
The workflow looks like this:
You import a 3D model into BricsCAD Mechanical from another MCAD program with a separate, extra-cost option called “Communicator,” which is the InterOp translator licensed from Spatial.
The imported model is dumb, so you apply BricsCAD’s features recognition to add smarts to the model.
You change the model with BricsCAD’s direct editing functions.
If this doesn’t seem new to you, that’s because MCAD competitors mimicked the workflow; others are scrambling to catch up in the area of automatic feature recognition.
Semi-automated Drafting Assistance
Adding 42 bolts at once with BricsCAD’s smart search and replace function
BricsCAD subsequently added semi-automated search-and-replace, in which you specify a feature (say a hole) and the block with which to replace it (like a drill tap), and BricsCAD finds all occurrences.
BricsCAD has a number of automation techniques that it calls A.I. One is “propagation.” It searches drawings for likely elements like joints, and then adds connections. Another is “blockification,” which looks for identical instances of groups of entities and then converts them to blocks. A third is “optimization” for finding lines at slight angles and gaps, and fixing them up.
There are a couple benefits to applying these techniques to drawings. Replacing repeated details (like gussets) with blocks greatly reduces a file’s size. The other, more important benefit, is hyper-fast detailing: Think of specifying details of joints (typically made of several bolts, cutouts, and stiffeners) between dozens of columns and beams in structures.
BricsCAD BIM uses the same import/recognize/edit system to turn dumb IFC files into smart BIM ones. “Bimify,” for instance, defines vertical and horizontal slabs as walls and floors automatically.
Staying With DWG
BricsCAD Shapes worksing with 3D solids natively
In another divergence from mainstream MCAD, BricsCAD stores its design data in DWG files, the same format used by AutoCAD. The DWG format is flexible enough to store all kinds of data not defined by Autodesk. This makes drawings made with BricsCAD Mechanical compatible with BricsCAD BIM, something Autodesk cannot offer its mechanical and architectural customers, ironically enough.
Nevertheless, Bricsys had to come up with some workarounds. For instance, DWG does not support assemblies, and so BricsCAD stores parts in xrefs and then connects them with 3D constraints. Other data is stored in other formats for optimization reasons, such as point clouds in BPT (Bricsys Point Tree) files.
Depending on the vertical edition, BricsCAD has built-in sheet metal design, civil terrain and roadway design, MEP (mechanical, engineering, plumbing), BIM (building information modeling), and kinematic analysis — all stored in DWG files.
A few years ago, the company released a free 3D modeling program, Shape, positioning it as a pre-design program, like SketchUp. Unlike SketchUp, it works with 3D solid.
What Ralph Grabowski Thinks
Sweden’s Hexagon bought Belgium’s Bricsys a few years ago, after being impressed by how well BricsCAD replaced AutoCAD in its CADWorx plant design software. The good news is that so far Hexagon seems to have left BricsCAD development alone, meaning updates continue at their usual frenetic pace. As happens with acquisitions, some Bricsys executives eventually left Hexagon to form a new company, promising to create a new way of working with very large IFC and BIM files.
Despite Bricsys doing a lot of deep thinking on how CAD ought to operate, it continues to be a small company, with only 300,000 users, a number that hasn’t seemed to have changed over the years.
It can never replace Pro/Engineer or Solidworks, so it places the emphasis on being different: a direct editor for MCAD systems incapable of direct editing at a third the cost, along with a dash of A.I. and everything stored in DWG files.
[This article is reprinted with permission from Design Engineering magazine.]
And in Other News
Open source Web development library BabylonJS is updated to v5.0 to fully support WebGPU, gITF 3D scenes, node-based materials, WebXR lighting, and to build cross-platform applications. It is backed by Microsoft, and can be used as an online BIM viewer, digital twinning, and common data environments. Details at osarch.org/2022/05/28/babylonjs-5-0-release-makes-3d-web-apps-easier-than-ever/
- - -
Solidspac3 does 12-hour turnarounds for QA/QC [quality assurance and control] variance reports so that construction firms can compare design models with reality-captured laser scans. Construction variances are reported the same day as they occur. The software generates accurate as-built digital twins of building models for other applications. It is built on Autodesk Forge. solidspac3.com
- - -
IronCAD updates IronCAD 2022 in PU1, product update #1, with automatic TriBall positioning on the default orientation plane, Ctrl+E to progress through Show Hidden Edges, Hide All Edges, and Show Visible Edges, and ' to select the lowest visible assembly. For full details on what's new, check out ironcad.com/blog/whats-new-in-2022-product-update-1.
- - -
Cerulean Labs releases v2 Spaces sketch-based conceptual design app for iPad. adding space planning, sun studies, new digital sketchbook, and IFC and OBJ export. Starter version is free, other versions are $348 or $900 annually. Compare features sets at spacesapp.io/pricing.
Letters to the Editor
Re: Careful How You Do New BIM
In general, architects are only liable for egregious errors and code compliance. Please do not think I lack sympathy. They have a Herculean task, and firms are not paid enough to actually have the knowledge to design everything.
Early in my career, a junior architect (with a Master's degree + passing the license test) approached me about coming to work for us. We discussed salary and I was amazed to learn that they were making less than my clerical people.
Ask founders [of BIM software firms] if they are concerned about the liability their company may incur from their product. Any contractor or architect with brains is concerned with liability as they know stories of firms that disappeared because of the liability from one small error. - Leo Schlosberg
- - -
Regarding BIM, in 1987 I was involved in making a link between a CAD system (initially Prime Medusa and Oracle) specifically for the design and maintenance of HVAC systems. Eventually the CAD went to AutoCAD. We experienced serious problems with AutoCAD giving inconsistent entity handles.
Another project I was involved with around 1995 was for electrical schematics. Again AutoCAD and Oracle had the same problems. Some CAD packages are just not good in managing relationships between entities.
I once worked with a 2D CAD system called VisoinAEL that had an excellent link between graphic entities and whatever data you wanted to add. You could flip between a graphic view and a spreadsheet view. Even though it was just 2D, this proved to be very power full tool.
Why BIM fails:
The parties that have the most to gain do not make the BIM
Architects are not paid to create and manage consistent BIM
Anyone who has ever looked at the consistency of an architectural model, specifically in AutoCAD, will know what a mess they generally create after some revisions. To do BIM properly requires a lot of management to maintain a consistent data model. Most parties are not prepared to pay for this effort. - Rene Dalmeijer
The editor replies: I had never heard of VisionAEL, so thank you for letting me know about it! I wonder if this is where the developers of Visio got their idea: a graphics packages based on a spreadsheet.
The visionael.com Web site 404s me. But looking at cached Web pages, it looks they might have gone the way of Visio, concentrating on network diagramming.
Mr Dalmeijer responds: VisionAEL was a Swiss company, an offshoot of Aerni-Leuch. As far as I know, they were an important paper manufacturer amongst others for drafting. They spent quite a bit of money to create the product, including marketing budgets. What I knew about the source code is that it was based on Easydraft. Initially it only worked on HP workstations.
I suppose they saw the signs on the horizon. Just before they stopped, it was ported to [Unix-based] Silicon Graphics workstations, although I don’t think it was ever sold on this platform.
I also dabbled with Visio for the same reason.
Re: Retirement
You may remember that you reviewed a book I wrote on CAD in 2007. AutoCAD: Secrets Every User Should Know meant to be a best-practices book for my CAD management class at college. It was, to say the least, a very gratifying review, vindicating my assurance to the publisher that, despite you publishing books with one of their competitors, you would be fair and thorough — should you decide to review it. My pitch to them was that you might be a curmudgeon, but you would never trash or even down-play a competitor without good reason.
I can’t thank you enough for that. The book is still in print, despite the normal tiny shelf life of CAD books, and we still use it in our classes, demonstrating to our students that, fundamentally, the process of using a computer to aid in efficient and accurate design doesn’t change just because software developers release a new product every year.
The primary tools that they learn in developing their design skills. Employers routinely complement our graduates on how easily they adapt to new situations, even if they don’t find themselves using AutoCAD, Revit, Civil 3D, or SolidWorks.
At 71, I am of your general vintage, but I have not yet reached the point where I am ready to stop teaching. Even with Zoom classes becoming the norm it continues to be a gratifying career – for me. My answer to the increasingly frequent question “When will you be retiring?” is still, “I haven’t really thought about it.” That feels like a blessing to me.
Good luck in your retirement, and thanks for your critical eye and commentary. Hard to believe a newsletter on the business of CAD would have such a long life. - Dan Abbott
The editor replies: I still have your book on my shelf. I am glad to hear that the Secrets book worked out so well for you.
I did enjoy teaching CAD at the local technical college. Then the government made all colleges “universities,” meaning my bachelor’s degree was no longer sufficient to teach. Oh well, the commute was a killer!
- - -
I wish you a well deserved retirement, and am very pleased for you to reach this milestone! I’ve been following you since 1993-ish, prior to that was getting my information from the old CAD Report newsletter.
Your journalism and ability to ask the hard questions provided us with the real scoop in our CAD industry, but was especially valued because you were always non-biased. I hope retirement gives you the opportunity to explore other areas, and please look back on your contribution of insight, discovery, and all your work related travel as a wonderful way to call it a career. You will be missed by us! - Randy Mees
The editor replies: I am appreciative of all that I was able to experience in CAD, especially the worldwide travel, as that was the only free benefit I received as a self-employed person.
I will still do some writing, but my wife and I have grandchildren and parents to help look after, as well as being involved in volunteer work.
Notable Quotable
“If your business model requires hiding your business model from your own customers, maybe your business model sucks.” - Stephen Green
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
S Bumbalo
4m group (small company donation)
Todd Majeski
Paul Burgener
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue # 1,131 | Inside the Business of CAD | 30 May 2022
Opinion by Ralph Grabowski
Nick Clegg’s 8,014-word manifesto “Making the metaverse: What it is, how it will be built, and why it matters” is confident that the metaverse will bend the arc of history towards a single future. It is, of course, what ought to be expected, when, from a plurality of outcomes, the final outcome — a metaverse of metaverses — is the sole destination under consideration.
That it took 8,014 words to say something that could have been said in 1,814 smacks, I think, of writing by committee. It seems to me that every committee member’s idea was to be included, and, as a result, similar ideas appear more than once in the manifesto — sometimes two and three times.
Here, in 1,814 words, is my response.
- - -
The VR people are frustrated. VR [virtual reality] has been around almost as long as desktop computers. While fat desktop PCs have progressed to thin laptops, all-day tablets, awe-inducing smartphones, and the ultimate in miniaturized communication devices, smartwatches, VR has remained clunky. Here, for instance, is what a VR headset looked like in 1989, as illustrated by a portion of the cover of that year’s December CADalyst magazine (at left).
VR headset of 1989 (left) looking very similar to AR headsets thirty years younger
I admit the monster computer and thick bundle of cables feeding the low-count-polygon scenes to the late-80s headset have given way to wireless connections and hi-res graphics, but the chunky part that rests in front of the eyes still rests boot-like in front of our eyes (at right, above).
- - -
I feel sorry for the manifesto’s author, Nick Clegg, the former head of England’s left-of-center Liberal Democratic party. As president of global affairs at Meta Platforms, it’s his job to justify the decision made by his boss, ceo and controlling shareholder Mark Zuckerberg, for Facebook to go all-in with XR (VR + AR = mixed reality) to the point of changing the corporate name to Meta.
Meta is Greek for “beyond/beside/with/after,” and in English it has come to refer to transcendence, such as metaphysics (beyond what physics can study) and metacharacter (outside literal programming code). I suppose someone at Facebook thought that if VR comes after R [reality], then “after” would be a good name for the company; even better, to Greek-ify it for greater gravitas.
Here is how all-in Zuckerberg put Facebook: there are nearly ten thousand employees in the division responsible for making the metaverse real, Reality Labs. Ten thousand is one-fifth of Facebook’s workforce, working on recreating the world in the image of Man.
As well as feeling sorry for Mr Clegg, I also feel bad for The Zuck. With Facebook faltering, what could he do for an encore, when 38 is too too young for someone to rest on laurels? He’d have gone looking for something that’s (1) next-gen, (2) as addictive as facebooking, and (3) able to generate far greater revenues than today.
But, getting back to the feeling-sorry-for-Nick-Clegg part. He has to justify the metaverse to a skeptical world that already rejected 3D TV. How skeptical? Second Life was the forerunner in proving there is little life in a second world. Meta’s Reality Labs lost $10 billion in 2021, after losing $6 billion the year before. (By comparison, investors gave barely more, $12 billion last year, to the more important topic of automated cars.)
On that day in early February, 2022 when Facebook announced its name change and the pivot to VR, the FB share price fell by 26%. The price of a share is what investors feel is the future value of the company; investors were saying Facebook had little future in VR. The share price has continued to fall since then, down 49% from its all-time high as I write this.
As someone once said, “This dog don’t hunt.”
- - -
In his manifesto, Mr Clegg patiently explains that just as we stepped from text-based Internet to pictures to streaming videos, the next step we take, naturally, ought to be into interactive environments; from 2D to 3D. (The step following this, I think trans-humanists would argue, is Ray Kurzweil’s beloved The Singularity.)
What he didn’t note is that as we stepped from text to pictures to video, the form factor remained unchanged. The Netscape Web browser I used in 1994 is as familiar as the Opera one I use today; the UX [user experience] of the Palm Pilot I bought in 1996 is mimicked by my Android phone today.
Palm Pilot 1994 UX (left) looking little changed in an Android device of 2022
The step he wants us to take — from streaming videos to interactive environments (VR) — is, in fact, blocked. He requires people to don bulky, expensive headsets, wrenching the familiar — Web browsers and smartphone interfaces — from our daily lives. It is, by far, a step too far.
He emphasizes the benefit of immediacy, where remote employees and clients are in the same virtual room. He misses the disappearance of immediacy when people physically in the same room wear headsets that deprive us of the subtleties with which we sense others in the room. As Epic ceo Tim Sweeney describes it, “It’s not very fun to sit around in 3D and just talk to people. It gets really awkward really fast.”
Mr Clegg mentions how Zoom made remote meetings normal, but didn’t take the next step in noting that people have come to despise Zoom. We CAD editors have written about how tired we are of remote conferences, and the pleasure we feel reacquainting ourselves with in-person events, even if they require ten-hour plane rides through nine time zones.
- - -
The human experiment is continuously undone by our lust for power, and power is effective only when concentrated in the very few. To counter the worry that Meta wants to make its metaverse as much a walled garden as it attempted with Facebook and Instagram, Mr Clegg promises his company will cooperate with all competitors to create a metaverse of metaverses — the multiverse. The problem, of course, is that competitors will want their gardens walled, well and tight.
He admits not all functions would necessarily be exposed by APIs (my wording), and not all competitors will want to cooperate with Meta; as well, users can create ’verses exclusive to themselves. The meta of metas becomes an unfulfillable dream well before eight thousand words are up.
We see this in our industry, as CAD vendors desire to silo their customers. Some isolate them from the larger CAD community through pay-to-play subscription billing and software kill switches; some make putative threats against dealers and customer who gaze elsewhere; many lack a serious interest in unified file formats; and some even force their customers’ files into central design databases designed to be inaccessible by outsiders.
- - -
The negatives Mr Clegg primarily sees in VR are the kinds a politician would see: Equitable metaverses for the (historically) disadvantaged! Subsidized headsets for the poor! $40 billion added to the African economy! Banning of undesirable behavior!
Mr Clegg does not consider the cultural barriers faced by a multiverse. Being from the western world, he probably favors some kind of secular liberal-democratic approach to ethics in VR Land. The manifesto does not take into account a Pentecostal Africa, a Catholic Latin America, an Islamic Middle East and Southeast Asia, a Hindu India, a Maori New Zealand. Their concepts of undesirable behaviors don’t necessarily coincide with his ideas regarding undesirable behaviors. They will be bemused at the white man’s attempt to enforce his secularism on their communities.
Meta’s metaverse avatars lacking gonads
To reduce undesirable behavior between avatars, Meta recently added four-foot exclusion zones to keep others from bumping into you, deliberately or otherwise. In some parts of the world, distancing is considered safe, while in other parts, such as where males hold hands as a sign of good friendship, it is seen as exclusionary. In Meta’s VR Land, it appears we are going to be guilty until proven innocent.
Avatar being siloed for protection
- - -
Whereas Mr Clegg writes that the metaverse will be like real life through three key factors — ephemerality [short-lived], embodiment [tangible], and immersion [absorbed] —, Peter Franklin counters that “Clegg has missed the bigger picture, which is that the Internet has allowed us to move away from ephemerality, embodiment, and immersion.” In short, we want our privacy.
The manifesto does not broach a distinction between synchronous and asynchronous communications:
Synchronous. Phone calls and VR sessions require all parties to be present all the time. This is one thing making Zoom calls exhausting. The advantage, however, is immediate feedback: we know the other parties got the message; we can work our way to decisions interactively.
Asynchronous (not synchronized). Leaving messages on answering machines and sending emails make us independent of others, enhancing privacy and efficiency, but we wonder, Did the other person get the message;how many back-and-forths (a.k.a. telephone tag)?
In CAD, sending around markups is asynch communications; real-time simultaneous editing needs synch’ed comms.
Sometimes we phone, sometimes we email. Neither replaces the other.
- - -
Earlier in this piece, I wrote that Facebook thinks that VR comes after R, but in reality, VR is adjacent to R, being just one of many un-R options. I think about my son-in-law who loves bouldering: going up fake cliffs inside air conditioned gyms. My daughter converting the reality of pretty-good wedding photos into stunning ones with photo editing filters. And perhaps the ultimate in augmented reality, my son hiring and helping people who have a hard time figuring out the reality of life.
I suppose the most insidious part of the Zuckerman-inspired Clegg future is how VR ought to replace R: “The metaverse is coming, one way or another,” he warns. Novels like Neuromancer, which four decades ago predicted metaverses, described dystopias, not utopias; their authors understood the human condition.
In addition to solving the what-comes-after-facebooking problem, there is a second Meta motive. I haven’t mentioned autism yet, which is much more common in Silicon Valley than in, say, middle America. It leads programmers, who benefit from the concentration given to them by spectrums like Asperger's syndrome, to think about worlds they can control, without having to interact with unpredictable humans made of flesh. As Christina Buttons, who has Asperger’s syndrome, explains, “The prospect of making an impact through arms-length electronic methods held considerable appeal” for her.
As a result, we have 0.5% of the population telling the 99.5% how, in the future, we ought to live.
- - -
There’s a reason sales of ebooks fell below those of paper books, and why LPs have resurged: people prefer the real over the virtual, particularly after the hideous lack of human-to-human interaction forced upon us by that invisible virus.
Take lesson from the failure of 3D TV. It failed because (1) it required people to wear glasses in a glasses-averse society (not wearing them meant being ostracized from the social event); (2) it required people to replace their recently-purchased big and expensive flat-screen TVs with TVs that looked identical but cost much more. That particular dog also didn’t hunt.
Mr Clegg should instead look at which Meta products are the uber-popular ones, the growing ones: WhatsApp and Messenger. From my neighbors, I hear that Facebook Market is popular; it’s for selling stuff. What people want is to communicate with one another conveniently, effortlessly, cheaply; the metaverse is far removed from all three.
Mr Zuckerman ought be proud of what he has accomplished, and be content with what he has. More is unnecessary.
== 3D CAD & DCC Conversion for MAXON's Cinema-4D Animation System ==
Okino (Toronto) and MAXON (Germany) celebrate 20 years of supporting MCAD data visualization through Okino’s PolyTrans-for-Cinema-4D conversion software.
MAXON's Cinema-4D is one of the world's most used and respected animation systems for MCAD data visualization. Okino’s PolyTrans software transforms ultra-massive 3D datasets into highly-refined models for fast, efficient, and optimized animation creation. All conversions are Load & Go, with no model rebuilding necessary.
Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.
Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.
“As I listened to the Autodesk Accelerate speakers, it became clear that ‘digital transformation’ as a buzzword is almost meaningless. It’s marketing-speak from vendors trying to sell the latest and greatest and, like many things marketed at us, both aspirational and demotivating.” More commentary from Monica Schnitger at schnitgercorp.com/2022/05/20/digital-transformation-lets-talk.
- - -
Matt Lombard reports on attending Realize Live 2022 at dezignstuff.com/realize-live-2022-report. I have always wondered how it came to be that Solidworks is the star in the Dassault firmament, while Solid Edge remains in the shadow of Siemens NX. Maybe it’s due to this: Solidworks benefits from being so different from Catia (and V6), but Solid Edge is too similar to NX.
- - -
Could mythic “Putin Tax” be starting to have an impact on CAD software prices? Dassault Systemes announces 5% price increases as of July 1, 2022 on all software license formats (including perpetual, maintenance, yearly and quarterly subscriptions) on all its software, such as Catia, Simulia, Enovia, and Delmia. Dassault had earlier said that Russia represents fewer than 0.5% of non-IFRS revenues in 2021.
Letters to the Editor
Re: Careful How You Do New BIM
I think that BricsCAD BIM is a kind of fresh breath in this area. You can model or import dumb 3D solids, and then run the pretty smart Bimify command.
It’s interesting that BricsCAD seems to be faster than Revit to open IFC files, and of course better than Archicad at making useful DWGs. - Ragnar Thor Mikkelsen, Norway
- - -
A major issue underlying Dave Edwards’ editorial is, “Who/what has to get the design details right,” a.k.a. “Who is liable for errors?” Not architects, not software companies or software engineers, but definitely subcontractors and structural engineers.
We are not close to cramming all the knowledge of the diffuse players who end up taking responsibility for getting a building done right into software or other repository. Construction offers oh-so-many opportunities for errors based on minor details and arcane, highly specialized knowledge. - Leo Schlosberg, USA
Notable Quotable
“Why does every bit of the [Facebook] metaverse look like the worst thing anyone has ever produced in all of human history and even within the realms of fiction and imagination itself.” - Brendel (@Brendelbored)
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
Colin Larkin
R L Capper: “Enjoy your full-time retirement when the time comes!”
Uwe Redmer: “Good luck for the future and enjoy the complete retirement. Was always a pleasure to read your articles.”
Kenneth Knevel
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,130 | Inside the Business of CAD | 23 May 2022
Guest editorial by Dave Edwards
From the Editor
The era of CAD-Is-Amazing is over.
Today’s CAD/MCAD/BIM programs are based on concepts from the 1980s. Change is necessary, as today’s hardware and software capabilities allow for better approaches. CAD is, unfortunately, so integrated into our workflows that change isn’t possible.
Attempts to create new CAD paradigms typically fail, either during development (the aim is too high, the funding too low), or due to lack of interest from the market, which finds itself comfortable with the status quo.
We see snippets of modernity like drawings auto-generated from models, despite the forward-thinkers insisting 2D is dead. The dream of digital twins of horrifically complex projects like skyscrapers is perhaps unattainable.
Let us attend what Dave Edwards has to say to the new crop of BIM vendors described in upFront.eZine #1,128, The Second Wave of BrowserCADs.
For quite a while I’ve been wondering why there aren’t more BIM applications competing in the market. BIM is just 3D graphics combined with the ability to import and export data. Couldn’t any 3D graphics program have data added to its objects, and have the facility to export it out, and call it “BIM”? There may be much more to it than that, and perhaps that’s why some of the other players seem to not be making a dent.
You could add constraints or groupings to any 3D graphics program to form “architectural objects.” Walls could be created from flat planes; they could be moved as one; trimmed, deleted, and all the other functions needed to create floor plans. Door objects could be designed that cut into walls and walls that would heal when doors are moved or deleted. But is it enough?
It has been always interesting to me that Autodesk bought Revit when they already had a long-standing 3D architectural application in AutoCAD Architecture. After years of thinking about it, it occurs to me that the freeform nature of general CAD systems is not well-suited as BIM applications. There is an inherent coordination of objects that BIM applications take into account.
Is the latest crop of new BIM applications going to miss this and just stop too soon?
There are a lot of 3D applications with which you could create 3D models, cut floor plans, create sections, do renderings, and even create fantastic piles of data. Is there something that makes the Big Names different? And why are developers, who are taking old technology and trying to turn them into BIM, not succeeding? Relationships!
Relationships come in several very different fronts. These are not just 3D objects, but ones that will someday, hopefully, be built into breathing buildings. I’ve advocated this before: there must be a coordinated effort for 3D objects, and the materials they’re composed of, to have relationships to real-world parameters.
Is this wall brick? Great! What type of brick? How much does it weigh? How strong is it? What’s its thermal gain? Where to find this information — from the manufacturer? Or should there be a central organization dedicated to providing building material parameters? Just asking!
This is broken-record territory. For this to succeed, there must be open-source file formats for building data exchange. ’Nuf said!
- - -
Why can’t we just slap data on a CAD(D) application and called it “BIM”? Here’s a better question to ask yourself: Why is Revit building a relational database? Unlike just putting lines on a layer and a sheet, building data has many relationships:
Grid lines on levels
Walls on grids lines
Rooms defined by walls
Doors and windows embedded into walls
Components attached to walls
If I move a level, everything on that level moves. If I move a wall, the doors and windows move.
These relationships can cause BIM to be overly complicated and error-prone, but is that the fault of the concept, or the application and/or UX [user experience] developer?
I Hope, I Hope, I Hope
I hope they don’t miss this. To understand most software, you have to understand it at a conceptual and not just a functional level. The young BIM guns may get the sizzle, but will they get the steak? This is really not hard once you understand some of the core designs that must be put into place. I fear if they miss this, they’ll fail. We shall see!
I hope these musings will help users understand the decisions they need to make, and that developers take a hard look before just jumping in.
[Dave Edwards has been a manager, developer, consultant, speaker, and author for almost 40 years in the CAD/BIM industry.]
I’m surprised at such little mention of Rhino in your article. We are fabricators of architectural products and for the last few years, 19 out of 20 projects have been sent to us as Rhino files, and half of the ones that weren’t were originally Rhino and imported into Revit.
Rhino seems to us to have become the default standard for 3D modeling in architecture. - B. K.
The editor replies: The article was specific to new CAD programs that run in Web browsers, introducing them to readers, especially to CAD industry executives who subscribe to upFront.eZine. As you stated, programs like Rhino, Grasshopper, SketchUp, and so on are very popular among architects.
Re: upFront.eZine’s Last Donation Drive
I am of similar vintage, only about three years ahead of you. I know how you feel. I want to thank you for your years of providing a quality newsletter. - Phillip Rutledge
The editor replies: It is interesting how it just happens one day. Same for my neighbour, who used to drive a concrete truck: He woke up one morning and said, ‘I don’t want to do this anymore.’
For those who may have missed it, I wrote in the donation-drive email:
May 1 is the 27th anniversary of upFront.eZine, and at over one thousand issues, it the longest running newsletter in the history of CAD [written by a single editor]. This fall, it comes to a close.
There is a time, I have found among people of my gray-haired age, when you realize, “I just don’t want to do this anymore.” I’ve been semi-retired for a year now, and so decided to end the newsletter on the 37th anniversary of me getting into the CAD writing biz — mid-September, 1985.
- - -
#justdontwanttodothisanymore. Sir! I totally feel what you have just expressed. I too hit this road block many years ago with CAD and stopped draughting, but I have stayed informed and still dabble a bit using trial software and keep up in the BIM space.
Thank you for your years of credible information. - Robert D
- - -
Even though i am no longer directly active in the cad/bim business as you know, i still read eZine with great pleasure. Compliment how you are able to stay up-to-date with new developments, that is hard work. You are very welcome to retire. - Gijs Willem Sloof
Notable Quotable
“It is not your soul which makes you human, but your ability to choose a square containing a traffic light.” - Management Speak @managerspeak
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
David Wheeler Short: “Congratulations on your upcoming retirement and a great long run! Thanks!”
Plessey Mathews: “Thank you Ralph for all issues of upFront.eZine that you created and shared, and I enjoyed for these 18 of the 27 years. May your retirement be filled with unexpected newness in all things.”
Robert Shingler: “Just read your latest email and sorry to hear you’re stopping. Good luck in your retirement, I have enjoyed your newsletters and blogs over the years and wish you well for the future.”
Stephen Warrick: “Thanks for ‘How to make Eudora 7 work with Gmail servers’.”
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,129 |Inside the Business of CAD | 2 May 2022
Spatial held its 3D Insider’s Summit in Munich, whose city hall is shown here (image credit ralph grabowski)
The Spatial division of Dassault Systemes is in charge of licensing components to companies wanting to develop 3D software.
It’s best-known product is the ACIS solids modeler, first developed in the late 1980s. Then, a decade ago, Dassault handed its CGM kernel used by Catia to Spatial to license and componentize. (CGM is short for core geometric modeler.) The other major product is the InterOp file translator.
Spatial last month held its first post-Covid 3D Insider’s Summit in Munich, at which it revealed new features to be released this year, as well as its new guiding principles:
“What is important to you is important to us
We are highly motivated to be best, and set the standard”
I won’t comment on Spatial’s past business practices, as my knowledge is based on merely a couple of anecdotes. Nevertheless, I found significant the emphasis throughout the conference on a changed-for-the-better Spatial, as well as during my interview with executives.
I interviewed ceo-since-2010 Jean-Marc Guillard and vp-since-2018 of worldwide business development Frederuc Jacqmin. I was especially interested in understanding what it was like for them being a component supplier of two kernels. The text of the interview is not verbatim, and has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Q&A
The room was nearly packed, so don’t be fooled by what my picture appears to show here
Q: What kinds of firms license CGM?
A: Our business is to solve problems for customers, how they want to move in the future, what will make them successful.
We position CGM as going beyond a modeler: it is a set of technologies. What kind of data do you want to use? What are the most common formats you want, the geometric foundation you need, the industries you will target? Hybrid data is more common today. We are checking most of the boxes, we have the most technology. We do not force ourselves on anyone.
Ten years ago, when we started promoting CGM, most of our customers were on ACIS. Today, 1/3 of our 400+ customers are on CGM, two-thirds on ACIS.
It is not a decision between ACIS or CGM; they are just technologies available. Importance is what technology can provide customers over a long period of time. The starting point is what the customer needs not just today, but also over the long-term.
Q: Can you tell me your financial picture?
A: We do not give out financial information, as Spatial is a division of Dassault. I will say that we are increasing new customers each year.
Q: Who do you consider your competitor, other than Siemens Parasolid?
A: OEM-based solutions like Inventor, Tech Soft 3D. It depends on what the need of the customer is.
Q: Are you familiar with C3D Labs?
A: We keep track of our competitors.
Q: I noticed that constraints were not mentioned during the conference.
A: Market for constraints seems to be limited, compared to other components.
Q: Do you get your DWG tech from the Open Design Alliance?
A: We cooperate with the ODA.
Q: Do you license HOOPS [for visualization], or do you have a technology exchange with Tech Soft 3D?
A: We are a reseller for HOOPS Visualize, and so Tech Soft 3D is a partner. But we compete when it comes to InterOp translation and other technology. We try to provide value for customers, and so are working hard on an integrated portfolio.
Q: Why not use rendering from Dassault?
A: There is a cost to making a technology as a component. There are different facets to consider, such as the cost of turning it into a component, what the market size might be. Or is it intellectual property you want to keep, to help you differentiate? We came to the conclusion that it is good for Spatial to partner with Tech Soft 3D.
Q: I am not sure I fully understood your AGM product.
A: Application Graphics Manager accelerates development by providing standard functions for any 3D application, so that the developer doesn’t start from scratch. The cost of our source code is very affordable compared to doing it on your own.
Q: So it is example code, that programmers can copy and paste into their own code?
A: Step by step, you make it your own. The idea is that firms can focus on their IP, their functions. It reduces the number of bugs. Fifty applications already use it.
What people expect from us is to integrate things so that they are transparent to them. Technologies are good for solving specific problems. There are still lots of software developed in-house, but we are good at solving complex problems. We would like to solve every problem, but we are humble and know we cannot solve every problem. In this, we are doing quite well. We want the community to move forward.
[Disclosure: Spatial provided me with hotel accommodation.]
And in Other News
Simulation giant Ansys acquires Web-based upstart OnScale (no relation to Onshape), which scales simulations online using a variety of open-source solvers, even though Ansys already has Web-based solvers. Monica Schnitger puzzles through the story at schnitgercorp.com/?p=19674.
- - -
IMSI Design updates its TurboCAD line to 2022 with these new functions:
Keep Size scales distances between objects, not objects themselves
Smart dimensioning is associative between model and paper spaces
Intersection curves are associative with 3D objects
Physics-based rendering
...and lots more. The line of TurboCAD programs varies in capabilities but always comes with permanent licenses:
TurboCAD Platinum - $1,500
TurboCAD Professional - $1,000
TurboCAD Deluxe - $250
TurboCAD Designer - $70
“2022” really doesn’t do this software justice, as at 36 years old TurboCAD (first written in Turbo Pascal) is one of the longest running PC CAD packages chugging along. More at turbocad.com.
- - -
Transoft Solutions lands a patent for using video cameras to record and analyze vehicle traffic at intersections, while filtering out errors. I’m old enough that as a transportation engineer I hired part-timers to record those movements on clipboards, back in the day. transoftsolutions.com/transoft-video-analytics-patent-approved/
- - -
Nanosoft ships version 22 of its AutoCAD-workalike nanoCAD software with floating drawing windows, associative arrays, and an interactive interface for 3D clipping volumes. It’s a free update to existing users. All the details here at nanocad.com/products/nanocad-platform/updates.
- - -
Lumafield emerges from stealth with $32.5 million for the world's first x-ray scanner for engineers. Neptune uses CT [computed tomography] to look inside products and then create a 3D reconstruction of external and internal features like cracks and voids. Price is $3,000/month (hardware+software) when it ships by the end of this year. lumafield.com
- - -
Pulsonix updates its 3D PCB design software, Pulsonix, to version 12.0 with one hundred new functions, such as 64-bit multi-core processing, additional design rules, and collision detection useful for folded board designs. It’s always good to see a software company giving its customers value through three-digit feature upgrades. pulsonix.com/latestversion
Notable Quotable
“I’m confused why @elonmusk bought Twitter for like billions of dollars when i downloaded it for free.” - Carter Andrews (on Twitter)
Thank You, Readers
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,128 | Inside the Business of CAD | 25 April 2022
User interface of Arcol, which is not yet shipping
Arcol is certain it will change the way AEC is done, advancing the discipline from “20-year-old Autodesk” to a modern architectural modeler: edit a sketch in a Web browser to change the 3D model. The software is not yet in alpha, but it hopes to ship by year’s end. More info at https://arcol.io.
The problem for Arcol is that other similar browser-based AEC design programs are already available, such as Infurnia and Snaptrude, which also are meant for collaborative BIM, interior design, and kitchen work. Pricing of them is in the range of $50-$120/user/month. A limited-function free version of each is available:
These three join Qonic (also in pre-alpha mode) being developed by former Bricsys employees like Erik de Keyser, Dmitry Ushakov, and Sander Scheiris. Qonic hopes to automate the conversion of design intent into construction models — to fill in missing parts and data using, I suspect, an intelligent search and replace system not too dissimilar from that found in BricsCAD BIM.
There Was A First Wave
Kitchen design by Infurnialinked to parts catalog
This splurge in Web-based CAD is a second wave, coming a decade or so after an initial wave of independent browser-based CAD programs with names like sunglass.io, TinkerCAD, To3D, and Onshape. (In addition, desktop CAD vendors like Graebert and Autodesk developed their own browserCAD programs.)
The first wave was made possible by the then-new technology in Web browsers, which made it easier to run CAD on remote servers and interact with drawings and models locally.
While doing CAD on the cloud is fabulous in theory, it’s not so much in practice. We saw what it took for Onshape to produce a Web-based MCAD program: $100 million or so. Eventually, all four first wavers were acquired, some at the brink of death.
The second wave, for now, largely operates on funding to cover the cost of free plans.
Infurnia is looking to go public (getting funding through shareholders), while Arcol is running on $5 million from investors; one of the firm’s investors is former Autodesk co-ceo Amar Hanspal. Snaptrude has taken in at least $600 thousand. Qonic, I believe, is self-funded.
Catching Up, Frantically
Sun study by Snaptrude
AEC CAD is a much tougher problem to solve than MCAD. As Martyn Day points out, these new companies not only have to catch up function-wise with the ArchiCADs and Vectorworks of the world, but also attempt to displace existing seats. A tough moat to leap.
We see the dire need to catch-up feature-wise in Snaptude’s what’s-next list for 2022, most of which we take for granted in “20-year-old Autodesk”:
2D drawings
Parametric objects
NURBSs and splines
Advanced booleans
Live link to Revit
Quick costing and quantity bills
Switch between massing and BIM
Sustainability analysis and climate studies
Onshape in its early years issued updates every six weeks to catch up to Solidworks, even as Solidworks continued to stride ahead. The pace for these four needs to be just as frenetic.
Still, browserCAD has functions that for the most part escape desktop CAD, such as these ones offered by Infurnia, some of which was pioneered by Onshape:
Models and changes saved to the cloud; no drawing files
Access to design data through APIs; models shared through links
Browse change history; revert to earlier versions of models; branch designs
The thing these newcomers have easy is that the road forward has been surveyed and graded by the earlier firms. The end game is known: all of desktop CAD + all of browserCAD.
What Ralph Grabowski Thinks
Qonic is still in stealth mode
Like the first wave of browserCAD companies, these four will, in the end, most likely survive through acquisitions. That, perhaps, is the game plan(s) of them and their investors anyhow. One suitor, I expect, will be Autodesk; my pick for it is Snaptrude.
So, why the new flurry of browserCADs? The last several years have seen central banks flood too much money into the economies of the world, and so investors are floundering, looking for something, anything in which to invest and make moar $$$ (c.f. NFTs — non-fungible transactions).
Each founder of these new CAD systems speaks of his passion, which enabled him to land funding. In turn, investors have something in which to invest, and then hope to profit from later, after someone else pays big bucks to acquire the firms.
What Others Think
Two industry insiders have opinions contrary to mine.
Robert Graebert, chief technical officer, Graebert GmbH:
“I get the skepticism with respect to the viability of these new market entrants. I think Onshape is a great example when industry veterans + tons of cash were not enough to stay independent. In our market, a great product still needs a [dealer] channel to realize its full potential.
“But I have to say, I am excited about the new batch of market entrants. Even if that just means that some of the market leaders change their posture to meet this challenge. I think there is real frustration in AEC about the lack of evolution.”
The editor replies: We saw changes in MCAD posture in the past decade with new entrants like SpaceClaim (direct editing is possible) and Onshape (serious MCAD on remote servers is possible).
Architect (name withheld):
“I doubt that [these firms] will eat the dinosaurs in the AEC industry. But the one thing I do know, is that the leaders in AEC have grown content and are ripe for disruption. Some more than others.
“I see the TestFits of the world, and tools like Arcol, having great promise to address the redistribution of scarce resources so that architects can afford the new demands on them.”
The editor replies: Someone could become pretty rich figuring out how to disrupt legacy BIM packages. In the meantime, the second wave could find its place alongside bigCAD in Rhino-like fashion.
== Converting 3D CAD & DCC to Virtual/ Augmented Reality ==
With the explosive growth of VR/AR, the ultra-massive 3D datasets produced by CAD and DCC programs need efficient conversion to the popular Unity and Unreal development platforms. Okino of Toronto is the long-time provider of the PolyTrans|CAD translator, which easily handles the interactive datasets required by VR and AR for Microsoft HoloLens, HTC VIVE, Oculus Rift, Meta, and other VR headsets.
PolyTrans provides you with
Massive dataset handling
Node compression
Adaptive CAD tessellation
Intelligent polygon reduction
Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.
Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.
ManneQuin/HumanCAD was the first software to simulate human bodies in CAD programs, going back to 1990. I still have a copy of the original software package. Now NEXGEN ERGONOMICS updates the software to v6 with new body types, such as Japan, elderly, and more child options, as well as new clothing styles. The Task Analysis wizard handles hand strength and arm force.
HumanCAD-MQSW is the version that runs inside Solidworks. More info from nexgenergo.com.
- - -
Navisworks was designed by Autodesk to display models from multiple sources simultaneously. Now “any” CAD program can export Navisworks-formatted files — all geometry, model hierarchy, object properties, and materials — without needing Navisworks.
Yes, I still have manuals for Matrox’s Space Machine/640 for the IBM XT/AT from April 1987 :=)). It was the “smartest” graphics card at the time, incorporated solid modeling and shading in hardware. - Jure Spiler Basic CAD/CAM, Slovenia
The editor replies: Desktop computers from that era were not powerful enough to handle solids modeling, so workarounds like this one were needed. The “640” refers to the horizontal resolution, so it displayed CAD drawings at 640x480 -- considered “high resolution” at the time.
From a real-world trial, it seems driverless cars will not address many of the problems their promoters claim they will solve. See Zombie Miles And Napa Weekends: How A Week With Chauffeurs Showed The Major Flaw In Our Self-Driving Car Future from alopnik.com/zombie-miles-and-napa-weekends-how-a-week-with-chauffe-1839648416. - Robin Capper (via WorldCAD Access) New Zealand
- - -
I really enjoy your articles, by the way. Thank you, Ralph! - Ben Beaumont
- - -
I heard an interesting comment (I won’t say where) that “the complexity of Revit has been increasing with the purpose of driving small architectural firms out of business.” - Dave Edwards
The editor replies: From what I hear, it is the large architectural firms that are most vocal about the inability of programs like Revit to handle today’s challenges. This is why there are many competitors already on the stage, or at least putting on makeup.
- - -
A friend of mine worked for a tech firm back in the ’80s. He said they couldn’t get a decision from corporate on which CAD software to implement, even though a team had been created for that and been working tirelessly for years. Every engineer in the place used AutoCAD and every single one was bootlegged.
Someone finally ratted them out to Autodesk. A rep came into their office with the sheriff and made them shut down. When the dust settled, and the lawyers and salesmen and management were finished talking, they paid Autodesk for every seat that they were using, and AutoCAD became their official CAD software. Management formally disbanded the CAD Selection Committee.
I think about that story every time I get in the “"How can a little company ever hope to compete with a big company?” conversation. - Jess Davis
The editor replies: I can understand the CAD selection committee’s hesitation. There were so many CAD software upstarts in the mid-1980s, just as there were many PC hardware upstarts -- each one partially incompatible with the next. Not knowing how the market would shake out, picking the wrong software and hardware would be an expensive mistake.
My first PC, a Victor 9000 in 1983, would cost $16,000 in today’s dollars; a word processor and spreadsheet cost $1,300 each in today’s inflated bucks. We were so excited, dreaming of having the power of computers at our fingertips, but oh so frightened by the cost.
Notable Quotable
“Inflation so bad, PI is currently at 5.74.” - Matt’s Idea Shop (on Twitter)
“PI Day is just a holiday invented by math companies to sell more irrationality.” - Author unknown
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine. To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue # 1,127 | Inside the Business of CAD | 21 March 2022
HOOPS 2022 exports 3D models with PBR rendering in glTF and GLB formats
Tech Soft 3D is a “plumbing” company for the CAD world. They are one of the companies providing underlying SDKs [software development kits] that make CAD work.
The secret behind the CAD software you are using is that the CAD vendor probably didn’t write most of it; instead, it bundled together a bunch of modules like reading/writing files, displaying models, the user interface, solids and mesh modeling, translating files, and printing.
In Tech Soft 3D’s case, the HOOPS Visualize [hierarchical object-oriented picture system] platform provides components for doing tasks like displaying 3D models, generating PDFs, and translating between disparate systems. As well, the company bundles software components from other suppliers, such the geometric kernel from Siemens, and then offer a complete package.
I spoke with ceo Ron Fritz and chief tech evangelist Jonathan Girroir about trends in our industry, and about how their company works.
- - -
Tech Soft 3D is seeing the market for SDKs expand by many new types of firms. More are seeing the value of 3D data in their workflows, such as in manufacturing and building construction.
Tech Soft 3D sees an increase in BIM [building information modeling], which is due in part to the IFC [industry foundation classes] having caught on as the standard, through which vendors know that they will be compatible down the road. The company also has an SDK to read Revit files, and in some areas is cooperating with the Open Design Alliance, besides doing work on their own.
There is a critical interest in building and construction firms taking data from IFC and Revit files. A large building can have regions, such as kitchens in apartments, and users want to be able to navigate it in different ways. Tech Soft 3D’s software allows that.
Outside of AEC, there is metadata in mechanical CAD that tells users how parts are connected in assemblies. This is useful for employing higher level concepts, such as what happens when a constraint is removed or a part is swapped out.
For many years, AR/VR [augmented/virtual reality] didn’t care about CAD, but now firms involved in these areas see the value of CAD models and want to visualize scenes with them. Between visualization and translation, Tech Soft 3D feels it can help populate the metaverse [digital worlds] with CAD data, such as through Unity.
Hardware companies are becoming software companies. For instance, companies that make milling machines are acquiring software, or else are building their own systems. The benefit to them is that the software distinguishes them from their competition in that they own the entire stack. As well, owning the software allows faster iterations and optimizations. (In this area, 3D printer manufacturers were ahead of the game, as they had to include software from day-one.)
Last year, Battery Ventures invested funds in Tech Soft 3D, allowing it to acquire Ceetron AS (3D visualization of CFD [computational fluid dynamics] and FEA [finite element analysis]) and Visual Kinematics for its CAE [computer-aided engineering] software components. The investment amount was not announced. The reason for the acquisitions is that Tech Soft 3D saw the trends of simulation analyses moving closer to the design stage. Before 3D printing a design, you need to know that it is printable. Before you finalize a design, you need to know that it will stand up to stresses in the field.
Another area of growth is in cloud apps, which these days need to accompany desktop software.
Visual fidelity is more important these days. So the company is seeing PBR [physics-based rendering] with multiple layers of materials, without the GPU-hit from photo-realistic rendering. So the company created an animation engine SDK for animating, for example, a construction site over time — assembly of construction parts, disassembly, making sure piles of dirt are not in the wrong place, and so on.
Q&A
HOOPS Visualize 2022 platform supporting spatial relationships in IFC model definitions
Ralph Grabowski: How big is your company in terms of employees and revenues?
Ron Fritz: We have 120 employees, and are seeing 10-15% growth a year. We don’t report revenues. We have 700 companies using at least one of our components, and we support specific features asked for by customers.
Jonathan Girroir: Back in 2010 we bought translation company, TTF, from Adobe. Our data exchange platform now supports 30 CAD file formats. Last year, we updated 13 of the formats.
Grabowski: Who do you see as competitors?
Girroir: We have a broad portfolio of software products, so it is hard to name competitors. Depending on the vertical market, it could be Autodesk Forge, Open Design Alliance, Datakit; Spatial might be considered the broadest competitor because they have a full portfolio of components, but in fact we have a reseller relationship with Spatial, as well as with the Parasolid group at Siemens.
New from us last year was a collection of integrated SDKs through our Integration Partner Program where we package our products with those from others. An example is that we can include high-end rendering or a solids modeler, which we do not provide ourselves. As we have already integrated them, there is no further development for customers to get rendering or solids modeling in their software.
Our Integration Partner Program makes it easier to get cool stuff faster. Customers can start at a low level with just one SDK, or at a high level with several SDKs working together.
Grabowski: What do you do with software you sell that isn’t yours?
Fritz: We integrate them with ours to provide a single-vendor advantage, such as bundling our tools with Parasolid. A CAD program has to bring together a number of building blocks, and connecting them is labor-intensive, so we provide those bridges between them, and then customers just customize them for their industry.
Customers want universality for this data: to be able to read, edit, visualize, and publish data. This is what a platform means.
Our ultimate goal is to make it as easy as possible for our customers to be able to build the applications they need using the highest quality tools.
Matrox sold its imaging division to Zebra Technologies, while keeping its video division. At one time, Matrox concentrated on graphics boards for CAD displays, but left when the field got too crowded.
Anyone still remember Artist Graphics/Control Systems (threw the best parties at A/E/C Systems), Renaissance Graphics, Nth Engine (introduced display-list processing), Vectrix, Hercules (first to combine text and monochrome graphics), Sigma Graphics, or 3Dfx (first with a GPU)?
- - -
PTC appoints former Autodesk co-ceo Amar Hanspal to its board of directors.
- - -
Monica Schnitger reports that Swedish holding company Addnode acquired Microdesk to create the world’s largest Autodesk dealer network under the brand name of Symetri. Addnode also acquired DESYS Gmbh, a German Dassault Systemes dealer. Earlier CAD-related acquisitions include ProCAD (Irish Autodesk dealer) and Budsoft (Polish Dassault Systemes simulation dealers).
CAD vendors normally don’t tolerate software from competitors being sold by the same reseller; perhaps in this case the conflict of interest is tolerated as a holding company is doing business at an arm’s length.
“I am not saying that we have restarted the strategy or that a green light has been authorised, but we have unpaused the situation.” - Management Speak
Thank You, Readers
To support upFront.eZinethrough PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,126 | Inside the Business of CAD | 14 March 2022
SpinFire displaying models from CAD files
Actify released SpinFire in 1997 as a 3D file viewer in a field crowded with 3D file viewers. It, however, survived.
Within five years, the viewer was downloaded a million times. In 2005, Actify made Actify Publisher a mature program by adding batch publishing, rules-based jobs, automated email notifications, and centralized archiving of native CAD files. The company today has 2,000 customers with 10,000 licenses, many of which are site-wide licenses — so lots and lots of users.
More recently, Actify hired David Opsahl as CEO to help define a specific market for the company. He found that three-quarters of SpinFire customers were automotive suppliers, and so today you see the company’s Web site targeting automobile manufacturing. He concentrated the company’s goal to 3Cs: Communicate, Collaborate, Comprehend.
Actify’s primary software is the Actify APM Suite [automotive program management] that consists of the following packages:
Centro is the cloud-based platform for the APM Suite that uses graph database technology
Program Development
Program Analysis
Program Management
[A “graph” database handles records as nodes, and links relationships between nodes as edges.]
Actify continues to offer SpinFire Enterprise for CAD viewing in all areas of a manufacturing organization, to view, interrogate, and translate CAD files, as well as CAD Publisher, which automatically processes and publishes CAD files according to rules.
Q&A
Centro, foundation of Actify Automotive Program Management, managing automotive components
Ralph Grabowski: Centro is new to me. What is its role?
David Opsahl: Historically, Centro was a parts catalog that customers adapted to meet their program needs. We found that there were many iterative loops between suppliers and automotive manufacturers, reassuring each other that this is what will be built. Also, they frequently collaborate on data.
We were getting requests from suppliers for extensions to Centro, found that many of them were similar requests, and so we added a set of applications on top of Centro. This is what lead us to look deeper at the problems our customers were trying to solve in managing their programs, giving more visibility to all program data across multiple teams throughout the enterprise to improve collaboration. Today it is the platform supporting the Actify APM suite, which enables suppliers to win and launch automotive programs.
Grabowski: Actify’s Web site says that your SpinFire Reader views only .act3d files. What does this format consist of?
Opsahl: We use the HOOPS toolkit from Tech Soft 3D to translate CAD files to PRC, but we needed more, so we added a way for it to better handle assemblies, to store legacy data or prior data, and so on.
[HOOPS is “hierarchical object oriented picture system,” a hardware-software graphics interface developed in the 1980s at Cornell University, and then commercialized by Ithaca Software. Some of the original developers went on to work at Autodesk, so it was little surprise when Autodesk acquired Ithaca, but it was a surprise when just three years later it handed HOOPS over to Tech Soft 3D.]
[PRC is “product representation compact,” a format invented two decades ago by the French translation firm TTF. We often read of Adobe inventing PRC, but Adobe acquired TTF, and then embedded PRC in PDF so that the file format could display 3D models interactively. Four years later, Adobe lost interest in 3D CAD, and it sold PRC to Tetra 3D. Adobe buying and abandoning 3D CAD translation in so few years shook our industry at that time.]
SpinFire can import and work with more than 30 different CAD file formats, and our customers are often working with multiple file formats from different sources on a daily basis.
Grabowski: Most automotive companies use CAD software from either Dassault Systemes or Siemens. Why should a supplier buy your viewing solution, when they might already have it from these other two?
Opsahl: We are focused on companies that want to standardize on one visualization product across the entire company. SpinFire Enterprise offers a normalized way to use data to see what changes took place, no matter the source, with one site license that has no use-limits.
Individual viewers from CAD vendors don’t necessarily handle other formats, and sometimes you have to buy other software just to use the viewer from the CAD vendor. In any case, the viewer from a CAD vendor would not have a collaboration thread that goes through the files from different CAD vendors and that is a key requirement for our customers who are managing incredibly complex designs that get shared back and forth multiple times
Once you get past tier-1 suppliers, smaller suppliers do not necessarily have a sophisticated IT stack, so SpinFire Enterprise is an affordable solution for them.
Grabowski: So, suppliers don’t necessarily use the same CAD software as automobile manufacturers?
Opsahl: Auto manufacturers all use different CAD software, and suppliers who support multiple OEMs have to support multiple CAD file formats. GM once tried to force all suppliers to use the same CAD system, but financially it was something suppliers couldn’t deal with. [High-end MCAD systems cost $15,000 to $100,000 per license.]
Automotive is the biggest manufacturing industry (outside of consumer electronics), so a different way to solve the different-CAD-systems problem was through viewers. SpinFire Enterprise is much more than just a viewer; it gives suppliers a common platform with which to communicate and collaborate with customers, from the start of the design process to final production. This lets downstream interpretation of CAD files be consistent.
Grabowski: One of the concerns of aircraft manufacturers is that they be able to read and process CAD files fifty years from now. Does your software handle old data?
Opsahl: Product lifecycles are getting longer with automotive. Cars have a regulatory framework like aircraft, such as for lawsuits and recalls.
We can account for old data in our file format. But if libraries from Tech Soft 3D do not support that old data, then we are stuck. We have not had a complaint about access to legacy data in the 2.5 years I’ve worked here.
Grabowski: I suppose it helps that software vendors are no longer changing file formats as quickly, and in some cases even making them ISO standards. DOCX, PDF, DWG are pretty stable these days.
Opsahl: Formats have evolved to the point where they can be stable, but again, since SpinFire is able to support nearly every file format. Customers can be confident that they’ll be able to work with whatever is sent their way.
== Okino's PolyTrans|CAD Software for Professional 'Load & Go' 3D Conversions ==
For over three decades, mission-critical 3D conversion software from Okino of Toronto has been used effectively by tens of thousands of professionals. We develop, support, and convert between all major CAD, DCC, and VisSim formats. CTO Robert Lansdale and his team tailors each package to the specific conversion requirements or problems of each customer.
Popular CAD data sources we support include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.
Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.
April 7 is the day Graebert launches the next release of its ARES series of desktop, Web, and mobile CAD programs. The neXt event features guest speakers Niknaz Aftahi (aec+tech), Anthony Frausto-Robledo (Architosh), and Randall Newton (Consilia Vektor). Register to watch live or to watch the replay at next.graebert.com.
Other CAD events happening on April 7:
Siemens media and analyst day in Detroit
Spatial new software launch day in Munich — I’ll be attending this one.
- - -
If you would like to donate to an agency that has already been helping people in Ukraine, Moldova, and Romania for decades now (“boots on the ground”), and which upFront.eZine supports annually, then I would like to suggest Mission Without Borders at mwbca.org/ukraine. We did.
Donations are used to provide emergency aid and food packages for people in eastern Ukraine. (Tax receipts available for Canadian donors only.)
Letters to the Editor
It strikes me as weird that Manish Kumar is now ceo of Solidworks, without dropping any of his old job. Maybe a smaller future for Solidworks, since everything is going to 3DExperience? Still seems risky to me, given what a cash cow that product is.
Thanks for the recent coverage of Solid Edge. I always tell everyone it’s the best CAD-for-CAM system ever. Synchronous Technology is extremely good at model changes, and CNC programmers need that kind of capability. - Name withheld by request
The editor replies: Making the cto the ceo tells me that Dassault had a change of heart, and has gotten serious about keeping Solidworks a solid competitor against the likes of Solid Edge and Inventor. Perhaps the change-of-heart is at its core financial, as Solidworks now brings in a billion dollars a year for the French company.
- - -
Re: Meta, Meet Reality
Thank you for this valuable summary and its insights, Ralph. We all certainly need to speak out and do everything we can in this moment, and in the understandings that follow that can prevent such a nightmare conflict from happening again. - Miles Parker Parker Group
Fascinating reminiscences in this thread. Here are some from my long association with Generic CADD:
I obtained an early version of GCADD for the equities analytical research group at Morgan Stanley in the 1980s, where it was used to create graphically-precise illustrations of portfolio hedging processes.
I later employed it to design the rural studio and stables which I still enjoy today in my retirement. Coincidently my home in upstate New York is not far from Cherry Valley, where GCADD’s successor General CADD is based. Small world.
I continue to design with GCADD v.5 using DOSBOX v0.74-3 on W7, and print as follows:
In the Print dialog, select Send to = Postscript
Port = File / EPS
Page size = 7.5 long and 10 wide
Then use Page setup to scale, and fit origin appropriately (zoom out helps).
In Word, the resulting EPS file may be inserted directly into a 8 1/2 x 11 landscape page and readily printed from there.
- PB Turgeon (via WorldCAD Access)
Notable Quotable
“Is Web3 just libertarian nonsense with planet-destroying energy consumption? Probably.”
- Jeremiah Lee
Thank You, Readers
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,125 | Inside the Business of CAD | 28 February 2022
Liminal: The state of being in-between
Autodesk executives recording presentations for AU 2021 (all images sourced from Autodesk)
At Autodesk University 2021, Autodesk executives put the emphasis on digital transformation: it is inevitable, and it is urgent that it happen now.
“Digital collaboration is now a necessity; cloud workflows are the norm; and time-saving is a must,” said vice president of cross-industry strategy Mimi Hoang. Never mind that Autodesk has been talking about collaboration since Carol Bartz was ceo in the mid-1990s; that the cloud already is the norm for everyday people; and that every CAD vendor promises to save designers’ time.
A survey by consulting firm Accenture found that 90% of 700 construction firms are already digitizing their processes, but that two-thirds of them admitted they weren’t seeing benefits. The survey was presented during AU, and so it comes as little surprise that Accenture recommended that these firms (1) reorient themselves by implementing Forge, Autodesk’s cross-platform programming interface, (2) become data-centric, and then (3) use the data to make decisions earlier.
(Forge first was the name of Autodesk’s now-discontinued 3D printing API.)
Forge is key to understanding Autodesk today, and tomorrow. The software rental firm dreams of the day when all of its programs are rewritten in Forge and intercommunicate data incrementally through Forge APIs [application programming interfaces]. Competitor CAD vendors, like Siemens and Graphisoft, also offer cross-platform programming (Mendix) and incremental data transfer (BIMcloud).
The Forge-ian dream is, however, not fully realized. “We’re investing heavily in connections across Autodesk products, improving interoperability,” said vp of AutoCAD family of products Rob Maguire, speaking in the present-continuous tense. “We’re excited about the potential this has... With Forge, we’re making strides towards fluent workflow capabilities.”
Fusion is crucial, but it is not yet pervasive. Until it is, Autodesk Docs (formerly BIM 360 Docs) is the placeholder. A Web site, it lets users view, markup, and manage files in many formats, but so far is integrated only into AutoCAD and Revit (as of November 2021).
Autodesk is scrambling to interconnect AutoCAD with its other incompatible software, because competitors are already there. Graebert (ARES), Hexagon (BricsCAD), and Nanosoft (nanoCAD) took the faster route by unifying general, mechanical, civil, GIS, P&ID, and architectural designs within a single program and storing all models in Autodesk’s DWG format, albeit with proprietary extensions. They do not suffer the internal incompatibility problems Autodesk does.
For AutoCAD, the AU keynote was brief. It described some features added to last year’s release, such as Trace (for marking up drawings collaboratively) and Count, another way to count entities in drawings.
For the future, Autodesk promises AutoCAD will get some automated drafting workflows, such as these ones:
Connected Paper recognizes markups that are hand-sketched or added to PDF files, and then converts them to AutoCAD geometry.
AutoCAD Automation suggests combining repetitive command sequences into macros.
My Insights shows users how they employ AutoCAD, and then suggests alternative commands that might be more efficient.
In the 1980s, Autodesk separated itself from bigger competitors by allowing users to customize the CAD program on their own — unique at a time when other systems like Intergraph and Computervision charged customers big bucks for customization.
Customization of the next generation of AutoCAD, the AutoCAD Web app, is, however, a distant dream. Autodesk says users will “perhaps someday in the future” be allowed to embed their in-house applications in the browser version of AutoCAD.
Fusion 360 modifying a model generatively following heat and electrical analysis.
The AU keynote for mechanical CAD treated us to a liturgy of gloom: “The cost of doing nothing is too high,” said vp of design and manufacturing industry strategy Srinath Jonnalagadda. “Continued reliance on home-grown data management systems perpetuates the ongoing struggles in the supply chain... Not dealing with complexity can lead to lost profits and opportunities.”
The solution, of course, is to employ Autodesk to “empower innovators everywhere.” But even so, Mr Jonnalagadda noted that the complete solution — a single cloud platform unifying all tools, from concept to manufacturing — lies in the future: “And that is what we’re working towards with Autodesk Forge Platform.”
Happily, there is a significant exception. Fusion 360 shows off today what Forge is capable of tomorrow. This partly-cloud-based 3D mechanical CAD program handles sketches, direct modeling, sheet metal, PCB designs, generative design, and so on.
Fusion 360, however, isn’t like PTC Onshape or Graebert Kudo. Users access these CAD apps by simply logging in from any browser on any hardware. Fusion 360 instead requires a 1.9GB download and then runs only on Windows or MacOS. That there is a free version for anyone’s personal use suggests to me it might not be selling well.
New in Fusion 360 is the ability to add parametrics to imported meshes, and converting them to solids. Sub-division modeling is also parametric now. Other new features include these ones:
What I found particularly interesting is a new form of generative design that changes models according to the results of simulations. See figure above. Many CAD vendors also offer generative design, but I don’t see algorithm-based design being particularly popular among designers.
A unified cloud-native PDM/PLM [product data management/product lifecycle management] system was missing from Forge 360, so last year Autodesk acquired Canada’s Upchain cloud-based PDM/PLM software to combine design, manufacturing, data, and process management in Fusion 360.
Autodesk really wants to customers to stop using desktop Inventor, and switch to Fusion 360 for all their design work. Here is a reason: as we use the program, Autodesk runs parts of Fusion 360 on cloud servers, through which Autodesk collects the data we feed to it.
Autodesk has a lot plans for our data. It’s thinking of using A.I. to generate design concepts; to detect repetitive design work; and to report underused production machines. After hearing how Facebook and Google misuse our data, users may become hesitant in being open-books to Autodesk.
These sorts of data-use things are not possible with desktop-only CAD. But, as other CAD vendors have found, desktop MCAD is what customer prefer, and so Inventor managed to get a mention during a keynote speech.
New in Inventor is its ability to use multiple CPU cores to open, edit, and update models more quickly. To embed behaviors in assemblies, like hospital flows and supply chain logistics, Autodesk acquired ProModel.
Also new this year is selective import from Revit files, so that machines models are associated with building models. “This is an approach we’ll be developing across the rest of our entire portfolio in the coming months,” explained vp of design and manufacturing Stephen Hooper speaking of the future, “bringing Fusion, Inventor, AutoCAD, and even Revit data to the Forge Platform.”
Autodesk continues to update Inventor for desktop users
What Ralph Grabowski Thinks
Forge is so important that executives at AU called it “the Autodesk platform.” Moving data between Autodesk’s myriad data-incompatible programs is a long-haul project, with the initial effort starting back in about 2008 (getting Inventor and AutoCAD to talk to each other). Autodesk subsequently released the “universal” Navisworks viewer, but that didn’t quite make the grade. A decade later, Autodesk turned to Forge to solve its interoperability problem.
While Autodesk pins its future on Forge, progress in Forge-ifying its software appears to me to be progressing remarkably slowly. Each year, we hear how it’s going to be great, making me wonder in which year of AU the company announces that its programs are islands and isthmuses no longer.
Autodesk is using the meantime to emphasize how Fusion 360 puts data at the center of customer-corporations involved in manufacturing. As the Forge API connects the program with more third-party software, Autodesk aspires to make Fusion 360 the umbrella for all industry.
So far, the brightest point is Fusion 360, and it does well showing what Forge can do. I expect that the long-promised cloud version of AutoCAD is being rewritten in Forge. Or, maybe just maybe, they’ll shift to a new underlying paradigm and start over.
Q: Why did these vendors pivot away from Russia but not, say, China?
A: Some estimates I have read suggest that Western firms make only 1%-2% of their revenues from Russia.
Q. Will western CAD software shut down when Russian users cannot renew their subscriptions?
A. Perhaps. It depends on how the subscription confirmation and payment systems are implemented. Permanent licenses are unaffected.
Q. Will these CAD vendors be allowed back into Russia after, um, peace breaks out?
A. Perhaps not. Russia has local versions of many kinds of software, which it has being trying to promote. Lowered foreign competition gives domestic firms greater opportunities for regional growth.
Russian replacements for western CAD software include nanoCAD (for AutoCAD), Renga (Revit), KOMPAS-3D (Inventor/Fusion, Creo, Solid Edge/NX), Neolant (P&ID, plant design), and C3D Labs (Parasolid).
- - -
Minimalist BIM format Dotbim handles geometry and data exchange in a way to reduce the problem of translators missing parts of the now-complex IFC format.
With the Open Design Alliance’s release of .Net software development kit for BimRV, the following kinds of Revit data can be handled by any dot.net application:
All Revit elements and properties read
Model viewing
Revit data to IFC format conversion
The SDK [software development kit] so far is limited in creating Revit elements and is available only to ODA member companies. More info at opendesign.com/products/bimrv.
- - -
NemetschekAllplan becomes exclusive supplier of BIM software to the newly formed Autobahn GmbH that now builds and maintains Germany’s 13,000km freeways and trunk roads: 2,850 licenses for 52 offices. allplan.com/us_en
In other Nemetschek news, the company appoints Yves Padrines as ceo. He is the former ceo of video software company Synamedia.
- - -
Sometimes manufacturers release CAD files for their products, and here are two sets that came out in the last few weeks:
So that’s why there was sudden silence from Steve Johnson, Don Strimbu, and other “old timers.” Problem is, as a CAD customer, I switched to BricsCAD based on that group of people’s advice and the clear vision of Mr. de Keyser. I feel doomed now. -Fa3ien (via Twitter)
The editor replies: I see no negative trends with BricsCAD under Hexagon. Future versions seem to be tracking in the same direction as previous ones. BricsCAD has, so far, not been Visio’ed.
Steve Johnson wrote extensively about BricsCAD, but was never an employee; Don Strimbu is still with Hexagon Bricsys.
Steve Johnson replies (thru Twitter): My silence is hardly sudden, and has nothing to do with this new enterprise. I’ll check it out, though. Meanwhile, BricsCAD is still a great product that is improving at a rate that outstrips the competition.
The editor replies: Well, not so much dead as unable to present complexity in a way that humans and computers can handle, so that the dream of ‘one BIM to rule them all’ is becoming tarnished.
- - -
Wow! Dimitry Ushakov gone? Presumably, LEDAS is still helping Hexagon develop BricsCAD? - Dominic Seah
The editor replies: It is normal for executives of an acquired company to leave after a year or so. LEDAS stopped working on BricsCAD in 2011, after it sold part of its company to Bricsys.
Re: Old Timers on New Technology
Holy cow! Half-way into reading Leo’s letter, I was thinking “Did I write this and forgot that I did?” Very true! I’m not as close to the design industry world as I used to be, but from what I gather (talking with old friends still in the business) the biggest challenge has been QA [quality assurance]. Mostly due to pressure to reduce costs. - David Stein
The editor replies: When I see new and astounding freeway interchanges in our area, which were presumably designed with CAD — astounding, as in “astoundingly bad” — it makes me think that the designs were made with CAD-command experience, not road-design experience.
Mr Stein responds: I also worry about the jump to A.I. in design and engineering. The methods and preferences A.I. will use will be entirely dependent on the humans after which they are patterned.
I don’t have a lot of faith in shareholders and suits choosing the best minds over the most affordable minds.
- - -
Notable Quotable inupFront.eZine #1,121 quotes Elsergio Volador, but when I Google this name he doesn’t seem to exist. There are a lot of close matches, but not an exact one. - Bill Fane
When I entered the quote into Bing, Microsoft expressed its concern for my mental well-being:
Notable Quotable
“Sometimes I think $GOOG purposefully does slightly illegal things in its ad tech unit, which is worth like $14, in order to distract everyone from its core business, which makes all the money.” - Willis Cap
Thank You, Readers
To support upFront.eZinethrough PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,124 | Inside the Business of CAD | 28 February 2022
Families taking refuge at a Ukrainian Catholic church in Kyiv (image source Alexander Laschuk)
Someone once said that software eats the world, but now software is being eaten by war.
Europe and North America ought to be at the front lines helping defend the borders of Ukraine against the Russian invasion, but for Western leaders steeped in a “The End of History” mindset, such a move is inconceivable. Better to lead from behind with sanctions.
Sanctions are, nevertheless, useful as an initial counter-attack against the evil that desires to kill fellow humans to satisfy its greed for moar empire. This is not the way of Christ, even when the Russian Orthodox believe Moscow to be the Third Rome, Kyiv to be the spiritual mother of Rus, and the Ukrainian Orthodox church an illegitimate breakaway sect.
When sanctions, like BDS, are small, we barely notice the impact; in this case, however, they are against the world’s second largest energy exporter, and — significantly for our industry — the source for many contract programmers who create, debug, and update the CAD software we use. As is Ukraine.
(China, also a major outsourcing center, may well one day also be cut off, as its leader continues his reckless pursuit of territorial expansion.)
How might war in Ukraine and sanctions with Russia affect software? I asked some CAD-related firms.
A North American developer:
“As of February 25, there are no sanctions in place that would block our ability to work with programmers based in Russia; the current sanctions affect only specific Russian banks.
“The situation with programmers based in Ukraine is unstable right now, as people are rightfully concerned about their own lives and the lives of their families, and work necessarily takes a back seat.”
A Russian developer:
“The war in Ukraine is a big tragedy for both our nations. The only hope is that this will stop as soon as possible.
“We keep operating as a company on a regular level, but some actions are not a top priority now.”
- - -
As for upFront.eZine Publishing, our policy is that we work with individuals, not politicians. We have clients in Russia, with whom we continue to work.
At one time we had clients in China. By 2015, however, we came to realize that the Chinese Communist Party is embedded in all companies, and cancelled our work there.
- - -
Kyochi Myogo reminds us that the war against Ukraine is not an isolated event, sadly. “People who don’t know or care what’s going on in, for example, Yemen, Myanmar, or Sudan, but who are very worked up about Ukraine, should ask themselves why that’s the case.” The horror is everywhere.
Countering the horror takes courage. David Burge notes that “the most courageous leadership seen in this world in the last 40 years has come from a coal miner, a satirist, and a comedian: Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, and Volodmyr Zelensky.”
Contact!
upFront.eZine is published most Mondays. This newsletter is read by 4,600+ subscribers in 70 countries. Read our back issues at www.upfrontezine.com.
Editor: Ralph Grabowski Copy editor: Heather MacKenzie
Letter the editor are welcome at grabowski@telus.net. All letters sent to the editor are subject to publication, and may be edited for clarity and brevity.
Legal. All trademarks belong to their respective holders. “upFront.eZine,” “Inside the Business of CAD,” “WorldCAD Access,” and “eBooks.onLine” are trademarks of upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. Translations and opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. By accessing this newsletter in any manner, you agree to settle disputes within ten days of publication date by arbitration within the city limits of Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada with the arbitrator selected by an agent acting on behalf of upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd.
Our mailing address:
upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. 34486 Donlyn Avenue Abbotsford BC V2S 4W7
Issue # 1,123 | Inside the Business of CAD | 21 February 2022
From the Editor
Not much of a newsletter this week, as my dad (98 next month) moved (willingly!) from his condo to a very fine old folks home. This meant that family and friends spent the last week clearing the condo of 30 years of memories. Regular newsletter next week.
There was, however, one bit of new news I want to share with you.
And in Other News
With the sale of Bricsys to Hexagon, and much of the old Bricsys crew leaving Hexagon, we wondered what was up next for Erik de Keyser and his team of serial entrepreneurs.
It turns out to be Qonic, “the next generation building design modeling tools.” The old team has gotten back together, with people like Erik de Keyser, Mark Van Den Bergh, Sander Scheiris, and Dmitry Ushakov.
Reflecting, the new endeavor should comes as no surprise to us. Mr de Keyser’s aim always has been to create easy-to-use architectural design software. This, by my reckoning, is phase V in his journey.
The Web site, for now, is largely a placeholder. qonic.com
Issue #1,122 | Happy Valentine’s Day! | 14 February 2022
Guest editorial by Leo Schlosberg
Glass fiber reinforced concrete (image source Al Blair Construction)
I received a call from a roofer who needed a price on some GFRC [glass fiber reinforced concrete] fascia for an addition to a school. Neither GFRC nor fascia was normally in his scope of roofing work, but he was stuck with it in his bid package. He’s been at this for 40 years and so we chatted.
We went over some of the known industry issues. He said he was glad he did not own the roofing company, because he did not see how he could his price work high enough to cover all the assorted risks. He has been around so long that he could complain about the decline of drawings as the industry moved to CAD.
I had forgotten that people could still complain about that. I had commented on this two decades ago in Ralph Grabowski’s newsletter, when he mentioned my words on the occasion of the newsletter’s 20th anniversary. My post was the most controversial editorial he had in those 20 years. (See https://www.upfrontezine.com/2015/05/857.html.)
- - -
I follow constructech news loosely. I mostly get veiled sales pitches. Forty years ago, when I was a minor pioneer in a different industry (IT – focused on what was then called “office automation” or word processing, integrating text and data, and so on) it became clear that sales efforts focused on the benefits of new technology and glossed over, or omitted, the steep implementation costs. This is still true in tech sales.
The big issue in much of constructech, especially in the segment related to design (CAD, BIM, generative design, and so on), remains knowledge, or rather the lack of it, embedded in designs. The complaint that CAD made drawings worse is based on the observation that the knowledge embedded in the drawings has declined. This is undeniably true.
When I used to work on restoration projects, I would be struck by how the original drawings of century-old structures were so much more detailed and in better correspondence with what was actually built, than modern drawings. The challenges created by all the complex knowledge embedded in the built environment are typically underestimated by those who have not spent a lot of time and effort in the muddy swamp water of the physical realities of materials and structures.
I clearly recall, with fondness, an engineer who was a salesman of admixtures (chemicals) for concrete, sitting me down at lunch one day and patiently explaining to me that “sand” is not one thing, not a simple homogeneous material, but a source of lots of relevant complexity. Everywhere we turn in this business, we run into that sort of complexity.
Software people are not used to complexity, because “data” is an abstraction and computing is full of wonderfully controlled interfaces. By contrast, construction is a collection of physical realities that may not be nicely consistent and homogeneous; that change with changes in moisture and temperature; and are subjected to environmental forces (wind, rain, hail, lightning, earthquakes, soil settlements, and so on). In turn, these complex materials have to interface with other materials. Some of the interfaces are well understood and standardized; others are not, and so become a common point of failure. Data does not have to deal with this sort of thing.
- - -
In conjunction with an extremely seasoned and knowledgeable fabricator, I delved into the school renovation project manual and searched for photos of the existing school to better understand the limited information in the contract documents. Turned out the documents made little sense. There was zero correspondence between the detail (called out as one kind of GFRC, but we thought it should be another type, or maybe even cast stone) with no spec for the GFRC.
Before becoming mostly retired, I dealt with this regularly. Now I am astonished and reminded that industry has made so little progress in the problems of design-bid-build as it exists in the real world.
Leo Schlosberg was the founder of Heavyware.com and is now the retired owner at Cary Concrete Products.
== 3D Data Translation Software Tailored to Solve Your Problems ==
Education and awareness make for flawless, error-free, and numerically-correct MCAD conversions!
Okino’s PolyTrans|CAD software solves complex, demanding 3D conversion problems by transforming CAD and DCC datasets into highly optimized and efficient files for all common downstream 3D programs and authoring packages. Our staff ensures that each Okino solution fits your conversion problems ‘like a glove’, including useful discussions on how to source the best 3D datasets.
Popular CAD data sources we support include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.
Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.
Siemens released an NX With No Name, calling last week’s update to its flagship MCAD program “latest release” sans version number (although captioning during the launch video seems to label it NX 2007). New functions include
NX topology optimization
Design space exploration
NX voice command assistance
Part orientation optimization
The official launch video can be viewed on YouTube.
I’m a little biased, since I sell Solidworks, but everything “new” you described in Solid Edge has been available in Solidworks for several years. I’m not sure I understand why any company would choose Solid Edge over Solidworks. - Sam Scholes, senior account manager Go Engineer
The editor replies: The reluctance could be due to a number of reasons:
Political — they don't want to buy from Dassault
Top-down — they've been told to buy Solid Edge
Compatibility — the customers they deal with also use Solid Edge
Checkboxes — Solid Edge does things competitors do not
UX — they might prefer the way Solid Edge works
For me, UX is the #1 concern in the software I select, followed by checkboxes.
- - -
Thanks for the article on Solid Edge. I already used (giving you credit) the comment [below] to some of my colleagues about our need to learn our interdepartmental processes better so that we can develop better programs that solve the right problems.”
“Solid Edge benefiting from their use of its CAD in its own engineering projects and how that offers insights into development of functions that are otherwise hard to program and that many of their rivals can only dream of offering someday”
Also, Jeremy has a good eye. Thanks for the Dogbert. Scott Adams is another of my favorite authors! -Ron Powell
- - -
I used to work for one of Siemens’ divisions. The engineers weren’t very happy when word came down from the Mother Ship that they had to start using NX, instead of pre-Wildfire Pro/E and ancient seats of AutoCAD. The story everyone heard was that the NX sales force was tired of hearing the question, “So, what CAD software does Siemens use themselves?”
It’s a good example of how weirdly unscientific the sales world is. That question about the software the parent company uses is exactly the kind of question I like to ask of salesmen, just because it’s fun to back them into a corner and watch them flail. But trust me, what software companies use has absolutely zero impact on my buying decisions.
I’ve been on the receiving end of this stuff, too, and remember having to design an optional set of wide tracks for a piece of machinery, on a salesman’s insistence that the customer said the only reason he was buying Deere, instead of ours. was because their tracks were an inch wider.
The older, wiser salesman tried to explain to me that it was just an offhand comment to get the pesky salesman to go away, and that it didn’t matter what we did, the customer wasn’t buying our machines. (He had a large fleet of exclusively Deere equipment).
We did the wide-track option, tested it, and ordered parts for production. As far as I know, those sets of tracks are still on their pallets, twenty years later, slowly rusting into the ground.
Great write up on Solid Edge. It’s one of those options that doesn’t seem to get much attention. - Jess Davis
The editor replies: I worked at a consulting firm before the transition to CAD. They had a look at Intergraph, but $100,000 per seat was too much. Civil engineering is, after all, not all that complex.
Next, they had AutoCAD demo’ed, but when the salesman suggested that a 10MB hard drive would be needed for AutoCAD to work properly, the added cost was deemed prohibitive, about $2,000 at the time. (Later, I found AutoCAD v1.4 worked just fine with two floppy drives.)
They decided on Anvil CAD as their first CAD system, which, as you might guess, was not the best choice. I have no idea how that came about. Some years later, they bought into AutoCAD, but then found they were now somewhat incompatible with Microstation, which the Ministry of Highways used.
Mr Davis responds: I worked for some years at a trencher manufacturer. When I started, they were using Intergraph on Interact workstations. What a strange world that was! I remember the tech replacing a graphics board that was the size of pizza box. He mentioned it was $12,000 or something like that.
I heard about a gigantic inter-departmental war where the IT priesthood locked horns with engineering, they being natural enemies. When it was finished, engineering triumphed by going with a CAD system that ran on a DEC mainframe instead of the IT department’s beloved IBM mainframe, which is what the rest of the company ran on.
By the time I left five years later, they were on Intergraph Microstation PC [written by Bentley Systems, marketed by Intergraph], and at my next job I instituted CAD with a copy of Microstation on a PC that I got from our in-house buyer, because he didn’t like it, and wanted to go back to his green-screen terminal.
I remember harassing the poor guys demo’ing Pro/E with questions like “So, if we buy your software, can we still run in on hardware from Wal-Mart?”
As an electronics and computer tech for > 40 yrs I’ll explain a few things that people don’t get [about erratic cursor movement caused by poorly-located mouse dongles].
No, it’s not Microsoft’s (or the mouse manufacturers’) fault with driver updates. The problem isn’t software, it’s hardware. These devices are radios. Unfortunately (or not, lol) we can’t “see” radio waves. So we can’t see what’s happening, but there are so many devices transmitting in the frequency range used by mice that there can be countless combinations as every environment varies. This is totally a radio interference problem.
It’s not the receiver’s fault, nor faulty design. The need for such small receivers (nano) came from our need for small portable setups (laptops). People hated the large receivers we used to have, they often hit them and broke them. Since the nano receiver is so small, it has a tiny antenna. Larger antenna are less likely to pick up interference. People wanted small. They gave it to us.
Current Logitech Unifying receiver (top), older one (above)
USB plugs are usually grouped. They’re always placed in clumps. That means the device plugged in next to it can interfere, as it’s right beside the mouse receiver. I’ll give you a real example: my Logitech MX mouse’s nano Unifying receiver is plugged directly in the front USB port of my large tower. Worked great. But when I plugged a USB DVD player into the next port, it went nuts! As it’s not unusual to have four or six ports next to each other, your odds aren’t good.
The standard technician’s response to naughty mice has always been “change the port.” While this works, most techs don’t understand why, as they’re computer people, not electronics people. It’s radio interference.
“But it worked for years like this!!” Your environment changed. You got a new printer that’s plugged in next to it. You got a new cellphone or cordless phone, etc, etc, etc. You can’t see radio waves. Something changed, not the mouse.
The batteries are low. A strong signal can cut through the interference, but as the batteries get weaker (or in the case of built-in rechargeables, they’re aging and aren’t as strong), that lowers the power and raises the interference effect. Your mouse isn’t shouting loud enough to be heard.
It’s money! Yep, the good ole $$$. Not the receiver’s fault. The USB plugs next to or near it are not shielded. Virtually all wires nowadays are fully shielded or our electronic world would grind to a halt with interference problems between devices. Unshielded wires act as long antennas and everything would be interfering with every other thing that had a cord. However, it’s expensive and difficult to shield the plug, and the bean counters object to a pair of $0.50 plugs on a $1 wire, so the engineers are overruled and they ahve to use a $0.10 plug that’s not shielded. Guess what’s right next to your nano receiver? Yep, that unshielded plug.
So there you go. It’s spelled “i n t e r f e r e n c e!” This is the solution: moving the receiver away from the interference allows it to be heard. Awesome fix, Ralph! - RM (on WorldCAD Access)
Notable Quotable
“Let’s face it, Facebook and Twitter are charities that allow you to donate free data to needy billionaires. Say what you want about Bezos and Musk, they actually produce something other than mental illness.” - Iowa Hawk
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine. To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue # 1,121 | Inside the Business of CAD | 7 February 2022
CAD Direct integrating parts and assemblies from NX and Solidworks
The Siemens CAD universe centers around NX, with Solid Edge the oft-overlooked stepchild. It’s just as powerful as any mid-level MCAD rival, such as Solidworks or Inventor from Dassault Systemes and Autodesk, yet lacks the mindshare of these rivals.
Part of the problem stems from a history of bouncing between homes. Born at Intergraph, it was adopted by Unigraphics, passed along to EDS, sent back to UGS, and now calls Siemens its home.
Another issue affecting Solid Edge, as I see it, is that its powerful hybrid Synchronous Technology (ST) is saddled by a perplexing (and initially over-hyped) combination of smart direct and parametric modeling. The typical machine shop designer hasn’t shown much in the way of enthusiasm for ST, its biggest differentiator from competitors.
Yet, if it’s stability you want, then Solid Edge is the one for you. Autodesk and Dassault are bedazzled and distracted (and so far failing) in moving their mid-range MCAD offerings fully to the cloud.
By contrast, Siemens repeatedly makes clear that MCAD belongs on the desktop, full stop. Sure, ancillary functions, like co-designing and PLM, are suitable for running on the cloud. So, Siemens offers Solid Edge users cloud-based products like Xcelerator Share for collaboration and Teamcenter X for product lifecycle management.
What’s New in Solid Edge 2022
When I saw what is new in Solid Edge 2022, I felt like I was back in the glory days of CAD. Here was a release claiming over 500 enhancements, a far cry from other CAD systems that these days might be satisfied by offering customers a third way to view symbols and such.
Let me walk you through some of the new and improved functions that I found most interesting.
CAD Direct places parts and assemblies from NX, JT, and Solidworks files into Solid Edge models. Copies of the foreign b-reps are stored in an intermediary format, called “internal components,” in Solid Edge’s assembly file. There are no external files, solving that particular data management problem.
To the user, the imported part/assembly looks and acts like a Solid Edge one. In the figure at the top of the article, an imported part is highlighted in green. Mates, constraints, and so on work with it.
You are, for instance, designing a locomotive but are sourcing the electrical generator from another supplier. You don’t need to edit the generator; it’s done. You just need to place it so that you can connect bolts and electrical connections to the locomotive. Should the supplier update the generator, the copy in your locomotive design changes, should you wish it to.
In Pathfinder’s model tree, foreign models are tagged as “external.” Nevertheless, a link is maintained if possible, so that when changes are made to the model in the originating CAD system, they are reflected in Solid Edge.
Dan Staples, Siemens vp of mainstream engineering, told me that in the future additional MCAD systems will be supported by CAD Direct, but that it works most reliably with Parasolid-based CAD programs, as they use the same geometric kernel as Solid Edge.
Point clouds are new to Solid Edge 2022, catching up with competitors. In the past, points were displayed as triangles or b-reps; now they remain points.
Each point of the millions or billions point generated by laser scanners carries color and x-y-z data. An assembly in Solid Edge can have multiple point clouds, components can be placed among them, and measurements take between solids and point clouds. “Rendering them, as they are being rotated at high speed, is secret sauce stuff,” explained Mr Staples to me, with a straight face.
Convergent modeling is the technology through which Solid Edge lets you work with b-reps (solids) and meshes (facets) at the same time. Meshes are typically imported from scans and non-CAD sources like 3D gaming development software. In Solid Edge 2022, you can, say, scan a handle in 3D, bring it into Solid Edge, and then cut a hole into it using Boolean subtraction of solids, as shown in below.
Performing solid modeling operations on a mesh part
“The big nut to crack was Boolean operations between b-reps and facet meshes, but the result [in the past] was facets; now, everything stays in their form,” Mr Staples said. Meshes stay meshes, solids stay solids. (Dassault Systemes has something similar that it calls Polyhedra.)
Some mesh elements can be converted outright to equivalent solids. When it comes to exporting hybrid models, however, solids still are converted to meshes. “You’re never complete, but I’d say we’re very close to completion,” said Mr Staples.
Related to this, Solid Edge Simulation gains hydrostatic pressure simulation. It now performs analyses on mesh models, and is better at remeshing frames prior to stress analysis.
Dynamic visualization creates visual reports by colorizing models according to rules. For example, you can color all components that are from a specific supplier in blue, designed by a specific employee in green, or made from a specific material, such as copper, as shown below.
Dynamically visualizing parts in an assembly
Parts are filtered, colored, and hidden according to rules that you write; rules can be shared with others. This lets you see if the assembly is made from the correct materials, or search more easily for suppliers already being tapped for components in the model.
Free computer-aided manufacturing is now available to all Solid Edge 2022 users on subscription. The CAM Pro 2.5-axis milling software runs as an external program, but is associative with Solid Edge models. It automates tool path creation and generates machining visualizations. New in 2022 is adaptive tool paths, as shown below.
Running CAM Pro on a part designed in Solid Edge
Not free, but also new to Solid Edge 2022, is Simcenter Flomaster from Siemens. It extracts geometry from your model, and then simulates 1D fluid flows through full and partial networks of pipes. In the demo that I saw, it handled pressure pulses from compressors.
Other improvements include Solid Edge opening very large assemblies ten times faster than before. It does this by first showing just a 3D image of the assembly, which you can rotate and turn the visibility of parts off and on. To edit parts, you select just the ones you want loaded.
Synchronous Technology gains the radiate function. With it, you make changes to diameters of shafts, with holes and slots changing automatically to accommodate the new size.
Rules-based configurators are used to design variations of products, based on a single model. Solid Edge 2022 embeds a new Design Configurator (not based on RuleStream or Driveworks) that stores configuration rules with the CAD model.
Xcelerator Share is much like using a CAD-oriented Dropbox for sharing files and commenting on them. It is similar to collaboration offerings from other CAD vendors, and it runs on any computer or tablet, including Chromebooks. Like PTC’s Vuforia, it includes augmented reality for placing Solid Edge models visually in the real world.
What Ralph Grabowski Thinks
Never mind the cloud.
Solid Edge benefits from a company with deep pockets making advances in NX, and then spinning them off to Solid Edge. On top of that, Siemens uses its CAD in its own engineering projects. No other CAD vendor can make the claim.
So, Solid Edge offers functions that are otherwise tough to program and that many of its direct rivals dream of offering some day.
Project Newplex 2.0 is the advanced SHX font designed for technical documents; compatible with every DWG-based CAD program that supports Unicode SHX files.
Features!
Advanced character forms for readability & clarity
Tech Soft 3D updated its HOOPS 2022 SDK [software development kit] for 2022 with support for Apple’s M1 CPUs, an updated animation manager, new physics-based rendering, and IFC spatial relationships. Register for a 60-day evaluation from techsoft3d.com/products/hoops/native-platform.
In related news, multiple reports suggest Microsoft is dropping its Hololens XR hardware. As well, Mozilla is shutting down its VR Web browser, and Meta during the last fiscal year lost $10 billion on its meta operations.
- - -
Here are some of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:
Regarding the slanted toaster in your January 10th newsletter. Perhaps a designer at T-Fal had seen this strip from Dilbert: dilbert.com/strip/1989-04-19. - Jeremy TePaske, mechanical designer Smithco
Notable Quotable
“If expert advice does not align with the government/corporate desires, then experts are changed until the advice meets the government/corporate goal.” - Elsergio Volador
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine. To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Issue #1,120 | Inside the Business of CAD | 31 January 2022
Guest editorial by Ivan Rykov
Plug-in adding a toolbar and a panel to Rhino
Many projects developed by LEDAS are plug-ins for CAD software programs, ranging from powerful systems like CATIA, to lighter weight solutions like Rhino. Oftimes, we help our customers decide on the direction in which their ideas are best developed: in the form of a plug-in or as a standalone program.
Pros and Cons of Plug-ins
Plug-ins either solve specific problems, or else add functions missing from CAD systems. A good example is CAMWorks from HCL, an advanced plug-in that adds computer-aided manufacturing functions to the Solidworks MCAD system.
Comparing plug-ins with independent applications, we found that plug-ins are better suited to software used in-house by design engineers, with the aim of assisting their day-to-day work. In certain cases, the plug-in approach significantly reduces the cost of development. Ready-made CAD systems work with plug-ins through their APIs [application programming interface].
The drawback to plug-ins that you have to run them on a host application. Before the plug-in can be used, you have to pay a license fee and then install the host software. Plug-ins intended for wider distribution have their demand limited by the number of seats found of the target CAD system.
The APIs provided by CAD systems are often thought of as a way to extend and tailor functions of the CAD system itself, rather than for creating customized processes to solve particular problems. Also, it’s not always an easy task to make a focused plug-in which overrides the user interface of the host application to substitute its own workflow.
We have found that, in general, end-user plug-ins are not usually at the top of our customers’ wish lists.
Pros and Cons of Standalone Applications
More commonly, our customers want software made as standalone programs for the desktop and, more often in recent years, a client-server Web application.
When considering the development of an independent application, either for desktop or the Web, keep in mind that it will require a geometric kernel with which it constructs, represents, and tessellates 3D objects. (We talk more about kernels on our 3D Modeling page.) The annual cost of a subscription license for a kernel is usually significantly higher than a one-time payment for a single license of a lightweight or middle-class CAD system on which plug-ins can run.
Another source of cost is the effort to implement 3D scenes: visualization, camera manipulation (zoom, pan, rotate), object manipulation (selection, movements), and so on. With a plug-in, the host application provides all these features via its API. In case of standalone applications, these have to be programmed at a low level, or else with the help of licensed visualization components.
Types of Plug-in Solutions
From our experience, Rhino is an excellent example of a customizable system. It allows us to hide most of its default panels and toolbars, and then we can easily create our own panels using WPF [Windows Presentation Foundation]. This gives us almost the level of same control over the Rhino’s user interface as do independent WPF applications. (See figure at the top of this article.)
In other CAD systems, this could become problematic as they might use outdated GUI frameworks (do you recall WxWidgets?) or are limited to UI controls predefined by their APIs.
If, however, the application has an external API that can be called from another process, such as through COM or WCF, then we can build a plug-in UI as an external application that interacts with the host CAD system through the API. (Technically, this is then not strictly considered a plug-in.)
This allows us to build the UI using modern technologies exactly matching the required processes, yet still using the geometric kernel and 3D scene capabilities of the host CAD application. This approach is quite popular with our customers, although a somewhat more complicated approach.
How to Decide
So, we have trade-offs that can be resolved by knowing the number of simultaneous software users:
When the cost of copies of the host CAD system does not exceed the cost of a custom application (with licenses for geometric kernel, visualization components, and 3D scene implementation), a plug-in is the cheaper option.
It’s worth noting that the cost of licensing the host application can at times be considered to be zero when company engineers are already using the software in their daily work. In this case, a plug-in based on such a system possesses the additional benefit of fitting a familiar environment.
Thus, in our experience, plug-in solutions are quite popular for semi-automation of certain CAD-related processes performed by a small group of engineers, or else by a large group already using a suitable CAD system. Many of our digital medicine projects, for example, are in the form of plug-ins.
[Ivan Rykov is chief technology officer at LEDAS since 2004. Dr Rykov graduated from the mechanics and mathematics department of Novosibirsk State University, and in 2009 received his PhD in physics and mathematics specializing in discrete mathematics and mathematical cybernetics. More at ledas.com/en.]
Project Newplex 2.0 is the advanced SHX font designed for technical documents; compatible with every DWG-based CAD program that supports Unicode SHX files.
Features
Advanced character forms for readability & clarity
Autodesk launches Flex, its token-based pay-as-you-go system for renting software by the day. AutoCAD, for instance, costs 7 tokens (US$21) for 24 hours, which can be paused by closing the application. Netfab Ultimate, at 55 tokens daily, is the most expensive.
For the very intermittent user, like me, this would be a useful duration, but, alas, I cannot buy a day’s worth, because the minimum purchase is 500 tokens that last just one year, and costs just C$365 less than an annual subscription. Maybe that’s the point. Autodesk warns that “daily rates are subject to change,” meaning the cost/token could rise at any time. autodesk.com/benefits/flex/estimator-tool
- - -
OpenDesign Alliance initiates development of a scan-to-BIM software development kit. Or more accurately: laser scans > polygonal surfaces > AEC objects (b-reps) > parametric parts classified in IFC, Revit, and other formats.
To join the dozen other firms working on it, you first have to become a SIG member at $20,000/year; details at https://opendesign.com/scan-to-bim.
- - -
Here are some of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:
While experiencing the same problem with my Logitech M185 and reading through suggestions [on WorldCAD Access], I took a hint from a very old post that referenced the jumpy problem on an old mouse with a rubber ball. It suggested cleaning the ball and inside the mouse.
My newer M185 did not have a ball, but rather a movement sensor window. I took a Q-tip and cleaned the little window on the underside of the mouse, [see figure above] and the problem disappeared. - Roger Carlsen (via WorldCAD Access)
Re: Which Comes First: Models or Drawings?
The usefulness of either a model or a drawing depends, in part, on what you are using it for. If you are a developer, a rough hand sketch might do fine. If you are an estimator you may be able to get by with fewer details (and less accuracy, whatever that means) than if you are trying to build a building.
Two issues run throughout a real-life examination of models and drawings:
1. Knowledge. Does the creator have the knowledge necessary to create the desired level of detail? In construction it is ridiculously impossible for an architect to have the requisite knowledge for the final design of every component in a building. The less knowledge implicitly contained in a drawing or model, the less useful it is. Each type of use requires a different amount of knowledge to implicitly dwell within the model.
2. Responsibility. Who is legally required to get it right? In USA, architects, who most typically create a model, have a low bar for liability for the design; that is pushed contractually to general contractors and from there to subcontractors.
Subs cannot stay viable in the business without serious knowledge; the others can shrug off any liability for not getting a design quite right. - Leo Schlosberg
The editor replies: Back in the day when I designed traffic signal installations, we used symbols like the ones shown below, which contractors interpreted.
“The experts predicted the future, but nature had other ideas.” - Richard Fernandez (@wretchardthecat)
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine. To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
[McKinsey is consulting firm to large corporations. SaaS is “software as a service” via subscriptions.]
That was in 2019, and now it is 2+ years later. What do you think about this estimate today?
Ralph Grabowski: I didn’t believe it at the time, and I don’t believe it now.
The CEOs of PTC have been known for making extravagant claims. In this case, I wonder if the CEO was justifying the purchase of Onshape, while (I think) hoping secretly it would not prove to be a costly mistake.
Getting full CAD on the cloud has proved elusive, even for a hardcore cloud promoter like Autodesk, which has been plugging away at the problem for a decade now, as has Dassault with its 14-year (and counting) failure to put Solidworks on the cloud. PTC will find the same,
Indeed, PTC admitted as much when it spent (perhaps) around $700 million (purchase price + assumption of debt, my estimate) on Onshape, saying paying for an acquisition was quicker and cheaper than writing the code on its own. So think how much it might have cost to write cloudCAD from scratch. But now it faces the problem of delivering on its promise of Onshape-ifying Creo with 100% of functions of the desktop version. It ain't gonna happen.
Siemens, Hexagon, and mid-tier CAD vendors (Bentley, Bricsys, Graebert, et al) know better. Their solution is hybrid: hard-core CAD on the desktop with ancillary activities on the cloud where it make sense, such as collaboration and remote drawing access.
Mr Przybylinski: I second all of those emotions. I think that McKinsey does not know enough about CAD authoring tools to understand how they are different.
This next article illustrated their feelings about enterprise software more broadly: “The next software disruption: How vendors must adapt to a new era. Over the turbulent past decade, many legacy software players proved to be remarkably resilient. Now they must adopt a new strategic playbook to weather the different challenges ahead.” [Source.]
Mr Grabowski: I feel that McKinsey suffers from a conflict of interest: it needs change to occur so that it can charge firms to advise them in how to navigate and implement the upcoming changes predicted by McKinsey. By proactively announcing that inevitable change is coming for pretty much darn sure, they prime the pump for lucrative contacts.
Mr Przybylinski: I agree. While we at CIMdata are known for doing market research in this space, we often don't get asked to do things like this, because we are normally more conservative. Plus, we do not have the cachet of “McKinsey” in a press release.
[Stan Przybylinski is the vice president of PLM market research firm CIMdata. He is the former manager of market and competitive intelligence at Dassault Systèmes.]
== 3D Conversion of Ultra-Massive 3D Models via DWF-3D & Okino's PolyTrans|CAD ==
One of the most refined aspects of Okino's PolyTrans|CAD software is in transforming ultra-massive MCAD models of oil and gas rigs, LNG processing plants, 3D factories, and other unwieldy datasets into Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, and Unity (among others).
What often takes days using blindly incorrect methods takes minutes or an hour with Okino's well-defined optimization and compression methods using its DWF-3D conversion system.
Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.
Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.
Project Newplex 2.0 is the advanced SHX font designed for technical documents; compatible with every DWG-based CAD program that supports Unicode SHX files.
Features
Advanced character forms for readability & clarity
Dassault Systemeslost the prize for holding the first post-covid in-person CAD user conference, after abruptly cancelling the in-person part for health reasons. You can still watch 3DExperience World (nee Solidworks World) on your computer-connected big screen tv from the comfort of your comfy armchair February 6 - 9 after registering at 3dexperienceworld.com/overview.
- - -
Open DesignAlliance shipped the initial release of its open STEP software development kit in January. The SDK handles CIS/2 schemas, accesses EXPRESS metadata, and supports the following application protocols:
AP203 (configuration-controlled design)
AP214 (automotive design)
AP238 (STEP-NC integrated CNC)
AP242 (managed model-based 3D engineering)
To come later this year: advanced creation, visualization, and .NET support. upFront.eZine wrote about the ODA’s plans in issue #111.
LEDAS reports that for the third year in a row its revenues increased by 15%. The software consulting company specializes in solving tough problems in CAD, BIM, and CAM. ledas.com
- - -
IntelliCAD Technology Consortium updates IntelliCAD Mobile Platform:
Opens and regenerates drawings using multiple threads
Previews files before opening them
Names views and visual styles
Mobile Platform is not a retail product but meant for ITC Mobile SIG members to distribute. As a CAD file viewer, it handles .dwg, .dxf, .dgn, .dwf, .dae, and image files; architecture and civil objects; and underlays, and runs on Windows, Android, macOS, and iOS. www.intellicad.org
Letters to the Editor
Re: What Remains to Be Solved in Mechanical CAD
Matt Lombard's article on the above topic is riveting, I read it in one swoop. What are your thoughts about how future developments will work out? Still via China? - Name withheld by request Canada
The editor replies: The amount being produced for us in China is so overwhelming that we cannot properly comprehend it. It is expensive to move production back to the West, and would take years to build the factories.
The related problem is that the West moved it factory pollution to China, so bringing factories back would shift the pollution back to our skies and waters.
- - -
Matt Lombard wrote, “And when is A.I. going to show up, or do we not have the piles of unsorted data required to make A.I. successful?”
Amen to the second clause! That said, I find BricsCAD's Bimify and Blockify commands pretty awesome examples for A.I. in CAD/BIM. - Michael Hasse France
The editor replies: As impressive as commands like Bimify are, I don’t consider them A.I. but advanced forms of search and replace.
Re: The Complexity of Simplicity
I like this chapter/discussion. Let’s call this “smart stupidities”! - Jure Spiler Slovinia
One of my brothers is one of those who will not live inside. He's been offered a brand new suite in condo towers for the “homeless” a number of times over the years, but prefers the mental and emotional peace he finds sleeping outside a church in the upper-middle class area we grew up in as kids.
I visit him every couple of days at a predetermined time and place to give him his allowance of funds to keep him fed and with smokes. With the recent very cold weather in Vancouver, there were a couple of times my fear of not seeing him alive arose, thinking he might have not made it through the frigid night, but he showed up with no mention of the cold.
He's 74 years old, so he’s done well to live this way for decades. He’s labeled as being homeless, but, in reality, his home is what we call the outside. - Name withheld by request (via WorldCAD Access)
The editor replies: The inability to live inside four walls is a common among the homeless, which, I agree, would better be named “the houseless,” as they have a place they call home.
Volunteering at a cold weather shelter, I’ve seen people leave in the middle of a frigid night due to their anxiety of being inside. As they leave, we remind them to shelter from the wind in a doorway and to huddle with someone else.
Notable Quotable
"Metaverse: it’s the tech bro version of New Coke." - David Burge (@iowahawkblog)
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
Red Roof Industries: “Keep up the great work!”
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
There is a way to determine people’s ability to structure designs. Ask them to arrange virtual furniture in a room:
When they draw rectangles and they annotate them with words like “wardrobe,” “bed,” and “table,” then place dimensions and distances, you are looking at a designer. The designer is a planner solving the “What can and should be done” problem.
When they create perspective views with details like armrests and cushions, it seems that they are “constructors” who would be better trying their hand at mechanical engineering. (See figure below.) Constructors solve the “How to make” problem using original, non-standard solutions. This is welcome in mechanical engineering, which has a pre-production testing stage, which does not exist in the design of buildings where non-standard solutions are risky.
Perspective drawing made by a constructor
“What is a model for, if you already have drawings?” This is the question I am asked during discussions on automatically generating 3D models from 2D drawings. People have no idea that it’s possible to make drawings without first constructing 3D models. For instance, this is the weighty opinion of a developer of one 3D modeling program: “The model is the only source of information for drawings. Drawings are nothing more than views of the model.”
And what do standards and textbooks say? When we consult them, we read terms like “projections,” “sections,” and “cross-sections,” such as illustrated by the figure below.
Orthogonal and other projections of a 3D model
When we read further, we learn that a floor plan is a horizontal section at the level of the window openings, or 1/3 of the story’s height. We might think that this confirms the priority of models over drawings. An example from a real project, however, casts doubt on this conclusion.
Depicted in the figure below is a shop. This is practical, clear, but how can it be called a “horizontal section” when it shows a variety of elevations? Some are at -2.500; there is a rail track at floor level; some platforms at +1.000 and +4.000; many columns and vertical bracings (above the floor, and below the crane rails); walls at level of windows; bridge cranes and a crane landing platform (just under the roof).
Production building plan at a variety of elevations
This exactly is a plan, a schematic representation of what should be built. It is an extremely simplified representation, with all plan objects refined and detailed elsewhere. By the way, sections are the same as plans, except that they describe builds from different aspects.
PROJECT NEWPLEX v2.0
Project Newplex 2.0 is the advanced SHX font designed for technical documents; compatible with every DWG-based CAD program that supports Unicode SHX files.
Features
Advanced character forms for readability & clarity
The synthesis of spatial objects from their projections is called “the inverse problem of descriptive geometry,” and is an unsolved technical problem. Nevertheless, for hundreds of years, designers and builders have been synthesizing mental versions of 3D building models from 2D drawings. Then, builders transform the mental objects into real ones — how do they do it?
It is impossible to build models using projections, but it is possible using conditional images that have parameters tied to them. When we draw a circle (even if it is not perfect), and then write just two words, such as “Sphere d1800,” we create the parametric description of a sphere as a spatial object.
A parametric description consists entirely of conventional signs, and as a result is a linguistic description. Parametric modeling is essentially linguistic modeling. As a rule, parametric descriptions include the following elements:
Object type designations, formatted as text (e.g., “sphere”)
Conditional graphical representations of objects (e.g., drawing of a circle)
Parametric designations as text (e.g., “d1800”)
Conditional auxiliary images (e.g., dimensions and extension lines)
There are cases where the object type designator is not explicitly presented. In such cases, it can be reconstructed from the drawing context. For instance, the context may be provided by the drawing’s name, such as “column layout scheme.”
Any parametric description assumes the existence of an associated execution procedure, such as a mathematical formula, a computer program, or a detailing algorithm linked to detail drawings. From a programming point of view, a parametric description is a function call with parameters passing to it. When executed, the function transforms conventional signs and images into mental or digital models.
We can come to the conclusion that the primary method for analyzing drawings is to establish parametric descriptions for each building element. In drawings, the same building elements are usually described in several different contexts, such as being present in different views, on different drawings, in different drawing sets, and so on.
As an example, let’s try to restore the parametric description of the column located at A-17 in the figure below. The type of object (column) is easily determined from the context: column sections in this drawing are rectangles. There is, however, no other information tied to the object.
Identifying parameters of column A-17 from the equivalent column A-4
So we apply this well-known rule:
If, in a group of objects that are identical in appearance and purpose, there is only one object provided with parameters (dimensions, marking, designations), then all other objects in the group inherit these parameters.
In the group of columns along the A-axis, we see column A-7 is associated with detail #4. (See figure below.) If we were to refer to detail 4, we would see a refined column section with its dimensions, and snaps of the section to the co-ordination axes on the plan.
Detail 4 describing column A-7 and referencing Section 1-1
Using the details of section 1-1, we can determine the column’s top and bottom elevations. We apply the parametric description we obtained from A-7 to all columns (except for the corner ones) of row A, including the column at A-17.
Step-by-step Detailing of Objects
So. We managed to determine the definition of a simplified architectural column. A short parametric description cannot completely define complex structures, as real columns are. Nevermind: during the early stages of planning, our knowledge of objects is very approximate and vague.
During the planning process, structural drawings appear following the architectural ones, from which the columns obtain designations (that will be marked). A separate drawing of an abstract column representative of the columns of this type will appear. The structural elements of this abstract column — the formwork, rebars, embedded items — will, in turn, be detailed.
The essence of step-by-step detailing can be described this way:
Any project detail is itself a project
Any project is itself a project detail
During step-by-step detailing, a hierarchical structure is built by which the types and parameters of the upper-level objects are the context for lower-level objects.
Knowledge and Data
Parametric descriptions and their associated execution procedures are knowledge of what and how the work should be done. As a result of the execution of the parametric description, we get an object’s 3D model, which is the object’s database. Let’s take a closer look at the process.
In the figure below, there is a drawing fragment explaining the principle of reinforcing the floor slab.
Drawing of slab reinforcement as a representation of knowledge
The recipient of the drawing extracts a parametric description from it, applies the execution procedure, and, as a result, gets a mental model of the slab reinforcement. When the recipient is a builder, he will transform his mental model into real reinforcement in the field.
The process of creating a model in a 3D modeling program is, in principle, no different from a traditional drawing. By some means or other, the reinforcement contour is defined; the diameter, steel class, spacing, and possible overlap of rebars are specified.
The end result is, however, different. The execution procedure creates a computer model of a set of rebars with attributes attached to every bar. This model is saved. The figure below represents a top view of the reinforced slab as displayed by a computer model.
Top view of the reinforced slab model as a form of data representation
As mental models are built solely on the basis of visual perception, let's compare the two figures:
Drawing — shows a single abstract bar, with information attached. The bar defines the size, location, and attributes of all other bars in the planned reinforcement slab. We do not see individual bars, but we get a very good idea of the slab reinforcement.
Model — shows lots of bars. Annotations need to be added to all bars, and many dimensions need to be placed. When the slab is large and contains a lot of rebar, we get a messy, poorly readable picture. The result is a poor-quality mental model and, accordingly, a poor understanding.
- - -
Collaboration begins with understanding. Like it or not, we have to do what BIM calls "automatic" extraction of drawings from models.
A comparison begs. We cook borscht according to a recipe, throw away the recipe, and then, using complex algorithms, try to extract the recipe (the drawings) from the finished borscht (the models). This is the wrong way around of doing things.
The parametric drawing style is based on the assumption that recipients of the drawings have a professional set of algorithms for drawing analyses and for building mental models based on the analyses’ results.
In practice, this means that drawings should be made so that for each structural element, its parametric description can be restored. The mental object is modeled by calling the appropriate execution procedure associated with the parametric description.
Parametrics Determine Drawing Precision
In many cases, deviations from the image’s scale and accuracy contribute to the readability of drawings and the ease with which they can be adjusted. Consistent adherence to accuracy prevents this, surprisingly enough. The use of parametrics makes the meticulous precision of graphic images meaningless, and so it makes no sense to measure things on drawings. Indeed, the Russian standard prohibits such measurements.
The geometric accuracy of parametric drawings is determined by the accuracy of the values of dimensional parameters. In most cases, editing is limited to adjusting parameters, without affecting the graphic images. (It should be noted that parametric drawings are difficult to read when the proportions of objects are grossly distorted.)
As we see, this contradicts the autocad-style of drawing with its associative dimensions. The autocad style is based on drawing graphic images with tools that ensure great accuracy; the primary method for adjusting drawings is by editing the graphic images as required.
Machine Interpretation of Drawings
When professional algorithms are transferred to a computer, we get the ability to carry out automatic drawing analyses and building a computer model based on the results of the analyses.
A set of drawings can be considered a program written in a professional language — the equivalent of a high-level programming language. The program is compiled as a whole; a machine interpreter of drawings is in fact a compiler. As a result of the compilation, an overall execution procedure is formed, such as an IFC text file. In the end, a computer model is created. Note that the primary method of programming drawings is the step-by-step detailing of objects, better known as top-down design.
How is this different from the traditional way of creating models with 3D modeling software? All of them use a command interpreter as the input interface for 3D modeling. Complex objects are created by assembling pre-prepared components, whether primitives or parts. This technique implements the bottom-up principle; it simulates the construction process and so has nothing to do with planning.
It is clear that for many, assembling a building from cubes is easier and clearer than creating a linguistic description of a building with help of drawings. Unfortunately, except for the model in the computer’s memory, what’s actually needed are models in our heads. A set of drawings is an algorithm of understanding. It is impossible to replace the reading of this algorithm with something else, such as wandering across a computer model.
Crucially, the delineation of legal responsibility within the framework of this algorithm is also not a problem.
Machine Interpretation of Sketches
The parametric style of drawing allowed engineers with blunt pencils on broken-down Kuhlmann drafting machines to create absolutely accurate (not in the autocad sense) drawings. The independence instrumental to parametrics creates the principled opportunity of interpreting freehand sketches and drawings.
The figure below illustrates an example of such an interpretation. The problem is to turn a freehand line (possibly the sketch of a beam) into an accurate two-dimensional model.
Steps in interpreting the freehand line as a beam
Here are the steps involved:
Step 1. Bridge the gap, created by careless sketching. The extent of the gap is insignificant and is not numerically specified.
Step 2. Straighten the curve. The bend radii and the curve deviations from the straight line passing through the curve endpoints are insignificant and not numerically indicated. From this, we deduce that the curve is a straight line segment.
Step 3. Refine the x coordinates of the line’s endpoints. Horizontal deviations of the line’s endpoints from the A-axis and the 6000-dimension extension line are insignificant and so are not numerically specified. The x-coordinate at the line’s left endpoint is equal to xA (xA is the x-coordinate of axis "A"); the x-coordinate of the right endpoint is xA + 6000.
Step 4. Refine the z coordinates of the line’s endpoints. Vertical deviations of the line’s endpoints from the 3.000 elevation’s extension line are insignificant and not numerically specified, as is the inclination angle of the line. The z coordinates of the line’s endpoints are the same, and both are equal to 3000.
We completely restored the parametric description of the object.
Standards for Preparing Drawings
Current rulemaking in the area of preparing drawings stopped trying to combine the Gaspard Monge legacy with the drafting practice of the 1980s. [Mr Monge invented descriptive geometry, which became the basis for technical drawings.] In my opinion, construction drawings in Russia reached their peak in the eighties. From this, progress regressed, as drawings were made with 3D models and autocad styles of drawing.
Arrested development results in degradation, as shown by the figure below comparing Russian state standards from 1980 (top) and 2018 (below).
Drawing styles from 1980 (top) and 2018 (above)
The Grammar of Drawings
Due to the appearance of 3D modeling programs, a question has arisen about teaching descriptive geometry in technical colleges: Is it still relevant? The crisis in descriptive geometry is a consequence of the same misconceptions about drawings as in engineering practice.
Back in the 19th century, drawings were called “the language of technique,” and descriptive geometry was the grammar of this language. In my opinion, the reasons for misunderstanding were these:
Incomplete awareness that drawings have all the properties of the language in a direct, literal sense
The consequences of not fully thinking this through. For instance, if we speak of drawings as text, then it is not clear what accurate projections have to do with the text
Descriptive geometry can and should develop in the direction of machine analysis of drawings: from classical descriptive geometry to parametric (linguistic) descriptive geometry, a kind of analytic geometry.
[Alexander Yampolsky has designed residential, public and industrial buildings, mainly as a structural analyst. He was an early participant (1982) in BIM at the Minuralsibstroy construction ministry of the Russian government, and developed technology for machine interpretation of drawings. Mr Yampolsky is a graduate of Tula State University.]
Notable Quotable
“The CDC said we can leave the Christmas lights up til January.” - Aubrey Strobel
I keep mourning the passing of CAD as a topic interesting enough to keep producing interesting articles about it. It used to be that you didn’t have to look far to find a great technical topic, or a new way to apply CAD tools. On the Solidworks (desktop — do I really have to specify what the name implies?) side of things, for instance, development has been largely uninteresting.
Developments in design technology seem currently focused on 3D printing: improvements in materials, methods, support structures, finer structures, finishes, and machines to go bigger and smaller. The surge in robotics is related to the hardware side of 3D printing, and also is going gangbusters.
Let’s take a look at what general 3D CAD development has achieved in the last decade or so, and then look forward to what we can hope for in the next decade. The big topics CAD developers have tackled include these ones:
Universal file management
Some CAD systems added file management, but others made it less accessible
Is it possible that Solidworks killed off PDM [product data management] as certain individuals were going out the door to create a new venture with built-in data management?
Alternatives to History-based Modeling
T-splines and related technology
Direct/synchronous modeling
Convergent CAD that combines sub-division meshes + NURBS in the same model
i. Sub-d push-pull ii. 3D scan data iii. FEA meshing iv. 3D print meshes v. Generative techniques for shape optimization vi. Medical, dental meshes
Application Delivery and Data Storage Options
First, decentralizing CAD from mainframes to personal computers
Then, centralizing CAD back to cloud servers
4. CAD in a database
Much data these days is kept in a database format; it makes sense, as it provides built-in data management and turns the idea of file management on its head
5. Various 3D Print Integrations (although most 3D printing advances have been in materials and robotics)
Support structures
Moving specialized functions from specialized software into CAD
Not all of these have been ubiquitous, and not all have impacted all CAD users, but most CAD users have access to these solutions when they need them.
Mechanical CAD with 3D scan-and-print has been a great success in specialty areas like medical and dental. If recent wars have an upside, it in the development of next-generation prosthetics, some strictly mechanical, some with newly developed neural interfaces. Scanning and printing have allowed us to customize attachments to individual injuries, quickly replacing and repairing limbs, and even joints.
Big Ticket Disappointments
When it comes strictly to mechanical CAD, I think we’re in a lull period right now. With all these other interesting things to do, the base technology has been forgotten for a while.
At the same time, some of the big ticket items that CAD developers put on the table haven’t really caught on.
Cloud. I think there was an assumption that cloud computing was going to be embraced in the same way that PC CAD was embraced in the 1990s. But it hasn’t. Clearly, it works for some people, but not for everyone.
This tech will catch on eventually, but too many intransigent engineers have too much invested in overly-complex history-based systems, and so haven’t taken the time to understand the real advantages of synchronous modeling.
Where Do We Go Next?
I’ve made predictions about the future of CAD before. I thought engineer-to-order was the next big thing, as would be synchronous modeling. They weren’t. I predicted CAD-in-the-cloud was not going to be the next big thing; so far, this is my closest to a good guess.
And when is A.I. going to show up, or do we not have the piles of unsorted data required to make A.I. successful?
I really hope the idea of converging different types of data keeps developing, as well as mesh manipulation tools for mechanical CAD. There are so many sub-d tools out there that every big CAD developer should buy one just to understand the data type, the tools involved, their usage, and applications of this kind of modeling. We don’t have to re-develop all of this knowledge.
Another thing I hope gets some play are more specialized tools. We already have tools specific to designing sheet metal parts, frames, piping, and in medical fields. I think more needs to be done with plastic, assemblies, resilience, and local design.
Plastics Design. Plastic parts are so hard to design. The outsides are all minute, custom-made details; the insides, that you don’t even see, can be even more difficult to design. We need a series of functional features that can be applied to models. Maybe this requires a special file format just for plastic parts, as with the other specialized techniques.
Plastic designing and manufacturing need to come closer together. The design of the outside shape and mechanical details, and the manufacturing expertise to make individual plastic parts need to be centralized so that a single person can make the decisions about design and manufacturing. Throwing designs over the Great Wall is not going to be a viable solution going forward.
Assembly Design. And we have to do something about assembly design. Right now, it’s a custom approach every time. We need a tool that follows a process for assemblies, and can reuse information on how assemblies go together. Is it rules based? A.I.? Can it somehow learn about different types of joints, closures, and mechanisms?
We need tools that know how to work with horizontal modeling, resilience, top down, layouts, master models — all these are methods that design software should be able to replicate, and even guide you through. We’re at a point where forcing dumb tools to do smart things is just inadequate. Best Practice rules already exist to help people use tools in poorly structured workflows.
Sustainable Design. Beyond software, I’d like to see product development aim to be more durable and reusable, to get away from single-use products, especially in plastics and packaging. As engineers and designers (and, yes, even marketers), we need to have a conscience. Reject bad ideas.
Throw-away products have always been a bad idea, but someone other than the people for whom this is a religious cause needs to stand up and say so. We need to design stuff that endures, and when it doesn’t endure, it needs to be fixable, and when it can’t be fixed, it need to be recyclable. Not that long ago and certainly in my lifetime, we used to have less stuff, but the stuff we had was more valuable. It lasted longer, because it was built and designed with use in mind, rather than crass consumption.
Local Design. Maybe all of this heads back to more employee-owned companies. I don’t think driving the economy with a bunch of disinterested investors is good for anyone, and obviously centrally-managed economies have shown they don’t work. Globalism is a failure.
Certainly we need to learn to do things locally again. The bigger an organization gets (including government), the more corrupt it becomes, the more disconnected it is from the people who make it work, and should be benefiting from it. Stop sending product development and manufacturing to China. Manufacture molds locally again, make microelectronic chips locally again.
These are things I’d like to see in the next decade.
[Matt Lombard has been working with CAD and as an independent product development professional for 30 years. He is the author of eight books on Solidworks and Synchronous Technology. He blogs at dezignstuff.com/about.]
XVL from Lattice Technologies (part owned by Toyota) is an inbetween format that reads files from most 3D CAD programs, then displays them in an XVL viewer, and used for training and parts lists.
XVL can be exported to 3D PDF, Excel, iPads, and so on. As of 2021, it is native on 3Dexperience; back in 2005, Dassault based its 3DXML on Lattice’s XVL. lattice3d.com/company/xvl-technology
- - -
ARES Commander 2022 from Graebert is now in beta, with an emphasis on the 2D processing of Revit and other BIM models, as well as new features for the Touch tablet and Kudo Web versions of the CAD software.
Desktop beta is downloadable initially for Windows and then later in January for MacOS. graebert.com
- - -
Here is one of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:
A.I. projects that attempt to replace humans will fail. A.I. projects that attempt to augment humans have a much more likely path to success. - Randall S. Newton (@RSN_Global on Twitter)
- - -
I recently spent a week working with my colleagues at RIB Software improving the UX and UI in our iTWO software, trying to get a commitment between functionality and usability.
I recall Xerox Parc’s Larry Tesler with his “NO MODES” license plate. I prefer one that reads “NO OPTIONS”, as every option in software is a question to which we programmers have no answer. So we transfer the problem to the user.
I have a new car, the most modern German car, chosen on purpose for being the most digitalized model in its size. It is much more similar to my PC than to my previous car.
You must learn how to use it, as it has lots of options for adapting the car to your convenience. Otherwise, don’t buy this car! Do you really need an acoustic signal when you close the doors? Will you remember that there is a setting for entering car washes? What happens when you forget?
And, of course, it has many “MODES,” which affect my driving. After a day of driving it, I asked the salesman how to stop the car from obeying speed limits, as many of them are nonsense. His solution was completely wrong: he unchecked the “Adapt to road conditions” option; he should have turned on “Ignore speed limits,” which is found in a different menu.
The “Adapt to road conditions” option adapts the car’s speed not only to road conditions, but also to your speed setting and to the car in front. (The car knows the road conditions because it has a GPS; when I tell the car my destination, it reduces speeds in curves, and so on.) Should you think this option is turned on, but it is not, you could easily drive off the road.
Thank you for your insight, your knowledge, and your information. - Fernando Valderrama RIB Spain
The editor replies: I buy old used cars to avoid the electronics shoveled into new ones, which I experienced when renting cars.
The worst was a Ford Edge, where even the heating and cooling required adjustment through a touch tablet, several menu levels deep -- followed by precise 0.5-degree temperature changes that required repeated taps while keeping an eye on the road.
Subsequently, Ford admitted they had gone too far in the digitalization of the car’s UI.
- - -
Thanks for your excellent updates, professional dialogues, and information. Even for us non-mechanical guys, it’s valuable. - Michael David Rubin
- - -
Regarding knowledge: I am a huge fan of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, from which we got the term “paradigm shift.”
Regarding interfaces: visiting one of my sons I encountered a fancy toaster with a novel (to me) interface. Push the Toast button and the bread is transported down. As I have aged, I have encountered many puzzling interfaces that were once familiar. Ten-15 years ago I could not open the car window to pay the toll. -Leo Schlosberg
The editor replies: I bought a T-fal toaster, because its designers were featured speakers at a CAD conference. They had slanted the top by 45 degrees, so that we could look into it and see how the toast was coming along. (Turns out I never do that.)
Well, you know the special property of 45 degrees: when the toast is released at 45-degrees, it is launched into the air in an arc to land, most times, on the kitchen floor. Not all design improvements are improvements.
Mr Schlosberg responds: Speaking, as we were, of toasters, a cartoon showed up.
Notable Quotable
“Thankfully, there are still hardware Morlocks* to clean up after the mess the Eloi have made.” - Andrew Orlowski
*) The Time Machine, HG Wells
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine. To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Recent Comments