Ralph Grabowski: It is rare when two brand-new CAD programs launch in the same month. Renga and OnShape are the fresh faces of CAD, both benefiting from some of the latest trends in programming and user interface design.
John Callen asks how the new CAD packages will become relevant to the real world of manufacturing. Mr Callen has over 16 years experience in CAM [computer-aided manufacturing] software. He is a former product manager in the Manufacturing Engineering Group at Autodesk, and the former VP of Marketing at Gibbs and Associates. Today, he is director of eTools marketing at Lutron Electronics. (His comments are his own and do not reflect the position of his current employer.)
Two weeks ago, he commented on Renga architectural software from ASCON Group; this week, he reflects on the new server-based Onshape MCAD software.
Part 2: Callen on CAM in Onshape
John Callen: With all those MCAD companies snatching up CAM [computer-aided manufacturing] companies these days, I had thought a truly integrated product development system would materialize, but there is no sign of anything appearing on the horizon, let alone folks even having the conversation.
So I eagerly awaited word of the new Onshape modeling system, hoping that the third attempt by the team -- ComputerVision to Solidworks to Onshape -- would be the charm. Even though there was great fanfare about the new and improved Web-effects delivered by Onshape, it is unclear to me how this new system dramatically moves the needle on mechanical design systems. Am I being overly critical? Do I have too high an expectation? I don’t think so.
For the most part, design systems today are focused on defining geometry outside of a context that will actually manufacture the designs. To me, this seems short-sighted, given that (supposedly) 9/10ths of the cost to manufacture a product is determined during design; there is no appreciation for the corresponding manufacturing implications. From a product development perspective, this just seems wrong.
In this day of computerized systems, why would we want to continue to maintain the divide between design engineering and manufacturing engineering? Folks really don't need to make a conceptual stretch to envision integrated Design & Analysis, but this appears to not be the case when it comes to Design & Manufacturability.
Granted, we should not expect a design engineer to become proficient at manufacturing engineering, but Onshape's design system could certainly augment their proficiency. This is certainly within the grasp of today’s technology, if only Onshape were bold enough to reach it.
Like many, I’m sure, I greatly appreciate Onshape’s statement of principles. I just wish that there was a company that realizes that it's about the complete product development process. At the end of the day, it’s about holding something in your hand, not just creating geometry or generating pretty pictures. And no, I don’t think it's too much to expect.
Onshape Responds
Joe Dunne: Onshape is focused on solving problems for the vast majority of users. Feature-based parametric modeling is the de facto tool of choice for professionals. Systems introduced to the market without professional grade parametric modeling have failed to gain traction with professionals. The market has spoken.
Every CAM user in the world now has full access to Onshape. Nothing to install, nothing to upgrade, full compatibility with all other Onshape users. Excellent import and export capabilities.
The reaction we have seen from CAM users is relief. They tell us they are dealing with more and more tessellated data formats such as STL[stereolithography]. And that really makes their life difficult
Onshape is giving every user in the world access to professional grade parametric modeling. It's based on industry standard technologies. That seems to me to be the benefit for manufacturing. - Joe Dunne, Marketing Onshape, Cambridge, USA
Mr Callen Responds
John Callen: It's unfortunate that companies still think The Answer is feature-based parametric modeling. It's only the start, the substrate -- it's not the whole solution. It's the basic technology that gets you into today’s game, but it doesn't necessarily win the game, or establish a new paradigm for product development systems.
What are 'design' systems doing to bring an awareness of the manufacturing context into the design context? Providing "professional grade parametric modeling" does not do this.
Or maybe a more simplistic way to ask the question is this: "How does parametric modeling facilitate collaborative product/process engineering?" Certainly parametrics could potentially allow a model to be adjusted based on manufacturing feedback, if such feedback is expected, and if the parameterization corresponded to manufacturing aspects. This is, however, often not the case.
It would be interesting to hear what manufacturing problems people think “professional grade parametric modeling” addresses. Having said all this, does manufacturing have less lofty modeling needs that "professional grade parametric modeling" addresses? Possibly. Functions like these:
- Defining and supporting work-in-process stock, a time-based element of geometry starting with the initial stock shape, has direct relevance to manufacturing
- Feature suppression (not necessarily a feature of "professional grade parametric modeling") morphs the design geometry into a representation that is more usable for manufacturing
- Design features and parameters could correlate to manufacturing features/parameters. Holes are probably the best example of a somewhat-direct mapping between design and manufacturing features, but even simple geometric holes can imply a wide variety of different processes.
- Defining manufacturing features which refer to the work-in-process context
The reference to STL workflow is puzzling. An STL representation is a derivative model supporting a stereolithography manufacturing process; rarely, if ever, is it the base representation of an object in a professional design system. Just as a conventional machine tool's M- and G-codes are not used to communicate object geometry, STL does not represent product geometry. (In the future, 3D printing systems will be able to accept higher order geometry and internally do their necessary surface tessellation to product/machine tolerance.)
The fundamental question is, "How does Onshape, or any other modeling system for that matter, help solve product development problems that extend all the way out to manufacturing?" Just as developing product geometry does not ensure that the product is structurally sound, it also does not ensure it is manufacturable, let alone that it can be produced cost effectively.
- - -
Onshape offered to respond further to this conversation, but did not do so by the time of publishing. Mr Callen met with Onshape staff at COFES, and brings back this report:
John Callen: I was able to see Onshape demonstrated at COFES 2015. As impressive as the software is, my comments regarding CAM awareness/support still stand. A number of CAM companies (SolidCAM and CAMWorks) have implemented an ‘integration’ with Onshape, but their implementation is still fairly conventional; for the most part, the integration was to their existing product. Onshape itself does not appear to offer functionality to specifically handle CAM's geometric modeling problems, or more advanced CAM problems.
I also got to see Xenon briefly at COFES. It's a very nice system; unfortunately, as I suspected, the engineering information is retained in Xenon, not the Onshape modeler. So much for model-based design.
Joe Dunne and I had a chance to briefly meet at COFES to discuss this topic in person, and I believe he better understands what I am referring to. I offered to provide Onshape with a more comprehensive overview on the topic of CAM modeling functionality and problems, if they believed it would be useful.
What Ralph Grabowski Thinks
Onshape has programmed a base on which to build. For a Web-based modeler, the back end is more important than the front end. As I see it, Autodesk is scrambling to add a back end through its Fusion effort, while Solidworks is reluctantly doing the same by adopting Dassault's 3DExperience technology.
Currently, Onshape is working at writing file- bs API-based connections with FEA [finite element analysis] and CAM vendors to pass models between them, but I have to wonder if Onshape is quietly writing a manufacturing-oriented aspect to their software. Being Web-enabled is old news; being manufacturing-oriented would be an advantage over the rest of the market. |
|
Thinkbox Software writes high-powered software for the movie and games industy, and for the last couple of years has tried out CAD as well. The new 7.1 release of Deadline render farm management sofware adds support forAutoCAD and Microstation -- on top of 3ds Max, Maya, and so on. It is currently in beta.
The built-in VMX [virtual machine extension] allow CAD users to take advantage of both external and in-house for on-demand computing. The package include Draft, the lightweight video processing plugin to automate post-render tasks like as creating and processing QuickTime videos.www.thinkboxsoftware.com |
|
|
|
Comments