upFront.eZine News Archives

Italian Architects Protest Uber-ization Of Design

Issue #865

 

by Ralph Grabowski With informal labour services like Uber and AirBnB, outsourcing is no longer international; it's right down our street. This same style of downscaling of incomes is attacking us at the professional level, where companies offer to write your blog cheaper than you can, and programmers bid to be paid less than their compatriots (c.f. Verstata's Think3). In Italy, the architect's union has asked the government to block CoContest over its service that bypasses the use of locally registered professional architects. Or as PC World neatly put it, "Italy's architectural elite moves to rub out crowdsourcing design site": "Nine lawmakers -- eight of them architects -- have issued a parliamentary proposal urging the Economic Development and Justice Ministries to crack down on the [CoContest] crowdsourcing website, which they said was carrying out an illegal intermediation activity and denigrating professional architects in its publicity, presenting them as elderly, incompetent and expensive." (In Milan, taxi associations got UberPop car-sharing banned "on the grounds that it constituted unfair competition and put the safety of passengers at risk.") On the other side of the aisle, CoContest calls itself "the first crowdsourcing platform for interior design"; the site does not use the word "architect." The founders are an architect and a lawyer, who launched the service as a way for unemployed designers to get work in a manner similar to the way most companies do it: through bidding.  In defending themselves, CoContest points out that Italy suffers from 44% unemployment among youth in a country that operates protected markets, such as for taxi drivers and architects. But one of CoContest's shareholders admits that his company "now is enjoying huge success in the US," implying that young Italian architects might not be benefiting as much as his company otherwise claims. Indeed, the site would like to benefit from large clients, such as retailers and real estate developers. While some of the designers who work through CoContest are registered architects from Italy; most are not. It may be work, but the pay is not at a professional level. In an interview printed in CoContest's own blog, an Italian registered architect complained about the biggest problem in working through CoContest: "Above all, the prize [payouts] are far too low, and the costs and benefits are all to the advantage of the client." Sources:  www.pcworld.com/article/2928892/italys-architectural-elite-moves-to-rub-out-crowdsourcing-design-site.html www.economyup.it/startup/2606_cocontest-perche-una-startup-fa-paura-agli-architetti.htm magazine.cocontest.com How CoContest Works CoContest say they've signed up 20,000 interior designers from 100 countries to bid on work submitted by home owners. They promise that owners receive "about" ten proposals within a week. This is how it works: An owner signs up at the site, and then defines a project. The owner specifies the price (taken from a matrix of options), provides a description of the project in preferably two languages, and a sketch of the floorplan; CoContest recommends owners upload as many photographs as possible. Designers submit their proposals to owners within a week; a chat section lets designers ask questions about project details. Owners rate the top three designs, and then choose one. The winning designer is paid the agreed-upon amount; the others designers are not. The owner gets access to the detailed plans from the winning designer only, to help prevent IP theft. How CoContest Pays Twenty-five projects are active currently. The site has so far hosted 384 projects, paying out $226,474 -- works out to an average of $590 per project. Or, as the owner of a New York loft boasted, "It was great, I received 25 projects for only $500." CoContest sets the minimum fee that owners can offer designer. It ranges from $300 to $2,500, depending on the area and amount of work involved. For example, $300 is the fee for redesigning a bathroom with a plan and list of furnishings. CoContest calls this amount of work the Concept package. Should owners want more, like section views and high quality renderings, then the minimum price goes to $550 (the Project package). Add finishing, colors, lighting, and price quotes, and the cost is $800 (Advanced package). But, as CoContext advises, "You are free to adjust the minimum offer for your Advanced project, gaining even more visibility among the designers community with immediate results."  Pricing is illogical, jumping up and down seemingly at random. The concept price for an entire house is just $150 more than a bathroom: Examples of Minimum Pricing Package        Concept     Project       Advanced  Bathroom       $300        $  550        $  800 Small House    $450        $1,150        $1,650 Garden         $500        $  750        $  950 Retail Store   $600        $1,600        $2,100 Library        $700        $1,250        $2,000 CoContest takes 25% (or 5% -- the amount is not clear to me) for itself. The company is running on $240,000 in funding, most recently in April. Our request to speak with CoContest was ignored by the company. https://www.cocontest.com   What Ralph Grabowski Thinks A publisher from England once asked me to write a book on 3D CAD. We began working on the specs, but after pushing paperwork across the Atlantic a couple of times, I clued in that they hadn't mentioned the pay. They told me that I was expected to provide a price, as were other authors competing for the same work. Lowest bid would the writing job, and I quit the process.  The concept behind CoContest is that owners who can't afford typical architect fees can get a design for cheap, while designers who can't get work have an opportunity to be paid for working. CoContest say that owners receive about a ten proposals from designers. So this means nine designers do work for which they are not paid.  Or put another way, they get paid for one out of every ten designs they submit. Or, put yet another way, if a design takes a week to complete, they get paid once every 2.5 months for a week's worth of work. Running just 25 projects concurrently among 20,000 signed-up hopefuls, CoContest is too tiny to make a difference -- let alone kill the hyper-local market in which architects and interior designers traditionally work. By paring remote designers and distant owners through a Web site, CoContest leaves itself, owners, and designers open to design flaws owing to communications that are degraded compared to an on-site presence.  Young designers can benefit from CoContest by bulking up their resumes with real-world projects they've bid on, but a Web site is not going to be pulling them out of south European unemployment. And One More Thing... REDWAY3D is supporting Oculus Rift's Development Kit 2 through its REDsdk[software development kit] providing stereoscopy to virtual reality environments, specifically real-time visualization and photo-realistic rendering. And that's all the detail we got. www.redway3d.com Even More News Read the blog at WorldCAD Access as I write more about the CAD industry, and give tips on using hardware and software. You can also keep up with the blog through RSS feeds and email alerts. These are some of the articles that appeared on WorldCAD Access during the last week: The best apps that I'm running on my Android today Effortless rooting of Android devices  I'm also on Twitter at @upfrontezine  throughout the day with late-breaking CAD news and wry commentary, such as.... upFront.eZine (@upFronteZine) Jun 24: "... hiding behind algorithms is increasingly untenable as well. For one, algorithms are made by humans." -> https://stratechery.com/2015/curation-and-algorithms/ Thank You, Subscribers! Thank you to you subscribers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: Scott Stratford Chris Sweetnam of Trix Systems Jim Balding of The ANT Group (2 subscriptions):  Thanks for all the hard work. Congratulations on your long standing success. I read your newsletter every week and get at least one good nugget! The ANT Group is honored to be able to help support this little community of CAD/BIM/Tech enthusiasts. Rock on my Canadian friend!" Should you wish to support upFront.eZine, then the suggested amounts are $25 for individuals, $125 for small companies, and $500 for for large companies. You may make the donation by PayPal, as follows:   1. Log into http://www.PayPal.com 2. Click on the Send Money tab 3. To: grabowski@telus.net 4. Fill in the Amount, and then choose 'Service/Other' 5. Click Send Money How to donate through PayPal using a credit or debit card: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/helpcenter/helphub/article/?solutionId=FAQ2358 Letters to the Editor Re: Here's How HP's 3D Onramp-Offramp System Works  Pretty amazing to think that HP is very close to having a low-cost turn-key consumer replicator available, even if it is only for fairly small and simple solid objects.  Still, I can think of auto parts I recently needed that I could have made with this: a plastic sunroof latch and a plastic end cap for a very rare side skirt. I was able to obtain both parts, but if I had a Sprout I would have made my own since I had the latch (cracked) and the other side’s end cap (inverse). Maybe I could have mirrored the end cap through their software?     - Ron Powell   Re: Apocalypse nearing as computers slow down For us CAD users, multi-processors are a moot point due to the linear processing of the math involved. What I need is a dual-core 10GHz processor, not a 10-core 2.5GHz processor. Hello Intel, anybody home?   For the past 25 years, nothing's changed in the CAD world for mid-range CAD users. Every time my computer 'chugs,' it's because the processor is overloaded. The Performance Monitor ALWAYS shows one core in use at any time. Far as I know, that's how all mid-range modelers function, and they aren't changing any time soon.   What do Intel and the other hardware manufacturers have to say about that limitation/bottleneck in their technology? When do they plan on catering to those of us who work for a living on their hardware?     - Cadman777   The editor replies: The dual-core 10GHz CPU is a good idea. Intel is catering to gamers with the current line of CPUs.   Re: This is how much more you'll pay for Autodesk software  (on WorldCAD Access) I do 2D drafting with AutoCAD LT. As Ralph states, constant superficial upgrades are not relevant to us. Our peer group doesn't upgrade every release, and as long as backward compatibility is maintained we can currently get five to six years good performance out of the current once-off purchase.  Our current strategy gives greater stability, rather than the working with constantly modified systems with new bugs. It is also a better match with today's slow pace of hardware and operating system upgrades.      - John Corbett  - - - Congratulations on the anniversary of your newsletter. I enjoy receiving it.     - Janet Wiaderny     Origin International Spin Doctor of the Moment "Our ongoing plan was to monetize Circa News through the building of a strategy we had spent a long time developing but unfortunately we were unable to close a significant investment prior to becoming resource constrained."     - Matt Galligan, now ex-co-founder, Circa     https://medium.com/circa/farewell-to-circa-news-7d002150f74b

* 7651

Here's How HP's 3D Onramp-Offramp System Works

Issue #864

 

by Ralph Grabowski Three-D modeling is a much greater challenge over 2D drafting, because we are not introducing just one more dimension (z), but adding five more views to the traditional plan view: front, back, left, right, and bottom. And so in reality 3D is 6x more complex than 2D. We've seen how digital photography solved the 2D problem for consumers. They take a picture, view it, share it, and optionally print it at home with today's dirt-cheap color printers. For 3D, the problem is still far from solved, as dismal sales of consumer 3D printers amply illustrates. (Speaking of 3D, how's that 3D TV working out for you?) Working against the tide of hyper-optimistic and generally-naive media, companies in our industry are struggling to make 3D output effortlessly acceptable to moms and dads for their kids. Tactics include driving down the price to a few hundred dollars, providing all-in-one packages, and flooding schools with devices under the Get-'Em-While-They're-Young theory of market success.  HP also has had problems cracking the 3D nut, with its initial foray with Stratasys coming to an end -- very quietly. Last fall, they announced their own 3D printer (to ship next year) and also an all-in-one solution called Sprout: scanner for input, along with software and hardware for processing the scan.     Figure 1 HP's Sprout consisting of (top to bottom): scanner head with 2D camera and 3D scanner, all-in-one computer and screen running new 3D Capture software, round capture stage, and Touch Canvas pad; (right) Dremel 3D printer What HP announced earlier this month was the addition of 3D input and output -- or as HP calls it, onramp and offramp (see Figure 1). The new system now handles theses tasks: 3D scans of physical objects + color texture maps 3D Capture software for editing scans and generating output to 3D printers (free) Rotating stage to capture 3D objects ($299 in USA) Perhaps the most interesting part is the head hanging over top of the computer. It combines these tasks (see Figure 2): 14-megapixel 2D camera for taking 2D photographs Lamp for illuminating the scene, such as with stripped lighting 3D scanner with three lenses     Figure 2 Three elements of the scanner head HP originally saw Sprout as useful for designers who want to combine digital photographs with 2D scans of 3D objects. The example they showed was of scans of jewelry superimposed on the picture of a woman. The giant Touch Canvas pad recognizes 20 touch points for manipulating images. Now 3D is being added: the scans can be made in 3D, then printed on supported 3D printers. To assist, the software is updated to handle 3D scans, and an optional rotating capture stage can be purchased.  To make 3D scans, you place the object on the capture stage. It is slanted at 15 degrees to help the scanner (tilted at a further 20 degrees) see part-way underneath the object. Not all the way, of course, and so you will need to turn it over and do a second -- or even third -- scan. Maximim size is 8x8x8" (20x20x20cm). Magnets help keep slippery objects from sliding off the spinning stage. HP calls it a "a more intuitive, natural way to work." I did not test Sprout, but the promotional video provided by HP accelerates the scanning process to a Keystone Cop-like speed. This hints that the scanning speed is on the slow side; PC World confirms this, reporting that the scanning speed takes about 20 minutes, and that the system could barely cope with processing the 3D data. (See http://www.pcworld.com/article/2934439/hands-on-how-to-digitize-a-dinosaur-with-hp-3d-capture.html for a series of slides.)    Q&A Ralph Grabowski: What does the scanning technology consist of? HP: Sprout is capable of 3D scanning with different technologies, but the key technology in 3D Capture is "active structured light scanning." For the faster pre-scan, Intel's RealSense camera uses invisible IR [infrared] light from an MEMS [micro electro mechanical systems] IR laser projector. It projects multiple striped patterns, which are captured by a VGA-resolution [640x480] IR camera. Multiple IR frames are analyzed at speeds of up to 60fps [frames per second] to obtain the depth map.  For the final high-resolution scan, Sprout's 14.6mp [megapixel] camera is used together with a DLP [digital light processing] projector to project a series of horizontal striped patterns. These are analyzed to create a depth map with a corresponding color texture map.  To make the size of the resulting files manageable, the images are downsized. The mesh density in the final model is decimated [removes unneeded vertices] to achieve the best balance between quality and file size. Ralph Grabowski: The size of object that can be scanned is quite small at 8" cubed. Does HP have plans to create larger scanners, such as a handheld scanner with which users can walk around large objects? HP: Sprout's current integrated 3D capture solution makes it easy for anyone to scan objects that fit on the Touch Mat or capture stage. Simplicity and ease of use were paramount, which are guaranteed with the controlled hardware setup.   As handheld scanning technology advances, we expect Sprout to expand the 3D scanning use cases for a larger range of object types and sizes. Ralph Grabowski: How did HP arrive at 15 degrees for the tilt angle? HP: The angle of 15 degrees achieves a balance between three factors:  Expose the most object area to the camera during the rotation  Minimize the potential for the object to tip over  Minimize the height of the stage when level  Increasing the angle helps scan coverage, but it also increases the potential for the object to fall over. This makes it more challenging to fix the object and keep it stable during the entire 360-degree turn. A greater angle increases the height of the stage when level reducing the scannable volume. And so we arrived at 15 degrees as the optimal balance. Ralph Grabowski: In the video, the dinosaur toy is scanned three times in different positions. How would an end user know how to lay the part so that it is fully scanned? HP: Users can preview the scan after each cycle and look for areas that have not been scanned.  If there are still holes or missing surfaces in the scan, the user can position the object on the stage to best reveal those missing surfaces to the camera.  The live preview of the object on the vertical screen during positioning shows what surfaces and side of the object will be captured. Ralph Grabowski: You are partnering with Dremel, but Dremel is not a name that immediately springs to mind when thinking of 3D printing. HP: Dremel is one of the biggest names in the maker community, and has been a trusted brand for prototyping and building for hobbyists and even professionals. This perfectly complements the target market of Sprout's 3D scanning.   Three-D printing is really a manufacturing process requiring a deep understanding of the manufacturing tools and consumer manufacturing environment.  Desktop 3D printers using FDM (fused deposition manufacturing) is a crowded field, but Dremel made the extra effort to make the process more consumer-friendly. For these reasons, Dremel is a great partner to simplify the 3D offramp as Sprout simplifies the 3D onramp.   Ralph Grabowski: Why not HP's own 3D printers? HP: Availability of HP's end-to-end 3D printing system is planned in 2016, and will be designed for enterprise clients and service bureaus. Our breakthrough technology, called HP Multi Jet Fusion technology, will offer a faster and less expensive 3D printer that produces higher-quality products than current solutions. - - -  The new software and hardware ships in July. https://sprout.hp.com   And One More Thing... OrthoGraph now has three versions of its iPad-based building surveying app: Orthograph Floorplan is an update for OrthoGraph Architect for precise surveying jobs by professionals, but lacks the cloud component  OrthoGraph Cloud Client adds cloud services to Florrplan, app after registering at http://cloud.orthograph.net OrthoGraph Tape Measure is a new app for just recording layout information onsite for those who don't need to do complete floor plans All three are downloadable from the iTunes store. More information from https://www.orthograph.net. In other news, OrthoGraph reports it has attracted new investment to its company.   Even More News Read the blog at WorldCAD Access as I write more about the CAD industry, and give tips on using hardware and software. You can also keep up with the blog through RSS feeds and email alerts. I'm also on Twitter at @upfrontezine  throughout the day with late-breaking CAD news and wry commentary: upFront.eZine ‏(@upFronteZine)  Jun 15: I'll be at the ODA's annual Teigha Developer Conference, Sept 7-8 in Prague, Czech Republic -> http://www.opendesign.com/DeveloperConference2015     Thank You, Subscribers! Thank you to you subscribers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: KiM GmbH (small company donation) of Germany Peter Dickin (small company donation) of Delcam: "Delcam is happy to support upFront eZine for another year. Congratulations on 20 years." Jon Peddie (small company donation) of Jon Peddie Associates Should you wish to support upFront.eZine, then the suggested amounts are $25 for individuals, $125 for small companies, and $500 for for large companies. You may make the donation by PayPal, as follows:   1. Log into http://www.PayPal.com 2. Click on the Send Money tab 3. To: grabowski@telus.net 4. Fill in the Amount, and then choose 'Service/Other' 5. Click Send Money How to donate through PayPal using a credit or debit card: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/helpcenter/helphub/article/?solutionId=FAQ2358   Letters to the Editor  Re: The CAD That Manufacturing Needs In my 24+ years of CAD/CAM experience I have had the pleasure of working in both history-based and direct-modeling CAD systems. From the early 90’s, when CoCreate products came out with direct solid modeling, we saw definite benefits over Pro/Engineer in the changing industry of plastic parts/assemblies. Of course, as was alluded to by Dr. Ushakov, both systems have their pros and cons.  In 1998, a better way was born from the developers of CoCreate and 3D-Eye/VDS. As a result, IronCAD came on the scene and from the beginning had the ability to mix history, feature-based, and direct modeling in the same part at the same time. (IronCAD allows designers to begin a concept using the benefits of history and features. Then pass the design off to manufacturing who can make any modification at any time by either editing the designer’s features or using direct modeling among other patented technologies. Additionally, only the selected areas of the part are modified leaving other areas of the part’s feature data untouched. If the design needs to go back to the designer, tools are in place to help the designer recognize features back into history-based or the part can continue to be updated using direct modeling. SmartMarkup is also available to track these design/manufacturing changes in any process. This is all built into the base IronCAD product.) I think in a rapidly changing world, "both" is a clearly superior option to "either/or."     - Kevin DeVoll, support and QA manager     IronCAD LLC Thank you for your publication of Dmitry’s paper. I hope it will attract a lot of your readers. We have just copied this text at isicad.net in Russian: http://isicad.ru/ru/articles.php?article_num=17707     - David Levin, isiscad The editor replies: The Russian version of this article attracted 75 responses. Here is the Google Translate link to read them in English: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fisicad.ru%2Fru%2Farticles.php%3Farticle_num%3D17707&edit-text=&act=url     Re: Apocalypse nearing as computers slow down (on WorldCAD Access)  There are many reasons why speeds are going down, but one of them is certainly the end of Moore's Law, which effectively has been dead and gone for years. Moore's Law is about the doubling of the number of transistors in a processor every 18 months or so (the original version was doubling every 12 months).  In the past years of the world of desktop machines, the extra capacity of faster machines was used primarily to cover the many sins of sloppy software. "Don't worry about pigging out that code, because the machines will be twice as fast in a year."  Doubling the number of transistors also means putting the same number of transistors onto a smaller and smaller die over time, and so consume less and less power while operating faster and faster. When Moore's Law ended, that automatic reduction in power consumption (or, for the same power operating faster) ended. What you see today is just the fun beginning for three reasons:  First, programming today has gotten sloppier and piggier than ever before, as script kiddies turn to massively inefficient ways of writing code.  Second, add to that the tendency of today's billions of abjectly clueless users to hand over their devices to whatever software Google or their "carefully selected" cast of millions of advertising carpetbaggers want to load onto their smartphones means that bloatware, malware, and endless other programs will be eating alive whatever processing capacity there is.  Third, with Moore's Law dead the only practical way of keeping speed up is through parallel processing, and writing real parallel code is very difficult.  Simply dispatching four different tasks to four different cores ain't writing parallel code, it's just a different way to time-share existing resources in a non-parallel way. Automatically chopping up a single program to run simultaneously on four cores and then re-assembling the results at the end is parallelism, and that's way more difficult.      - Dimitri Rotow      via WorldCAD Access   Re: Celebrating Our 20th Anniversary Read the upFront.eZine article about three influential but commercially unsuccessful CAD packages: Trispectives, IntelliCADD, and SpaceClaim. You may consider adding SketchUp to the list too as it falls in the same class as Trispectives (one of my favorite CAD software at the time it came out).     - Name withheld by request I retired last Wednesday and thank you for all the updates over the years. Don't want to go "cold turkey". Want to stay informed.     - B. M.   Spin Doctor of the Moment "We are aligning our engineering efforts and capabilities to deliver on our strategy and, in particular, our three core ambitions. This change will enable us to deliver better products and services that our customers love at a more rapid pace."     - Satya Nadella, ceo, Microsoft     http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/17/stephen_elop_exits_microsoft/

* 7657

Readers Respond to The Internet of Things

Issue # 683

 

Finally, an article that explains IoT in a clear, understandable way!  “IoT is defined as products made smart with sensors that are interconnected.” Priceless. Then I was further educated in the size of the market -- good job collecting data from various sources -- and the major players. So many, but for me it helped clarify the CAD companies’ posturing on this subject as that is what I need to keep an eye on.     -​Roopinder Tara, director of content     ENGINEERING.com There was a question regarding whether or not there is any standards group working on standards for consumer IoT. Though not consumer-oriented, the MTConnect standard (www.mtconnect.org) is addressing interoperability throughout the factory floor, and so is definitely worth checking out. Initiated by Association of Manufacturing Technology (AMT), it is viewed as critically enabling to manufacturing as standardized threads were: pretty heady claims!   Any of the MCAD companies who are doing work with manufacturing systems are already probably aware of MTConnect. I had exposed Autodesk’s Factory Design Suite team to MTConnect while I was still there. Speaking of IoT and connectivity, Siemens still probably has one of the best opportunities to demonstrate a complete solution in manufacturing. With the breadth of their product offering, they cover it all from design engineering to manufacturing engineering to manufacturing -- from NX to Siemens machine tool controllers. I’m really enjoying the IoT discussion that’s now rippling through the MCAD market.       - John Callen     Lutron The editor replies: "I sometimes wonder if Siemens is too big to understand what it has."     ...article continues following this advertisement.   Sponsor: Siemens PLM Software Buy Solid Edge, get a Microsoft Surface Pro3 free This offer is a unique opportunity to modernize your workflow and your work device in one easy step. Submit the form or call us to learn more. This offer expires on June 30, 2015. Available only in USA. Questions? Call 800-807-2200, option 1 https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com    ...article continues.   I always get a good laugh when people ask if IP6 will run out of addresses. Then again Ip6 will be great for spammers, they can collect IP addresses by the boat load.     -Chris Hannukainen The editor replies: The number is so big it is unimaginable. But perhaps people recall the limitations in computer program design when it came to Y2K and IPv4. The Internet of Things is as nebulous as the cloud, so anyone can define it anyway that makes them a profit? Question:  What exactly are these "Things?"  Are they personal, household things? Toasters?  Cell phones?  Electric leaf blowers?  Washing machines?  Mailboxes?  Or are they supposed to be industrial things, like tooling and controllers? If these Things are the former, I suspect there is really a very limited number of things that need this kind of connectivity. If these folks mean industrial, then these items are likely extremely specialized, and will need proprietary software (and likely hardware), so there will never be "one standard to bring them and in the darkness, bind them." In either case, these seems like just another instance of a great deal of heat and not too much light. It's much ado about very litttle, but it keeps the marketing departments busy. Thanks again, sir.     -Peter Lawton   The editor replies: "Things" can be anything that can be connected to the Internet. While I am not fond of IoT, our city a few years ago installed IoT water meters that measure water consumption on a hourly basis. This lets the city detect leaks.  And then a couple of years ago, the local hydro electrical utility installed IoT electricity meters. We can go to their Web site to see our consumption on a daily basis. What's really useful is seeing our home compared to our neighbors -- and we have the lowest consumption! I am not, however, fond of IoT devices like Nest, that report back to Google my home's temperature settings. Mr Lawton responds: Well, ok, home utilities could be better managed (by Big Brother), so that’s 4 (electrical, gas, water, sewage. I’m struggling to come up with more than a handful of personal household Things, and so it hardly seems to be a crisis for the development of a standard.  Lotsa fluff, tho.     Sponsor: Okino Graphics == Professional 3D File Conversion/Viewing/Rendering Software == For over 2 decades Okino (Toronto) has provided mission-critical 3D conversion software used extensively by tens of thousands of professionals. We develop, support and convert between all major CAD, DCC & VisSim formats. Robert Lansdale (CTO, lansd@okino.com) tailors each package to the specific conversion requirements of each customer. Popular formats include 3ds Max, Maya, C4D, LW, ProE, SolidWorks, Inventor, SketchUp, DWF/DWG, DGN, CATIA, IGES/STEP/Parasolid, 3D PDF/U3D, JT, FBX, Collada & more. We know data translation, and provide immaculate developer-to-customer relations. http://www.okino.com   And One More Thing... Stratasys is bulking up 3D printing with new agreements for 3D measuring and 3D designing. One agreement is with Canada's Creaform for 3D scanning: scan objects and then 3D-print them. Dealers for both will sell each other's products in North America. http://www.creaform3d.com/en The other agreement's wtih PTC: design objects in 3D and then print them. PTC's Creo 3.0 is getting a module Stratasys' Objet500 Connex3 multi-color multi-material 3D printer for now. Other printers to be added later. http://www.stratasys.com Even More News Read the blog at WorldCAD Access as I write more about the CAD industry, and give tips on using hardware and software. You can also keep up with the blog through RSS feeds and email alerts. These are some of the articles that appeared on WorldCAD Access during the last week: Microsoft doesn't want you printing folders; we show you how  Geriatric computing Why I don't provide print versions of my ebooks I'm also on Twitter at @upfrontezine  throughout the day with late-breaking CAD news and wry commentary, such as: upFront.eZine (‏@upFronteZine): PTC copying Autodesk, no longer ferrying media to its events. Reporters expected to drink from the same social media trough as everyone else   Thank You, Subscribers! Thank you to you subscribers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: Novedge (2 subscriptions): "Here is our donation from Franco Folini & Cristiano Sacchi @ Novedge - keep up the great work!" R L Capper, New Zealand Scott Hucke, progeCAD United States Should you wish to support upFront.eZine, then the suggested amounts are $25 for individuals, $125 for small companies, and $500 for for large companies. You may make the donation by PayPal, as follows:   1. Log into http://www.PayPal.com 2. Click on the Send Money tab 3. To: grabowski@telus.net 4. Fill in the Amount, and then choose 'Service/Other' 5. Click Send Money How to donate through PayPal using a credit or debit card: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/helpcenter/helphub/article/?solutionId=FAQ2358 Spin Doctor of the Moment “As a professional designer, I am deeply disheartened that our government would choose to exploit students in this manner, despite our efforts to educate the government that contests like these are unethical, detrimental to students, to professional graphic designers, and to Canada in general.”     - Adrian Jean, president, Graphic Designers of Canada     http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-design-poobahs-bemoan-150th-birthday-logo-selected-by-ottawas-philistines

* 7675

The CAD That Manufacturing Needs

Issue #862

 

 

Opinion by Dmitry Ushakov I read with great interest John Callen’s guest editorial about CAM [computer-aided manufacturing] and Onshape (upFront.eZine #856). Mr. Callen points out that CAD systems today still focus on defining geometry outside of a context that can actually manufacture its designs. I agree with Mr Callen that it’s a pity Onshape did not address the needs of manufacturing. And so I’d like to express my thoughts on the reason this situation exists, based on my experiences in collaborating with machine tool builders and CAM vendors.   Most modern CAD programs implement one of two approaches to 3D modeling: history-based and history-free, also called "direct modeling." The terms do not, unfortunately, reflect the underlying technology. There is one fundamental difference between the two, and it is the manner in which they change geometry: History-based changes force geometry regeneration by replaying the global design history Direct changes are done locally with no relation to the design history History-based CAD systems dominated the CAD market since 1987, the time whenPro/ENGINEER pioneered the world of parametric design. More recently, most 3D CAD solutions were introduced or rewritten to exploit direct modeling. The list includesSpaceClaim, Synchronous Technology by Siemens PLM Software, Autodesk’sFusion 360, and BricsCAD. But Onshape is history-based CAD. From the modeling point of view, it is just another Solidworks but one that flew out the Windows and into the clouds. Nowadays, the border between the two classes of CAD has been eased. Some limited direct editing operations (like moving a face) can be recorded in a history tree, while parametric feature-based modeling can be implemented in history-free context. But the main problem inherent to history-based CAD still persists: history-based CAD cannot solve manufacturing tasks. In this article, I describe the pros and cons of the solutions invented by the CAD industry: History-Based CAD Local Features in History-Free CAD Parametric Modeling in History-Free CAD  Through this discussion, I hope to show that much of the technology employed by many CAD systems rarely addresses the needs of manufacturing. First, a description of the CAD-created problem faced by manufacturing.   The Problem: Congenital Malformation An inseparable property of history-based modeling is that it requires the model’s author to foresee all future modifications. I call this a “congenital malformation” -- the information needed at the birth of the model is unknown. If a later modification is not foreseen, then it is only possible to introduce it with a full or partial redesign of the model. This is the price paid by the users of history-based CAD systems and their parametric functions.   This has consequences for manufacturing. When finished 3D models are delivered to manufacturing, the engineers there typically need to modify the designs before they can be sent to the CNC [computer  numerically controlled] machines. The only modifications that can be made are, however, those which were foreseen by the designers. Designers rarely understand manufacturing processes deeply, especially when manufacturing is outsourced.   Even if designers understand manufacturing, how can history-based CAD systems assist them? They can’t. As an example, let’s take sheet metal for CNC bending machines. In a simplified workflow, manufacturing receives the 3D models from the designers. The CNC operators unfold the models, order the bend operations, select specific bending tools for each bend, and then simulate the bending process in 3D: from the initial flat pattern to the final folded part. If a mistake is found, the part’s design has to be modified; for example, there might be a material conflict during bending.   Reworking the design is always possible; the same sheet metal part can be manufactured in many different ways. (See Figure 1.)   Figure 1 Different variants of the same sheet metal part   CNC operators need a way to switch between variants easily. Which modern CAD systems provide such tools? Let’s take a look at the technologies available.   A Solution: History-Based CAD Onshape does not (yet) have a module for sheet metal design, so let’s look at the work by the same team in Solidworks. Sheet metal design was added in 1997, and then for the next twelve years the tools were limited to designing parts flange-by-flange. (Or, in even a more tricky way, by bending a planar part along a given line.) Perhaps that’s good enough for designers, but the only way to rework an existing sheet metal part created with this flange-by-flange approach is to redesign it from scratch.   More recent versions of Solidworks allow designers to convert 3D solid bodies into sheet metal parts. The decision whether to replace the initial body’s sharp edges with bends or rips is done at conversion time and then these instructions are stored in the history tree. This approach allows designers to switch between design variants of the same part by editing the corresponding “Convert to Sheet Metal” features in the tree. The flange-by-flange approach is, however, still the preferred way to design sheet metal parts, according to the help file in current releases of Solidworks.   But what about those sheet metal parts created in Solidworks 2008 and older? And what about sheet metal parts created in other CAD systems? The only way to rework them using history-based CAD is to design the parts from scratch. But there is a better solution than designing from scratch.   A Solution: Local Features in History-Free CAD Feature-based modeling is a fundamental concept for design and manufacturing. It should not be associated with history-based CAD exclusively, because it can also be implemented on top of direct modelers. Here is how features are affected by the two types of modeling systems: History-based CAD. A feature is a parametric procedure. It is called to regenerate the model when a parameter is changed. History-based features form risky parent-child relationships, which have the ill of regeneration errors: when a parent feature is modified, its children cannot be regenerated if the geometry of their defining elements is changed or lost.   History-free CAD. A feature is a group of faces (of a body) with associated behavior on movement, deformation, copying, and changing parameters. Direct modeling features are local; they do not form parent-child relationships. Any local feature can be deleted or transformed independently of the rest of the model; there is no risk of a regeneration error. The direct modeling approach with local features allows designers and manufacturing engineers to switch between design variants easily, such as when they need to delete a feature, or want to replace a bend with a junction or rip. (See Figure 2.)   Figure 2 Switching between bends and junctions (rips) in a direct modeler   Another advantage to direct modeling is how easily it recognizes features in geometry that has been imported. Recognition of features is a straightforward process, which can be done invisibly to users. (History-based systems, by contrast, require the full design history to make imported geometry operable; reconstruction of design history usually requires manual work, because the same part can be designed in a “million” different ways.)   A Solution: Parametric Modeling in History-Free CAD Manufacturing often makes the same parts in a variety of sizes. This is true also in the sheet metal industry, where for example industrial kitchen equipment is designed with a variety of sizes of cabinets, cooking units, and storage racks. The work of manufacturing is simplified when models can be reused for the same part but in different sizes. And this is possible with parametric design, which traditionally was the domain of history-based CAD.   But history-based parametric CAD suffers a major failing: we can only edit parametric models if (a) we use the same CAD system as the author of the model, and if (b) we have access to the design history. This is rarely the case in manufacturing, where models are sourced from many customers in a variety of CAD formats.   As it turns out, direct modeling CAD systems also can use parametrics. In this case, local features retain some degrees of freedom, rather than being fully constrained by history-based systems. For example, a flange is constrained only to the thickness of the sheet metal part it belongs to; its other dimensions are not constrained. This means that it is possible to do things like apply direct editing tools and to add dimensional constraints to control the size of the flange and specify relations between its features. In addition, direct modeling systems can add parametrics both to native and imported geometry.   My Conclusion Of course, sheet metal design is just one example of the kinds of things that are manufactured from CAD models.  Nevertheless, some observations can be made that apply to all areas of manufacturing: Designers cannot foresee all model modifications required by manufacturing Manufacturing engineers need complete freedom to modify models, and so cannot be limited to a particular design history Manufacturing engineers use models produced by various CAD systems  Each of these observations is a serious argument against using history-based CAD systems in the manufacturing domain, and so explains why these CAD systems rarely address the needs of manufacturing engineers.   Dr. Dmitry Ushakov is ceo of Bricsys Technologies Russia, and has his PhD in Computer Science. He has 16 years experience in developing the underlying algorithms used by CAD software, and is the former ceo and cto of LEDAS.

 

And One More Thing...

 

With Solid Edge ST8, Siemens is really pushing the Windows tablet angle, saying the full CAD system now runs on Windows Pro 3 tablets, along with a free mobile viewing app. [Interesting that the company name in the press release is Siemens, and not Siemens PLM Software.] For an overview of the new functions, seehttp://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/solid-edge/st8/index.shtml?stc=wwiia420256#lightview%26uri=tcm:1023-236738%26title=What%27s-New-in-Solid-Edge-ST8-Fact-Sheet-45216%26doctype=.pdf

 

Even More News

 

Read the blog at WorldCAD Access as I write more about the CAD industry, and give tips on using hardware and software. You can also keep up with the blog through RSS feeds and email alerts.Here are some of the articles that appeared in the last week: Does any Android user need another camera app? Google platform for Google users reviews Google software Carl Bass talks about Autodesk's plans for IoT  I'm also on Twitter at @upfrontezine  throughout the day with late-breaking CAD news and wry commentary.

 

Thank You, Subscribers!

 

Thank you to you subscribers who donate towards the operation ofupFront.eZine: Frank Neumann: "Thank you again for your excellent source of CAD-related information." KCL (small company donation): "Keep up the great work!  20 years is very cool." R&B Should you wish to support upFront.eZine, then the suggested amounts are $25 for individuals, $125 for for small companies, and $500 for large companies $500. You may make the donation by PayPal, as follows:   1. Log into http://www.PayPal.com 2. Click on the Send Money tab 3. To: grabowski@telus.net 4. Fill in the Amount, and then choose 'Service/Other' 5. Click Send Money

 

Notable Quotable

 

"There was a golden age and I believe it was from 1987 to about 1997. Maybe a decade. That was when everything was popping. Everybody was doing well and there were experts that were explaining what was going on and they did a good job of it... "[After that] it was a slow degradation of tech reporting into gizmos, too many gizmos and gadgets."     - John Dvorak, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy        http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/335217/tech-journalists-give-the-biz-a-c-for-covering-the-digital-evolution/

 

7,697

 

Welcome to the archive pages of upFront.eZine, the e-newsletter that for 20+ years has been reporting on the business of the computer-aided design software industry. We launched 1 May, 1995 and today bring thousands of subscribers our edgy opinion, weekly news reports, and beloved travelogues.

 

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Join the nearly 8,000 subscribers who love receiving their upFront.eZine at 8:00am every Monday morning by email. Write 'subscribe' to grabowski@telus.net. Our newsletter is always free, and is funded through advertising (Thank you, advertisers!) and by reader donations.

 

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:

2015 -- begin with Jan 12 issue

2014 -- begin with Jan 6 issue

2013 -- begin with Jan 8 issue

2012 -- begin with Jan 9 issue

Download all back issues. 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.

1995   1996   1997   1998   1999         

2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009

2010   2011   2012   2013   2014          

After you download these files from Dropbox and unzip them to your computer, use any Web browser to read the newsletters.

 

Request Our Media Kit

We rely on advertising to pay our annual $900 bill, like hosting this Web site on TypePad and sending out the newsletter weekly by MailChimp. Our ads range in price from $680 to $2,200 per two weeks -- depending on the location of your advertisement in upFront.eZine. Download our handy Media Kit (PDF) with all the details. It's so clearly written that it's only four pages long!

 

Contact the Editor

We love hearing from our readers! To write an email directly to editor Ralph Grabowski, click here.

Read Our Fine Print!

Copyright 2015 by upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd. All right reserved worldwide. "upFront.eZine," "The Business of CAD," 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, you agree that the jurisdiction for any disputes concerning content on the Web site must be brought in the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Disputes must be arbitrated, and the dispute will be determined under the laws of the Province of British Columbia. 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: $840 and up.

Table of Content

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:

• January, 2022
• January, 2021
• January, 2020
• January, 2019
• January, 2018
• January 9, 2017
• January 5, 2016
• January 12, 2015
• January 6, 2014
• January 8, 2013
  
• January 9, 2012

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.

1995     1996     1997     1998    1999    2000      2001    2002     2003    2004      2005     2006     2007     2008    2009

2010     2011     2012    2013     2014          

After you download these files and unzip them to your computer, use any Web browser to read the newsletters.

Request Our Media Kit

 Our ads range in price from $340 to $1,100 per two weeks. Download our handy Media Kit (PDF) for the details. 

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.

---

The Internet of Things, and What It Means for PLM

Issue #861

 

by Ralph Grabowski with Stan Przybylinski

After the Internet transformed commerce, the Internet of Things will do it all over again, says CIMdata's vp of research Stan Przybylinski. IoT is defined as products made smart with sensors that are interconnected. Sensors attached to "everything," however, generates huge amounts of data.

It seems like the Internet gold rush all over again, as "everyone" is getting into the act. Mr Przybylinski provided an image from Morgan Stanley that shows the layers of IoT and some of the firms in each one. (See Figure 1.) ThingWorx is now owned by PTC.
 

Figure 1
The Internet of Things stack and vendors thereof
 

PTC, the stalwart CAD firm, is reorienting itself as the IoT company and likes to make it seem that they are the only ones with an IoT solution, but reality is different. They have serious competition. IBM created an entire IoT business unit, and funded it with $3 billion -- that's 2x PTC annual revenues.

With so many companies tipping in their toes, IoT is -- no surprise -- beset by standards; one slide shown by Mr Przybylinski actually needed two slides to list all the standards currently available. As I was writing this article, the headline "Huawei launches [10KB] Lite OS, an operating system for the Internet of Things" popped up on Techmeme's River feed.

Analysis firms are going crazy over IoT, outdoing each other with even bigger numbers.

• Gartner: 26 billion IoT devices and $300 billion service revenue by 2020
• McKinsey: $6.2 trillion economic impact from the IoT industry by 2025
• IDC: 30 billion devices and $7.3 trillion revenue by 2017
• Cisco: 50 billion devices and $19 trillion opportunity by 2020

Getting serious now, what does it take for a thing to be smart? Mr Przybylinski provided a list of items to consider, one that CAD designers can use to determine just how much IoT should be in the widget they're modeling:

• Is it a node with limited intelligence?
• Does it collect and share data?
• Is it part of infrastructure [buildings, roads, power systems]?
• Is it a controller with a user interface?
• Does it communicate with other devices, with the base?
• How much does it do on its own?

ComputerWorld this year asked which new technology that firms would be spending on over the next 12 months. #1 was IoT, then #2 HPC [high performance computing], and last of all energy-saving and carbon-reducing technology -- maybe because priorities #1 and #2 will increase energy consumption.

In CIMdata's own poll, barely more than 10% of attendees at their PLM Forum are today collecting and analyzing data from IoT devices. The other nearly 90% were not interested, interested, or already collecting data but not analyzing it.

Other than PTC, some CAD vendors are trying to sound like they are also into IoT. According to Mr Przybylinski, Dassault is taking about the "fourth industrial revolution"; Siemens PLM is offering a "smart innovation portfolio"; Autodesk is emphasizing "makers" with things like Arduino and PLM 360.

...article continues following this advertisement.   Sponsor: Siemens PLM Software

 

Buy Solid Edge, get a Microsoft Surface Pro3 free This offer is a unique opportunity to modernize your workflow and your work device in one easy step. Submit the form or call us to learn more. This offer expires on June 30, 2015. Available only in USA. Questions? Call 800-807-2200, option 1 https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com    ...article continues.

 

Q&A Q: Who owns the data that is fed back [from IoT devices]? A: This is a huge issue, because it is not clear. People who own the technical infrastructure that collects the data own the data. But in commercial settings, it not perhaps not possible to allow others to own your data. Q: Will the number of available IP addresses become a problem with billions and trillions of IoT devices? A: I think there is enough address space available [through IPv6, which provides for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses or 3.4×10e38. By comparison, the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be 4×10e80]. Q: Who is leading the race to analyze the data? A: IBM, SAS, and a few others. But as shown in the Morgan Stanley report, there are recent entrants like Palantir and Tableau. Q: Many companies outsource IT departments. Will this be a problem for implementing IoT?  A: They primarily outsource software development and business IT. But outsourcing software will be problematic. This is why PTC's moves are so powerful: the companies they acquired already figured out how to do IoT. Q: Do you know of any standards body working on standards for consumer IoT? A: There are several potentially competing groups: AllSeen Alliance, Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC), the Thread Group, and others. This will take a few years to play out. Q: What is the business case for IoT? A: The impracticality of continuing to do things like in the past. For example, a gambling company used to update their machines manually. They now want to connect them so that machines can be updated remotely, as well as receive feedback from how they are being used. Q: PLM takes a long time to deploy. How can fast-moving IoT work with it? A: To us, PLM is a strategy of how to implement technology. Companies were implementing PLM long before the term came into use. A lot of IoT is embodied in tools and frameworks that support creating IoT applications with little coding. For many, the tools they need are already written, so it is just a matter of implementing them. Q: What are some early success stories? A: The whole fitness industry is a prime example. Many people use these devices, or their smartphones to monitor their wellbeing. Nest also has done well. Q: How can we be sure that all this data is not being misused? A: We do things in the USA because we can, not because we should. And so we don't figure out the negative aspects before we go ahead and do them. Misuse of data will have to be an agreement between participants. But we don't read agreements when we sign up for things, and so this is a role for government to protect us. Download the recording (after registration) from https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/5601785610776668418 View the slide presentation (PDF) at http://www.cimdata.com/images/Webinars/CIMdataWebinar5-20-15.pdf www.cimdata.com

 

And One More Thing...

 

OMG (Object Management Group) is a not-for-profit technology standards consortium that's developing modeling standards, such as Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Model Driven Architecture (MDA). www.omg.org

 

Even More News

 

Read the blog at WorldCAD Access as I write more about the CAD industry, and give tips on using hardware and software. You can keep up with the blog through RSS feeds and email alerts. Solidworks founders to revolutionize MCAD again (reprint from Design Engineering) I'm also on Twitter at @upfrontezine  throughout the day with late-breaking CAD news and wry commentary.

 

Thank You, Subscribers!

 

Thank you to you subscribers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: Solid Modeling Solutions (small company donation) IMSI/Design (4 donations) Tom Fay, Ketiv Should you wish to support upFront.eZine, then the suggested amounts are... ... for individuals $25 ... for small companies $125 ... for large companies $500 You may make the donation by PayPal, as follows: Log into http://www.PayPal.com Click on the Send Money tab To: grabowski@telus.net Fill in the Amount, and then choose 'Service/Other' Click Send Money Or by cheque, money order, cash to:      upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd.      34486 Donlyn Avenue      Abbotsford BC V2S 4W7      Canada

 

Letters to the Editor

 

Re: The Development of HP's PageWide Printhead Issue #858 stated “today the heads can span paper as wide as 110" (9'2" or 4.3m).” Maybe those were mini-meters. In regular meters, 110" is closer to 2.8m. Yesterday, I was installing 3- and 4-meter subwoofer cables, being acutely aware of what I needed for spans of 9 and 13 feet.      - Steve Wells, president        Conceptworks The editor replies: You are right. I had divided by 2.54 instead of multiplying. Even though we here in Canada are metric officially, just about all everyday commerce is still imperial -- groceries, lumber, stationary -- even after 30 years following the changeover. Business Week told me to retire in 2005, and I haven't considered writing about CAD since then, so I likely never will again. But upFront was long a helpful crutch. Thanks    -  O.B. I am retired. Thanks for all the information of the past.     - Y.A.

 

Notable Quotable

 

"It would be churlish to deny oneself the pleasure of hooting at the politico-media establishment."     - Mark Steyn     http://www.steynonline.com/6948/problem-populations-here-and-there

 

* 7711