upFront.eZine News Archives

nTopology Begins Manufacturing at the Design Stage

Issue #962

 

by Ralph Grabowski with Bradley Rothenberg In this interview with nTopology ceo Bradley Rothenberg, he began by telling me his big picture view of our industry. - - - There are massive changes occurring in manufacturing that are making people think more about driving parameters. 3D printing is able to make things so complex that humans can no longer understand how to design them [by using traditional MCAD]. What is different is that the computer now has to do it.   All design is generative, I would argue. Software tools were not built from Day One to do that; they were just meant to draft. Traditional CAD software is not an active partner in the design process. Users are required to know about the manufacturing process; the software doesn't care if you are making a wing spar or a shoe. It just works with sketches whose dimensions can change.   In the past, CAD vendors suggested you start with conceptual design software, and then use other tools for the final manufactured part.   In contrast, we produce the manufacturable part right from the start. We began with the 3D printing part, but are now focused on building a design tool that can make functional parts. Our backend can suggest that you make this rib thicker here, thinner there. You start to see this in sheet metal design, but even those are like add-ons to the modeling process. We are building a tool that looks like a feature-based CAD tool that we call Element, but everything in the tool is feature-based and parametric. We call them "functions," not features. Functions take data into a fully-parameterized rule-based modeling system. We model using volumetric representations, and so we can do very complex things, like complex blends and complex Booleans, and generate complex variable lattices. We back it with robust physics. Element enables a pipeline flow, where the CAD user designs the part, and then the analysis takes it further. (See figure 1.) Figure 1: Lattice structure designed by Element Q&A Ralph Grabowski: Let's start with when nTopology was founded.  Bradley Rothenberg: I started the company in 2013, based on research in school. We launched the beta in early 2015, and released Element Pro last February.   Grabowski: What did you research in school? Rothenberg: I was in architecture school, where generative design was a big part of the program.   Grabowski: Do you see any application of Element to architecture?  It is possible. Two engineering firms are interested in Element for automatically designing strut structures that are also the curtain walls of buildings.   Grabowski: Who is Element targeted at? Rothenberg: Right now, aerospace and heavy industry -- anyone making products too complex to model manually. In the long term, we'll provide more possibilities for automotive and medical.   Grabowski: Does the user set up the rules? Rothenberg: We ship with predefined rules, and users can define their own. They can import an XML file that defines relationships.   Rules define what the repeating lattice looks like. (See figure 2.) You define a simple shape, like straight 2D ribs, or a complex one like a 3D gyroid. Figure 2: Using the lattice rules editor in Element   Apply the lattice pattern to the part (see figure 3), and then use the Element editor to adjust the thickness, spacing, and so on. Create a lattice from the part, and then Boolean it back into the original part. Add loads, specify the material, and then do FEA to check the strength. Figure 3: Draping the part (center) with a repeating lattice rule (at right) Grabowski: I've never heard of a gyroid. What is it? Rothenberg: A gyroid is a 3D, self-supporting lattice structure. One of our customers is using it for heat sink design, because it is a single surface with no overhang greater than 45 degrees with a ton of surface area. (See figure 4.) Figure 4: Element slicing through a structure made of gyroids Grabowski: How does Element work with other software? Rothenberg: There is a plug-in for Solidworks to design custom rules, because we don't yet have advanced modeling features. So you model simple surfaces and volumes in Soldiworks and then bring them into Element to design the complex structures. For other CAD systems, we exchange data as STEP files. We have a partnership with Abacus and we are working on an ANSYS plug-in for finite element analysis. (See figure 4.) Figure 5: Applying forces to a lattice   Eventually we would like plug-ins for CAD that would create a feature in their CAD program that opens up Element, and then brings the lattice back in without needing a file; the finished part returns to CAD, Boolean'ed with the part.    Grabowski: Does Element run on the cloud? Rothenberg: It runs on a laptop. No cloud processing is needed.   Grabowski: Autodesk announced lattice design at Autodesk University. Your comments?  Rothenberg: The CAD programs are stuck using their own data types. The lattice might not be trim-able or Boolean-able. In NX, you can design a lattice but it is difficult to use it elsewhere.   Grabowski: You recently received series-A funding of $7.6 million. What do you plan to use it for? Rothenberg: We will use the funding to extend Element to more manufacturing processes, adding other types of physics, and writing additional parameters and rules. - - -   nTopology offers a free, permanent-license version of Element with lattice design tools. Download after registration from https://www.ntopology.com/element-free. The Pro version of Element adds editing, analysis, optimization, and data interchange. To watch videos of nTopology at work, visit https://www.dropbox.com/   www.ntopology.com   Sponsor: Okino Graphics == 3D CAD & DCC Conversion for MAXON Cinema-4D Animation ==   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. http://www.okino.com Notable Quotable "It's not magic. Web publishers can publish an unlimited number of pages and get an unlimited number of page views but there's only a limited number of people buying advertising."     - Alan Mutter, professor, University of California Berkeley       https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-running-buzzfeed-mashable-074413166.html

*6733

The State of MCAD: BricsCAD Platinum, 2018

Issue #961

 

by Ralph Grabowski with Dmitry Ushakov During the Bricsys International Conference 2017 in Paris, Dmitry Ushakov presented a history of MCAD, and explained why his company is doing things differently from the rest of the industry. Mr Ushakov is the ceo of Bricsys Technologies Russia.  - - - Dmitry Ushakov presenting at Bricsys International Conference in October Dmitry Ushakov: Let me first remind you that exactly 30 years ago, 30 September 1987, there was an event that completely changed the face of our industry. A math professor had immigrated to the United States in 1974, and after ten years of work at ComputerVision, he had started his own company. He called it Parametric Technology Corporation with the goal to create a conceptually new CAD product. His goal was to reduce the cost of making design changes. The idea was to exploit design history. Whenever a designer performs a 3D model operation, the CAD system automatically records it in the history tree. This tree is visible to the user, who can edit its parameters. [When the parameters are changed,] the geometry is regenerated and a variation on the design is produced.  His idea was brilliant, but the downside to this technology was discovered. The downside is a serious problem: every element in the history tree depends on the elements created before it. If a previous element is deleted or deeply modified, then later elements cannot be regenerated. The designer is forced to recreate them from scratch. In the worst case, the designer has to recreate the whole model from scratch. This is not acceptable, and this is not the only problem with history-based modeling. The whole idea of associating design history with design intent is wrong. The same model can be designed in many different ways, and design intent should not depend on one particular way.  In particular, regeneration times can be long. You cannot wait for design changes that are not foreseen by the designer or customer. There are many other limitations, yet 30 years later we still see this technology on the market.  We see that the approach of Pro/Engineer is successful [using the history tree], as are Solidworks and Inventor. They really gained a big share of the market, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, because you cannot start your design in one system [such as Pro/E] and continue in another one [such as Solidworks]. You cannot jump design intent between these systems; you can only translate dumb geometry.  The impossibility of editing geometry originating in different systems is a very limiting factor, because today every company works in a multi-CAD environment. You are not isolated; you work with your suppliers, with partners, with your customers. All them use their own CAD systems. You have to be able to work with foreign geometry.  It was this situation that raised the renaissance of direct modeling. Now we can find direct editing operations in almost every history-based CAD system. This is a very strange mixture, because every direct editing operation is automatically captured and recorded in the tree. When you change parameters, when you regenerate the geometry, these "direct editing" operations are applied again. It makes the whole process even more complex. It makes it more difficult for the users.  When Bricsys decided to enter the 3D mechanical design market, we had to make a choice: Either implement another history-based system which would be incompatible with any existing ones and would repeat all known conceptual mistakes of this paradigm  Or else exploit a new technology developed by a Russian company, LEDAS, variational modeling -- a geometric modeling kernel with a variational constraints solver  LEDAS developed a very powerful constraints solver which allows you to put constraints on the boundaries of a geometric model, such as faces and edges. When you apply a push-pull or move-face operation, it can react intelligently with respect to the constraints. In this way, you can parameterized any geometry, even if you don't have access to its history. This paradigm opened up new horizons in making 3D models. Bricsys acquired the technology from LEDAS, together with the development team, and this lead to a burst of BricsCAD development. What really makes our solution unique? First of all, we removed the barrier between imported and native geometry. Any geometry can be edited intelligently, its intent captured automatically, and expressed as geometric and dimensional constraints and local features. BricsCAD substituting a motor from Solidworks in an elevator assembly Because we do not regenerate geometry (we use only local operations to update it), our changes are fast and robust. In BricsCAD, you never need to recreate your model from scratch. This is a serious difference from any other CAD system.  It is true that BricsCAD is a direct modeling system. But if you compare it with any other direct modeling system, you will find a lot of differences. The most important one is that we are smart. If you push-pull something, you do it with respect to adjacent elements. This is not possible in other systems.  Being unique, of course, doesn't mean we completely rejected everything that was invented before. We just repeat it in our own way. In BricsCAD you will find all key tools you expect in a mechanical design system.   MCAD in Six Years We started [MCAD] just six years ago. We first released a direct modeling tool set with 3D constraints. With that, we implemented the foundation of mechanical design for complex models using assemblies, sub-assemblies, using external components, using thousands of standard parts, with the possibility of assigning materials to compute mass properties, and so on. Then there was a move to sheet metal, because nearly every mechanical product you can see around you contains sheet metal parts. It is impossible to do mechanical design without sheet metal. We started that four years ago, and now it is a separate product which out-performs any competitor, especially in its ability to rework imported geometry. Unfolding sheet metal with BricsCAD Platinum In the same year, we introduced BricsCAD Communicator. It is a very important product for us, because we can edit imported geometry intelligently -- as intelligently as in native form. We can import CAD files in native formats, such as Solidworks, Inventor, Solid Edge, Creo, Catia, NX, as well as in neutral formats, such as STEP, IGES, and Parasolid. Independent of the file format, they can be intelligently edited in BricsCAD. Of course we all work in 3D, but we have to produce manufacturing instructions in 2D. We generate drawing views, which are updated automatically when the model is changed.  In AutoCAD there is support for dynamic blocks. These blocks are limited to 2D geometry. In BricsCAD, they are not limited; you can create parametric components for 2D drawings and for 3D, as well. You can use 2D constraints or [in BricsCAD Platinum only] 3D constraints.  Surface modeling is another tool set which is unavoidable in any mechanical design system. BricsCAD supports the creation of surface models using standard tools, but we also support a special tool set called "deformable modeling," which allows you to smoothly deform any complex shape, independent of its topology. This differentiates us from other CAD systems, because they typically require that control points be moved. This is not a solution when you have complex topology, such as a surface that consists of several faces. In BricsCAD, you can do that.  Last year, we introduced our 3D compare tool, which lets you compare two 3D models and find all the differences. It doesn't matter which CAD system was used to modify these models. You can create the model in Solidworks, and then edit it in BricsCAD, and then compare the original from Solidworks with the edited one from BricsCAD. It will find automatically all differences, because it does not depend on design history.   What's New in BricsCAD Platinum V18 Assemblies Exploded views Direct modeling Copy features, like holes, between parts, including from imported geometry Parametric components 3D constraints of entities inside associative arrays, useful for repetitive elements, like bearings and stair cases Design tables define allowable combinations of parameters, such as from international standards Drawing views BOM [bills of material] balloons linked to parts and part tables Exclude from sections, such as standard parts Exploded assembly linked to BOM through balloons Sheet metal Automatic parameterization Smart split Ribs along curves Extruded parts Communicator (translator) PMI import (product and manufacturing information) http://www.bricsys.com   What Ralph Grabowski Thinks Thirty years after its introduction, history-based MCAD continues to be profitable. Pro/Engineer (now Creo) is part of the $1.1 billion/year in sales enjoyed by PTC. Solidworks has millions of users due to speedy annual growth, reported as 12% in the last year.  Mr Ushakov outlined a series of problems that users of history-based MCAD experience, yet they continue to be successful. I would like to put forward several reasons for the on-going success. History On Their Side. Having been around for 30 years, history-based is considered to be the standard approach in MCAD. Designers are no more likely to switch away from it than writers would switch away from Word; Microsoft's word processor suffers from inherent flaws, as does history-based MCAD, but everyone uses them anyhow. Even though most MCAD vendors offer direct-editing (or a guise of it), it is not yet mainstream, and so Bricsys is offering an as-yet non-mainstream solution, even though it works well. Pre-CAD not Real CAD. The catalyst for the renaissance in direct editing, Space Claim, emphasized its adjacent-seat status. Their marketing positioned Space Claim as pre-CAD and after-CAD software -- before the "real design work" was done by Solidworks, and then afterwards to clean up history-based CAD's screwups prior to the model arriving on the CAM floor. The message stuck: direct editing is meant for before and after the real work done by history-based CAD. While the marketing from Bricsys emphasizes all three stages -- pre-design, real-CAD, and clean-up -- I feel that the message is not yet sticking. Get 'Em While They're Young. Companies who sell Solidworks, Solid Edge, and Inventor are prime movers in the post-secondary education industry, backing up millions of free licenses with free multi-media training materials. (Autodesk says it cost them $100 million.) Every day, students learn how to use "30-year-old" history-based MCAD, and then once they understand how to use one system, they easily switch to another, because they all work the same. Bricsys has little presence in the education market. Do As I Say. Even if students learn direct editing in school, it does not matter once they start working at a manufacturing firm. They use the software they are given, and the software they are given is most likely going to be history-based MCAD. Bricsys has a small market share, with the number of users estimated between 250,000 and 650,000, and so is not a major presence at manufacturing firms at this time.  I Paid A Lot For My Degree. There are psychological angles, too. Engineers spend a lot of time and money to learn history-based MCAD. They expect their software to be complicated and hard-to-use, otherwise anyone could do their job.  The Bricsys ease-of-use trope goes against that meme.  If It's Expensive, It Must Be Good. In some cultures, using tools (and driving automobiles) that are expensive is a sign of importance. Bricsys has emphasized the low-cost of BricsCAD, and so psychologically it may be seen as not as serious as expensive MCAD. It is time to retire that analog, as Bricsys is increasing its prices. At at the top end, their MCAD system now costs $2,490 for the Platinum base product, Sheet-metal and Communicator (translation) add-ons, and one-year support. - - -   Bricsys executives tell me they are winning the battle on the ground. Locally, distributors and dealers are converting firms to BricsCAD. And it's not for the negative reasons I listed above, but for another negative reason: Autodesk insistence in forcing subscriptions on unwilling customers is forcing customers to take a look at the alternatives. It is here where Bricsys gets its growth, in addition to the abilities it put into BricsCAD.   And Now the Rest of the News... Some of the most recent posts on my WorldCAD Access blog: Yuri Kozulin Tells the Real History of the C3D Kernel - - - Machining Software launched OnCreate3D, the first full-cloud CAM app that runs in all major Web browsers. To start machining, import a CAD File and then choose a project type, such as Mill-2D or Mill-3D.  Mill 3D supports Pocket, Contour, Parallel, Radial, Pencil, and more operations; Mill 2D supports Pocket, Contour, Rest Area operations. Lathe supports Turning, Facing, Grooving, and so on. Lathing will be introduced soon, while nesting and laser/punch are being considered for the future. Output is to 30 controllers, or a customized machine. The first ten NC files are free at http://www.OnCreate3D.com - - - Autodesk last week reported a net loss for the tenth quarter in a row (2.5 years) of US$120 million, although its revenues were up 5% over the same quarter a year ago. Just in time for Christmas, the company is laying off 13% of its employees (1,150 people). This follows more layoffs earlier in the year. The share price reacted unfavorably to the news. The layoffs go against the motif of keynote speech given at Autodesk University 2017, which put forward the notion that the automation provided by Autodesk's software might actually increase employment. One of our letter writers was good enough to research the "more ATMs = more tellers" assertion made during the keynote (see Letters to the Editor, below).  martynday‏ (@martynday on Tiwtter): In my experience of these events, you lose a lot of good people, a lot of knowledge, because company politics means it's a useful time to settle scores. Is there a definitive lists of products that are now end-of-life? - - -   I met last month with Onshape ceo Jon Hirschtick, who prompted me, "Ask me anything." I said, :"The only question any CAD journalist cares about is, 'How many users do you have?'" His answer we have heard before: "'Trillions' of free users, and thousands of paid users."  Randall Newton expands on his answer at Consilia Vektor:  https://www.consiliavektor.com - - - Randall S. Newton‏ (@RSNatWork): Trying to track down information on a supposed architects revolt again Autodesk being organized in France. It seems the new subscription plans do not set well. Will report here and at my website as I come up with news.   UPFRONT.EZINE‏ (@upFronteZine): I say, when you've lost Roopinder, you've lost the war against your customers. [Click image to read his column.] Rande Robinson‏ (@randerobinson): Yep. - - - For late-breaking CAD news, follow upFront.eZine on Twitter at @upfrontezine. Letters to the Editor Re: Why BIM is not happening (as it should be) Rene writes "I don't believe in pre-cooked systems containing endless structured data models. Each data model is very discipline-specific: an architect's view is completely different to that of the janitor. The structure of a BIM has to fit the specific needs of the parties involved in the project."  Amen. The janitor and the facility manager are among the last consumers/users of the model. To go from model to building are a multitude of trades with their own specific views (and alterations/elaborations) to the model.  Rene writes "I expect that the main obstacle to BIM is that the party who has to fill the majority of the BIM, the architect, is also the one who has the least gain from using it -- meaning architects are not being paid to fill a project BIM properly."  They are neither being paid nor can they possibly have the trade-specific knowledge to fill a BIM so it is a model you can build directly from. And anyone who thinks we are close to having sufficient intelligence in the software is both extremely optimistic and quite ignorant of the real-world complexity of buildings. We will get much closer but it will be slow and difficult.     -Leo Schlosberg (via WorldCAD Access)   Re: My Notes on Autodesk University 2017, Las Vegas I found the [Autodesk University] conference to be getting too irrelevant for my particular corner of the Autodesk spectrum, so unless something changes, I probably won’t go back. I’ve been to five now and the value is decreasing. It is becoming obvious that if you are not in the latest Autodesk technology workflow, there isn’t much in the way of training for you. I found Mr Anagnost’s one sided look at the affect of ATMs on the number of tellers after 50 years since their introduction comical, but maybe I’m overthinking it. Shouldn’t the overall growth of the economy (159.5% US) have a major impact on the number of tellers employed? Yup, after 50 years the number has recovered enough to exceed the 1967 number. That seems to prove the exact opposite point.  See, I have to think that that kind of growth in the economy should have increased the number of tellers to about 3 times the 1967 number. Maybe my perspective is skewed by the material handling news I read about daily regarding automation’s affect on the brick and mortar industry. I work in an industry that is empowering corporations to increase logistics efficiency exponentially, but the acknowledged by-product is that more jobs are shed in the process. Of course, those warehouse workers can retrain and become robot programmers, right?     - Ron Powell - - - "If you don't see value in subscriptions, you should probably find another software solution." What many of us believe -- and this comment from [Autdoesk ceo] Andew Anagnost supports it -- is that they will undoubtedly discontinue a large number of programs that still have perpetual seats attached to them. You kill a program, you have no perpetual-seat problem any more. Good luck converting Solidworks users to Fusion, though. Why is Autodesk worried about Chinese server farms when, even with AWS, they deny any liability in what happens to a customer who is forced to work online by their new [cloud] way?     -  Dave Ault The editor replies: There was no talk from Autodesk at AU about moving AutoCAD to the cloud -- it still is only the easy stuff they're putting their, ancillary services like project management and non-interactive CAD functions like FEA and rendering. They talked about the new functions that are being added to Fusion and Inventor. Mr Ault responds: So you think we are worrying over nothing? We get so little information that sometimes all we can go on is to try to connect the dots. I wish this whole CAD and CAM on the cloud thing would just go away. I am old enough that I can work just fine with what I have for some time. These discussions are becoming  more academic rather than serious for me as time passes. - - -  Ralph,  what is your take on cloud computing? Other than video games and some crucial business people, like 1%, I don’t see the use. Maybe they all want be one percenters? LOL.     -Chris Hannukainen The editor replies: Cloud computing is supposed to be faster than desktop computing, because more cores can be put to use. But that works only for the peripheral parts of CAD that can make use of more than one thread, such as rendering and FEA. But even then, there is a lag due to the distance over the Internet is longer and slower than over the PCI bus of your computer. Then there is the danger to your business from the vendor shutting down the cloud-run software. The ceo of Autodesk says it's not a good idea to base your business on AutoCAD LT; I say it's not a good idea to base your business on cloud software -- vapourware at the other end. - - - I have been a long-time reader of yours and so I was just reading your latest post on AU. There you mentioned two quotes from Andrew Anagnost, the first about AutoCAD LT, the other about subscription: If you think [AutoCAD] LT is the future of your company, you are probably betting your company on the wrong thing. If you don't see value in subscription, you should probably find another software solution I tried to find these statements in Keynotes, like the Opening Keynote, but did not find such statements in it. Could you point me to a video, if such exists, where I can rewatch these statements.     -Laszlo Nagy The editor replies: He made the statements during the media-only Q&A event, from which I tweeted the following: Non-maintenance perceptual-license customers are "not our customers" because they don't give us money anymore, says .@andrew_anagnost. Small customers are most unhappy with subscriptions:"If you don't see value in subscription, you should probably find another software solution" Anagnost confirmed most of my quote by tweeting:  The first part is mostly correct. I said “not REALLY our customers” the second part Ralph conveniently left out the “if they don’t see the value we say is coming” part. I also tweeted from the media-only event: "If you think [ #AutoCAD] LT is the future of your company, you are probably betting your company on the wrong thing," says Andrew Anagnost at #AU2017. He wants you to bet your company on Forge. Mr Nagy responds: Thank you very much for taking the time to look for the source of the quote further. I have managed to find your conversations with him on Twitter. Very valuable info. - - - I believe Autodesk is missing (or perhaps doesn’t care) that customers have experienced the cancellation of software products. With permanent license apps, at least you had the ability to keep using the app to access your digital assets (i.e. data files).   But with subscription/cloud products, what happens when Autodesk drops the product?  Softimage, 123D, AutoSolid (remember that old one?),  Buzzsaw, Combustion, Mechanical Desktop, Lightscape, Volo View, AutoCAD Survey, Civil Design, Land Desktop, and more are gone. It’s got to be real fun telling the boss we can’t make replacement parts for that important client because you can’t open those old design files.     - Ken Elliott The editor replies: I know what you mean. I have a copy of the long-discontinued Actrix Professional and help people convert their files to DWG, from time to time. Your point is a question I should have asked at the media Q&A sessions.  Steve Johnson maintains the Autodesk Graveyard list at https://www.cadnauseam.com/autodesk-graveyard/ - - - Your reference to the early days of Autodesk University brought back fond memories. I was one of about 700 people at the founding session of NAAUG (North American AutoCAD User Group) at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose in 1990. NAAUG later morphed into AUGI (Autodesk User group International) which in turn begat Autodesk University. My original AUGI membership number was only 3 digits, but I was re-assigned a new, slightly-higher number a couple of years later when the original membership list somehow got munched. More fond memories from reader Dik Coates​' description of his first AutoCAD computer: "I remember the shuttle drawing on AutoCAD 2.15 on an old 8088 with an 8087 [math co-processor] and Herc [monochrome]graphics card." My first AutoCAD computer was also an 8088 with 8087 math chip, running AutoCAD 2.17(g) with a Tecmar graphics Master (800x600, 16-colour) graphics card. We were the envy of the Vancouver AutoCAD Users Society; we actually had a 20 meg hard drive, and had paid $1,000 extra for a second meg of RAM. Everyone else was running 640x480 graphics cards and two 5 -1/2" floppy drives; AutoCAD came on four floppies, one of which always had to live in the second drive so AutoCAD could swap different portions of the code in and out of memory, depending on the command you issued. I, on the other hand, could have the overlays upload to a virtual drive in the extra RAM on boot-up and so code swapping was almost instantaneous. Mind you, I could go from a power-on cold boot to the AutoCAD 'Command:' prompt in under 30 seconds. My current Windows 10 machine takes almostfour minutes to get to the same point. I'm amused by all the current interest in virtual reality. Here's my experience with it: I once walked into a pool room, took a cue off the rack, and took the break shot. The balls all rolled properly, showed the correct lighting hot spots, and made full anatomically-correct stereo sounds as they bounced off each other. Faced with a difficult lie, I turned off "reality checking," crawled under the "table," and hit the cue ball from underneath. Next, change scale: I have stood on the sun and played pool with the earth and the moon, and I have jumped into a glass of water and played "Jungle Jim" as I climbed up the molecules. I have also "flown" the latest generation of fighter jet, and have performed brain surgery. Now comes the interesting bit. This all happened 25 years ago (yes, 25!) in the top-secret back room of a major CAD company. The hardware included: Helmet made by sticking two Sony Watchman (micro-portable TV set) screens to a pair of welder's goggles; Headset Gloves from an early dedicated game machine '486 computer with two 640x480 VGA video cards.​ ...and finally, the following obituary: It is with a great deal of sadness that I report that the final meeting of the Vancouver AutoCAD User’s Society (VAUS) took place 1st November 2017. VAUS was the first AutoCAD users group in the world. Our slogan was “The world’s oldest and most dangerous,” having been founded by Lionel Johnson in early 1984, who owned AutoCAD serial number 7. Anyway, the original newsletter for VAUS was called... CADalyst! Yes, the newsletter for the first AutoCAD user group in the world evolved into CADalyst magazine. In the early days of AutoCAD, the Internet didn’t exist yet, public-school classes didn’t exist, night school classes didn’t exist, and so on. By far the least-painful way to learn AutoCAD was to find a good local user group. Luckily I found VAUS. In its heyday it averaged 80-100 attendees per monthly session. Time, however, rolls along. Recently it had fallen to 6-10 people seven times a year. The reasons for this decline were outlined in the preceding paragraph; all those things listed as “not existing” now do. One wag has also suggested that the software is now so intuitive and easy to use that user groups are no longer required. Yeah, right. Anyway, as the British say on the death of a monarch: “The king is dead! Long live the king!”     - Bill Fane   Thank You, Readers! Should you wish to support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are like these: $25 for individuals > paypal.me/upfrontezine/25 $150 for small companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/150 $625 for for large companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/625 Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of grabowski@telus.net. Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.   Notable Quotable "The average person works for two hours a day for Mark Zuckerberg generating a data profile."     - Jonathan Taplin, "Break up Google and Facebook if you ever want innovation again"     http://www.theregister.co.uk

*6449