Moderated by Ralph Grabowski
|
|
I really enjoyed your newsletter addressing the still-troubling aspects of CAM [computer-aided manufacturing]. Frankly, I was starting to think that no one cared about the subject any more.
As someone who spent many years on the CAM side, but many more on the mechanical CAD side, it always amazed me that the CAD/CAM divide was such a difficult problem to solve. Making tolerancing an easy and straightforward part of the modeling process remains an ongoing CAD challenge.
I had an opportunity to speak to several CAM market leaders about the prospects for AI [artificial intelligence] in CAM. I noted a difference between CAM and 3D printing: with 3D printing, there is no CAM programmer. The vendors have automated that task to leverage the strengths of their individual machines.
By contrast, metal cutting is much more complex, but with the advances in AI tools, it seems like a good research area. The quote that sticks out in my memory was “Why would we do that? CAM Programmers are our target customer!”
Some of the most exciting developments in CAM are coming not from the CAD/CAM companies, but from manufacturing platforms like Protolabs. I often wonder what would happen if they ever decided to franchise their technology.
Thanks for continuing to shine a light on our little industry! - Bob McGill, president Engineered Alliances
- - -
Your statement “The first CAD systems were developed by McDonnell Douglas (Unigraphics, now NX from Siemens) and Dassault Aviation (now from Dassault Systemes) purposely to output to CAM. “ is incorrect, but I think you just stated it badly.
If you had said “The first CAD systems developed purposely to output to CAM …” then CATIA and Unigraphics might be closer to correct but I think UNISURF would generally be regarded as first. CATIA is obviously not one of “The first CAD systems” since Dassault bought the source code of CADAM (developed by Lockheed) and added 3-D to the top of the existing software. CATIA is short for “Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application,” surprisingly not in French.
I am pretty sure I remember the first CAM applications using G-code were for printed circuit board applications and then parts nesting type applications, and that 3D CAM came several years later.
After AutoCAD came out, the typical method for creating G-code was to produce a DXF file and then convert that to G-code. Unfortunately, those systems were notorious for being unmachinable with gaps, zero length lines, etc. I remember writing software in the late '80s to smooth G-code paths, but other than that never really did do much in that realm. - Scott Taylor, founder Taylor Made Software
- - -
Great article. We’re in a project now where this topic is hitting home. Your quote, "The gulf between CAD and CAM exists because CAD works with mathematical certainty, while CAM works with tolerances, a technical word for "uncertainty," is well said -- nice way to put it. - Martin van der Roest, president The vdR Group, Inc
- - -
At least the subtractive market (SM) HAD a CAM market. It may have been inefficient, but you could use multiple programs on a given CNC machine. Some work better with some machines than others but... Plus, material properties were well known, so you could be more certain of achieving the desired outcome.
In the additive market, it is machine by machine, additive process by additive process, with variations for every material. Plus, they can't even agree on the geometric representation. Voxels anyone?
(Don't get me started about, 'Can AM [additive manufacturing] parts made with a metal have the same properties and performance as SM parts cut from it?' The simulation companies have a lot of work to do and money to make.)
I think that is part of what Autodesk was trying to do with their Spark AM initiative a few years ago: provide a more common interface between CAD and AM. It did not survive.
This is an area with so much promise but so many complexities to consider. Thanks for being in the middle of it. - Stan Przybylinski, vice president CIMdata, Inc
The editor replies: Across the pond, Martyn Day has been pounding home the disconnect between BIM and CAM for construction. See, for example, aecmag.com/technology-mainmenu-35/1885-the-generation-game
- - -
I have to say, your article on CAD/CAM is totally wrong. I have produced manual drawings and proceeded to 3D CAD in 1982, and still produced engineering documentation. They were not drawings but documents directly generated from the 3D model. The selling point of 3D CAD in the beginning was faster documentation.
Most of the 3D CAD users in the beginning were experienced draftsman who were trained in documentation, including tolerancing. Around 1988 surfacing was widely introduced with Pro/E and their solids. The common format was IGES. MasterCAD, SmartCAD and SurfCAM were a few of the PC-based CNC [computer numerically controlled] programs.
From that point on we created the documentation from the 3D model (Which I have coined "AID," associated Information document), which defined the tolerancing just as we did pre-CAD. Actually there is little difference: they now have a dead-nuts model to program from.
Solids showed up on the PC in 1995 and solid neutral files showed up on IGES and STEP. Soon most of the CAD/CAM packages could read the native files of all the major programs. The standard delivery out of Boeing was the model (IGES/STEP) and the aid delivered as a print until the turn of the century with introduction of the PDF. I sold every Boeing suppler a copy of PC based 3D CADKEY to work with CATIA 2, 3, 4 and 5 from 1987. We sold SurfCAM, CADKEY CNC and now ZW3D.
I still support many CNC programmers! I still send many models and AID to machine shops, sheet metal shop, and mold shops and have done so for 30 years. There is no gap between CAD and CAM. Catia, Creo, KeyCreator, NX, Fusion 360 and ZW3D have integrated CAM. Solidworks, IronCAD, and other programs have third party CNC that work with the programs.
Today, there is a bit of a problem since Boeing eliminated the draftsman with the intro of PLM [product lifecycle management] and MBE [model based engineering]. The engineers are not trained in documentation and it has been put aside in importance, causing a bit of a problem. CAD and CAM have been working together for decades.
I never used AutoCAD or any Autodesk products until I was hired as a sales/tech manager to sell the Autodesk manufacturing solution in 2012.
References:
- Joe Brouwer, president Tech-net Inc
- - -
Great post. Can I re-blog this? It does a good job of covering many things I have been thinking about.
I was recently at a conference listening to a panel of young tech people saying how they're going to fix all the broken and inefficient processes of construction. Not a one of them knew beans, as far as I was concerned. They do not understand the difference between designing and manufacturing. All the complexities you mention apply to construction, but on steroids. - Leo Schlosberg, principle Cary Concrete
The editor replies: You have permission to reprint this article with appropriate sourcing, such as: Reprinted with permission from upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd.
- - -
Thanx for the excellent survey of the subject!
I can relate to all of it, having reinvented myself numerous times over the years in every way you discuss to keep on par with the competition. I spent the better part of a year learning how to scan, process scan data into CAD data, and 3D print. I wasted a lot of time trying to find a solution for CNC out of BIM data. I even tried automating tank design and other specialty kinds of MCAD, only to find severe limitations without knowledge of VBA (which I'm currently trying to learn, but not doing so well).
End result: Not only could I not break into those markets to make a living, but I also could not find a niche to fill with my high-level skills because nobody was willing to pay a reasonable price for this high-level work product. Thanx again for the interesting read, as always! - Chris Cadman |
|
Re: PTC Bought Onshape
PTC needs to follow Salesforce's sales structure and system if it wants to be successful in selling a SaaS product. I doubt PTC's existing sales force will be able to do this. - Bob Mayer, CEO IMSI Design
The editor replies: You are right that PTC has little idea how to sell low-value contracts to small-size businesses. Maybe you should be advising Hepplemann!
- - -
This brings to mind that perhaps there's a strategic error happening in the CAD market."In the cloud" and "in a Web browser" are not synonymous. For example, you've probably used Zoom or WebEx video teleconferencing software. These applications are in the cloud, but they don't run in a browser. (WebEx does have an in-browser version, but I've never managed to get that to work.) You use a browser up to a point, but once the heavy lifting starts, the browser takes you to a thin client that is purpose-built for the application.
That might be a better fit for CAD. They could keep the data and the hard number crunching in the cloud, but continue to do real-time input and rendering locally on the PC. That releases them from the nightmare of trying to build enterprise software in a language and environment (JavaScript/HTML5) that is ill-suited to that task. But it retains the zero-footprint, easy upgrade, cloud data, and SaaS business model that would make cloud-CAD desirable.
Similarly on tablets, using a native client to access a cloud service is the norm, because tablet browsers are so terrible. (For example, using the Twitter App on a mobile device, instead of just going to the Twitter Web site.)
In my imagined deployment, only the thin-client would need to be ported to the mobile devices (assuming doing real CAD is even possible in that constrained environment; at least it might be viable for viewing and mark-up). -Joshua Smith, CTO Kaon
The editor replies: As far as I know, there are only two ways to do CAD by the SaaS method:
- Do everything on the server and just push raster images of the screen to the browser (like Fra.me, which is an awful experience)
- Push the vector data from the server to the browser, and then have the browser deal with them.
Is there a third method you are thinking of?
Mr Smith responds: There is indeed a third option. It’s how apps like Twitter work. Most of work is happening in the cloud, and while you could do the user interface in a browser (and, in fact, there is a mobile Web site that’s similar to the app experience), the native app can do a lot of things that would be impossible in a browser.
Simple things like browsing for files, drag/drop from other apps, and supporting various input devices are a mess when you try to put the client in the browser. So instead, you make a thin client that isn’t a CAD program, but it’s also not a general purpose browser. And you can control the software lifecycle of that thin client, which you absolutely cannot with a browser.
Imagine you’re a company that has transitioned to a cloud/SaaS CAD solution. A new version of Chrome drops and -- oops -- your CAD program doesn’t work any more. It’s the nightmare scenario, but it’s practically unavoidable.
You can’t avoid the browser update, because that exposes you to security threats. But if you do update the browser, your people can’t do their jobs! And you can’t disconnect from the Internet to protect yourself from the security threat of staying back a version, since then your people also can’t do their jobs.
A thin client solves that. The vendor can plan new releases and control the deployment, ensuring everything has been tested.
- - -
This published story is a good read. Mr. Jon was "spot on" in his comment regarding Autodesk's position on SaaS as the cloud platform when he said, "They [Autodesk] say that the cloud future is SaaS, it's just they don't back it up with the goods yet. We align completely on the idea that you have to have a pure cloud, pure SaaS platform and offering. Autodesk today offers a partial solution, mixing installed software with cloud, partial cloud services, and so forth....."
I can say that I've experienced some "mealy mouth" moments with Autodesk as it pertains to the company's goals and business models moving forward. I digress.
I did want to comment regarding the full-speed-ahead trend we are witnessing moving beyond hardcopy spreadsheets, uncontrolled documentation, 2D or 3D unintelligent models, and as someone stated above, "sharing data by copying files, often thousands of files among different people and tools", and into the buzz of real time simulation, generative design, additive manufacturing, IoT, AR, edge, Manuf 4.0, digital twins, with 5G in there somewhere.
I have begun capturing available documentation and whitepapers in an attempt to wrap my mind around the reason or use of each technology and the play-by-play process in execution. I can say I'm having trouble getting past the security issues of ANYTHING moving to-and-fro on the Worldwide Web.
In researching this topic, I feel like I'm being fed with a fire hose. I appreciate articles like this and the effort I know it takes to publish it. Thanks. -Stacey Boudreaux, CAD Software Manager Machine Tech Services
- - -
Very interesting issue. It's morbidly entertaining to watch marketing types flail around. I'm sure there are people in the backgrounds of these companies who have been quietly saying, "Let's grow the company by developing products that people need, and selling them at a nice profit." And the geniuses at the helm jerk the wheel back and forth, chasing every get-rich-quick scheme to grow by buying out other flailing companies and dreaming up new ways to say old things.
Somehow, every time I read about SaaS, I think about how obviously ridiculous that would be for every kind of tool that I use. Like if Snap-On barged into my shop every year, took my 19mm deep socket out of the box, and put in a new one just like it, except for some microscopic "improvement" to the logo stamped in it, and then left me a bill for twenty dollars.
The engineer's job doesn't change very rapidly. We are still doing the same thing we've always done, figuring out ways to build machinery out of the components that are available. To imagine that the tools to do that need to undergo radical transformation every couple of years is delusional.
I seem to be in a cynical mood, today. I've now shut the blinds so I can't see the cold, cloudy weather, and I'm going to put some Jimmy Buffett on, and try to do productive work. - Jess Davis, President Davis Precision Design - - - More good reporting! The sell-outs that have been going on over the past 20 years in the CAD software market are appalling, from an American free enterprise capitalism perspective. Americans are supposed to hate monopolies and cartels. Americans even have federal laws with very weighty penalties for forming monopolies and cartels. But they never get enforced against the real perps, that is, the corporate interests which the “idle rich” perpetrate on society.
I noted that you said “1997 dollars.” That tweaked me, because it’s a reference to the value that such dollars had back then compared to today (which I’m guessing is your point).
Thanx for another informative eZine! - Chris Cadman
The editor replies: I am fascinated by the attacks on the giants of Silicon Valley from some of the Democrats hoping next year to become president, much to the horror of the Googles and Facebooks, who had all along been pandering to progressives over conservatives. "That isn't supposed to be happening," I can hear them muttering.
- - -
Good analysis and reporting, Ralph. Most of what has been written about this acquisition has been stupid. Your article is a rare exception. - Steve Wolfe
The editor replies: From reading the other reports, they seemed to me largely to be rewrites of the press release as the authors hurried to get out the news. I've been reading PTC conference call transcripts for a decade, and so their "our latest crush" pattern has become quite a regular occurrence. |
|
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
- Pat FitzHenry
- Ken Etter: "Always enjoy reading your newsletter!"
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these:
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. |
|
"Forgiving a murder from a year ago is baffling to people who can't forgive a tweet from ten years ago." - Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_ on Twitter) |
|
|
|
Recent Comments