upFront.eZine News Archives

Readers Respond: Lots of Letters to the Editor

Issue #1,061   |    June 29, 2020

 

Moderated by Ralph Grabowski   From the Editor So many of you wrote thoughtful letters about recent upFront.eZine articles that this issue is monster-sized and is dedicated to you, the writers.     - Ralph Grabowski - - -   Re: The Future of IFC Tech is still grappling with crossing the divide between design and build. I would make two arguments: one, possibly the majority of benefits of BIM [building information modeling] derive more from IPD [integrated project delivery] than from the technology. At a very high confidence level I would say that without IPD, BIM is of very limited utility.  Two, in the early years of IFC, it focused on MEP [mechanical, electrical, plumbing], so that is where BIM has had the greatest success.  The historically normal approach of design-bid-build is a process that in real life involves a lot of redesign, a.k.a. "delegated design" in which the shop drawing process is essentially an iterative detailed re-design in most cases. IPD instead means that you bring a general contractor and the key subcontractors (historically the MEP guys, mainly) on board early during the design phase. They come onboard on a negotiated basis, rather than as bidders. Often this involves sharing in both the upside and downside of the final project cost, versus the traditional approach in which subs participate only on the downside.  You put all the players in a big room and work out many of the details in that room, so the BIM model ends up being much more reflective of reality, than a purely designer-designed BIM. (I think you already understand that architects have limited knowledge and responsibility for what they design, and their fees are commensurate and limited.) The low hanging fruit among all the MEP contractors is clash detection, who otherwise fight for room [to fit their ducts, wires, and pipes] in ceilings and other spaces. The fighting used to occur during shop drawings and sometimes even in the field when trades gave each other little surprises.  With IPD, all the clashes as detected in the big meeting room, resolved, and put into the model. That technology wants to take credit is an old story. It tries to take credit for the gains from discipline and cooperation that are outside the technology, but often accompany it. For instance, computerized inventory control systems require that each item get a unique identifier, and that every movement of items in and out be recorded, whether at a store or a warehouse. Without discipline, computerized systems are basically worthless, or worse, are where you pay the costs but cannot reap the benefits.  Conversely, with the technology but without the discipline, you get some benefits.  When both cooperate together, you get maximum benefits, but the technology evangelists/salespersons will always attribute far more benefits to the technology, ignoring the role of the changed process.      - Leo Schlosberg   Re: 2 Guys Talk CAD If SpaceClaim is the evidence for the success of direct modeling, no wonder the CAD industry is not investing there. Your reader believes that direct modeling is the next thing. The truth is that it is an old technology that has been around way before the history/feature-based CAD and lost to the history-based systems.      - Gal Raz (via WorldCAD Access) The editor replies: Direct editing was the next thing a decade ago. Today it appears that the next thing is direct simulation. SpaceClaim was not successful, except in marketing itself. SpaceClaim's marketing did, however, force the largest firms in the MCAD industry to move their software away from being based solely on PTC's pioneering history-based parametric design, and embrace direct modeling -- as witnessed by the direct modeling software launched nearly simultaneously by Autodesk, Dassault, PTC, and Siemens.  - - - You wrote, "Synchronous Technology, however, suffers from being very hard to understand and implement, because you have to figure out stuff before you start drawing -- the very opposite to what direct modeling is supposed to offer -- and so few Solid Edge and NX users use it."  ST does NOT suffer from being VERY hard to use. Ralph, it's your bitterness towards Solid Edge once again that taints your opinion. Granted in the first few releases there were many issues with using Synchronous, and I was one of it's biggest critics at the time. However the developers at Solid Edge made huge improvements to the GUI to help ease the understanding of just how it works.  The ONLY people who find it difficult to use are those like yourself who are too stuck in their "OLD" ways to see its brilliance. Synchronous has matured into one of the best improvements in 3D CAD in the past decade and has saved my company countless time and money, so I'm not sure why you still hang on to such "old" perceptions and biases.  How much time have you ever spent using Synchronous Technology, and how honest of an attempt did you make to actually understand it? I've been using MCAD since the mid 80s going all the way back to Personal Designer from Computervision.  Or maybe you just can't say what you truly feel as to not upset the folks at AutoCAD or Dassualt, eh.      - Bob Mileiti (via WorldCAD Access) The editor responds: I base my opinion on the few hands I observed going up when the question was asked at the four annual Solid Edge user conferences I attended. From this, I estimate about 10% use ST. So, I am very pleased to hear that you find ST useful. Of the nearly 300 CAD reporters and analysts at Siemens' online press event earlier this month, I was the only one to ask Siemens staff why during the two-day event they hadn't told us anything about Solid Edge. Mr Mileiti responds: I don't think Spaceclaim's problems have anything to do with direct modeling a whole. Their failure to attract enough customers had more to do with their single-minded approach.  Solid Edge has always been able to deal with both Parametric and Direct Modeling. As [engineering.com wrote about Siemens vp of mainstream engineering R&D Dan Staples] back in 2018:  "One might also wonder why, if Synchronous Technology is as beneficial as its proponents claim, it’s not a more widespread paradigm. Staples believes the reason is that Siemens is just that far ahead of the technological curve in large part because of its ownership of the Parasolid kernel and D-Cubed constraint solving SDK [software development kit].  "But perhaps there’s a simpler reason, which he summarized nicely: 'Engineers are not people who like to change a lot.' History-based parametric modeling is still the dominant paradigm in the CAD world and, despite its drawbacks, it works just fine." https://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArticles/ArticleID/16587/Whats-the-Difference-Between-Parametric-and-Direct-Modeling.aspx The editor replies: I feel Mr Staples makes my case. The 'single-minded approach' referred to by Mr Mileiti is that Spaceclaim had positioned itself as a model fixer-upper adjacent to CAD seats, rather than as an MCAD system in its own right. It thought it could land a share of what it saw as a 10x-100x bigger market (of adjacent seats) than trying to compete directly with ensconced MCAD systems. (In 2014, it was purchased by ANSYS as a model fixer-upper.) - - - Synchronous Technology seems cool in a lot of ways, but I don't see it as superior to history-based design, just a different way to model and edit with its own pros and cons. It appears to fall down on complex geometry, which is where a long rebuild in the history model is at its worse.  I have some parts that I don't know how ST in Solid Edge could edit them, because there is curve to them and/or extremely complex intersections of geometry. I imagine once you learn it, it's not bad and flows well, but I must admit the user interface looks daunting -- a lot of button selections.      - Jason Capriotti (via WorldCAD Access) - - - You wrote, “Head office in Paris was pressing forward with their V6 generation (known today as "3dExperience"), which uses Delmia as the central repository for Catia data.” Enovia, ya plum. Much love,     - Al Dean - - - An interesting summary of kernels and consequences re the big boys. I have been a VX/ZWCAD user [and dealer] for 15 years doing a lot of advanced surfacing as part of everyday modeling. ZW3D has a history-based direct editing approach, which provides the benefits of geometry adjustment and the power to edit the direct edit. I find users of other software are a bit shocked when they see how intuitive and effective it is. Maybe ZW3D is not flavor of the month being Chinese, but the deep development still takes place in Florida, driven in a unique US/Sino collaboration that has been going on for years now.     - Paul Smith     Graceland Technology, New Zealand - - - Istvan Csanady responded with a marked up Word document. I summarize his and my comments with the original sentences. Mr Csanady is founder and CEO of Shapr3D. My article in upFront.eZine said: Catia and NX do things Solidworks and Solid Edge cannot -- and deliberately so -- do functions such as advanced surfacing. Istvan Csanady: I would say that systems engineering is also a key differentiator. upFront: Direct editing and modeling became vogue with the successful marketing of SpaceClaim. Csanady: I wouldn’t say Spaceclaim was very successful to be honest, and unfortunately still most CAD users don’t understand what is direct modeling. Ralph Grabowski: The company was not successful, but their marketing was brilliant. upFront: Siemens' Parasolid kernel brings direct modeling to Solid Edge and NX. Csanady: Synchronous Technology is much more than direct modeling. You can think of ST as “feature based direct modeling”. ST automates and batches direct modeling operations by recognizing features in the geometry, like shells. Direct modeling is actually part of Parasolid, and it is licensed to third parties. My Shapr3D is a direct modeling tool, for example, and it runs on Parasolid. Grabowski: My description of ST being a direct modeler was a simplified one. I understand that it is much more complex, and that users find it too complex. upFront: Autodesk wrote a new CAD program to handle direct modeling, Fusion. Csanady: Fusion actually supports both traditional history based modeling and direct modeling. You can switch between the two modes. Grabowski: Fusion is Autodesk's answer to direct modeling, rather than bolting it onto Inventor. upFront: My understanding is that Solidworks it has only a kludge that imitates the effect of direct modeling. Csanady: Solidworks supports all the direct modeling operations, but you can’t turn off design history. So every direct modeling operation is another step in the design history, but basically you get many of the benefits of direct modeling. Obviously, there is a lot of room for improvement in their direct modeling implementation, but it has the basics. Grabowski: That is the reason behind me using the word 'kludge'. I knew that there was a problem with Solidworks direct modeling. Thanks for spelling it out for me! upFront: Dassault should have swapped out Parasolids for CGM, while leaving everything else in place. Csanady: This is easier to say than do. They tried, but it’s basically impossible. If you want to replace a b-rep kernel under a history-based modeler, you need bug-to-bug level compatibility between the two kernels, otherwise you will have significant data loss. Grabowski: Oh, I understand that it would be very difficult! Hence my use of the word 'should'. Mimicking all bugs is an angle I had not thought of before. upFront: If they swapped out Parasolid for CGM (they certainly do not enjoy paying license fees to Siemens) they would have incompatible geometry yet again. Csanady: I think this requires a little bit more of a pragmatic approach: how much they are paying for Siemens versus how much would it cost to replace Parasolids with CGM, and how much would customers benefit from that?  Considering these factors, it’s actually not that obvious that [the kernel swap] would be worth it, unless they believe that Solidworks will start competing at the higher end of the market, becomes a direct NX competitor, and replaces CATIA in their portfolio, which I find highly unlikely. Grabowski: Agreed. Nevertheless, Paris keeps hitting its head against a wall -- a Solidworks wall. upFront: At one point, Dassault told me that CGM was better at it because it was second derivative continuous. Csanady: This does not make too much sense. You can create G2 or Gn continuous surfaces with Parasolid as well, and you can implement any surfacing algorithm on the top of Parasolid. Actually I would say that Parasolid is in every possible way superior to CGM. In robustness, performance, speed etc., CGM is not even close. Grabowski: This statement was made by an ex-Dassault employee, who was not on the CAD side of things. upFront: The final death knell for cloud-based mid-sized MCAD came when Onshape admitted they had only 5,000 paying customers. Csanady: Not because it’s cloud-based, but because there isn’t a single customer problem that their implementation solves. It’s technology done for the sake of doing technology. Obviously cloud-based solutions will be and should be implemented, especially for collaboration and data exchange, but running the modeling with a browser front-end and cloud back-end makes literally zero sense, is insanely hard to implement, gives no value to the user, and has lots of drawbacks. Grabowski: I always found the approach used by Belmont Technology interesting, them using the 'we wrote the new gen of MCAD (Solidworks) that became a huge success' argument to land $169 million. A does not infer B.  I think that PTC sees value primarily in the database aspect of Onshape, and a way to sell PTC-branded CAD to smaller customers. In a press event earlier this month, the head of Siemens CAD again emphasized that there will be no cloud version of NX and Solid Edge. - - - Let Daren know that Logitech owns 3Dconnexion. His money still went to Logitech. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Dconnexion     - Christopher Fugitt The editor replies: I was under the impression 3Dconnexion went independent of Logitech. Mr Fugitt responds: I've been able to find only one reference to 3Dconnexion being sold: spacemice.org/index.php?title=3DConnexion. It looks like from SEC filings that 3Dconnexion was removed from the list of Logitech subsidiaries. It isn't listed as a subsidiary in the 2020 10-K filing, so you might be correct in it being sold. ir.logitech.com/financial-info/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?FilingId=14178866 - - - Daren is right about everything, except 3Dconnexion being a different company than Logitech. I missed my Performance MX enough I bought a replacement spring for the left click switch.     - Henry Sommer The editor replies: The confusion comes about as both Google and Bing, as their top search result, incorrectly say 3Dconnexion is owned by Logitech, while the Wikipedia entry has not been updated in a decade. I did not know it was possible to get replacement parts! Mr Sommer responds: You were right. Logitech sold them in 2012. The Spacemouse I was using is older than I realized. logitech.com/assets/45907/logitech-2012-annual-report.ENG.pdf There are instructions online about how to take it apart and replace the spring at electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/29955/how-do-i-fix-an-omron-d2fc-f-7n-microswitch-from-unwanted-clicks and gonnalearn.com/inside-omron-d2fc-f-7n-microswitch/. I bought entire switches, and then transplanted the springs. It is a delicate process but the mouse is as good as new. smile.amazon.com/dp/B00HPL57JQ/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_7c55EbW16XNAC The editor replies: Logitech says it sold the company at a loss as "it is more likely than not that the Company would not generate adequate capital gains in the next five years before the capital loss expires under the U.S. tax law." I turned our research into a blog entry, which you can read here: worldcadaccess.com/blog/2020/06/nobody-owns-3dconnexion.html. It concerns me that Bing, Google, and Wikipedia all have the same wrong answer, and have been wrong for nine years!   Sponsor: Okino Graphics == Okino's PolyTrans|CAD Software for Professional 'Load & Go' 3D Conversions ==    For over three decades, mission-critical 3D conversion software from Okino of Toronto has been used effectively by tens of thousands of professionals. We develop, support, and convert between all major CAD, DCC, and VisSim formats. CTO Robert Lansdale and his team tailors each package to the specific conversion requirements or problems of each customer. Popular CAD data sources we support include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more. 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 [email protected]  http://www.okino.com And in Other News A domain registrar has 3D.com for sale and hopes to land $25 million. I don't see anyone in the CAD industry ponying up that much, but someone in gaming or an nVidia might. - - - Nanosoft last week launched nanoCAD Plus 20 with drawing comparison, 3D clipping, new built-in script editor, and a monitor for changes to system variables and externally-referenced drawings. Dynamic input adds command options, and undoes/redoes can now be visualized before committing to them. The program imports IFC and point cloud files. Download the 32- or 64-bit 30-day trials from nanocad.com/products/plus/download/. - - - Decent IFC viewers can be tough to find, as either they have not been updated lately or are too expensive. The Open Design Alliance has released a free one that handles IFC v2x3 - v4x2 formats. In addition to all the usual viewing functions, it has cutting planes and clash detection, and will support v4x3 in September. https://openifcviewer.com/ - - - Graebert is adding to its coronavirus-related CAD offer. Anyone who took up their previous offer to use Kudo browser-based CAD free to the end of June, can now join a focus group and get six more months free -- open at least one drawing in http://kudo.graebert.com (following registration) by the end of day June 30. - - - MachineWorks will be releasing Polygonica v2.4 soon that offers:    Curvature aware remeshing Offsetting curves across mesh surfaces Reconnect islands based on surrounding mesh curvature http://www.polygonica.com/ - - - AMETEK-owned Creaform to begin shipping later this summer a wicked-looking 3D scanner, the MetraScan Black with 15 blue lasers, 4x greater resolution than earlier models, and no warm-up time. Targets optional.   It takes 1.8 million measurements each second at a resolution of 0.0009" (0.025mm) and performs meshing in real-time. But you'll need an optimal hardware setup to handle that amount of data. https://www.creaform3d.com/en/optical-3d-scanner-metrascan - - - Ideate Software offers several Revit helper programs: StyleManager fixes style problems when importing content into Revit. BIMLink imports data into Excel and then sends it as BIM data to Revit. Explorer fixes Revit problems through a model browser. Sticky connects non-BIM data from Excel into Revit. IdeateApps does spell checking, sheet managing, quick selecting, and more. Free trial versions available for all from ideatesoftware.com/download Thank You, Readers Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: Mary Fugier: "Congratulations on 25 years! Thanks for all the insight." Todd Majeski: "Ralph, thanks for all support of the CAD industry. Not many other places you can get this unfiltered reporting." To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these: $25 for individuals > paypal.me/upfrontezine/25 $150 for small companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/150 $750 for for large companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/750 Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected]. Or mail your cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4861

 

LiveWorx 2020: PTC's Annual User Conference

Issue #1,060  |  June 22, 2020

 

by Ralph Grabowski   LiveWorx is PTC's annual user conference. As it was online this year, anyone could attend -- even me. CEO James Heppelmann in his pre-recorded keynote speech reported that Creo 7.0 had been completed by programmers working from home, and was the largest release since Creo was first announced a decade ago as Pro/Engineer's replacement.   What's New in Creo 7 Creo 7 is the 35th release of the company's flagship MCAD software that began at the company's founding with Pro/Engineer. The two emphases in this release of Creo are on generative design and integrated analysis. Generative Design. Last year, PTC purchased Frustum for its generative design software. PTC needed to catch up with competitors already offering it, such as Autodesk (through Fusion), Siemens (in NX), and even Hexagon (from AMendate). In Creo 7, it's available in two extensions:  Generative Topology Optimization (GTO) runs inside Creo but does only a single analysis at a time (see figure 1)  Generative Design Extension (GDX) runs on the cloud so that users can run multiple design analyses at the same time Figure 1: Generative Topology Optimization (GTO) is based on Frustum (all images sourced PTC) Right now, the two extensions handle structural analysis, with modal (vibration) and thermal analysis to come later this year.   PTC takes pains to point out the difference between topology optimization and generative design. Topology optimization minimizes material use through stress analysis, such as using an I-beam in place of a solid bar of steel Generative design requires designers to specify constraints, like bounding boxes and connection points, after which the software calculates all possibilities to satisfy the constraints automatically So now PTC can offer both. PTC takes a shot at competitors by declaring that only its generative designs are parametric. In marketing Creo 7, PTC talks up AI [artificial intelligence]. The best that I could determine is that some AI runs in GDX. Generative design has been criticized for its organic-looking output being manufacturable only by 3D printers, but Creo offers to limit generative changes to those that can be handled by traditional subtractive machining (lathes, etc), even specifying parting lines for moulds. Simulation. Last year, PTC made a deal with ANSYS to start integrating all of its simulation software into Creo. So far, we see two results from the agreement:  Creo Simulation Live is ANSYS Discovery Live, which updates fluid flow and heat analysis in real time as designers change shapes of parts. (See figure 2.) Other types of analyses aren't available in Live, so the "new" ANSYS Simulation add-on provides structural, modal, and thermal analysis functions inside Creo 7. Figure 2: Creo Simulation Live performing real-time fluid flow analysis Elsewhere. To further catch up to competitors, PTC adds multi-body design to Creo 7 so that users can work with disjointed, touching, and overlapping geometry in a single part. For AM [additive manufacturing], Creo gets stochastic lattices that identify and follow the edges of prismatic shapes. For SM [subtractive manufacturing], the Mill Turn Work Center now outputs designs to Swiss-brand turning machines. You can download a 30-day trial of Creo 7 from ptc.com/en/products/cad/creo/trial, after registration. Students from Kindergarten on up can run Creo, MathCAD, and Onshape for free.   PTC in a Time of Coronavirus A number of CAD vendors (but not all) are offering their customers respite for working from home, like an automatic second license, free access to training, and/or no-charge collaboration software.  Here, PTC is offering customers no-cost license options to work from home for a temporary period. PTC offers its augmented reality app Vuforia Chalk free through to the end of June. PTC's eLearning site is free for now so that users can upgrade their skills. Medical device and health-tech customers receive the highest level of support at no additional charge. To learn more about PTC's support options during WFH, check out the details at ptc.com/en/support/enablement/COVID19-Resources. For example, it explains to registered users how to run Creo at home. COVID-19 is a marketing opportunity for PTC. "The world of engineering software has to move to the cloud," said Mr Heppelmann during his LiveWorx keynote address. He credits PTC with having the foresight to buy Onshape in November, right before desk workers had to relocate to their homes through stay-at-home orders mandated by some governments. He noted that PTC's PLM [product lifecycle management] software, Windchill, always had been a thin-client cloud application.  While Onshape-powered Atlas is the future platform for "many other PTC products that will be coming out in the future," Creo is still the workhorse, because when PTC speaks about Atlas, it uses hedging words. This is appropriate, as the abilities of Atlas are not yet proven. For instance, in speaking of the apps running on Atlas, "they will also exchange data with one another very easily, because they'll all use, potentially, common databases," said executive vp Jon Hirschtick (emphasis mine). For apps that will be running on the Atlas/Onshape platform, PTC now has in development Vuforia AR  modules, generative design, "and we're working in other areas, too." In the meantime, here is the workflow PTC offers customers today:  When a designer makes change in Creo desktop MCAD... the change is recorded in Windchill PLM...  through a workflow defined by ThingWorx connectivity software... so that clients receive an email about the change... who then click on the link to view it in Onshape online CAD.   Trying Out Vuforia Chalk PTC is really pushing Vuforia Chalk as its primary coronavirus solution at ptc.com/en/products/augmented-reality/vuforia-chalk-free-access. This remote assistance software displays AR models overtop images seen by a smartphone's camera. Employees can mark up (redline) the view to document maintenance and repair issues, which are then sent back to the office. See figure 3.   Figure 3: Vuforia Chalk marking up a real-time image on a smartphone To better understand PTC's reason for hyping Vuforia Chalk, I downloaded the app to my new AR-capable Android 10 smartphone, but found, unfortunately, that it was a no-go. Unless you own one of a very, very few supported Android models (although most iOS phones are supported) and are able to contact a Chalk administrator, Vuforia Chalk does nothing useful for you. Mr Heppelmann in late April reported that the use of Chalk had gone up 10-fold. During LiveWorx, he noted that its usage percentage grew faster than Zoom. PTC promotes the free use of Chalk with the aim of seeding future sales. "These companies using Chalk represent a big upsell pipeline to pursue in Q4 and beyond," he told financial analysts.   PTC's Future Vision While office workers transitioned easily to working from home, Mr Heppelmann stated that there is a need "to bring digital data to 2.7 billion front line workers." It seemed to me that "front line" means manufacturing workers, as the examples shown would not work for hospital, grocery, and sanitation front line workers. The solution from PTC is to use AR to virtualize front line (manufacturing) work.  Spatial Computing is PTC's new term for physical and digital convergence. It combines AR, IoT [Internet of things], PLM, and CAD into digital twins, a computer model that replicates what's happening in the real world. The AR part is Vuforia Spatial Toolbox, and for PTC it represents the first example of an interface between machines and humans -- "walk the factory floor from your home office," said Mr Heppelmann. "AR is IoT for people." See figure 4.   Figure 4: Vuforia being used to define a robot's path It is still very early days for Spatial Computing. How it can be broadly deployed is a something PTC is leaving up to you, and so Vuforia Spatial Toolbox is available as an open source model at the PTC Web site. PTC hopes you'll help figure it out. When Mr Heppelmann forecasts, "You click on a link, and within 15 seconds you're in any part of the suites doing anything that we can do," PTC is pivoting to be like Dassault Systemes and its 3dExperience platform by offering a SaaS [software as a service] suite. "We believe that the Covid crisis will accelerate the SaaS tipping point for the engineering and software industry by several years," he said.  http://www.ptc.com   [Portions of this article first appeared in Design Engineering magazine, and are reprinted by permission.] On the Blog The following posts appeared in recent weeks on my WorldCAD Access blog: I Cancel Twitter LEDAS Reports on Business Through COVID-19 Letters to the Editor Re: The Future of IFC You wrote, "Slow parse speed -- I've waited 15 minutes for an IFC file to open" Well, I'm witnessing Uptown.ifc take ***4 freaking hours*** to read from one Revit into the next Revit. See 3d.bk.tudelft.nl/projects/geobim-benchmark/uptown.html. I miss the "What does Ralph think" part     - HnsaCAD (@CadHns on Twitter) The editor replies: The binary IFC file and partial BIM data exchange represent important progress needed by IFC, but both are so early in the development of the more efficient format that I wonder how long it will take. Mr HnsaCAD responds: We will be too old to implement. - - - Thanx for an informative IFC update.     - Chris Cadman - - -   Reading your piece on IFCs reminded me of when our tiny startup Heavyware.com (then a proposed multi-fabricator catalog and in retrospect, a doomed entity) joined the IAI in 1999. We found that all IFC classes were design-side; there were no fields that a contractor might want. When we raised it at a meeting, many people were surprised at the idea that a contractor might want his own data. This oversight arose because the initial  sponsorship of 12 in the consortium were software companies, architects, an MEP [mechanical, engineering, plumbing] engineer, large corporations that did MEC-related manufacturing, and a large developer -- basically large Autodesk customers plus other interested software entities, as well as AT&T.  Put another way, in the fragmented world of AEC [architecture, engineering, construction], this started as purely an AE initiative, zero C. Given the incredible complexity involved in designing and building very large prototypes (as in commercial construction), it turns out that streamlining the process takes a long time.     - Leo Schlosberg      www.planetcommercialconstruction.wordpress.com The editor replies: I recall in the early days of IFC when advocates showed me how data from a CAD program could be exported (via IFC) to an energy analysis program. They seemed relieved when the demo worked. IFC has come along ways from then. Thanks for telling us your early history with IFC! Mr Schlosberg responds: Energy analysis was a hot topic then and probably very labor intensive to compute. The initial consortium was 25% energy-related companies (Carrier,  Honeywell). Big developers greatly value the energy analysis during design. Tiny comment from the subcontractor perspective. The shift from paper to CAD meant that you could send files electronically. This meant that the former practice of general contractors often sending you a set of prints so you could bid something, morphed into emailing you the file or telling you where you could download it.  When that began, no one had screens that were useful [big enough with high-enough resolution] for looking at this stuff and so you had to buy a plotter and pay the costs of plotting in order to bid. It was a mild shifting of costs downstream. It clearly was one lesson in understanding information flow in construction: all kinds of things beside water and data flow downstream, the biggest being risk. The industry is still addressing this, since building off a model can be a risky venture. It depends on who owns the model and whose knowledge went into it.   Thank You, Readers Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: Martin van der Roest (two donations) Risto Juhani Saarikko To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these: $25 for individuals > paypal.me/upfrontezine/25 $150 for small companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/150 $750 for for large companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/750 Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected]. Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4869

 

2 Guys Talk CAD

Issue #1,059   |  June 15, 2020

 

A reader and I corresponded over the status of the CAD industry. He asked to be kept anonymous. - - - PL: It seems like Solidworks and Inventor have gotten good enough to reduce people needing to move to higher-end packages like Catia or NX. Are there things from those systems that could benefit Solidworks users? RG: Catia and NX do things Solidworks and Solid Edge cannot, and deliberately so -- such as advanced surfacing.  For the most common kinds of MCAD, however, Solidworks and Solid Edge are good enough. The primary problem with older CAD (Pro/Engineer, Inventor, Solidworks, Solid Edge) is that they lacked direct editing and modeling, which became vogue with the successful marketing of SpaceClaim. CAD vendors took different approaches to solve the problem:  PTC integrated ME/30 (from HP) into Pro/E and called it Creo. The transition took several years. The company has its own kernel, Granite.  Siemens wrote the Synchronous Technology add-on to their Parasolids kernel, which brings direct modeling to Solid Edge and NX. (When Siemens licenses Parasolids to other CAD vendors, however, it leaves out ST part.)  ST, however, suffers from being very hard to understand and implement, because you have to figure out stuff before you start drawing -- the very opposite to what direct modeling is supposed to offer -- and so few SE and NX users use it.  Autodesk wrote a new CAD program to handle direct modeling, Fusion. (The company has its own kernel, the ACIS-derived ShapeManager.) Inventor carries on as a traditional MCAD history-based modeler.  Dassault Systemes tried to port Solidworks to V6 (3dExperience) but failed, so they wrote bridging software -- modeling programs that use Dassault's CGM kernel and are meant for Solidworks users. These also failed, as each one required expensive annual subscriptions, were immature (lacked functions), and were data-incompatible (Solidworks uses Parasolids). I am unsure where Solidworks stands with direct modeling; my understanding is that it has only a kludge that imitates the effect of direct modeling, but I could be wrong.  Among smaller CAD vendors, several are starting to add direct modeling, with Bricsys having made the most progress, I think. Bricsys was fortunate in having only a rudimentary ACIS-based 3D modeler when they had the foresight to buy outright the direct modeling tech (and staff) from Ledas of Russia.  PL: Not being a CAD guy, what are the things that Dassault should be including in Solidworks that they are not? I know they have redesigned the UX [user experience] a few times. RG: In retrospective, it is easy to see what Dassault should have done. They should have copied Apple, who successfully switched CPUs and OSes under the hood without users noticing much. Dassault should have done the following: Swapped out Parasolids for CGM, while leaving everything else in place Written a transparent Parasolid-CGM translator Added in direct modeling and editing Called it a day Admittedly, geometric kernel swaps are easier today than a decade ago. But head office in Paris was pressing forward with their V6 generation (known today as "3dExperience"), which uses Enovia as the central repository for Catia data and runs much of the ancillary software as Web-based modules. So no surprise that they thought Solidworks should be converted into that as well. Never mind that its own Catia customers are disinterested in 3dExperience; after a decade, about 25% have transitioned from V4 and V5. Or that Solidworks is so much more successful at not being cloud-ized. The final death knell for cloud-based mid-sized MCAD came when Onshape admitted they had only 5,000 paying customers. BOOM! Nobody is going to want to go that way now. PL: But if they swapped out Parasolid for CGM (they certainly do not enjoy paying license fees to Siemens) they would have incompatible geometry yet again. Perhaps if they implemented direct modeling they would have had an improved ability to deal with it. I am not sure why they did not do that. RG: That certainly is the position of Bricsys when they say that BricsCAD can import 3D models from any source, have some automated routines fix it up as necessary, and then work on it with direct modeling, like it was native.  My guess is that there is something about the structure of the code in Solidworks that prevents direct modeling from being implemented. Or maybe Dassault was thinking along these lines: if we have to implement direct modeling, we might as well write an all-new MCAD program that fits these modern times. PL: But surfacing would be easier to add, I assume, since NX can support it with the Parasolid kernel.  At one point, Dassault told me that CGM was better at it because it was second derivative continuous, a phrase that makes sense to this lapsed mathematician. RG: In terms of marketing, surfacing is made to be the differentiator. Siemens told me Solid Edge uses the same version of Parasolid as NX, so it is a matter of switching features on or off -- kind of like mainframes of old! Letter to the Editor Re: MX Performance 2S is Logitech's expensive mouse mistake Excellent article! I've just returned an MX Master 3 mouse as defective (after 2 weeks of testing) that suffered the same problems reported here on the 2s. Ultimately for me, these were the top problems I had with it: Options replaced Setpoint and lost important features, such as acceleration (which makes it nearly impossible to move quickly across two large monitors and still be able to accurately select fine details) Non-replaceable battery (as opposed to the AA battery in my Performance MX) The incredibly poor quality of Logitech's customer support (email only, days for each reply, inability to communicate clearly or accurately respond to each individual problem or question) Their unwillingness to offer any sort of help to repair or replace my far superior Performance MX mouse with a failing left-click button. You are correct when you say "Devolution has attacked the MX," and it seems to have also permeated Logitech completely. Ultimately, however, I am grateful for Logitech's failure because it forced me to look deeper into my other options and allowed me to give my money to another company that I would not have otherwise considered -- and one which seems to listen to its customers. I have just spent twice as much money with 3Dconnexion for two of their products (3D SpaceMouse and 2D CadMouse), which seem to have consistently received good customer reviews.       - Daren (via WorldCAD Access)   Thank You, Readers Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: Direct Dimensions Inc: "Congratulations on your anniversary. We turned 25 this year as well. " Chris Huminski: "Ralph: Thanx for another great year of CAD news and reviews!" To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these: $25 for individuals > paypal.me/upfrontezine/25 $150 for small companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/150 $750 for for large companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/750 Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected]. Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4880

The Future of IFC: Enabling Partial BIM Model Exchange

Issue #1,058   |   June 8, 2020

 

When Autodesk developed IFC in the mid-1990s, it was constructed for interoperability based on the way files and data were exchanged back then. Architectural and engineering designers use IFC [industry foundation classes] to exchange data and geometry about building models between programs. Today, buildingSmart International is responsible for the maintaining and expanding the IFC format, with the assistance of the Open Design Alliance making it available through SDKs [software development kits].  The current version is IFC v4.2 and is defined by a 7,000-page document covering 1,800 definitions for entities, compositions, and quantities. Figure 1 shows how a door is defined. Figure 1: IFC definition of a door Now, 35 years later, computing has progressed to clever programming languages, efficient file formats, and CPUs that crunch data more quickly. So buildingSmart is looking at how to modernize IFC for version 5 and beyond. Here is an example of why change is needed, as explained by a member of buildingSmart: "If I move one wall of one floor of a 40-story building, why should I have to package up the entire 40-story building with all of its information, when I could just send [the client] the new wall. Or, [I could] just send them the information that I moved this wall over to here." Programs like Revit have a database-like representation, so they can do a selective export. What’s technically not attractive is a selective import from a complete IFC SPF file. IFC is in ASCII format, and looks like this (how IFC defines the vertices of a 3D polyline): #196= IFCPOLYLINE((#200,#204,#208,#212,#216,#220,#224)); #200= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((0.,293.4494)); #204= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((25.4,318.8494)); #208= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((120.65,318.8494)); #212= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((120.65,0.)); #216= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((25.4,0.)); #220= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((0.,25.4)); #224= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((0.,293.4494)); The file fragment is shown in IFC-SPF format, the most common .ifc format. Each in the file defines one piece of data. SPF is short for "STEP physical file" and means that the format used by IFC mimics that of STEP, the international "Standard for The Exchange of Product model data" -- more commonly used in MCAD. ASCII is good, because we humans can read it. But, being in ASCII, it suffers from the same problems that all ASCII files have:  File-size bloat -- files are 6x larger than when compressed Sequential reading -- entire file must be read from start to end No mid-file extraction -- the entire model must be loaded into software Slow parse speed -- I've waited 15 minutes for an IFC file to open Not hierarchical -- definitions are not defined in order, so the definition of a wall (size, location) can be in one place and information about the related opening in the wall in another spot While file size is not a problem on today's voluminous computers, the other limitations are frustrating. And so the need to look at a modern file format. But which one?   Two-fork Modernization Not that there haven't already been modernization attempts: ifcXML is the XML version of IFC. It looks like the HTML that's used to define Web pages. When software doesn't necessarily know about the file format, then XML [extensible markup language] is useful in this situation. IFCXML expands file size by about 13%. Here is the start of the definition of a door in ifcXML: <?xml version="1.0"?> <ConceptTemplate xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" uuid="1e5da429-cf7c-4f23-8b32-53ad98e238ad" name="Door Attributes" applicableSchema="IFC4" applicableEntity="IfcDoor">   <Rules>     <AttributeRule AttributeName="Tag">       <EntityRules>         <EntityRule EntityName="IfcIdentifier" />       </EntityRules>     </AttributeRule> ifcZIP is the compressed version of IFC using the common-place PkZIP technology. It is in binary format and reduces file size by about 6x. ifcOWL is based on Terse RDF Triple Language that is useful for visualizing the content of IFC files using semantic Web to link external data, such as from sensors and geographic databases. OWL is short for "Web Ontology Language" and RDF is short for "Resource Description Framework." Beyond these, IFC is being modernized through two new projects:  ifcJSON -- JavaScript Object Notation, broadly available ifcHDF5 -- Hierarchical Data Format v5, binary See https://vimeo.com/423525651 for a recent Webinar on IFC JSON and HDF5.   ifcJSON Is the XML Future ifcJSON is based on JSON (pronounced "jason"), which is a prevalent data architecture used by Web browsers. JSON is easy to read by humans, is tolerant of faults, and is built into all modern Web browsers. JSON is like XML, but is more modern and has more datatypes, such as arrays, unlike XML. Like XML, there are many programming tools available for JSON, such as JavaScript and Python, and it is compatible with C# and Java. Since it based on an existing standard, formats and programs already exist, such as to view raw data. In terms of IFC, JSON is useful because it will support partial models, and software can operate on the data directly, without translation. So, buildingSmart has two JSON projects underway. ifcJSON v4 is a direct mapping from EXPRESS-based IFC v4 (see figure 2).   Figure 2: Ecosystem planned for ifcJSON v4 "Once you see an IFC data in JSON, it is striking how much of the file is empty or contains default data," says buildingSmart. A typical IFC file is 90% unnecessary, containing identity matrices or of default values. (Matrices are used to transform vector entities through actions like scaling and rotating; when one is an identity matrix, no transformation takes place.)  ifcJSON v5 is the next version. It simplifies things and adds more capability. It supports geometry as OBJ meshes, FBX game assets, b-reps, and other formats, limits null and empty values (which bulk up ASCII files unnecessarily). Using meshes and leaving out solid modeling simplifies the modeling engine. Figure 3 shows an example of a simplified ifcJSON v5 file.   Figure 3: Non-hierarchical IFC content simplified by ifcJSON v5   ifcHDF5 Is the Binary Future ifcHDF5 is based on HDF [hierarchical data format] v5 that is used for scientific computing, such as MatLab. At this point, buildingSmart is working on a research project experimenting with turning IFC into a binary format. The drawback is that HDF is not universal like JSON, and so the problems to overcome are how to distribute HDF5 to stakeholders and import HDF5-based files into proprietary software.  The benefit to binary is that it uses fixed-length storage and hierarchical structure, so that the software knows where in the file to jump to. Reading some binary data takes the same time for both small files and large. For instance, to learn how many stories a building model holds, this just involves reading metadata and occurs nearly instantly (around .001 seconds). Reading the total area of all windows takes not much longer. In figure 4, the green line is the time to read ASCII file for the total area of all windows for increasingly complex buildings (a through i); the brown line shows the binary read-time. The graphs are logarithmic.   Figure 4: ASCII (green) vs binary (brown) file read times ifcHDF5 supports huge data sets, such as those contained in point clouds and sensor data. You cannot store point clouds and acquisition data in ASCII files, because they typically are gigabytes in size. buildingSmart sees different ways of implementing these large data sets. Data from buildings scanned for renovations would probably be kept separate from as-built verification scans. On the other hand, hybrid modeling combines precise 3D models with scans of ornamental parts; or, you might want to keep progressive data of buildings as they shift. See figure 5.   Figure 5: Handling point clouds in projects Different representations of buildings can be mounted, such as just the bounding boxes, just the b-rep, just the meshes, and so on. A binary ifcHDF5 is not that much smaller than a compressed ASCII IFC file, because of its use of fixed record lengths.  A problem solved by HDF5 is long-time archives, as the format encodes checksums (to ensure the data being read is valid). The IFC schema is encoded so that the IFC version number no longer matters. Even if the storage media deteriorates, parts of the file can be extracted. HDF viewer software displays the binary data in ASCII format that is human-readable.   ODA's Role in Binary IFC by Neil Peterson, President ODA In 2019, we established a new partnership with buildingSmart, and at the same time released the initial version of our new IFC SDK [software development kit]. IFC is an open format, and so we are providing our IFC SDK at no additional cost as part of a standard ODA membership. There are a surprising number of problems with the various third-party IFC solutions on the market. For example, some commercial solutions are not even thread-safe, so we’ve been able to solve a lot of problems for our members in this area. IFC is generally encoded using the STEP physical file format, which is a text file that must be read line by line from start to finish. As part of our effort, we are currently implementing support for binary IFC, based on the work of Thomas Krijnen. We are using the standard HDF5 binary and hierarchical data format, as binary IFC files support random access to specific IFC entities.  So, it’s possible to implement more sophisticated loading techniques, such as partial and lazy loading. We have a binary IFC prototype up and running, and expect to have this new feature in our production release by the third quarter of this year. - - - The new IFC formats will be language-independent. Older versions of IFC will be supported in the years ahead, including the EXPRESS, STEP, and other versions. In the end, it's "just being able to exchange pieces that people care about." https://technical.buildingsmart.org/standards/ifc/ifc-formats/ My thanks to Thomas Krijnen for pointing me towards buildingSmart's future development for IFC. He is working on the binary version of IFC, ifcHDF5.   Sponsor: Okino Graphics == 3D Data Translation Software Tailored to Solve Your Problems ==   Education and awareness make for flawless, error-free, and numerically-correct MCAD conversions! Okino's PolyTrans|CAD software solves complex, demanding 3D conversion problems by transforming CAD and DCC datasets into highly optimized and efficient files for all common downstream 3D programs and authoring packages. Our staff ensures that each Okino solution fits your conversion problems 'like a glove', including useful discussions on how to source the best 3D datasets.  Popular CAD data sources 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 [email protected]  http://www.okino.com Letters to the Editor Re: How the Mighty Fall Excellent Ralph! Spot on. Thank you very much.     - David Sargert - - - I read with interest your recent posting and would like to comment on 'What Ralph Grabowski Thinks.' You hit the nail on the head. Your comments were so true. Business today is arrogant and disrespectful of their customers.  I feel that some businesses feel that they can change the way they conduct business and the customers will go along with it.   A prime example is Autodesk. I personally bought every upgrade to AutoCAD from v 2.5 to 2011. At 2011, I decided to find a cheaper CAD software because AutoCAD was more expensive than I could afford, and the subscription and upgrades did not seem to be worth the cost.  I found Progecad and bought it, instead of AutoCAD, and no longer have the problems, expense, and hassle. The software has been as good as AutoCAD and at a much cheaper price. I upgrade every other year), I am none the worse for wear.  I do not even recommend AutoCAD to anyone. I know what my upgrades will cost and have had no problems with Progecad.     - Newt Edwards The editor replies: The good news is that in 2020 there are many alternatives to AutoCAD that do 2D drafting at a lower cost, and without mandatory subscriptions. - - - I almost read the whole issue in one swoop. I am afraid this pandemic will do a lot of damage to businesses, small, large, and in between, owners, employees, customers.     - Herb Grabowski The editor replies: While shops may go out of business at a faster rate than normal, there will always be entrepreneurs to rise up and fill perceived gaps. - - - I’ve been in business 34 years.  I’m energize by the very fact that I simply enjoy what I do.  It’s my hobby that happens to have revenues tied to it.  That’s the way I think of you.  You continue to provide consistent, high quality and insightful material.  That can only come from the passion you have for what you do.  I appreciate it and you. - M.R. The editor replies: It is hard to believe that when in 1985 I answered a tech-editor-needed ad from CADalyst magazine in the local paper (after being laid off as an engineer) that the topic would become the rest of my life   Re: pCloud pRoblems I noticed that my AutoCAD files didn’t have any revisions saved on pCloud, as happens with Dropbox. I contacted pCloud and the following is their reply.   "Our developers confirm that there's a bug with the revisions when editing AutoCAD files, but please note that an immediate fix is not possible. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide you with an estimated time for a version with a fix." The version history on Dropbox has helped me alot from time to time, so it’s a disappointment that it doesn’t happen with pCloud and is of such a low priority to fix that they have no idea when it will be dealt with. I don’t know if you found this happening to you, but with one of pCloud's recent updates I was disconnected from pCloud and got an expired session window, which sat on top of the login screen. Once I closed the expired session window the login screen closed, too. I can’t remember how, but I managed to eventually get the login screen (I think I rebooted each of my PC’s that had this problem and then manually restarted pCloud).     - Dairobi Paul   The editor replies: I have noticed that pCloud is slow to fix bugs. For instance, the right-click option to get a download link went missing for several months. The expired session bug was fixed with the most recent pCloud update, I think. I use pCloud for most of my online storage needs, but its drawbacks mean that I continue to use the free version Dropbox, although it is limited to three machines now. If necessary, I also use free Google Cloud with apps that do not work with pCloud. I appreciate pCloud's 0.5TB online storage for a one-time fee, but then I wonder how long before pCloud might go out of business!   Thank You, Readers Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine: KCL (small company donation) Stanley Przybylinski To support upFront.eZine through PayPal, then the suggested amounts are these: $25 for individuals > paypal.me/upfrontezine/25 $150 for small companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/150 $750 for for large companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/750 Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and the account of [email protected]. Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.   *4880