Issue #1,075: | 23 February 2020
by Ralph Grabowski with Paul Powers
Several companies in our field of CAD offer 3D search tools. If you need a certain size of compressor or washer, then 3D-search finds ones that are similar. The idea is to find look-alikes using hints like 3D geometry, 2D sketches, photographs, dimensions, colors, classifications, and text descriptions.
Paul Powers is ceo of Physna, and he has taken a different approach to 3D search. His company's claim is that it can take 3D data from any source -- CAD, AR, VR, scans, OBJ -- and convert the file data into mathematics that describes the geometry. The company offers two products, the commercial Physna and the free Thangs.
- - -
Ralph Grabowski: What is the benefit of your algorithmic approach to 3D-search?
Paul Powers: We map the unique 3D polygonal structures of models, as well as every subpart and any direction of 3D, spatially. For instance, we know that the cap belongs to the water bottle, and where the cap resides. Our machine learning makes predictions on what the model might be called, like "bottle of water," even of the brand of water bottle based on its shape, such as Evian.
The data is stored in a MongoDB NoSQL database, and not in the models themselves.
Grabowski: How did you get the idea to use mathematics for 3D-search?
Powers: I have a background in international patent law, which uses algorithms to find stolen text, pictures, and so on, but there was none for 3D models. There is a need to know every possible relationship, like trying to find just the head of Mickey Mouse rather than the entire body (and vice versa).
Other geometric search tools rely on CAD sources and use entire models, so the cap on the water bottle would get lost. Translating into different formats to enable searching can also result in data loss.
The mathematical background comes from astrophysics, which I took for a year, just long enough to realize that the mathematics astronomers use to determine locations of stars relative to one other (e.g. using signatures and patterns specific to certain locations with the use of various data points ) could be used for 3D objects.
I never thought of using it for CAD at first, but then we were approached with a lot of use cases – over 300 so far -- and many of them involved engineers.
Grabowski: Do you have an API so that end users can use your technology?
Powers: End users can already use the functionality available in Physna’s enterprise version and in Thangs. We are also working on an API that will allow others to create additional use-cases.
Grabowski: How do you make money, and who funded you?
Powers: Through SaaS [software as a service]. We sell licenses of the enterprise version based on the number of users and number of models.
The Thangs site is free to use. It is our consumer-facing Web site that crawls the Web using our algorithm to search for 3D models. It has over a million of them now. https://www.thangs.com/
We have raised $8.9 million so far, and soon will have another announcement.
Grabowski: Where does the name Physna come from?
Powers: It comes from "physical DNA."
Trying Out Thangs
Thangs is a free site that lets you test out a simplified, consumer-level version of Physna’s algorithms at https://thangs.com. You can upload 3D models to search for, or to share with other people. It has over 50,000 members.
When I tried it out, I hit a point of confusion: the site offers two Upload buttons that do different things. One is for uploading models to the Thangs database, after which you and others can search for them. No search is involved.
The other Upload "button" is part of the search bar and is meant for visual searches: it's for uploading models like the one(s) you are looking for, and then Thangs is meant to return results. The files you upload through this button are not uploaded to the Thangs database, and so they are not searchable by others.
Thangs accepts file in the following formats up to 250MB each:
-
.3dxml
-
.CATPart
-
.dwg and .dxf
-
.iges and .igs
-
.ipt
-
.jt
-
.model
-
.par and .prt
-
.sab, .sat, and .sldprt
-
.step and .stp
-
.stl
-
.vda
-
.x_b and .x_t
-
.xcgm and .xml
Thangs offers unlimited storage, along with version control for collaboration, which I did not test. While the site boasts 1.1 million models, the most popular models on the site are organic mesh models more suitable to games and renderings. That’s because while the majority of models are industrial components from suppliers, they are less popular and so less obvious -- unless you search specifically for them. It searches models from users as well as publicly available ones on other sites that hold 3D models.
I tested Thangs with a 3D model of a motor from SKG Sweden, which makes models of its products available in multiple formats: STEP, Solidworks, SAT, Pro/Engineer, Parasolid, IGES, and 2D DWG.
I uploaded the model in SAT format, and then tested Thangs by uploading the same model in the other formats. Here are the results, along with the time it took to upload, scan, and search. Because of the efficiency and inefficiency of each format, file sizes ranged between 400KB and 3MB, and the polygon count between 900 and 23,000.
STEP (.step) -- 19 seconds; match found correctly
Solidworks (.sldprt) -- 9 secs; found incorrect results like a series of washers and other simple parts at other sites
SAT (.sat) -- 17 secs; match found correctly
Pro/Engineer (.prt.1) -- not accepted
Parasolid (.x_t) ---- 10 secs; found incorrect results like a series of washers and other simple parts at other sites
IGES (.igs) -- 49 secs; found no correct results but mostly found unrelated organic models at other sites, such as the left arm of a HE Barbarian.
DWG (2D views) -- I canceled the operation after waiting ten minutes for scanning to complete.
Out of the seven formats I tested, two returned correct results. Physna explains why: “The algorithm doesn’t just search for similar parts. It looks for all geometric relationships. It’s likely that these parts are able to be used inside of the part you uploaded. But Thangs is soon going to receive an enhancement that will make the meaning of these results clearer (like in Physna’s enterprise version) and show not only what is related, but exactly why, how and where.”
In the case of the HE Barbarian left arm, Physna says, “The results aren’t technically incorrect because a false positive isn’t mathematically possible, as the algorithm searches for geometric relationships, not just similar models. What you’re seeing is a partial match (some portion of the geometry is the same between the parts). The reason these results don’t make much sense is that Thangs uses a simplified version of Physna’s algorithms. We’re in the process of updating the algorithms, which include weighting to remove these results that aren’t helpful.”
For the failed DWG search, Physna reports that “2D<>3D search is not yet supported in Thangs. DWG isn’t a 3D file format, so while you can save the model in Thangs, the 3D<>3D search algorithm won’t work on it.”
In summary, Physna told me, “Thangs doesn’t yet contain the full algorithm set available in the enterprise version. as it uses a simplified version of Physna’s algorithms. We’re in the process of updating the algorithms. Thangs also doesn’t yet normalize the models to the same extent Physna’s enterprise version does. That is why you’re seeing differences between file types.”
And in Other News
MachineWorks releases Polygonica 3.0 SDK [software development kit], its component library for polygon mesh modeling with automatic determination of best-fit tolerance and zone-based remeshing.
The library is used by ANSYS, 3D Systems, Mecsoft, and others. Actually, there is much, much more to this release, and you can read all about it at polygonica.com/polygonica-blog/polygonica-30-new-features/.
- - -
CCE is pre-announcing Review Room, an add-on to its EnSuite Cloud online file viewer that will use peer-to-peer connections to review CAD files, and so avoid storing your proprietary files on remote third-party servers (aka ‘the cloud’). “This has never been done before,” says the company. It’s due to be released in a few weeks, so sign up through cadcam-e.com/EnSuite-Cloud/index.aspx.
- - -
Also in pre-announcing mode is Siemens for the next release of NX coming out in December, with the highlight feature being MBD [model-based definitions]. It automates rules-based PMI [product and manufacturing information] through a software advisor that checks data. A demo video is posted at blogs.sw.siemens.com/nx-design/the-all-new-model-based-definition-is-coming-soon/.
- - -
Here are some of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:
You can subscribe to the WorldCAD Access blog’s RSS feed through Feed Burner at feeds.feedburner.com/WorldcadAccess.
Letters to the Editor
Wow, a new format!
- Stan Przybylinski
The editor replies: Yup! I detail the gruesome changeover process at worldcadaccess.com/blog/2020/10/now-is-the-time-to-cancel-mailchimp.html.
- - -
For some reason I stopped getting the newsletter around the beginning of October. When I tried to resubscribe I received a strange web page. In any event I would like to keep receiving the newsletter if possible.
- Mike
The editor replies: I switched my mass email provider from MailChimp (much too expensive for a free newsletter!) to SubStack, and so the old subscribe link no longer works. I will add you to the mailing list manually, and you can catch up on back issues at www.upfrontezine.com.
- - -
I only just noticed, but you might want to remind subscribers to check their Junk or Spam folders if they seemingly are no longer getting upFront.eZine in their Inbox. Speaking from experience.
- Jim
Re: Readers Respond to Revit's Shared Parameters
Nice to see the great response to the Revit Shared Parameter exchange you published. Sometimes I think my suggestions just come from a very jaded place. The stress of managing BIM ended my career, which I may be not-so-secretly bitter about.
- Dave Edwards
Dave Edwards Consulting
The editor replies: Some aspects of technology work great, but other areas are desperately bad, and so I fully appreciate you bringing them up!
- - -
The issue with multiple sets of different BIM systems is without question a huge problem. My company is mostly involved in the Catia world for aerospace. That said, this same problem happened to aerospace many years ago. A perfect example of it is described in intuitivestories.com/airbus_and_trillion_dollar_engineering_error.html -- a trillion-dollar Airbus problem.
Here is how Boeing and Airbus -- the two largest airplane manufacturers in the world -- addressed the problem.
Boeing -- works under the AS9100 guidelines. As part of the guidelines, there is a specific AS9102 “First Article Inspection Report” form that must be submitted whenever you generate CAD data. Folks like inspectionxpert.com/fai/as9102 are common in this industry.
Airbus -- has a similar approach, but uses different software: airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/suppliers/A220-Suppliers-Quality-Requirements.pdf. Airbus requires that all Catia files submitted be stamped inside the Catia file that Q-Checker has blessed this file; see technia.us/software/q-checker/.
These processes have, of course, trickled down to most of their suppliers. Both Inspection Expert and Q-Checker are $10,000 products. With software this expensive, this should give you an idea of how serious this problem has become. We at CAD/CAM Services now offer checking with these software products as a service to customers who have no interest in spending so much on checking software just to make a part. And of course, we have to provide not just the reporting, but the fixing of that part or assembly to pass inspection.
Until BIM requires a version of something like this checking/certification program, BIM will continue to be a logistics nightmare. Stay safe.
- Scott Shuppert, president
CAD/CAM Services
The editor replies: I think that buildingSmart and IFCs are supposed to (eventually) be the solution, but I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future. MCAD benefits from having giant manufacturing firms who can dictate standards. Building construction is far too dis-integrated for one standard to have a chance of ruling. When it comes to input from BIM vendors, Autodesk doesn't seem interested enough, and Nemetschek, while interested, is at this point not big enough.
Mr Shuppert replies: And therein lies the problem. Which is also why we, as a CAD service bureau, shy away from BIM work. It is pretty hard to make everybody happy.
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
-
Vectorworks (large company donation): “We greatly appreciate your continued support.”
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
$25 for individuals > paypal.me/upfrontezine/25
$150 for small companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/150
$750 for large companies > paypal.me/upfrontezine/750
Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of [email protected].
Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.
Notable Quotable
“Minimum wage is the industry standard, I’m afraid. Now, would you like to be called a Colleague or an Associate?”
-Management Speak (@managerspeak on Twitter)
Comments