Issue #1,120 | Inside the Business of CAD | 31 January 2022
Guest editorial by Ivan Rykov
Plug-in adding a toolbar and a panel to Rhino
Many projects developed by LEDAS are plug-ins for CAD software programs, ranging from powerful systems like CATIA, to lighter weight solutions like Rhino. Oftimes, we help our customers decide on the direction in which their ideas are best developed: in the form of a plug-in or as a standalone program.
Pros and Cons of Plug-ins
Plug-ins either solve specific problems, or else add functions missing from CAD systems. A good example is CAMWorks from HCL, an advanced plug-in that adds computer-aided manufacturing functions to the Solidworks MCAD system.
Comparing plug-ins with independent applications, we found that plug-ins are better suited to software used in-house by design engineers, with the aim of assisting their day-to-day work. In certain cases, the plug-in approach significantly reduces the cost of development. Ready-made CAD systems work with plug-ins through their APIs [application programming interface].
The drawback to plug-ins that you have to run them on a host application. Before the plug-in can be used, you have to pay a license fee and then install the host software. Plug-ins intended for wider distribution have their demand limited by the number of seats found of the target CAD system.
The APIs provided by CAD systems are often thought of as a way to extend and tailor functions of the CAD system itself, rather than for creating customized processes to solve particular problems. Also, it’s not always an easy task to make a focused plug-in which overrides the user interface of the host application to substitute its own workflow.
We have found that, in general, end-user plug-ins are not usually at the top of our customers’ wish lists.
Pros and Cons of Standalone Applications
More commonly, our customers want software made as standalone programs for the desktop and, more often in recent years, a client-server Web application.
When considering the development of an independent application, either for desktop or the Web, keep in mind that it will require a geometric kernel with which it constructs, represents, and tessellates 3D objects. (We talk more about kernels on our 3D Modeling page.) The annual cost of a subscription license for a kernel is usually significantly higher than a one-time payment for a single license of a lightweight or middle-class CAD system on which plug-ins can run.
Another source of cost is the effort to implement 3D scenes: visualization, camera manipulation (zoom, pan, rotate), object manipulation (selection, movements), and so on. With a plug-in, the host application provides all these features via its API. In case of standalone applications, these have to be programmed at a low level, or else with the help of licensed visualization components.
Types of Plug-in Solutions
From our experience, Rhino is an excellent example of a customizable system. It allows us to hide most of its default panels and toolbars, and then we can easily create our own panels using WPF [Windows Presentation Foundation]. This gives us almost the level of same control over the Rhino’s user interface as do independent WPF applications. (See figure at the top of this article.)
In other CAD systems, this could become problematic as they might use outdated GUI frameworks (do you recall WxWidgets?) or are limited to UI controls predefined by their APIs.
If, however, the application has an external API that can be called from another process, such as through COM or WCF, then we can build a plug-in UI as an external application that interacts with the host CAD system through the API. (Technically, this is then not strictly considered a plug-in.)
This allows us to build the UI using modern technologies exactly matching the required processes, yet still using the geometric kernel and 3D scene capabilities of the host CAD application. This approach is quite popular with our customers, although a somewhat more complicated approach.
How to Decide
So, we have trade-offs that can be resolved by knowing the number of simultaneous software users:
When the cost of copies of the host CAD system does not exceed the cost of a custom application (with licenses for geometric kernel, visualization components, and 3D scene implementation), a plug-in is the cheaper option.
It’s worth noting that the cost of licensing the host application can at times be considered to be zero when company engineers are already using the software in their daily work. In this case, a plug-in based on such a system possesses the additional benefit of fitting a familiar environment.
Thus, in our experience, plug-in solutions are quite popular for semi-automation of certain CAD-related processes performed by a small group of engineers, or else by a large group already using a suitable CAD system. Many of our digital medicine projects, for example, are in the form of plug-ins.
[Ivan Rykov is chief technology officer at LEDAS since 2004. Dr Rykov graduated from the mechanics and mathematics department of Novosibirsk State University, and in 2009 received his PhD in physics and mathematics specializing in discrete mathematics and mathematical cybernetics. More at ledas.com/en.]
Project Newplex 2.0 is the advanced SHX font designed for technical documents; compatible with every DWG-based CAD program that supports Unicode SHX files.
Features
Advanced character forms for readability & clarity
Autodesk launches Flex, its token-based pay-as-you-go system for renting software by the day. AutoCAD, for instance, costs 7 tokens (US$21) for 24 hours, which can be paused by closing the application. Netfab Ultimate, at 55 tokens daily, is the most expensive.
For the very intermittent user, like me, this would be a useful duration, but, alas, I cannot buy a day’s worth, because the minimum purchase is 500 tokens that last just one year, and costs just C$365 less than an annual subscription. Maybe that’s the point. Autodesk warns that “daily rates are subject to change,” meaning the cost/token could rise at any time. autodesk.com/benefits/flex/estimator-tool
- - -
OpenDesign Alliance initiates development of a scan-to-BIM software development kit. Or more accurately: laser scans > polygonal surfaces > AEC objects (b-reps) > parametric parts classified in IFC, Revit, and other formats.
To join the dozen other firms working on it, you first have to become a SIG member at $20,000/year; details at https://opendesign.com/scan-to-bim.
- - -
Here are some of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:
While experiencing the same problem with my Logitech M185 and reading through suggestions [on WorldCAD Access], I took a hint from a very old post that referenced the jumpy problem on an old mouse with a rubber ball. It suggested cleaning the ball and inside the mouse.
My newer M185 did not have a ball, but rather a movement sensor window. I took a Q-tip and cleaned the little window on the underside of the mouse, [see figure above] and the problem disappeared. - Roger Carlsen (via WorldCAD Access)
Re: Which Comes First: Models or Drawings?
The usefulness of either a model or a drawing depends, in part, on what you are using it for. If you are a developer, a rough hand sketch might do fine. If you are an estimator you may be able to get by with fewer details (and less accuracy, whatever that means) than if you are trying to build a building.
Two issues run throughout a real-life examination of models and drawings:
1. Knowledge. Does the creator have the knowledge necessary to create the desired level of detail? In construction it is ridiculously impossible for an architect to have the requisite knowledge for the final design of every component in a building. The less knowledge implicitly contained in a drawing or model, the less useful it is. Each type of use requires a different amount of knowledge to implicitly dwell within the model.
2. Responsibility. Who is legally required to get it right? In USA, architects, who most typically create a model, have a low bar for liability for the design; that is pushed contractually to general contractors and from there to subcontractors.
Subs cannot stay viable in the business without serious knowledge; the others can shrug off any liability for not getting a design quite right. - Leo Schlosberg
The editor replies: Back in the day when I designed traffic signal installations, we used symbols like the ones shown below, which contractors interpreted.
“The experts predicted the future, but nature had other ideas.” - Richard Fernandez (@wretchardthecat)
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine. To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
[McKinsey is consulting firm to large corporations. SaaS is “software as a service” via subscriptions.]
That was in 2019, and now it is 2+ years later. What do you think about this estimate today?
Ralph Grabowski: I didn’t believe it at the time, and I don’t believe it now.
The CEOs of PTC have been known for making extravagant claims. In this case, I wonder if the CEO was justifying the purchase of Onshape, while (I think) hoping secretly it would not prove to be a costly mistake.
Getting full CAD on the cloud has proved elusive, even for a hardcore cloud promoter like Autodesk, which has been plugging away at the problem for a decade now, as has Dassault with its 14-year (and counting) failure to put Solidworks on the cloud. PTC will find the same,
Indeed, PTC admitted as much when it spent (perhaps) around $700 million (purchase price + assumption of debt, my estimate) on Onshape, saying paying for an acquisition was quicker and cheaper than writing the code on its own. So think how much it might have cost to write cloudCAD from scratch. But now it faces the problem of delivering on its promise of Onshape-ifying Creo with 100% of functions of the desktop version. It ain't gonna happen.
Siemens, Hexagon, and mid-tier CAD vendors (Bentley, Bricsys, Graebert, et al) know better. Their solution is hybrid: hard-core CAD on the desktop with ancillary activities on the cloud where it make sense, such as collaboration and remote drawing access.
Mr Przybylinski: I second all of those emotions. I think that McKinsey does not know enough about CAD authoring tools to understand how they are different.
This next article illustrated their feelings about enterprise software more broadly: “The next software disruption: How vendors must adapt to a new era. Over the turbulent past decade, many legacy software players proved to be remarkably resilient. Now they must adopt a new strategic playbook to weather the different challenges ahead.” [Source.]
Mr Grabowski: I feel that McKinsey suffers from a conflict of interest: it needs change to occur so that it can charge firms to advise them in how to navigate and implement the upcoming changes predicted by McKinsey. By proactively announcing that inevitable change is coming for pretty much darn sure, they prime the pump for lucrative contacts.
Mr Przybylinski: I agree. While we at CIMdata are known for doing market research in this space, we often don't get asked to do things like this, because we are normally more conservative. Plus, we do not have the cachet of “McKinsey” in a press release.
[Stan Przybylinski is the vice president of PLM market research firm CIMdata. He is the former manager of market and competitive intelligence at Dassault Systèmes.]
== 3D Conversion of Ultra-Massive 3D Models via DWF-3D & Okino's PolyTrans|CAD ==
One of the most refined aspects of Okino's PolyTrans|CAD software is in transforming ultra-massive MCAD models of oil and gas rigs, LNG processing plants, 3D factories, and other unwieldy datasets into Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, and Unity (among others).
What often takes days using blindly incorrect methods takes minutes or an hour with Okino's well-defined optimization and compression methods using its DWF-3D conversion system.
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].
Project Newplex 2.0 is the advanced SHX font designed for technical documents; compatible with every DWG-based CAD program that supports Unicode SHX files.
Features
Advanced character forms for readability & clarity
Dassault Systemeslost the prize for holding the first post-covid in-person CAD user conference, after abruptly cancelling the in-person part for health reasons. You can still watch 3DExperience World (nee Solidworks World) on your computer-connected big screen tv from the comfort of your comfy armchair February 6 - 9 after registering at 3dexperienceworld.com/overview.
- - -
Open DesignAlliance shipped the initial release of its open STEP software development kit in January. The SDK handles CIS/2 schemas, accesses EXPRESS metadata, and supports the following application protocols:
AP203 (configuration-controlled design)
AP214 (automotive design)
AP238 (STEP-NC integrated CNC)
AP242 (managed model-based 3D engineering)
To come later this year: advanced creation, visualization, and .NET support. upFront.eZine wrote about the ODA’s plans in issue #111.
LEDAS reports that for the third year in a row its revenues increased by 15%. The software consulting company specializes in solving tough problems in CAD, BIM, and CAM. ledas.com
- - -
IntelliCAD Technology Consortium updates IntelliCAD Mobile Platform:
Opens and regenerates drawings using multiple threads
Previews files before opening them
Names views and visual styles
Mobile Platform is not a retail product but meant for ITC Mobile SIG members to distribute. As a CAD file viewer, it handles .dwg, .dxf, .dgn, .dwf, .dae, and image files; architecture and civil objects; and underlays, and runs on Windows, Android, macOS, and iOS. www.intellicad.org
Letters to the Editor
Re: What Remains to Be Solved in Mechanical CAD
Matt Lombard's article on the above topic is riveting, I read it in one swoop. What are your thoughts about how future developments will work out? Still via China? - Name withheld by request Canada
The editor replies: The amount being produced for us in China is so overwhelming that we cannot properly comprehend it. It is expensive to move production back to the West, and would take years to build the factories.
The related problem is that the West moved it factory pollution to China, so bringing factories back would shift the pollution back to our skies and waters.
- - -
Matt Lombard wrote, “And when is A.I. going to show up, or do we not have the piles of unsorted data required to make A.I. successful?”
Amen to the second clause! That said, I find BricsCAD's Bimify and Blockify commands pretty awesome examples for A.I. in CAD/BIM. - Michael Hasse France
The editor replies: As impressive as commands like Bimify are, I don’t consider them A.I. but advanced forms of search and replace.
Re: The Complexity of Simplicity
I like this chapter/discussion. Let’s call this “smart stupidities”! - Jure Spiler Slovinia
One of my brothers is one of those who will not live inside. He's been offered a brand new suite in condo towers for the “homeless” a number of times over the years, but prefers the mental and emotional peace he finds sleeping outside a church in the upper-middle class area we grew up in as kids.
I visit him every couple of days at a predetermined time and place to give him his allowance of funds to keep him fed and with smokes. With the recent very cold weather in Vancouver, there were a couple of times my fear of not seeing him alive arose, thinking he might have not made it through the frigid night, but he showed up with no mention of the cold.
He's 74 years old, so he’s done well to live this way for decades. He’s labeled as being homeless, but, in reality, his home is what we call the outside. - Name withheld by request (via WorldCAD Access)
The editor replies: The inability to live inside four walls is a common among the homeless, which, I agree, would better be named “the houseless,” as they have a place they call home.
Volunteering at a cold weather shelter, I’ve seen people leave in the middle of a frigid night due to their anxiety of being inside. As they leave, we remind them to shelter from the wind in a doorway and to huddle with someone else.
Notable Quotable
"Metaverse: it’s the tech bro version of New Coke." - David Burge (@iowahawkblog)
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:
Red Roof Industries: “Keep up the great work!”
To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
There is a way to determine people’s ability to structure designs. Ask them to arrange virtual furniture in a room:
When they draw rectangles and they annotate them with words like “wardrobe,” “bed,” and “table,” then place dimensions and distances, you are looking at a designer. The designer is a planner solving the “What can and should be done” problem.
When they create perspective views with details like armrests and cushions, it seems that they are “constructors” who would be better trying their hand at mechanical engineering. (See figure below.) Constructors solve the “How to make” problem using original, non-standard solutions. This is welcome in mechanical engineering, which has a pre-production testing stage, which does not exist in the design of buildings where non-standard solutions are risky.
Perspective drawing made by a constructor
“What is a model for, if you already have drawings?” This is the question I am asked during discussions on automatically generating 3D models from 2D drawings. People have no idea that it’s possible to make drawings without first constructing 3D models. For instance, this is the weighty opinion of a developer of one 3D modeling program: “The model is the only source of information for drawings. Drawings are nothing more than views of the model.”
And what do standards and textbooks say? When we consult them, we read terms like “projections,” “sections,” and “cross-sections,” such as illustrated by the figure below.
Orthogonal and other projections of a 3D model
When we read further, we learn that a floor plan is a horizontal section at the level of the window openings, or 1/3 of the story’s height. We might think that this confirms the priority of models over drawings. An example from a real project, however, casts doubt on this conclusion.
Depicted in the figure below is a shop. This is practical, clear, but how can it be called a “horizontal section” when it shows a variety of elevations? Some are at -2.500; there is a rail track at floor level; some platforms at +1.000 and +4.000; many columns and vertical bracings (above the floor, and below the crane rails); walls at level of windows; bridge cranes and a crane landing platform (just under the roof).
Production building plan at a variety of elevations
This exactly is a plan, a schematic representation of what should be built. It is an extremely simplified representation, with all plan objects refined and detailed elsewhere. By the way, sections are the same as plans, except that they describe builds from different aspects.
PROJECT NEWPLEX v2.0
Project Newplex 2.0 is the advanced SHX font designed for technical documents; compatible with every DWG-based CAD program that supports Unicode SHX files.
Features
Advanced character forms for readability & clarity
The synthesis of spatial objects from their projections is called “the inverse problem of descriptive geometry,” and is an unsolved technical problem. Nevertheless, for hundreds of years, designers and builders have been synthesizing mental versions of 3D building models from 2D drawings. Then, builders transform the mental objects into real ones — how do they do it?
It is impossible to build models using projections, but it is possible using conditional images that have parameters tied to them. When we draw a circle (even if it is not perfect), and then write just two words, such as “Sphere d1800,” we create the parametric description of a sphere as a spatial object.
A parametric description consists entirely of conventional signs, and as a result is a linguistic description. Parametric modeling is essentially linguistic modeling. As a rule, parametric descriptions include the following elements:
Object type designations, formatted as text (e.g., “sphere”)
Conditional graphical representations of objects (e.g., drawing of a circle)
Parametric designations as text (e.g., “d1800”)
Conditional auxiliary images (e.g., dimensions and extension lines)
There are cases where the object type designator is not explicitly presented. In such cases, it can be reconstructed from the drawing context. For instance, the context may be provided by the drawing’s name, such as “column layout scheme.”
Any parametric description assumes the existence of an associated execution procedure, such as a mathematical formula, a computer program, or a detailing algorithm linked to detail drawings. From a programming point of view, a parametric description is a function call with parameters passing to it. When executed, the function transforms conventional signs and images into mental or digital models.
We can come to the conclusion that the primary method for analyzing drawings is to establish parametric descriptions for each building element. In drawings, the same building elements are usually described in several different contexts, such as being present in different views, on different drawings, in different drawing sets, and so on.
As an example, let’s try to restore the parametric description of the column located at A-17 in the figure below. The type of object (column) is easily determined from the context: column sections in this drawing are rectangles. There is, however, no other information tied to the object.
Identifying parameters of column A-17 from the equivalent column A-4
So we apply this well-known rule:
If, in a group of objects that are identical in appearance and purpose, there is only one object provided with parameters (dimensions, marking, designations), then all other objects in the group inherit these parameters.
In the group of columns along the A-axis, we see column A-7 is associated with detail #4. (See figure below.) If we were to refer to detail 4, we would see a refined column section with its dimensions, and snaps of the section to the co-ordination axes on the plan.
Detail 4 describing column A-7 and referencing Section 1-1
Using the details of section 1-1, we can determine the column’s top and bottom elevations. We apply the parametric description we obtained from A-7 to all columns (except for the corner ones) of row A, including the column at A-17.
Step-by-step Detailing of Objects
So. We managed to determine the definition of a simplified architectural column. A short parametric description cannot completely define complex structures, as real columns are. Nevermind: during the early stages of planning, our knowledge of objects is very approximate and vague.
During the planning process, structural drawings appear following the architectural ones, from which the columns obtain designations (that will be marked). A separate drawing of an abstract column representative of the columns of this type will appear. The structural elements of this abstract column — the formwork, rebars, embedded items — will, in turn, be detailed.
The essence of step-by-step detailing can be described this way:
Any project detail is itself a project
Any project is itself a project detail
During step-by-step detailing, a hierarchical structure is built by which the types and parameters of the upper-level objects are the context for lower-level objects.
Knowledge and Data
Parametric descriptions and their associated execution procedures are knowledge of what and how the work should be done. As a result of the execution of the parametric description, we get an object’s 3D model, which is the object’s database. Let’s take a closer look at the process.
In the figure below, there is a drawing fragment explaining the principle of reinforcing the floor slab.
Drawing of slab reinforcement as a representation of knowledge
The recipient of the drawing extracts a parametric description from it, applies the execution procedure, and, as a result, gets a mental model of the slab reinforcement. When the recipient is a builder, he will transform his mental model into real reinforcement in the field.
The process of creating a model in a 3D modeling program is, in principle, no different from a traditional drawing. By some means or other, the reinforcement contour is defined; the diameter, steel class, spacing, and possible overlap of rebars are specified.
The end result is, however, different. The execution procedure creates a computer model of a set of rebars with attributes attached to every bar. This model is saved. The figure below represents a top view of the reinforced slab as displayed by a computer model.
Top view of the reinforced slab model as a form of data representation
As mental models are built solely on the basis of visual perception, let's compare the two figures:
Drawing — shows a single abstract bar, with information attached. The bar defines the size, location, and attributes of all other bars in the planned reinforcement slab. We do not see individual bars, but we get a very good idea of the slab reinforcement.
Model — shows lots of bars. Annotations need to be added to all bars, and many dimensions need to be placed. When the slab is large and contains a lot of rebar, we get a messy, poorly readable picture. The result is a poor-quality mental model and, accordingly, a poor understanding.
- - -
Collaboration begins with understanding. Like it or not, we have to do what BIM calls "automatic" extraction of drawings from models.
A comparison begs. We cook borscht according to a recipe, throw away the recipe, and then, using complex algorithms, try to extract the recipe (the drawings) from the finished borscht (the models). This is the wrong way around of doing things.
The parametric drawing style is based on the assumption that recipients of the drawings have a professional set of algorithms for drawing analyses and for building mental models based on the analyses’ results.
In practice, this means that drawings should be made so that for each structural element, its parametric description can be restored. The mental object is modeled by calling the appropriate execution procedure associated with the parametric description.
Parametrics Determine Drawing Precision
In many cases, deviations from the image’s scale and accuracy contribute to the readability of drawings and the ease with which they can be adjusted. Consistent adherence to accuracy prevents this, surprisingly enough. The use of parametrics makes the meticulous precision of graphic images meaningless, and so it makes no sense to measure things on drawings. Indeed, the Russian standard prohibits such measurements.
The geometric accuracy of parametric drawings is determined by the accuracy of the values of dimensional parameters. In most cases, editing is limited to adjusting parameters, without affecting the graphic images. (It should be noted that parametric drawings are difficult to read when the proportions of objects are grossly distorted.)
As we see, this contradicts the autocad-style of drawing with its associative dimensions. The autocad style is based on drawing graphic images with tools that ensure great accuracy; the primary method for adjusting drawings is by editing the graphic images as required.
Machine Interpretation of Drawings
When professional algorithms are transferred to a computer, we get the ability to carry out automatic drawing analyses and building a computer model based on the results of the analyses.
A set of drawings can be considered a program written in a professional language — the equivalent of a high-level programming language. The program is compiled as a whole; a machine interpreter of drawings is in fact a compiler. As a result of the compilation, an overall execution procedure is formed, such as an IFC text file. In the end, a computer model is created. Note that the primary method of programming drawings is the step-by-step detailing of objects, better known as top-down design.
How is this different from the traditional way of creating models with 3D modeling software? All of them use a command interpreter as the input interface for 3D modeling. Complex objects are created by assembling pre-prepared components, whether primitives or parts. This technique implements the bottom-up principle; it simulates the construction process and so has nothing to do with planning.
It is clear that for many, assembling a building from cubes is easier and clearer than creating a linguistic description of a building with help of drawings. Unfortunately, except for the model in the computer’s memory, what’s actually needed are models in our heads. A set of drawings is an algorithm of understanding. It is impossible to replace the reading of this algorithm with something else, such as wandering across a computer model.
Crucially, the delineation of legal responsibility within the framework of this algorithm is also not a problem.
Machine Interpretation of Sketches
The parametric style of drawing allowed engineers with blunt pencils on broken-down Kuhlmann drafting machines to create absolutely accurate (not in the autocad sense) drawings. The independence instrumental to parametrics creates the principled opportunity of interpreting freehand sketches and drawings.
The figure below illustrates an example of such an interpretation. The problem is to turn a freehand line (possibly the sketch of a beam) into an accurate two-dimensional model.
Steps in interpreting the freehand line as a beam
Here are the steps involved:
Step 1. Bridge the gap, created by careless sketching. The extent of the gap is insignificant and is not numerically specified.
Step 2. Straighten the curve. The bend radii and the curve deviations from the straight line passing through the curve endpoints are insignificant and not numerically indicated. From this, we deduce that the curve is a straight line segment.
Step 3. Refine the x coordinates of the line’s endpoints. Horizontal deviations of the line’s endpoints from the A-axis and the 6000-dimension extension line are insignificant and so are not numerically specified. The x-coordinate at the line’s left endpoint is equal to xA (xA is the x-coordinate of axis "A"); the x-coordinate of the right endpoint is xA + 6000.
Step 4. Refine the z coordinates of the line’s endpoints. Vertical deviations of the line’s endpoints from the 3.000 elevation’s extension line are insignificant and not numerically specified, as is the inclination angle of the line. The z coordinates of the line’s endpoints are the same, and both are equal to 3000.
We completely restored the parametric description of the object.
Standards for Preparing Drawings
Current rulemaking in the area of preparing drawings stopped trying to combine the Gaspard Monge legacy with the drafting practice of the 1980s. [Mr Monge invented descriptive geometry, which became the basis for technical drawings.] In my opinion, construction drawings in Russia reached their peak in the eighties. From this, progress regressed, as drawings were made with 3D models and autocad styles of drawing.
Arrested development results in degradation, as shown by the figure below comparing Russian state standards from 1980 (top) and 2018 (below).
Drawing styles from 1980 (top) and 2018 (above)
The Grammar of Drawings
Due to the appearance of 3D modeling programs, a question has arisen about teaching descriptive geometry in technical colleges: Is it still relevant? The crisis in descriptive geometry is a consequence of the same misconceptions about drawings as in engineering practice.
Back in the 19th century, drawings were called “the language of technique,” and descriptive geometry was the grammar of this language. In my opinion, the reasons for misunderstanding were these:
Incomplete awareness that drawings have all the properties of the language in a direct, literal sense
The consequences of not fully thinking this through. For instance, if we speak of drawings as text, then it is not clear what accurate projections have to do with the text
Descriptive geometry can and should develop in the direction of machine analysis of drawings: from classical descriptive geometry to parametric (linguistic) descriptive geometry, a kind of analytic geometry.
[Alexander Yampolsky has designed residential, public and industrial buildings, mainly as a structural analyst. He was an early participant (1982) in BIM at the Minuralsibstroy construction ministry of the Russian government, and developed technology for machine interpretation of drawings. Mr Yampolsky is a graduate of Tula State University.]
Notable Quotable
“The CDC said we can leave the Christmas lights up til January.” - Aubrey Strobel
I keep mourning the passing of CAD as a topic interesting enough to keep producing interesting articles about it. It used to be that you didn’t have to look far to find a great technical topic, or a new way to apply CAD tools. On the Solidworks (desktop — do I really have to specify what the name implies?) side of things, for instance, development has been largely uninteresting.
Developments in design technology seem currently focused on 3D printing: improvements in materials, methods, support structures, finer structures, finishes, and machines to go bigger and smaller. The surge in robotics is related to the hardware side of 3D printing, and also is going gangbusters.
Let’s take a look at what general 3D CAD development has achieved in the last decade or so, and then look forward to what we can hope for in the next decade. The big topics CAD developers have tackled include these ones:
Universal file management
Some CAD systems added file management, but others made it less accessible
Is it possible that Solidworks killed off PDM [product data management] as certain individuals were going out the door to create a new venture with built-in data management?
Alternatives to History-based Modeling
T-splines and related technology
Direct/synchronous modeling
Convergent CAD that combines sub-division meshes + NURBS in the same model
i. Sub-d push-pull ii. 3D scan data iii. FEA meshing iv. 3D print meshes v. Generative techniques for shape optimization vi. Medical, dental meshes
Application Delivery and Data Storage Options
First, decentralizing CAD from mainframes to personal computers
Then, centralizing CAD back to cloud servers
4. CAD in a database
Much data these days is kept in a database format; it makes sense, as it provides built-in data management and turns the idea of file management on its head
5. Various 3D Print Integrations (although most 3D printing advances have been in materials and robotics)
Support structures
Moving specialized functions from specialized software into CAD
Not all of these have been ubiquitous, and not all have impacted all CAD users, but most CAD users have access to these solutions when they need them.
Mechanical CAD with 3D scan-and-print has been a great success in specialty areas like medical and dental. If recent wars have an upside, it in the development of next-generation prosthetics, some strictly mechanical, some with newly developed neural interfaces. Scanning and printing have allowed us to customize attachments to individual injuries, quickly replacing and repairing limbs, and even joints.
Big Ticket Disappointments
When it comes strictly to mechanical CAD, I think we’re in a lull period right now. With all these other interesting things to do, the base technology has been forgotten for a while.
At the same time, some of the big ticket items that CAD developers put on the table haven’t really caught on.
Cloud. I think there was an assumption that cloud computing was going to be embraced in the same way that PC CAD was embraced in the 1990s. But it hasn’t. Clearly, it works for some people, but not for everyone.
This tech will catch on eventually, but too many intransigent engineers have too much invested in overly-complex history-based systems, and so haven’t taken the time to understand the real advantages of synchronous modeling.
Where Do We Go Next?
I’ve made predictions about the future of CAD before. I thought engineer-to-order was the next big thing, as would be synchronous modeling. They weren’t. I predicted CAD-in-the-cloud was not going to be the next big thing; so far, this is my closest to a good guess.
And when is A.I. going to show up, or do we not have the piles of unsorted data required to make A.I. successful?
I really hope the idea of converging different types of data keeps developing, as well as mesh manipulation tools for mechanical CAD. There are so many sub-d tools out there that every big CAD developer should buy one just to understand the data type, the tools involved, their usage, and applications of this kind of modeling. We don’t have to re-develop all of this knowledge.
Another thing I hope gets some play are more specialized tools. We already have tools specific to designing sheet metal parts, frames, piping, and in medical fields. I think more needs to be done with plastic, assemblies, resilience, and local design.
Plastics Design. Plastic parts are so hard to design. The outsides are all minute, custom-made details; the insides, that you don’t even see, can be even more difficult to design. We need a series of functional features that can be applied to models. Maybe this requires a special file format just for plastic parts, as with the other specialized techniques.
Plastic designing and manufacturing need to come closer together. The design of the outside shape and mechanical details, and the manufacturing expertise to make individual plastic parts need to be centralized so that a single person can make the decisions about design and manufacturing. Throwing designs over the Great Wall is not going to be a viable solution going forward.
Assembly Design. And we have to do something about assembly design. Right now, it’s a custom approach every time. We need a tool that follows a process for assemblies, and can reuse information on how assemblies go together. Is it rules based? A.I.? Can it somehow learn about different types of joints, closures, and mechanisms?
We need tools that know how to work with horizontal modeling, resilience, top down, layouts, master models — all these are methods that design software should be able to replicate, and even guide you through. We’re at a point where forcing dumb tools to do smart things is just inadequate. Best Practice rules already exist to help people use tools in poorly structured workflows.
Sustainable Design. Beyond software, I’d like to see product development aim to be more durable and reusable, to get away from single-use products, especially in plastics and packaging. As engineers and designers (and, yes, even marketers), we need to have a conscience. Reject bad ideas.
Throw-away products have always been a bad idea, but someone other than the people for whom this is a religious cause needs to stand up and say so. We need to design stuff that endures, and when it doesn’t endure, it needs to be fixable, and when it can’t be fixed, it need to be recyclable. Not that long ago and certainly in my lifetime, we used to have less stuff, but the stuff we had was more valuable. It lasted longer, because it was built and designed with use in mind, rather than crass consumption.
Local Design. Maybe all of this heads back to more employee-owned companies. I don’t think driving the economy with a bunch of disinterested investors is good for anyone, and obviously centrally-managed economies have shown they don’t work. Globalism is a failure.
Certainly we need to learn to do things locally again. The bigger an organization gets (including government), the more corrupt it becomes, the more disconnected it is from the people who make it work, and should be benefiting from it. Stop sending product development and manufacturing to China. Manufacture molds locally again, make microelectronic chips locally again.
These are things I’d like to see in the next decade.
[Matt Lombard has been working with CAD and as an independent product development professional for 30 years. He is the author of eight books on Solidworks and Synchronous Technology. He blogs at dezignstuff.com/about.]
XVL from Lattice Technologies (part owned by Toyota) is an inbetween format that reads files from most 3D CAD programs, then displays them in an XVL viewer, and used for training and parts lists.
XVL can be exported to 3D PDF, Excel, iPads, and so on. As of 2021, it is native on 3Dexperience; back in 2005, Dassault based its 3DXML on Lattice’s XVL. lattice3d.com/company/xvl-technology
- - -
ARES Commander 2022 from Graebert is now in beta, with an emphasis on the 2D processing of Revit and other BIM models, as well as new features for the Touch tablet and Kudo Web versions of the CAD software.
Desktop beta is downloadable initially for Windows and then later in January for MacOS. graebert.com
- - -
Here is one of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:
A.I. projects that attempt to replace humans will fail. A.I. projects that attempt to augment humans have a much more likely path to success. - Randall S. Newton (@RSN_Global on Twitter)
- - -
I recently spent a week working with my colleagues at RIB Software improving the UX and UI in our iTWO software, trying to get a commitment between functionality and usability.
I recall Xerox Parc’s Larry Tesler with his “NO MODES” license plate. I prefer one that reads “NO OPTIONS”, as every option in software is a question to which we programmers have no answer. So we transfer the problem to the user.
I have a new car, the most modern German car, chosen on purpose for being the most digitalized model in its size. It is much more similar to my PC than to my previous car.
You must learn how to use it, as it has lots of options for adapting the car to your convenience. Otherwise, don’t buy this car! Do you really need an acoustic signal when you close the doors? Will you remember that there is a setting for entering car washes? What happens when you forget?
And, of course, it has many “MODES,” which affect my driving. After a day of driving it, I asked the salesman how to stop the car from obeying speed limits, as many of them are nonsense. His solution was completely wrong: he unchecked the “Adapt to road conditions” option; he should have turned on “Ignore speed limits,” which is found in a different menu.
The “Adapt to road conditions” option adapts the car’s speed not only to road conditions, but also to your speed setting and to the car in front. (The car knows the road conditions because it has a GPS; when I tell the car my destination, it reduces speeds in curves, and so on.) Should you think this option is turned on, but it is not, you could easily drive off the road.
Thank you for your insight, your knowledge, and your information. - Fernando Valderrama RIB Spain
The editor replies: I buy old used cars to avoid the electronics shoveled into new ones, which I experienced when renting cars.
The worst was a Ford Edge, where even the heating and cooling required adjustment through a touch tablet, several menu levels deep -- followed by precise 0.5-degree temperature changes that required repeated taps while keeping an eye on the road.
Subsequently, Ford admitted they had gone too far in the digitalization of the car’s UI.
- - -
Thanks for your excellent updates, professional dialogues, and information. Even for us non-mechanical guys, it’s valuable. - Michael David Rubin
- - -
Regarding knowledge: I am a huge fan of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, from which we got the term “paradigm shift.”
Regarding interfaces: visiting one of my sons I encountered a fancy toaster with a novel (to me) interface. Push the Toast button and the bread is transported down. As I have aged, I have encountered many puzzling interfaces that were once familiar. Ten-15 years ago I could not open the car window to pay the toll. -Leo Schlosberg
The editor replies: I bought a T-fal toaster, because its designers were featured speakers at a CAD conference. They had slanted the top by 45 degrees, so that we could look into it and see how the toast was coming along. (Turns out I never do that.)
Well, you know the special property of 45 degrees: when the toast is released at 45-degrees, it is launched into the air in an arc to land, most times, on the kitchen floor. Not all design improvements are improvements.
Mr Schlosberg responds: Speaking, as we were, of toasters, a cartoon showed up.
Notable Quotable
“Thankfully, there are still hardware Morlocks* to clean up after the mess the Eloi have made.” - Andrew Orlowski
*) The Time Machine, HG Wells
Thank You, Readers
Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine. To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:
Recent Comments