Monday, May 10, 2021

"Agility Eats Black Swans for Breakfast": The Aras CEO Keynote from ACE 2021

Issue #1,095  |  The Business of CAD | 10 May 2021

 

Aras ceo Peter Schroer gave the keynote to this year’s Aras Community Event (ACE) 2021 user conference. Here is my transcript of his talk, which I edited for clarity and brevity. For the full presentation, see events.aras.com/ace2021/agenda.

Aras ceo Peter Schroer at Aras Community Event 2021 online conference.

- - -

For many of us, digital transformation projects in 2020 got derailed. It could have been through politics, the pandemic, the recession, or the semiconductor supply chain problem. We had a lot of black swan events, those rare-occurring, significant, one-in-a-lifetime things — we had them all last year. There is no readiness planning for black swans, as we can’t prepare for these things.

Let’s call 2020 the “Year of Lessons Learned.” But I gotta tell you, there was no single impact; it was like a flock of swans.

I have this saying that I have been using for years, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.” Did your project have such a rigid plan that it was easily derailed?

To be clear, not all of the impact in 2020 was negative. If you happen to be a cloud provider, a medical company, or if you work for a software company named “Zoom,” those black swan events created a huge opportunity for you — if you were ready. There was also the negative impact: the automotive industry had a tough time.

We have to ask ourselves, “Did we respond well?” How we respond to a crisis — or the opportunity, depending on which side of the coin we’re looking at — how we respond really matters. We respond with speed, resilience, and agility. Agility eats black swans for breakfast.

We’ve sometimes talked about resilience as “being sustainable.” A sustainable digital transformation project has to be able to withstand the hiccoughs, the failures, and the bumps in the road that are absolutely normal.

My lesson from 2020 is that we add empowerment to the mix. Organizations not only need their workforce to have the right tools, but they also need to have the attitude and aptitude to adapt quickly.

 

Chess Master Project Planning

From McKinsey we learn that 80% of digital transformation projects fail — probably nobody is surprised by the number. Of those that don’t completely fail, about 16% deliver some kind of improved performance. Digital transformation is very expensive, very risky, serious initiative.

In company after company, it is done through top-down management approach. Let’s call it the “chess master” as an analogy. There is someone at the top (CEO, CIO, CDO, the smart guy who’s in charge) who has been dictating, driving digital transformation projects. There are grand ambitions involving AI, big data, machine learning— we want to do all this stuff. But it’s not working. Frankly, it is divorced from reality. The top-down isn’t working quite right.

By the way, none of this stuff is cheap. We are investing millions of dollars in data lakes [sp?], in moving to the cloud, in hiring data scientists, we have Chief Data Officers now — all to run our digital transformation projects, and still 80% are failing. Not just failing, but failing spectacularly.

What is it about this chess master top-down approach that’s not working well? This is just my opinion, but external things are changing just too fast. Information technology is moving very quickly; AI’s evolving; your competitors are moving faster; supply chains are breaking faster.

When we do big top-down projects…

  • We underestimate the cost and impact of change, particularly organizational change

  • We underestimate the lack of consensus across the organization when we dictate something top-down

  • We seriously underestimate the readiness of our data

In our context, let’s consider engineering and operations data, specifically. We severely underestimate how ready that data is to support an AI project in our digital transformation.

Why is this data problem so difficult? We are underestimating the difficulty of adapting or upgrading all the PLM [product lifecycle management] legacy, ERP [engineering resource planning], MES [manufacturing execution system], and so on.

 

Surfacing the Data

I’ll give you a prediction: no digital transformation project is going to succeed, It’s just not possible if engineering and operations systems are standing between you and real-time data accessibility. If we can’t surface this data and enable it throughout the rest of the organization, and if it’s not part of your digital transformation, then you are really stuck.

We think about typical PLM users. They are on an old version of Teamcenter, 3dexperience, Windchill, or SAP. It’s a very difficult upgrade path to get to modern technology. If we can’t get to the latest versions, we’re not getting to the openness and we’re not getting the technology that has the connectivity. How are we going to work with data that’s in a proprietary, closed system?

In general, what’s going on here is that we underestimate the amount of technical debt we have. It’s the technical debt of three or four decades of very silo-oriented modernization. Your PDM [product data management] systems, the ERPs, the CRMs [customer relationship management], the MESes.

I am hearing that there are an average of 500 legacy systems at any one of the large manufacturing companies. There was a lot of investment in creating silos that we now have to break to get to some kind of digital transformation. How much of your IT budget is for the constant maintenance required to keep those old systems running?

There is no Big Bang approach to turn it all off on a weekend and then turn on something new.

Going to the cloud is not going to fix this either. The cloud, in fact, is not ready today for your processes. I know that SaaS [software as a service] is considered the silver bullet for a lot of this digital transformation, but it only makes sense if you’re prepared  to give up your unique competitive processes and run your business the way that a cloud provider has decided it should work. It makes no sense to do that.

Cloud is part of the solution; SaaS is part of the solution. But we need to rethink how SaaS is implemented to actually make that work. If you are on someone else’s hard-coded platform, there is zero ability for you to navigate the next black swan. You gotta have control.

How many of you still have your bills of material, your suppliers, your quality data sitting in Excel, or it’s in a mainframe, or it’s in emails? Or you have the same data duplicated across multiple single sources of the truth? (That’s my first oxymoron for this presentation; I’m planning on having two.)

 

Empowerment From the Trenches Up

CIOs are three times more likely than workers to see their companies as pioneers in information technology. Heads in the cloud. (That’s my SaaS joke for this talk.) The employees, on the other hand, are four times more likely to rate their company as a follower.

My point: If we can figure out empowerment, how to harness the intelligence, the knowledge, and the energy of those people down there in the trenches who really do know how the business is running, and let them drive the digital transformation. I think that is where we will see a higher success rate.

Black swans are more common; we’re seeing lots of them. (That’s my second oxymoron.) How do you drive a digital transformation project in that context? There no longer is any CIO chess-master who can drive this successfully as a top-down initiative. We need to distribute the decision-making right down to the trenches where the operational knowledge is.

At Aras, we switched our entire development to SAFe several years ago — the scaled agile framework for enterprise. (See figure below.) SAFe is a very structured way to distributing decision making. In this SAFe methodology, you are driving down the authority and tools for decisions to get made at all levels, but most importantly in the trenches. This has worked extraordinarily for us. We changed pawns to multi-dimensional queens.

Elements of the scaled agile framework for enterprise

If you are going to empower your players, you have to understand your goals and priorities. You have to have a continuous improvement culture in place before that next black swan event occurs.

We have seen our customers start with Aras PLM installed next to TeamCenter, over time incrementally moving the workflow from one system to the other. It’s a great way to get things done efficiently and successfully. It’s iterative: we’re talking evolution, not revolution.

In any major project like this, there are going to be setbacks. We want to be able to handle setbacks. There’s a direction we are going which doesn’t play out well, so we need to back up. You need to create a culture that allows for some disappointments, setbacks, and failures, to continue making progress but that doesn’t actually stop you. We have to enable low-risk failure.

We do need executive sponsorship. The C-level on down needs to allow us to make some mistakes, to allow us to work incrementally, and to keep us on the right path.

I am not creating new theory here: it is well known that incremental small wins create their own momentum. The momentum from winning can overcome the setbacks, the setbacks that will be there for sure.

www.aras.com

 

== Converting 3D CAD & DCC
to Virtual/ Augmented Reality ==

With the explosive growth of VR/AR, the ultra-massive 3D datasets produced by CAD and DCC programs need efficient conversion to the popular Unity and Unreal development platforms. Okino of Toronto is the long-time provider of the PolyTrans|CAD translator, which easily handles the interactive datasets required by VR and AR for Microsoft HoloLens, HTC VIVE, Oculus Rift, Meta, and other VR headsets.

PolyTrans provides you with

  • Massive dataset handling

  • Node compression

  • Adaptive CAD tessellation

  • Intelligent polygon reduction

Popular CAD data sources include SolidWorks, ProE/Creo, Inventor, AutoCAD, Revit, Navisworks, DGN, IGES, STEP, Parasolid, and JT. DCC data sources are Cinema-4D, 3ds Max, Maya, FBX/Collada, and many more.

Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.

www.okino.com

And in Other News

Dassault Systemes, the #1 CAD vendor, reports Q1 revenues of (approx.) US$1.4 billion, up 3% over a year ago.

In a switch from previous reporting to shareholders, Dassault revealed just percentage-increases for Solidworks, no absolute numbers; Solidworks revenues rose 18% and seats rose 22% over last year.

Monica Schnitger has more details at schnitgercorp.com/?p=18248.

- - -

The big new thing in CAD is moving simulation from the end of the design process to earlier stages. A new release of Siemens’ Simcenter FLOEFD fluid simulation software now runs inside NX, Solid Edge, Catia V, and Creo to frontload CFD [computational fluid dynamics] simulations. It also does more in the areas of thermal and lighting simulation. Learn more from plm.automation.siemens.com/global/en/products/simcenter/floefd.html.

- - -

The Nemetschek Group reported Q1 revenues of (approx.) US$191 million, up 11.7% over a year ago. The Design (CAD) segment “whose business activities are focused on Europe” increased revenues by 8.7%.

More details in the official press release at nemetschek-ag-com.mynewsdesk.com/pressreleases/nemetschek-group-successful-start-to-2021-with-double-digit-operating-revenue-growth-and-high-margin-level-in-q1-3095114 (hidden behind a Cookie Wall).

- - -

PTC reported Q2 revenues of US$462 million, up 22% from a year ago. The company credits “the impact of up-front license revenue recognition under ASC 606” for part of the increase. PTC has set aside $34 million “related to an ongoing tax matter in a non-US jurisdiction.” Details at investor.ptc.com/resources/news/news-details/2021/PTC-Announces-Fiscal-Second-Quarter-2021-Results/default.aspx.

The same day, PTC announced the release of Creo 8.0, which features GDX generative design running on Atlas as an optional extra-cost add-on. Learn what else is new at ptc.com/en/products/creo/whats-new.

PTC also released a roadmap with the company’s plans “to SaaSify PTC’s entire portfolio onto the Atlas platform over time” with a target date of 2025. The company promises to “offer on-premise versions of core products indefinitely.”

- - -

Here are 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

Re: Onshape User Conference

In the Q&A you mention Cassini. Is this referring to the company and product CassiniPLM or something else? Could use a little more context. Thanks.
            - Stan Przybylinski

 

The editor replies: You're right, I made the reference too casual. It is a service that translates Solidworks files to Onshape with a hefty price tag. Here is the link to the software at the Onshape store: appstore.onshape.com/apps/Data%20Management/OR2Q3CQMIUVHUKAWN65HJ6UAEOGEDQGSZTDAJCI=/description

In the meantime, Noah Technologies is offering a free beta of their Solidworks to Onshape translator at cadtocloud.com. CEO Rami Noah tells me:

“Our product overcomes some of Onshape’s limitations, such as properties (attribute) mapping, correct positioning (no Y-direction issues), missing components, model duplication, and no need for a Zip file, as CAD to Cloud runs inside Solidworks as an add-on.”

 

Notable Quotable

“The effort to silence critics is an admission that the silencers’ programs can’t withstand criticism.”
- Glenn Reynolds

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • Julian Miranda, Spain

  • Thomas Enzmann, Switzerland (small business donation)

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4730

 

Posted at 07:00 AM in Guest Editorials, Travel | | Comments (0)

Monday, May 03, 2021

Model-checking 3D Prints with Riven

Issue #1,094  |  Celebrating 24 Years of CAD Reporting | 3 May 2021

 

by Ralph Grabowski

The core idea of Riven is that it corrects manufacturing problems by comparing 3D printed parts to the source CAD model. Its software lets you see defects in 3D printed parts and then make changes so that the designs are 3D-printed better the next time around.

Riven’s product is turnkey: it is software that runs in a browser and comes with 3D data management in a cloud; a turntable for rotating the printed models; and optionally includes Riven’s own 3D scanner. You can substitute certain models of other 3D scanners.

Although it was designed to diagnose parts made by any manufacturing method, the company found that early adopters tended to be ones who make sintered metal parts through metal binder-jet (MJB) printing.

The MBJ 3D printing process goes through steps shown by the figure below. The cost proportioned to each stage is roughly 10% -- 20% -- 10% -- 25% -- 35%. In red is the typical manual checking stage. Manual checking can miss defects such as warp and so result in scrap parts or failures in the field.

Typical checking of parts after 3D printing

So Riven checks parts before the process gets too expensive; see “release valves” in the figure below. It wants to solve

  • problems in getting from design to manufacturing

  • manufacturing waste; currently 25% of manufacturing is scrapped (perhaps a $3 trillion-cost, globally), with side effects of excessive shipping and labor costs

Checking 3D printed parts earlier in the process

How Riven Works

The Riven software reads data from 3D scanners from several vendors; the company provides its own Propel scanner. Data from the Propel scanner can be exported as a STEP file for use in CAD programs.

Founder James Page with Propel scanner aimed at Riven turntable

The part is placed on Riven’s turntable, about the size of a laptop. As the turntable turns, the scanner captures 3D data of the top and sides of the part in about a minute; a single viewpoint is captured in a couple of seconds. To capture the bottom surface of a part, flip it over and scan again. The software stitches the two scans together. Founder James Page says this is much faster than CMMs [coordinate measuring machines].

Once the scan is complete, you switch to the Riven.ai 3D Cloud Platform, which captures, stores, and analyzes the scan data. The software runs in browsers, and so even phones can be used to view models to collaborate remotely and solve problems in the field.

The software shows the result of the scan, and compares it with the source CAD model; it does not edit scans. Riven shows you where 3D printing may have failed by showing you several different versions of the scan:

1. The raw scan shows areas in pink as unscanned surfaces. See figure below.

2. Riven compares the scan with the CAD model:

  • Red areas — the 3D print is too large (by more than 0.5mm in the figure below) than the CAD model

  • Blue areas — too small

  • Gray areas — 0% deviation from CAD model

In the figure above, the blue shows that the fan blades warped downwards, a problem common with 3D printing. As well, the hole through the center should actually be too small, so that it can be drilled and reamed later in the production process.

3. Riven’s go/no-go gauge shows surfaces that are out by more than a specific distance, such as more than 0.5mm in the figure below.

A slider lets you dynamically change the gauge distance, as some surfaces might need a tighter tolerance. In some cases, inexact surfaces might be okay in the final product.

4. With these results in hand, you go back to the CAD program and adjust the design, like adding support collars, making the central hole smaller so that it can be drilled properly, and adding supports so that the blades do not sag during printing (shown in blue in the figure below).

5. Re-print and re-scan the redesigned part, and then go back into to the Riven software to check that there is now very little red or blue, as shown below. Holes are left correctly undersized, as indicated by pink.

Riven has one more mode: Measure mode is useful for measuring scanned parts, especially those that are hard to measure with calipers. Riven recognizes basic shapes, allowing measurements of surfaces like partial cylinders or between nearly-parallel planes. The basic shapes are colorized in the figure below.

Q&A

Q: The handout refers to Riven being useful for “NPI” but does not define what it stands for.

A: The term NPI refers to New Product Introduction. This is where designers iterate adjustments to models and manufacturing parameters to achieve acceptable parts.

 

Q: Where did the name Riven come from?

A: The word Riven refers to a divide or split, something being “riven apart.” We see the divide between physical parts and digital data as critical to bridge, so to reduce a significant amount of waste in manufacturing. We want to own that with our name.

 

Q: What is the accuracy of the system?

A: Repeatability is 10 microns, accuracy is 50 microns (0.0008" and 0.002" respectively).

 

Q: How are hidden areas scanned?

A: The scanner sees about 45 degrees into a hole; you can reposition the part to get all the way through short holes. For longer holes, you either cut the part in half, or else fill the volume with silicon and scan that. As well, Riven can take data from other scanners [that specialize in holes].

 

Q: What are the largest and smallest sizes that can be scanned?

A: As small as a dime and as big as a lunchbox, roughly 0.2" to 12".

 

Q: Are reference faces offered?

A: They are on our roadmap.

 

Q: Can the go/no-go areas be varied on different sections of a part?

A: We are looking into that. In the meantime, the slider lets you move the threshold for one area of the part, then for another area.

 

Q: Are there limitations on surface finishes that can be scanned?

A: Most parts can be scanned, but chrome-plated, transparent, black parts should be covered with a scanning spray. A new sublimating spray called AESUB goes on and then disappears on its own, leaving no residue. This makes it easy to scan parts that previously were challenging.

 

Q: Does Riven read tolerances from Solidworks models?

A: Today, you set the tolerance range in Riven. In the future, we might work with MBE [tolerances defined in model-based engineering tags].

 

Q: How do you handle large parts?

A: You do multiple poses; the system will know they are all of the same part. It might have difficulty with perfectly symmetric parts, like spheres, so you should place markings on them.

 

Q: How secure is your browser-based system,?

A: We are built on AWS [Amazon Web services] and use the best protocols to keep data secure. We have some aerospace and defense customers, who are satisfied with our security. We encrypt all the data in our system, both at rest and in transit.

 

Q: What is the cost?

A: The subscription is $4,500 a year with the sensor and software that can be used by up to ten people. The 3D models and annotations can be shared with an unlimited number of viewers.

An annual subscription will cost your team less than a couple of round trip tickets to China.

https://riven.ai

 

And in Other News

CAD to Cloud takes 3D models — parts, assemblies, and drawings — from Solidworks and uploads them to an Onshape account. It handles tasks like simultaneous editing, change tracking, and markups.

The software is currently free and in beta. www.cadtocloud.com

- - -

Open Design Alliance updates its free Open IFC Viewer to v2.3:

  • Measure distances along IFC models, and snap to the nearest vertex

  • Save IFC models as interactive 3D PDF files, and snapshot images as raster files

  • Display models with anti-aliasing and ground shadows

  • Spin the view cube for easier 3D navigation

Download the viewer for Windows or MacOS from openifcviewer.com.

- - -

AirShaper introduces Aerodynamic Shape Optimization to generate sensitivity maps of an object’s surface in two simulations, and then morph the shape of the object automatically. The result is drag reduction in fewer iterations.

Pricing starts at $50 per simulation and $6,000 per optimization. Learn more at airshaper.com.

- - -

Mensch und Maschine Software reports that Q1 revenues of its software were up 8%, but that revenues from its Autodesk reselling biz are down 14% so far in 2021.

Total Q1 revenues for the German firm are the equivalent of US$87 million. Monica Schnitger has the details for you at schnitgercorp.com/?p=18216.

- - -

Here is a post 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

Re: Q&A From Onshape’s User Conference

Your comments on Onshape are acceptable, except for one detail. Maybe 1% of the CAD world uses it. I am not saying it is terrible or poor software. But it all comes back to the marketplace.

As a service bureau, should we (or really, could we) support that 1% of the market? Or provide services for that 80/20% rule (Catia, NX, Creo, Solidworks, and yes, some Autodesk)?  The point is we cannot. 

We are building a large-scale power reactor system for a client now. They did their prototypes in Onshape. What are we going to use for design work? Solidworks. Then after Phase I of the design, we move into Ansys and Comsul for simulation. The company has zero interest in bringing the final design back into Onshape when completed .

I get the efforts of Onshape and BricsCAD. But it is very hard to support the 1% marketplace.
            - Scott Shuppert
            CAD/CAM Services

The editor replies: The latest number suggested by PTC is that they have perhaps 13,000 paying Onshape users. I think that PTC will phase out Onshape as a commercial product, and it might do the same in education. It does not make sense for PTC to promote software to schools when it is incompatible with Creo; the former employs the Parasolid kernel, while the latter the Granite kernel.

As for BricsCAD, it is remarkable software that out-AutoCADs AutoCAD but with numbers (in the range of 300,000) that after nearly 20 years of development are small enough to puzzle me.

 

Re: A Contractor’s View of BIM

Some brief comments on parts i and ii and the letters about part i.

1. The not-fully stated issue is this: Who has the knowledge to put all relevant and correct information into the BIM? Mr. Stachoni proposes putting the model in the hands of the GC [general contractor], but the knowledge is not there. Most of it is diffused among the subcontractors and trade associations and vendors in a combination of printed codes and manuals and a lot of experienced brains. GCs stay in business by shifting risk of error to subs.

2. Dave Edwards is right on in contrasting upper management and the guys in the back of the room. Tech sales people always focus on the benefits of a new technology and downplay or ignore the implementation costs. Probably the majority of the observable benefits of BIM have come from IPD [integrated project delivery].

3. Jess Davis grasps the differences between “normal” manufacturing and construction. The core difference is that the latter is continually building complex prototypes and starting with architects who are paid little to design, and are almost as much artists as engineers.

4. Matt Stachoni’s idea of GCs fully owning and coordinating the BIM is intriguing, but I wonder if anyone has tried it? IPD gets part way there. I would be very interested to read write-ups of such an experiment from the perspectives of many participants.
            - Leo Schlosberg

 

Re: Understanding the Divide

Brilliant book, thanks.
            - Tom Foster (via WorldCAD Access)
            Space and Light

 

Notable Quotable

“Please make a note of your password so you can change it when our data gets breached.”
     - Management Speak (@managerspeak on Twitter)

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine.:

  • OzCAD Pty, Australia: “Thanks for your efforts Ralph.”

  • Uwe Redmer, Germany: “Thanks for your well researched comments.”

 

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

 

*4733

 

 

Posted at 07:00 AM in Interviews, Q&A | | Comments (0)

Monday, April 26, 2021

Q&A From Onshape's User Conference (part iii of iii)

Issue #1,093  |  The Business of CAD  |  26 April 2021

 

 

The first Onshape software conference took place online last month, and I transcribed many of the questions asked by users and answered by PTC staff.

- - -

Q: Does Onshape use parallelism in the cloud, and if so, when?

A: This is one of the big promises of the cloud. We use it in some places. Updating lots of parts in an assembly simultaneously causes Onshape to do it on multiple geometry servers. We plan to use parallelism for more things, like engineering design studies.

There are aspects of CAD that are inherently serial. Regeneration itself is inherently serial, for the most part. We cannot regenerate certain features until we have regenerated other features before them. We rent the Amazon machines with the highest single-thread performance.

 

Q: Might you be able to share how Atlas works with Onshape?

A: A lot of how Onshape data is structured is the foundation of Atlas’s data model. Atlas uses a lot of the same code we do at our end.

There are going to be parts of Atlas that are not currently part of Onshape, to develop an ecosystem of applications that do more than what Onshape currently has. That is where a lot of the effort is currently going in building it out.

 

Q: What details can you tell us about the future of FeatureScript?

A: FeatureScript is not the only mechanism for automation of Onshape. It is very specifically tailored to Part Studio and in other things it works well. But it is not necessarily the best thing for scripting in all systems.

For that, we have API [application programming interface] capabilities that we are improving, especially in light of Atlas development. The expansion of these API capabilities will make a really convenient system for automating things, like ECAD [electrical design] and rendering simulation.

 

Q: How do you decide which functions to add to Onshape next?

A: It is a juggling act. On the one had, we have things we think are important to do; on the other hand, we have a finite set of developers.

The most important thing is [to implement] whatever is blocking our existing customers from doing their work. Next priority are functions that will help us get new customers.

While doing that, we have to keep investing in performance, fixing bugs, and code infrastructure. We make sure we leave some room for risk-taking, functions customers are not necessarily asking for. Summer interns let us have more bang-for-the-buck features.

 

Q: How can I optimize Onshape’s performance?

A: Performance is a really complicated topic [for server-based CAD programs]. For instance, ISPs can route you to a server not closest to you, which increases latency. Some of the factors that the user has control over are their network and hardware:

  • Onshape can use two discrete GPUs in a computer; check that onshape.com/setup knows this

  • Follow Onshape’s best practices for modeling, such as avoiding giant assemblies, like a car as one part in Studio; avoid long drive chains.

 

Q: Does OnShape pull in Solidworks Simulation data?

A: You cannot pull in Solidworks simulation data, unless it comes in the form of video or pictures.

 

Q: Do direct editing tools work on tessellated geometry?

A: Tessellated data comes in as a bunch of triangles. You can delete triangles, and then use the surfacing tool to smooth over sections.

 

Q: Any option to bring in PCB data?

A: We would bring in printed circuit board(PCB) data just as solid mechanical geometry [today]. We are working on ECAD with one of our acquisitions.

 

Q: What other file formats can Onshape import?

A: We can bring in files from Unigraphics [sic], Creo, those standard big-name CAD types. You can also bring in non-CAD data, like images. The help system lists the things you can bring in.

 

Q: What is the benefit of using Cassini over just doing the import yourself?

A: Custom properties are brought in automatically. Assemblies with many shared components have components brought in just once.

 

Q. Can I connect Onshape to my PDM [product data management] system, which is connected to Solidworks?

A: No, but it might be possible with Cassini.

 

Q: Are there any tools to edit DXFs or DWGs?

A: ARES Kudo in Onshape is read-only; to edit, you have to purchase it from the app store.

 

Q: Is there a best way to get [imported] assemblies into working shape?

A: If no movement is required, the easiest way is highlight the whole thing and use a group mate. In Onshape, all assemblies are considered flexible. If there is some movement [needed], then you have to get into mates.

 

Q: How can we manage our standard content libraries?

A: Onshape has its own standard content library, but you do not have a lot of ability to customize it: you can put in your own part numbers, descriptions. There is a request to make it more customizable.

For your parts library, make a folder, share it with the whole company, and then put each part in its own document.

 

Q: Do we have to import our own commercial parts, or do you have parts suppliers?

A: You would have to import them. If you download them, choose a ParaSolid format (like Solidworks), because that is the kernel we are built on.

 

Q: Do you use Git for change control?

A: We use Git for developing our software, but wrote our own change control for models.

 

Q: Is simulation being driven by Ansys Discovery Live [used by PTC’s Creo]?

A: No, not Ansys Live. We are not planning on talking about the tech behind our simulation, but we have something that is very efficient and accurate, and will scale well in the cloud.

 

What Ralph Grabowski Thinks

PTC is betting its future on Atlas, something the company has admitted in another venue that might take as long as a decade to complete, while costing customers 2x higher subscription fees.

Here’s the But: the design side of CAD isn’t moving wholesale to the cloud, as some players in the CAD industry seem to be finding. Not only is it really hard to put it there, but customers aren’t even particularly keen on the concept. Cloud is useful primarily for ancillary operations like collaboration, PLM, and many-cored calculations.

We could suppose that PTC bought Onshape for the technology, not the MCAD. Onshape will, in my opinion, stay at the low-end, paving the way for Creo to become sufficiently cloud-enabled, by which point PTC may even have lost interest in Onshape, given that Creo and Onshape use incompatible kernels.

- - -

Looking back to part i: Update on Onshape; PTC Visualizes the Gig Economy; Jon Hirschtick’s Keynote; How Onshape Works

Last week in part ii: Onshape for Solidworks Users; The Future of Onshape

To watch the archive of the online conference, register at events1.social27.com/onshapelive21/home.

 

And in Other News

IMSI Design celebrates its upcoming 30th year with the release of TurboCAD 2021:

  • Constraint animations show ranges of motion issues

  • 2D-edit mode turns off 3D objects and related tools

  • Apply to Pattern applies solid operations to all elements in a pattern (array)

  • Imprints can use 2D contours from inserted blocks

TurboCAD is available with permanent and subscription licenses starting at $70. Download the 15-day trial version from turbocad.com/content/free-trials.

- - -

Nemetschek ALLPLAN 2021 automates recurring processes, such as converting cutouts to voids, applying rules to rebars, and placing PythonParts from Allplan Bridge accurately.

Get more details at allplan.com/products/allplan-2021/features.

- - -

CIMdata holds a free educational “2021: PLM Status & Trends” Webinar on 13 May at 11:00 a.m. EDT to report on results from its recent global PLM Status & Trends research. Learn more about the Webinar contents and register through cimdata.com/en/education/educational-webinars/webinar-2021-plm-status-trends.

- - -

Vectorworks revealed that the native Apple M1 version of Vectorworks software will be ready in September, but it may lack some ancillary items, such as SketchUp import because it requires SketchUp to also run on M1.

No Vectorworks app is planned for iPad or other iOS devices due to the huge difference in platform capabilities. For more on Vectorworks’ future plans, see forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/77760-2021-public-roadmap.

- - -

Plex-Earth ports its aerial and satellite imagery from AutoCAD to BricsCAD ($299/year and up). Place CAD models in maps like Google Earth, or place maps in CAD drawings.

Recent, historical, and high-quality imagery and terrain data are accessed from Maxar, Airbus, Nearmap, Hexagon, and Google. Free trial for either CAD package from plexearth.com/free-trial.

- - -

Here is one 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

If you’ve already seen the new Solidworks forum you can quit reading this email. If you haven’t seen it check out the latest way Dassault Systemes has antagonized Solidworks users.

I clicked on a Solidworks Google search and got nothing but one forum post with a little Coming Soon tag. I signed up for the new board (you can’t view the site without signing up) and still couldn’t find an answer, because only 2020 forum posts have been moved to the new system. They’re working on 2019 and older but it takes time. They should’ve done that before they moved to the new system. I need to find a different forum.

Here is background on a forum user focus group meeting with Dassault: cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=3760. You should be able to view it without logging in.

I enjoy reading the weekly eZine. Keep up the good work.
            - Andrew

 

Re: More Notes from OnShape's First User Conference

I wonder how many failed startups would exist if no “free money” was available to them via banking and investors? Nothing like a rigged game filled with dreamers who produce little to nothing of value for the world!

Excellent Notable Quotable!
            - Chris Cadman

The editor replies: There is so much cash sloshing around these days, and so with interest rates below 1%, investors are desperate to invest for better returns somewhere, anywhere. Hence the crazy prices in houses, the too-high stock market, and the billions ploughed by venture capital funds into firms with any idea: the long lists of new investments posted by techcrunch.com each day is unimaginable!

 

Notable Quotable

“Don’t be fooled by fashionable subjects. Do whatever you like, if it’s really what you want to do.”
     - Isamu Akasaki, winner, Nobel prize for inventing the “impossible” blue LED

 

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:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4735

 

Posted at 07:00 AM in Interviews, Q&A, Software, Travel | | Comments (0)

Monday, April 19, 2021

More Notes from OnShape's First User Conference (Part ii of iii)

Issue #1,092  |  The Business of CAD  |  19 April 2021

 

Here are more notes I took during Onshape’s first annual user conference.

Onshape for Solidworks Users

One of the aims of Belmont Technologies was to capture Solidworks users. The founders were, after all, mostly ex-Solidworks folk. I don’t know if there was some kind of animosity going on (as sometimes happens with ex-employees) or if they were just targeting the largest mid-range MCAD market with its 1.5 million commercial users (today).

The campaign didn’t go well. By the time Onshape sold itself to PTC, it had merely 5,000 commercial customers, let alone 1.5 million. There is, after all, little reason to switch away: Solidworks users are comfortable with their software running on speedy desktop computers while accessing more functions than Onshape.

OnShape has its advantages, naturally, but they aren’t the ones that Solidworks users would necessarily find useful. They have largely ignored Dassault Systemes’ entreaties to “come on over” to the 3dexperience cloud. In 30 years in this business, I find that any CAD vendor’s entreaties to switch falls mostly on deaf ears; it simply doesn’t compute.

The dream of luring Solidworks users hasn’t, however, died. And so the Onshape user conference offered a “making the switch” session by Lindsay Early, technical services engineer at PTC.

The process involves these steps:

1. Evaluate what you have, as only parts and assemblies can be imported into Onshape, albeit back to Solidworks 1999.

2. Export parts and components out of Solidworks to a single folder in a Zip file named after the assembly

3. Import the Zip file into Onshape using these strategies:

  • Small assemblies: Combine into a single composite part in a single Part Studio

  • Medium assemblies: Import to a single document, with separate tabs for each assembly

  • Large assemblies: Split into multiple documents

4. Following import, direct model editing is needed as feature lists are not imported.

5. As an alternative, Cassini offers bulk migration at a cost of $10,000 for a thousand files.

Onshape cannot import the following items:

  • Feature lists

  • Mates

  • Configurations

  • Simulation data

  • Drawings, although you can save drawings separately as DWG files

Post-import, you will have to repair and modify imported models, add in metadata, add mates, and move sub-assemblies to other documents, if you want. While attached DWG, DXF, and PDF files can be imported, they are detached from the 3D model.

One solution suggested by Ms Early is to do new projects in Onshape, and then transfer from Solidworks only models as you need them, such as library components. (Unlike Onshape, Solidworks licenses are perpetual, so you can keep a copy of the software running for as long as you need it.) This advice applies no matter which 3D CAD system you switch away from -- or to.

Other issues: In Solidworks, Y is up, but Z is up in Onshape. Imported components are all individual entities. Assemblies have no mates. In some cases, all imported parts end up centered on the origin -- the result of an unwanted explode. If the drawings are changed in Solidworks, you can right-click in Onshape to update them.

Ms Early demo’ed how direct editing works on imported Solidworks models, something that programs, such as BricsCAD, also do.

PTC technical services engineer Lindsay Early importing a Solidworks model into Onshape

Overall, the process looks to me a bit of a mess. It’s seems like importing Solidworks files was not a priority development. After all this bad news, the good news is that Onshape uses the same Parasolid geometry kernel as Solidworks, which is a big barrier for Dassault, whose 3dexperience uses the incompatible CGM kernel, making translation tough.

 

The Future of Onshape

Here is some of what users can expect in future releases of Onshape:

Frames will gain custom profiles from any edge, combine geometry with different profiles, and generate custom cut lists. Another goal is tight integration with drawings, and edit cut lists in drawings.

Computed property functions will be in Feature Studio and bills of materials, such as calculating the shipping size, area, and mass. It works with parts now, and will work with assemblies at some point in the future. Your access to computed properties depends on your license level, and you need to know how to use FeatureScript.

For 2D drawings, Onshape will edit cross-hatching in section views, apply patterns to faces, and add to the pattern library.

As mentioned earlier, PCB design will be done inside the mechanical model. We were shown designing a PCB board in Onshape, exporting it in IDF format for designing the circuitry with ECAD.MCAD, and then back into Onshape to check the fit; traces do not come into Onshape.

Onshape MCAD with ECAD.MCAD ECAD

It was hard for me to tell, but it seemed that the ECAD was visually integrated into Onshape but not data-integrated -- there was a lot of IDF translation back and forth during the demo, but maybe that is the way it is supposed to work. For instance, while electronic components can be added in Onshape, the presenter said “it is kinder to do it within the ECAD.MCAD system,” because ECAD.MCAD might not fully recognize components models in Onshape. When a component is moved in Onshape, the IDF export tells ECAD.MCAD to also move it, and adjust the traces. Messy.

Simulation in Onshape will let you place loads on assemblies, and then run the simulation in a separate panel, which is performed in the cloud, then returned to the Onshape window. The stress plot results can be exploded or driven by displacement. Simulation is highly parallelizable, so it can be computed with many cores or GPUs. “We are not targeting post-design validation at this time; we have great partners apps that will continue to provide facilities for that,” says Evan Nowak, director of graphics at Onshape.

Colorized stresses on an exploded model

A new change management page named “Changes” lists and adds change requests and orders. An auditor function checks whether all change orders are implemented. This technology is adopted from PTC’s Windchill PLM software, and will be available for enterprise accounts only.

The new RealityServer rendering facility operates in near-realtime. As former ceo of Migenius Paul Auden made changes to rendering parameters, updates took about a second or two, according to my eye. Renderings are run in a separate tab, then sent to Onshape when done.

User interface of the soon-to-be-integrated RealityServer renderer

- - -

To watch the archive of the online conference, register at events1.social27.com/onshapelive21/home.

 

== 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.

Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.

http://www.okino.com

And in Other News

Highlights from Monica Schnitger’s interview with Siemens Digital Industries Software ceo Tony Hemmelgarn:

  • To protect IP [intellectual property], vehicle manufacturers are developing their own chips.

  • Battery-operated vehicles expose sounds not audible with combustion engines.

  • WFH [work from home] means less access to labs, and so more use of simulation software.

  • Customer interest for CAD (aka “PLM authoring”) in the cloud is low.

Read the full article at schnitgercorp.com/?p=18114.

- - -

MachineWorks Ltd releases MachineWorks 8.3 with complex concave polygonal tools, improved surface detection, direct access to dexel grid in Visicut sampled stocks for rest machining analysis, and better bending simulation. Get your details from machineworks.com/news/machineworks-8.3-release.

- - -

Product update 1 for Ironcad 2021 offers enhancements to sheet metal design, point clouds, drawings, and all kind of miscellany. Detailed details at ironcad.com/blog/whats-new-in-2021-update.

- - -

Here is one of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:

Subscribe to the WorldCAD Access blog’s RSS feed through feeds.feedburner.com/WorldCadAccess.

 

Letters to the Editor

Love this PragArchDesignTech blog, after being pointed to it by Grabowski. BricsCAD is my tool.

I like how you’re starting from ‘for dummies’ principles, while jumping straight in at the level of BIM’s sophisticated capabilities.

Now what I would love someone to do is similar but without the assumption that architecture is all rectilinear. Yes, 2D CAD can go off-angle but far less easily; 3D CAD including BIM can, too, but multifold less easily again. Off-angle is like a clunky afterthought.

I’m not talking ‘freeform’ or even curvy, but strictly geometric straights and flats precisely intersected (like 2D) -- not just in plan or just in section, but in multiple planes. Stuff that can be built (given exact dimensioning) by a local builder from straight, flat, commodity materials from the Builders Merchant [construction materials supplier in England].
     - Tom Foster
       Tom Foster Architecture

 

Re: Keynotes from OnShape's First User Conference

I like the happy delusion that what separates <success> and <a guy with a product idea> is simply a week of a designer's time.
- Jess Davis

- - -

A small correction to #1,090. OSArch.org supports the aims and work of the organizers of the FOSDEM [free and open source developers European meeting] conference. We were glad our friend Dion Moult could make a presentation to their track on Open Source Comput-Aided Modeling and Design.

However, we weren't involved in organizing it. Maybe next year though. Thanks for mentioning our project.
     - Duncan Lithgow

 

Notable Quotable

“When the software company holds your tools in their cloud, they have control over your productivity.
When your data is in their cloud, they have control over your business.”
     - RC, quoted by Robert Green, Cadalyst magazine

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • David Moore

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

 

*4737

 

Posted at 07:00 AM in Software, Travel | | Comments (0)

Monday, April 12, 2021

Keynotes from OnShape's First User Conference (Part i of iii)

Issue # 1,091  |  The Business of CAD  |  12 April 2021

 

by Ralph Grabowski

 

Onshape’s first annual user conference began with a keynote from the CEO of owner PTC, Jim Heppelmann. Here are some of the notes I took.

- - -

Talks by PTC to acquire Onshape began in August 2019 and were completed in November 2019.

CEO Jim Heppelmann said he watched, at a distance, Onshape’s development right from the beginning. Each year, he checked with his staff to learn if Onshape was making progress in bringing CAD to SaaS [software as a service]. In 2019, his staff reported to him, “We think it’s going to work.” He decided he needed to convince Onshape to join PTC.

(SaaS is a computer term adopted by PTC to describe what we call CloudCAD: CAD software that runs on servers and is paid for repeatedly through subscriptions. Mr Heppelmann considers SaaS the future of CAD.)

Mr Heppelmann readily admits that his own company could not develop SaaS as cheaply or quickly as Onshape did (estimated at $100 million in three or more years). Even so, in paying $470 million net cash, it became PTC’s most expensive acquisition “of a rather small company.” Net means that PTC paid off Onshape’s debt (such as $169 million in funding by outsiders), which means the full price tag might be around $640 million.

“We were fortunate in the timing, too, because we didn’t know that a world-changing pandemic was about to hit. Cloud and SaaS have become more appreciated than ever.”

Update on Onshape

Onshape just crossed one million education users — teachers and students who use the software free, plus those who pay for additional support. Onshape commercial sales have grown “over 70%, recently.”

  • Acquisitions made by PTC made on the request of Onshape: ECAD [electrical CAD] and rendering

  • Other acquisitions by PTC that can be used by Onshape: Frustum generative design and Arena PLM [product lifecycle management]

It was Jon Hirschtick’s idea that Onshape become PTC’s platform for collaborative SaaS applications. The underlying platform is named “Atlas” (after the Greek god who carried the world on his shoulders, although no longer, I think). Programs running on Atlas will have the same UI as Onshape.

So far, only Frustum and the already-SaaS Vuforia AR program are being moved to Atlas. Arena PLM is to use it soon. Future versions of Creo and Windchill will work on Atlas. From these and other statements by PTC, I am surprised how long it is taking PTC to integrate cloud software with cloud software.

PTC hopes all its customers will eventually use SaaS in some form. As PTC now requires customers to pay annual subscription fees for desktop software, there wouldn’t be much of a change in how they pay for SaaS software.

PTC Visualizes a Gig Economy

Mr Heppelmann thinks the CAD industry is at the dawn of a new approach to product development. He sees Onshape as the “Uber of CAD,” which is attempting to eliminate the cost of owning cars. “You just use it when you want, where you want.” His analogy is broken; whereas Uber can be rented for 20 minutes, as he himself noted, you cannot rent OnShape for 20 minutes; the shortest duration is 525,600 minutes.

Mr Heppelmann went on to enthuse about the gig economy, the “new” economy that some governments are trying to shut down, including in his home country of USA. In his description, an entrepreneur at a kitchen table wants to bring his idea to life, but has no expertise in engineering or design or manufacturing. So he uses the Onshape’s new Gig Finder application, which Mr Heppelmann admits exists only as a fantasy. “I pursue the different gig worker options, as if I were looking for a vacation home... and schedule a week of [an industrial designer’s] time to nail the design.”

This kind of service already exists from independent firms; upFront.eZine reported on an architectural version a few years ago. As a result, we know that the results by gig designers can be uneven, to put it politely -- kind of like the broad range in quality of 3D models at online library sites. Mr Heppelmann did not explain how gig workers would be verified, a problem that poster child Uber also hasn’t solved.

PTC General Manager Jon Hirschtick Keynote

For many people, 2020 was a terrible year, but for Onshape 2020 was a great year:

  • completed the acquisition by PTC

  • staff at Onshape nearly doubled

  • 16 product releases, one every 3 weeks

  • launched Atlas, which uses the core services from Onshape

  • acquired Ecad:Mcad for electrical design; to be released in the future

  • acquired Migenius for cloud-based near-realtime photorealistic rendering; to be launched in the future

Former Onshape CEO and now PTC general manager Jon Hirschtick

PTC general manager Jon Hirschtick noted that there are functions Onshape does not yet do. First up to be added are ECAD and rendering, to be followed by integrating the simulation software PTC already has.

He called rendering in Onshape “unique,” because of its full-SaaS, full-cloud approach. Rendering jobs are not batched to the cloud (as some CAD vendors have implemented it); rather, Onshape performs interactive rendering. In the demo, we saw renderings updated in about a second or two. Unlike CAD, rendering is something that definitely benefits from hundreds of GPUs.

Mr Hirschtick described in general terms some of the additional functions users can expect to come to Onshape: “More part and assembly modeling features, more drafting features, more performance (we’re never fast enough), more data management features.

“We are still the only ones in the industry with a true full-cloud architecture.” Well, there are other true full-cloud CAD systems, such as Graebert’s Kudo used by Onshape in its drawing tab.

How Onshape Works

Ilya Baran, vp of architecture at Onshape, explained why some CAD functions aren’t available yet: “Most of us have worked at Solidworks; we know how to build a CAD system. So, let’s make sure we [first] put in place the things no one has done before, and then we build out the CAD functionality.

“If our competitors want to provide the benefits of a full-cloud CAD system, they have to build it from scratch, like we did,” said Mr Baran. CAD systems can be classified today by where the code runs and how the data is stored:

Desktop CAD
Local install (code runs on desktop computers)
Data stored in files

Hosted CAD
Code runs on remote virtual machines
Data stored in files

Thick-client CAD
Local install
Data stored in a database

Cloud CAD (SaaS)
Code runs on cloud (remote servers)
Data stored in a database

Some of how OnShape works is dictated by the capabilities of the Web browsers through which Onshape interacts with users; the rest of its capabilities are possible because it runs on server farms. See the figure below for an overview of the topology.

Modules making up Onshape

The Onshape client is the portion that runs in a Web browser, and is written in TypeScript. It handles user interactions, and it draws the model as triangles using WebGL, so there is no latency in this particular operation. (Mobile apps for Android are written in Java; for iOS, in Objective C. Their functions lag behind the Web version.)

The Onshape client communicates over the Internet with Web servers rented from Amazon. They handle login, permissions, serving up client code, billing, and account settings. The code is written with Java, which enables memory management and makes multi-threading easier than with C++.

Modeling servers (also written with Java) handle interactions with open documents (models, drawing, and so on), like geometry, assembly lists, feature trees, and user events like parts editing and workspace merging. These servers save the changes users make (more below), but do not operate on the geometry.

Geometry servers use Siemens’ Parasolid for modeling and DCIM for constraints. They run code written in C++ for performance and efficiency, like desktop CAD systems. These servers generate display-geometry, sketch interactions, handle hidden lines, solve assemblies, and run FeatureScript.

Models are stored in a MongoDB database. Data is encrypted, and continuously backed-up. With geometry handled by a separate server, crashes do not affect stored data. In a worst case scenario, only the last edit is lost if it was not written to the database. Onshape assigns an internal unchangeable ID number to documents, versions, and tabs. As the ID never changes, there are no broken references.

“Hardware failures are a fact of life,” said Mr Baran. When the hardware fails, users may notice hiccoughs like page reloads.

Onshape naturally runs on the Amazon server farm closest to your location; but when demand increases during your daytime, server availability scores tell Amazon when to switch to servers in other regions of the world. In either case (high utilization on nearby servers or usage on distant servers) can lead to slower response times.

One of the drawbacks to Onshape being Web-based is that programmers have to keep constant track of changes made to Web browsers, so that Onshape does not break with a browser update. This is done by pre-testing code on beta versions of major browsers.

- - -

  • Coming up in part ii: Onshape for Solidworks Users; The Future of Onshape

  • And then in part iii: Q&A

To watch the archive of the online conference, register at events1.social27.com/onshapelive21/home.

 

And in Other News

What BIM could use is more practical advice and less marketing and fewer Yet-Another-Applet applets. Dave Edwards offers a newsletter with practical tips and opinions on the topic. You can read back issues of his PargArcDesignTech newsletter and sign up for it at pragarchdesigntech.substack.com.

- - -

C3D Labs adds flanges swept along paths to its set of sheet metal methods, a part of their C3D Modeler geometric kernel. Paths can include circles, arcs, ellipses, elliptical arcs, conic sections, and splines. See figure below.

More about the new method at c3dlabs.com/en/blog/tech-tips/what-s-new-in-c3d-modeler-swept-flanges-in-sheet-metal.

- - -

ARM is like the ODA of the mobile CPU world; what ARM designs today you can expect to see in smartphones later this year. In bits of good news for 3D CAD users, Armv9 boasts

  • Ray tracing and variable rate shading added to Mali

  • Matrix multiplication upped from 128 to 2,048 bits

  • 64-bit apps to become the norm for 64-bit Android phones and tablets

www.arm.com/company/news/2021/03/arms-answer-to-the-future-of-ai-armv9-architecture

- - -

Siemens has said that CAD belongs firmly on the desktop, but the tug of infinite revenues from SaaS is strong, and so we see new software emerging from the cloud, such as PCBflow for electronics designers on the one side and manufacturers on the other based on Xcelerator, analyzing a range of DFMs [designs for manufacturing] of each manufacturer’s capabilities. www.pcbflow.com

- - -

Here is one of the posts that appeared recently on my WorldCAD Access blog:

Subscribe to the WorldCAD Access blog’s RSS feed through feeds.feedburner.com/WorldCadAccess.

 

Letters to the Editor

Re: A Contractor’s View of BIM (part ii)

Interesting read. Paints an idealised workflow that has its benefits as well as problems. See this video on how GC-led modeling worked for a new firehall:

I agree with the laundry list of problems, but I don't think just going GC [general contractor] is going to solve that much. In the Mid East and Japan, big construction companies have always done the bulk of the detailed design work in-house. In France, the contractors also use Bureau d'Etudes as in-house design and coordination resource. In would be good to get their views, as they have done this a lot longer [than in North America].

At the end of the day, Pentels [mechanical pencils] and sketch paper for everyone is unrealistic, except for very simple buildings. Looking at a lot of the complaints, what is needed is better collaboration and information transparency. This means better digital tools.

Designers may lack technical nous, but contractors are not much better, bro. They have specialised, have been at it longer, and are commercially incentivised.

Starting with paper CDs [construction documents] contradicts the real benefits made thru BIM, as problematic as BIM is. Analytical models (structural and energy etc) are here to stay.

Drawing duplication inefficiency is a red herring. How is “creating a new series of models from scratch” better? The key is to filter and harness whatever info is available.

The key problem for contractors is that they have always struggled to identify problems in time in the bid documents. IPD was meant to give them the time to price the job so you don't have to rely on your “rainmaker” estimator weighing drawings in his hand. What a mad idea!

Instead of going voodoo, contractors have been using 3D estimating tools like Destini and RiB to cost-model the bid design using the 3D model as a basis. This is not the same as cleanroom semi-reverse engineering the design, as suggested.

I also think that the savings with respect to foreign standards and modeling oddities is overblown. Sounds to me like they just haven’t figured how to work with Ideate to remap info.

Hiring experienced modelers and engineers in-house is not as easy as portrayed. The main reason IPD fails is that your specialist subbies’ [subcontractors’] biggest asset is their design staff and knowhow; they make their money from the install, not the design service. Good luck with getting the expertise in-house at low rates. What you will end up with is BIM jockeys who don’t have the tech knowhow, importing risk to the GC.

Lots of complaints listed in the article are the result of making the best of the existing BIM tools blind spots:

  • Bad 2D/3D CAD in BIM interop (Revit)

  • The clash detection fiasco, mainly because Revit can’t xref [place] live .dwg files very well and relies on asynch declashing using Navisworks

  • Ditto on lack of modeling in-context

  • Low or no LOD [levels of detail] mainly because Revit etc bogs down when things are overmodeled

  • Etc, etc

It would be better to focus on these issues instead of grand gestures. I am not against GC-led modeling, but that will only go so far.
     - Dwy Seah (via WorldCAD Access)

 

The editor replies: In the video, I loved seeing the many paper prints in the background.

- - -

One of the things which has confused me about most BIM applications is that they have a separate command (and code base) for each object category. This may make sense at first, limiting the commands to most common 3D forms.

But one of the major issues with all BIM applications is they try to create ease-of-use by confining each object category to a set form. A Wall is a long extruded rectangle; a Slab is a flat extruded surface.

These kinds of assumptions causes the most failures when a designer wants to create an object whose shape is out of the norm. For example, a slanted Wall or a doubly-curved Wall or an undulating Bezier-based Slab. What, geometrically, is the difference between a Wall, a Rail or a Fence? What about a Slab, a Roof, a Pad or a Ceiling? What about a Roof Hatch or a Door? BIM applications developers get into trouble because they develop commands for the most common object forms.

I think a better approach would be have a set of 3D object creation commands which could be used for all object categories. This way users wouldn’t have to wait for developers to add new creation commands to individual category commands to create exceptions. If a new creation command is added, it should be available for all objects. This would prevent application development Whack-a-Mole and allow users more freedom for object creation which seems to be always on their Wish Lists.
     - Dave Edwards

 

The editor replies: I am no expert in BIM, I just know about it theoretically.
I think commands are object-specific so that the software can tag the object automatically. You select the Wall command, the software goes, “I’ll tag this as a wall and look really smart.”

BricsCAD has a Bimify command that reads 3D objects and then categorizes them in to BIM elements. This is done by looking at their relative sizes and positions: a broad but thin solid is most likely a slab; a tall one a wall; an opening starting at floor level probably a door; and so on.

ArchiCAD is one BIM program does the special kinds of walls you are asking for.

 

Notable Quotable

“Nobody knows who or what is in charge right now: is it humanity’s deep technological prowess, or is it Mother Nature herself?”
- Chris Martenson

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • Greg Burkhart, Key Glass, Inc: “[The Contractor’s View of BIM series] reminded me to contribute to your upFront efforts, so that you may share nuggets of information like this that hit close to home and in today’s reality.”

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4736

Posted at 07:00 AM in Software, Travel | | Comments (0)

Monday, April 05, 2021

A Contractor’s View of BIM (part ii)

Issue #1,090  |  Happy Dyngus Day! | 5 April 2021

 

Guest editorial by Matt Stachoni

 

Last week, in upFront.eZine #1,089, Mr Stachoni covered these points in his contractor’s view of BIM:

  • How Construction Teams Work

  • The Purpose of BIM on Construction Sites (it answers questions)

  • Issue 1: Getting BIM Into the Right Hands

  • Issue 2: Design Intent Models are Stupid

In our Letters to the Editor section below, lots of responses from readers to part i!

- - -

Issue 3: Working with Trade Subcontractor Models

Once the design CDs [construction documents] are issued and the GC [general contractor] and trades mobilize to build, the next round of BIM-based [building information manager] idiocy begins -- with the trade subcontractors.

Almost every trade subcontractor goes through a lengthy shop drawing process. It replaces the design intent with fabrication parts and real-world details to make it buildable. Like the design team, shop drawings would ideally “fall out” of their modeling efforts.

But while trade subs may understand how to build, most have a real issue with modeling and will do the bare minimum to get the shop drawings out and approved. They often use non-BIM or semi-BIM (read: 2D CAD) methods for production, use incompatible software that doesn’t interoperate well with others, do not model with the appropriate amount of 3D geometric detail, and rarely populate components with essential non-geographical information.

Modeling in context is also a problem. Ideally, during this production phase, all modeling should be done in coordination with the other trades, such that the shop drawings are immediately ready for submission to the architect/engineer of record.

Here on planet Earth, however, all trades work within their own reality-distortion fields. Each has its own discipline-specific physical constraints to contend with, and so they tend to model their work so that it takes priority over the others nearby. During the coordination phase, they expect everyone else to simply move out of the way.

 

Issue 4: Coordination Phase

Once the trade modeling is largely complete, the GC and subs [subcontractors] undergo a lengthy coordination phase, in which clashes of trade models are checked against the other in an extended tug-of-war to determine who moves what. Each week, the trades submit models, the clash tests are run, and the clash reports are issued to everyone. The trades take these back to the office, rework the areas in question, re-submit models, and in the following week everyone rinses and repeats. Add in dealing with the myriad software interoperability issues, and the delays between creating a clash and resolving it become way too long.

The goal is to produce one area of work that the GC performing coordination can sign off. After that, the only thing left is to hope that the installers put everything where the shops had specified. (But that’s another story.)

 

Today’s BIM Workflow is Crazy

In this traditional approach to BIM implementation, we have designers creating redundant, basic design-intent models which likely can’t be built. The trade subcontractors create suboptimal models in a vacuum and run roughshod over everyone else. The GC shoves the trade Hatfields-and-McCoys in a room and forces them to play nicely together, identifies and tries (beyond hope) to resolve all clashes, and then finally signs everything off, clearing it for the field.

When viewed from this perspective, the workflow is crazy, but the solution is clear: The GC needs be the sole developer of all construction models, models that answer all design and constructability questions. This modeling-production self-performance work is critical to realize the true benefit from BIM.

For design-bid-build jobs, this means taking the construction documents –- that consist of drawings and specifications -- and creating a new series of models from scratch.

I absolutely do not advocate reusing any design model content, nor building on top of them with simply more detail. By strictly using CDs as the only source of information, the GC can uncover almost all documentation errors, omissions, and constructability issues that would be found later using traditional methods. These have serious monetary impacts on the project, which otherwise would go unnoticed or, more often, simply absorbed by the GC.

While it is most appropriate to do this during the pre-construction estimating and bidding phase, the reality is that estimators do not have very much time to do their work. Decent model-based estimating is difficult, because at the time of bidding the available documentation is never complete enough to develop a truly accurate price tag. There always will be missed items, or items labeled “indicative” or “preliminary” for which the GC’s design-build team is responsible to develop to completion.

Good estimators will use the design CDs and perhaps the design-intent models to generate their estimates, and then back it all up with some serious Dr. Strange-level Mystic Arts to account for hidden costs. I know a few experienced estimators who can hold a roll of CDs in their hands, mentally weigh them, and then accurately estimate a base bid, along with the inevitable change orders.

For design-build and IPD [integrated project delivery] jobs, it is my opinion that any design intent model is just too dumb to be a useful product. The design team should not actually model anything at all; below, I explain why. In fast-track delivery methods, having the architect and engineer create models is a costly duplication of effort. Even with input from subcontractors, the potential for models to become leading causes of misinformation is still there. Having the design team call these documents and models “Ready for Construction” (RFC) is just a lie that we all seem to accept.

 

Solution: Have GCs Model All the Things

It should be the GCs that wholly create the construction models, and so sideswipe the entire design intent modeling process entirely:

  • First, by not reusing models from outside sources, they do not have to deal with the design team’s standards, lack thereof, or modeling oddities. Everyone has their own set of BIM modeling standards and practices, and they are all wrong, so it is always more efficient to use your own tried and true ways than to deal with someone else’s horribly broken methods.

  • Second, over the long term, the GC’s BIM team will have developed a vast library of production- and constructability-quality content, which is reused in subsequent projects and ultimately shared with other project teams.

 

As for the design team, I would arm them with nothing more than a few cases of napkins and Pentel pens. Their responsibility is limited to producing hand sketches of the design. The GC’s BIM team inputs the design intent, always working in context across all disciplines. From the start, the team adds fully constructible components, framing, insulations, slab, wall, and other penetrations and openings, fabrication parts, hangers, and so on. The GC ultimately produces the documentation drawings as required; the AOR/EOR [architect/engineer of record] does the drawing QA/QC [quality assurance/checking], as well as the signing and sealing.

Regardless of project delivery method, I would extend the modeling moratorium to the trade subcontractors as well. Have the subs provide the necessary design and constructability input to simplify things, minimize complexity and installation costs, and generate submittals -- along with napkin sketches of details missed in the design intent information. But remove their modeling tasks from the job completely and have the GC’s BIM team do it all.

The GC then combines the appropriately detailed architectural models with fully constructable, coordinated, fabrication-level MEP [mechanical, electrical, plumbing] trade work from the start without any unnecessary and costly rework or delays. Add in component submittal information and the shop drawings simply fall out of the models. Have the trade subcontractor review and sign off, issue them to the AOR/EOR to approve, and the subs are then free to build with confidence.

As part of this process, the GC is in the best position to include any owner-required facilities management or asset management (FM/AM) data. Asset data is likely to change in some way between the design-intent model and the final shop drawings, such as specific manufacturer, model, and geographic location, so it makes sense for any EAM [enterprise asset management] requirement to be handled only in the most current, accurate information available – the GC’s construction models.

 

Benefits

The benefits to this approach are clear:

1. Usually, when someone bids on a project, they add multipliers to the true cost of the work. Someone may estimate 400 hours for drawing and coordination time but bid the equivalent of 800 hours. All ancillary printing costs are marked up as well, further increasing the overhead cost to the GC.

However, using this optimized process, the GC is directly paying for all production at a lower rate, can control ancillary related costs more readily, and can strike all such costs from the bids by the design team and the trades. Given the markups, this will likely more than pay for the experienced modeling team, as well as any required additional training and IT infrastructure.

2.  The GC and their trades quickly get consistent, high quality, appropriately developed and detailed models that all play under the same platform, interoperate together seamlessly, and provide the required level of detail to get things built. The owner gets their FM-related BIM requirements included as well.

3.   The GC saves a boatload of lost time stuck in post-modeling coordination, fixing design intent constructability issues, having trades lay out conflicting work in isolation, and then revising later. This eliminates a whole host of other intangibles which, directly and indirectly, impact the budget and overall construction process negatively .

4.   Most importantly, the GC’s engineering team is able to answer any question immediately, with complete confidence, to anyone in the job trailer or in the field.

 

And that’s absolutely the most valuable thing BIM can bring to the job site.

 

[Matt Stachoni is a BIM Manager/Senior Project Engineer with Tutor Perini/ Parsons JV, and works on very large design-build construction projects that rely on regular IFC model exchanges to owners.]

 

And in Other News

Most years have three hundred and sixty-five days. Several CAD-related firms have chosen the same few days in April to hold their (online) user conferences:

  1. Apr 19 - Aras

  2. Apr 20 - Ansys

  3. Apr 20 - Trimble

  4. Apr 21 - Ansys, day 2

  5. Apr 21 - Trimble, day 2

  6. Apr 21 - Vectorworks

I plan to listen in on some of them.

- - -

Reader D.L. pointed me to this site that promotes open source software for architecture: osarch.org. Products include:

  • LibreDWG -- free C library to read DWG files

  • COMPAS -- open source python framework for AEC; see figure below

  • Tridify -- IFC data streaming service that supports open source

  • OpenProject -- BIM project management software

  • FreeCAD 3D parametric CAD, LibreCAD 2D CAD, KiCAD PB CAD

The organization held a conference last February, FOSDEM 2021 CAD Devroom, for which replay videos are available. To start with an introduction to the kinds of free software available for architects, I recommend watching fosdem.org/2021/schedule/event/bim (with Q&A).

- - -

Kubotek3D (formerly CadKey) releases KeyCreator Pro 2021 Service Pack 1 with some pretty  interesting functions:

  • Transparency shows details behind the trim (section) plane

  • Locked views allow model space parts to rotate, while keeping views fixed in place

  • Unalign allows dimensioned section views to move from their projected locations

  • Foreground selection ignores interior and backside edges and faces

More at kubotek3d.com.

- - -

MSC, owned by Hexagon, updates Apex Generative Design 2021.1 with guided workflows to optimize assemblies; retained volumes with LBCs [living building challenge] and material characteristics; and adapting Apex Structures to organic shaped meshes. Get details in what’s new at amendate.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ApexGD211H/pages/2111373317/What+s+New+in+2021.1.

- - -

Aras releases Simulation Management for managing data of all kinds of simulation types from many vendors. Results become part of a digital thread that connects simulation to the business. I cannot, however, tell from the press release what might be new. aras.com/en/capabilities/simulation

- - -

Nemetschek Group revenues grew 7.2% to EUR 596.9 million (approx. US$678 million) in 2020. For 2021, the company is targeting high single-digit growth, and then by 2023 growth in the mid-teens. The future looks bright: “Moving forward, the Group's internal complexity will be reduced, synergies created, and overarching solutions developed for customers from a single source.” (Managerspeak nods approvingly.) nemetschek.com

- - -

Former Autodesk Platinum reseller Shan Chaudri launches Brixtech, Great Britain’s largest BricsCAD dealership. The online sales portal was not, at time of writing, functioning. brixtech.co.uk

- - -

Here is a post 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

Re: A Contractor’s View of BIM (part i)

That’s a great start by Matt Stachoni. I'm looking forward to the following part (or parts).

I worked as an architect, but also as a builder and developer with a lot of CAD background and project administration experience. I’d say Matt’s description of the business of doing a project is as concise and accurate as I’ve seen.

The doubling-up of work in BIM by the original designers and the GC has always bothered me, as has the increasing degree of expertise required by job superintendents. The end result is that construction today is probably more accurate, precise and coordinated than it has ever been -- but at a large overhead cost. Matt’s further thoughts will be interesting.
            - Steve Schuller

- - -

BIM doesn't work on construction sites (but could). Our own switch to Revit did not live up to its promise.

Thanks to Ralph Grabowski at upFront.eZine for the insights.
            -Tom Morin (via Linked-In)
            Morinwood

- - -

Matt Stachoni gives what seems to me like a fine description of some struggles for contractors. But I can’t see that any of them have to do with BIM.

They seem to me to be all about project quality and buildability. If we regard BIM as a technology, then it is hardly the technology’s fault that the design is not detailed enough, although hardware/software does constrain us somewhat.

If we regard BIM as a process, then the fact that the constructability is poor is not a failure in the digital process, but a human failure. I look forward to reading part II.

- Duncan Lithgow

- - -

Interesting topic. Thanx for your juicy read! I really enjoyed reading Matt Stachoni’s expose.

I’ve been involved at the detailer level in BIM (IPD method). One thing I can say is I’ve never seen a benefit that came from BIM, due to construction deadlines. (Most of the projects are designed in either 2D AutoCAD or Revit.) These projects all ran at a high-pitch fervor, which causes communication to drop into a black hole, for the most part.

And when RFIs or change orders are issued, it takes forever to get responses. By that time, the job’s nearly done! I don’t need to explain what happens when stuff isn’t where it’s supposed to be due to field errors and other slight changes occur on the job. Basically, every segment of the project pretty much operates on its own, especially the contractors.

One segment completes their job and then the project lead hands off work to the next segment, who relies on the previous segment’s data to be perfect in an ever-changing world. However, nobody does their due diligence under those circumstances, and I mean nobody.

Look, it’s hard enough to get the various segments of the project to properly communicate. But when you add BIM complications into the mess, you’ve got Trouble with a capital-T, especially when they use intent-type drawings! Moreover, none of the CAD or non-CAD programs can interchange data.

My solution: Return to the stone age of pencil and paper on the board. It’s a bit more work, but the process worked much, much better than what passes for BIM today. Return to engineers managing the whole thing.
            - Chris Cadman

- - -

I hope part ii is better. Nothing in part i that supports “he thought that BIM was generally a nice idea, but a waste of money and resources.” Hope that this will be explained in part ii. In fact part i seems to support BIM “It answers questions. That’s a hugely powerful tool to have” but is extremely light on detail.
            - Dwy Seah (via World CAD Access)

- - -

I'm finding the discussions of BIM fascinating, even though it’s outside my normal area of mechanical design and manufacturing. I can’t help trying to imagine what manufacturing would be like if it was done the way construction is, and vice versa.

Most of my work has been at small-to-medium manufacturers of heavy equipment, so overlaying the civil/construction system onto that would look like this:

1. The engineering department releases a set of drawings to the production department that consists of an overall view of a wheel loader, with some dimensions, but lacking 90% of the information needed to build it.

2. The production department sends the drawing set to an independent engineering company, who does some of the detail design of the steel structures, and does not concern itself with the cab interior or the hydraulics system.

3. The production department sends the same set of drawings to another engineering company to design the cab, and to a third who designs the hydraulic system.

4. This stuff ^^ again, about six more times.

5. The resulting drawings are sent to four or five contractors for each area of specialization --  frame welding, hydraulics, electrical system, engine, cab, axles, etc. The lowest bidder on each is awarded the work.

6. etc.

You can see, I'm sure, where this heads. To anyone in the manufacturing world, building construction sounds like complete chaos. And BIM, which seems to me like an attempt to build a fence around the Wild West of a construction project, and force it into the kind of extremely regimented world of manufacturing, probably sounds insane to anyone who’s spent their life in a world were most of the design details are worked out on-site by the guys with the hammers and conduit benders.

It's fascinating to watch this from a safe distance. I appreciate Matt's insights, and your continued exploration of BIM.
            - Jess Davis, president
            Davis Precision Design, Inc.

- - -

One thing which has always bothered me is that I’ve read too many articles describing all the things using BIM can accomplish. I’ve heard too many sales pitches that never mention how hard it is to find the time and person-power to enter and maintain all this data. I’d see sales presentations where upper management would be nodding their heads “Yes,” and the guys in the back of the room would be shaking their heads “No.”

Remember, this is a process. What I wanted to get across is that you can start very simply with just the parts which are the most productive. Start with design development and once that’s done, then go on to data for schedules. BIM often fails because of trying to implement too many “advantages” all at the same time. The incremental approach is the only way to succeed.
            - Dave Edwards (from his PragArchDesignTech newsletter at paagarchdesigntech.substack.com)

 

Notable Quotable

“AWS outages -- that used to elicit extreme opprobrium a few years ago -- are now a snow day from Zoom calls.”
- Danny Crichton
techcrunch.com/2021/03/02/silicon-valleys-myths-and-realities-of-existential-risk/

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • Robert Melnyk: ‘I’ve been reading the zine for at least 10 years. Thank you, Ralph!!!!'“

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4736

Posted at 07:00 PM in Guest Editorials, Software | | Comments (1)

Monday, March 29, 2021

A Contractor’s View of BIM (part i)

Issue #1,089  |  The Business of CAD  |  29 March 2021

 

Guest Editorial by Matt Stachoni

 

I recently had the vice president of a large construction company tell me he thought that BIM was “generally a nice idea, but a waste of money and resources.”

At first, I was taken aback by his assertion, but after analyzing the current state of BIM on building sides, I realized that he’s absolutely correct.

It got me thinking how BIM directly and, perhaps more importantly, indirectly benefits the construction process. Understanding how BIM is currently used in construction reveals how often its practice is antithetical to producing beneficial outcomes.

For many construction firms, massive changes in thinking are required to properly implement BIM across projects of all types before real-world results are aligned properly to BIM’s potential and promise. As a side effect, proper implementation promotes BIM as a core component essential to every project at the very outset, where such consideration has the most impact and value.

The fact is that the way most contractors typically utilize BIM on today’s construction projects is downright idiotic and costly. The problems are deeply rooted on traditional shop drawing production and coordination efforts, and fails to take into account what BIM brings to the table.

I have identified four areas where BIM usually falls flat in practice; what gets in the way of realizing many of its benefits; and an outline of a relatively simple solution. But first, some background on how construction sites work.

 

How Construction Teams Work

To begin, I’d like to describe some background points to explain how building construction is carried out. This may be useful to those unfamiliar with how the sausage is made.

A general contractor (GC) is hired by the owner to build the project. The GC’s primary role is split between managing the owner’s requirements and expectations, and steering the project’s workforce through the entire process.

The GC’s office team is composed of a small army of project engineers responsible for directing the trade subcontractors and supporting field operations. They do this through holding daily meetings; processing submittals; writing, routing, and tracking Requests for Information (RFIs) and the answers to and from the design team; denying change order requests; checking the quality of the work done in the field; and so on.

The GC necessarily works with the architect and engineer of record to some degree. Every project larger than a doghouse will at some point have some contract issues to deal with. So how the GC interacts with the design team depends largely on the project delivery method around which the project is based. These are:

  • Design-Bid-Build Method. The GC starts work from a (more or less) complete set of finished construction documents, typically interfacing with the design team’s construction administration (CA) representative, who monitors the process and handles constructability issues.

  • Design-Build and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Methods. The GC partners with the design team, as well as the subcontractors from the outset, directing everyone from start to finish and continually working out construct ability issues throughout the building phase.

The Purpose of BIM on Construction Sites

Regardless of the project delivery method, BIM quickly becomes a center of attention, because on the construction site BIM at its core does one thing and only one thing only: It answers questions. That’s a hugely powerful tool to have.

Armed with a set of high-quality construction models, a fully BIM-enabled project engineer can answer almost any question anyone has about the project.

I can tell my wall framers to the millimeter exactly where on the slab the outside corner of the wall stud should be.

I can tell the mason where a 4” chilled water pipe sleeve -- whose size properly accounts for the insulation -- needs to be placed in a CMU [concrete masonry unit] wall, appropriately accounting for the bond beam above.

We can have the surveyors precisely locate every hanger insert installed in the concrete slab, before it is placed.

We can provide fully coordinated locations, sizes, quantities, and costs of all required access panels for hidden equipment, valves, conduit pull boxes, and other maintainable items installed above hard ceilings and behind walls throughout the project.

Used in conjunction with continual laser scanning of the job site, we can tell our plumbing subcontractor how off the mark their piping stub-up is, which is popping up out of the dirt in an empty area but intended to be centered within a 6” stud wall cavity at some future point. Or where we can core drill through a concrete wall to miss the rebar, which eliminates the cost of having a specialty subcontractor come in later to scan for it using ground penetrating radar.

- - -

Sophisticated owners of large-scale facilities are getting in on the BIM action. They are demanding that the models include additional information which locates and identifies the building’s maintainable assets and so allow the Facilities Management (FM) group to extract Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) information automatically and drop it into their FM operations databases.

Of course, that kind of wow factor doesn’t come cheap or easy. However, the benefits are exponentially greater than the costs, and have proved ultimately invaluable to projects at large.

This then brings me to the four primary issues I have with BIM as typically implemented on the job site.

 

Issue 1: Getting BIM Into the Right Hands

To review conditions and answer questions, it does no good to have this deep project knowledge silo’ed away with one or two specialized people. In many construction firms, there is a dearth of BIM expertise among project engineers. But once superintendents or project managers get a whiff of what BIM can do for them, the demand on the few who can access models is overwhelming.

While every project needs a BIM manager to control the models and ensure they are accurate and available, every project engineer and superintendent needs training and hardware to interact with the construction models using the appropriate software. This can be Revit, Navisworks, Tekla, AutoCAD, Revizto, and so on.

 

Issue 2: Design Intent Models are Stupid

There are crucial distinctions between models produced by a design team and the kinds of models useful to construction teams. They serve two masters and so have different requirements.

Models produced by the design team are considered an Instrument of Service. They more accurately are termed “design intent models.” They are created solely to produce code-compliant Construction Documents, which are signed and sealed by the A/E [architect or engineer] and issued for permitting.

Modeling requirements for design intent are lower than that required for actually building projects. They do not have the appropriate level of 3D detail, nor are they accompanied by the correct manufacturer-specific non-geometric information needed to answer questions we need in the field. Indeed, unless there is a constructability review, most sets of CDs do not need any proof of buildability to pass muster.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to state that most designers may understand design but not necessarily construction. They do not possess practical construction experience. Construction teams see evidence of this in almost every set of design drawings, such as overly complicated and expensive details, impractical placements of components and room types, and contradictory information.

With regards to BIM, designers often leave out of the model things that taken care of in the details with simple 2D linework. That may be fine for their intended purpose. However, missing 3D content can easily end up being critical to the coordination and constructability of the design.

HVAC engineers competently design air systems that produce 200cfm [cubic feet per minute air flow] at a specific diffuser, but the mechanical piping may use fittings that are impossible for the size of pipe, or be routed through such tight spacing that it cannot be welded or installed by hand in the field. The structural designer may leave out supplemental steel or connection modeling that impacts the pathways of MEP [mechanical, electrical, and plumbing] services.

Typically, a designer says that such problems are means and methods issues, and so are the responsibility of the trade contractors. The trades then counter that they are forced to massively re-route their work, which is a design issue. Both are right, and both are wrong. The problem remains that the design intent cannot be built.

Design-intent models do not typically reflect what is ultimately going to be purchased, fabricated, and installed in the field. These occur only once the design is completed and the trades get their hands on the CDs. Nearly every item placed on a project requires a formal submittal provided by the trade subcontractor and approved by the design team. The submittal is the combination of what is dictated in the specifications and drawings, and takes into account the subcontractor’s understanding of and familiarity with the product, its pricing, availability, and other factors – information designers simply don’t need to consider during the design phase.

 

Issue 3: Working with Trade Subcontractor Models

Once the design CDs are issued and the GC and trades mobilize to build, the next round of BIM-based idiocy begins -- with the trade subcontractors.

Next week: Part ii

[Matt Stachoni is a BIM Manager/Senior Project Engineer with Tutor Perini/ Parsons JV, and works on very large design-build construction projects that rely on regular IFC model exchanges to owners.]

 

== 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 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.

Perfected over three decades, we know 3D data translation intimately, providing you with highly personalized solutions, education, and communication. Contact CTO Robert Lansdale at lansd@okino.com.

www.okino.com

 

And in Other News

Nanosoft releases nanoCAD Construction 20 ($260 and up) with new tools for construction engineers with a library of parametric 2D design elements useful for A/E/C:

  • Automatic numbering of objects

  • Text formatting controls in tables

  • Improved space objects

  • Added functions for manipulating IFC data

Download the trial version from nanocad.com/products/construction/download/

- - -

Wohlers Associates has published Wohlers Report 2021 (375 pages) in the 26th year of its annual reporting on 3D printing, cataloging 124 service providers, 113 manufacturers, and 24 third-party producers of materials. COVID-19 caused additive manufacturing to grow by 7.5% to $12.8 billion in 2020, down from the average of 27% during the previous ten years. Learn more about it from report contributor Randall Newton at wp.me/p3IFfX-8m.

- - -

Graphisoft offers PARAM-Q, a new built-in parametric object design tool for ArchiCAD Windows and MacOS to create building component libraries parametrically.

Predefined and customized Excel files automatically map manufactured profiles to SAF [structural analysis format] cross sections. Details through graphisoft.com/downloads/archicad/updates/ac24/up3.

- - -

After three or four years in stealth mode, Riven [no, not the game] launches its hardware-software combo for checking 3D parts. You place green, sintered, or post-processed parts on a turntable “and hit the button.” The software compares the scanned part to imported CAD or golden-part scans, with heat maps showing deviations. Accuracy is 0.0002". More at riven.ai.

- - -

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

Are you going to write any e-books for the BricsCAD V21? What’s your take on the program since the Hexagon takeover?
            - Tim Neumann
            Addison Fabricators

The editor replies: Producing books depends on the need of Bricsys. At this point, it looks like they will be delayed until V22. I am not hearing a lot any more from Bricsys.

One emphasis I am hearing about is sales, no surprise given Hexagon is a huge organization. The program itself seems to be doing well so far.

 

Re: Q&A With the Inventor of Catia

I enjoyed the interview.  But I thought you might like the CAD user’ viewpoint.

Here is the intro of 3D CAD into the industry! I completely missed the AutoCAD electronic drawing bullet! It shows the first transition to the PC! Catia didn’t show up on the PC [personal computer] until 1998. Most of the ComputerVision users moved to Pro/E in the early 1990s enjoying the standalone stations.

I was selling PC based 3D CADKEY to virtually every Boeing supplier to talk to the IBM networked based Catia 2, 3, and 4. Then I sold them CADKEY to translate Catia 5 files to import to Catia 4! Catia 4 had a 34MB limit and the files had to be modified.

Why? Catia 5 could not talk to Catia 4. Horrible for aircraft design! Boeing had 1,500 CADKEY seats. They could have been on PCs ahead of everyone. Remember ComputerVision, Catia 3, and CADKEY were 3D wireframe. Catia 4 came out with Boolean solids in 1994 (I think). CADKEY used ACIS in 1995!
            - Joe Brouwer

The editor replies: There were so many hardware options in the 1980s, and prices were high, so spending $100 thousand or a million was a strong decision. Mr Brouwer recounts his history with CAD at tecnetinc.com/Cadkey%20or%20Catia.html.

- - -

I did not know about Fastdraft. Its use has been quite marginal, but I found its history on page 10 of the following document: cadhistory.net/13%20IBM,%20Lockheed%20and%20Dassault.pdf. Thank you, Ralph, I like the pictures you added, the Mirage and the IBM 360, as they illustrate well the text.
            - Francis Bernard

- - -

Interesting articles, thanks. One thing I was told when I was at Dassault: that when IBM saw what Dassault Aviation had [with Catia] they knew it would kill CADAM. Not sure if it is true, but it makes sense.
            -Stan Przybylinski

The editor replies: I love history, so getting this Francis Bernard interview from David Levin was much appreciated by me.

- - -

Lunchtime peruse of non-work emails reveals upFront.eZine interview with the inventor of CATIA part 2: "Bernard Charles, who joined Dassault Systemes in 1984, who became technical director in 199, and then CEO in 1995. An ambitious leader with a very large ego.”
- Kevin Quigley (via Twitter)

- - -

Possibly, but the man has vision in spades, it just takes a while to deliver on them.
- Martyn Day (via Twitter)

Mr Quigley replies: And a difficulty in communicating the vision in a language or format customers relate to or wish to go along with. Vision without clarity of message is just fog.

- - -

I heard him speak at many Solidworks Worlds. His visions never seemed aligned to what we, the users, wanted/needed as far as Solidworks is concerned. Not sure how he came up with his vision, but it wasn’t from talking to users.
- Jeff Mirisola (via Twitter)

The editor replies: It is a top-down vision. Dassault is so successful in its niche of high-end CAD that execs cannot fathom why Solidworks users spent the last decade rejecting “Solidworks V6” and its subsequent CGM-based variations.

 

Notable Quotable

“It’s easy to discard an entire field of centuries-long academic inquiries, especially if you’ve never been exposed to it, or only investigated a caricature.”
- Joakim Book

 

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:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4739

Posted at 07:00 AM in Guest Editorials | | Comments (2)

Monday, March 22, 2021

Q&A With the Inventor of Catia, part ii

Issue #1,088  |  The Business of CAD  |  22 March 2021

 

Francis Bernard interviewed by David Levin

For the upcoming 40th anniversary of Dassault Systèmes, we offer part ii of an interview with Francis Bernard, co-founder of the company. He was interviewed by David Levin, co-founder of LEDAS Group, which develops software for CAD vendors.

- - -

Levin: How did the idea come about to establish a separate company? It seems to me that a very new company would not be able to organize an effective global marketing strategy of a very new product?

The first Catia IBM flyer

Bernard: Without the partnership with IBM, we would not have established the Dassault Systemes company. It was the key decision factor.

IBM was really like a dream for us: they had 80% of the hardware business at a worldwide level; they already had the experience and organization to sell CAD/CAM software with Cadam; and they were ready to invest significantly in human resources, because each Catia sale generated ten times the hardware revenue for IBM. Revenue from each Catia software sale was shared 50/50 between Dassault Systemes and IBM.

1988, Francis Bernard Dassault Systemes CEO

 

Levin: What were the biggest challenges for the company as it grew from 20 to 100 people, and then from 100 to 500 people?

Bernard: The biggest challenges were to hire, train, and manage people according to six macro-processes that we decided to implement:

  1. Plan: Vision and strategy definition and optimization

  2. Define: Product management to address all markets (aero, auto, and so on)

  3. Implement: Product development using hardware and software of the time

  4. Sell: Marketing and sales in close cooperation with IBM

  5. Team: Ecosystem management with technical partners and IBM

  6. Customer Service: Customer loyalty through a strong maintenance process with IBM

We never faced a financial threat because revenues grew quite well and so we were profitable from the beginning.

 

Levin: Did you invent the company’s management processes or did you adopt them from Dassault Aviation?

Bernard: At the end of the 1980s, when we were more than 200 people, we contracted with consultants specialized in human resources management (not from IBM), to help us implement a clear company vision, along with a strategy (both technical and commercial) to implement the vision, and an execution system to execute the strategy and motivate our people.

On the other hand, we learned from IBM how to manage the software maintenance organization and process, as well as the definition of the pricing policy.

 

Levin: Obviously, the marketing power of IBM has very much helped you to gain customers such as Honda, Mercedes, BMW, and Boeing. Did demonstrations of Catia speak for itself, or did you have more personal methods of convincing major customers?

Bernard: IBM was in fact not involved with the very first customers, as I explained above [in part i].

I got personally in touch and met the executives in charge of CAD/CAM at Honda, Mercedes, and BMW to present and demonstrate Catia. The quality of these discussions generated the conviction at Dassault Aviation that Catia had good business potential.

This generated a lot of motivation for my team and me, and it was a catalyst to convince IBM that we could be a good partner for selling more computers! These three customers (and a few others, such as Grumman Aerospace in USA and SAFRAN in France) were direct customers to Dassault Systemes and became IBM customers only a few years later.

Boeing is a different story. This was a very long battle to win, because my biggest competitor was an internally developed 3D CAD software package. And here the power and credibility of IBM together with our experience in airplane design at Dassault Aviation was essential.

I remember a question from the Boeing CEO when I met him in Seattle: “Please tell us how we can design an airplane in 3D,” and then his comment when he decided for Catia in 1986: “I selected Catia because I am confident in you, but I buy it from IBM because I cannot take the risk in implementing a major business transformation with too small a partner.”

Francis Bernard and Charles Edelstenne (at left) with Boeing Group Directors

Levin: How did you manage the balance between the need to satisfy customers and your own vision of the optimal (with respect to business) development of the software?

Bernard: This is called “product management.” The process of product management is to collect and analyze all of the requirements generated by customers and prospects, to look at the competition, to support the development of IT, and to invent opportunities that are not yet visible to the market.

These inputs are the source of new deliveries of functions, based on the optimization of the revenue potential. As a matter of fact, product management is measured by success on the market.

At Dassault Systemes, each new software delivery is identified by a version number and a release number, VxRy. A new version number means that significant improvements were implemented in the structure of the software, most times to support major hardware developments, which makes it impossible to be fully compatible with the previous version.

Of course, tools are delivered to migrate the data from one version to the next. We announce a new version every five to ten years to support changes in hardware, from mainframes to Unix workstations and then to PCs.

By contrast, a new release of a given version is always fully compatible with the previous release. In other words, V5R8 is fully compatible with V5R7.

To manage the release process properly and to generate confidence in the sales team as well as from customers, it is essential to be time-driven. Therefore we delivered a new release around May and October each year.

It may happen that a customer requests an enhancement not planned for a future release, or our development takes too long for the customer. In such cases, we enter into negotiation. Should the enhancement request have sufficient business potential, we may accelerate its development and require the customer to fund up to 50% of the development cost, with Dassault Systemes keeping full ownership rights of the enhancement developed.

If the enhancement does not have sufficient business potential (usually because it is specific to the customer), then we may develop the enhancement under a standard service contract funded 100% by the customer, who keeps the ownership rights to the enhancement.

 

Levin: Could you mention several people who were especially close to you during your Catia and Dassault Systemes years?

Bernard: This is a difficult question, because everybody contributed in some way. But let me give you some names. The key members of the initial team at Dassault Aviation and at the beginning of Dassault Systemes were

  • Dominique Calmels as my Technical Director until 1990. (He passed away in 2017.)

  • Didier Boucier as a key technical specialist who was a major actor in the development of Catia. (He retired in 2019.)

Then at Dassault Systemes there was

  • Charles Edelstenne, Dassault Systemes board chairman, a clever businessman and one of the ten richest men in France. (He was also a former CEO of Dassault Aviation and is now president of Dassault Group.)

  • Thibault de Tersant, who joined Dassault Systemes in 1986 as financial director, an excellent negotiator of acquisitions and support of large customers, as well as the management of pricing.

  • Bernard Charles, who joined Dassault Systemes in 1984, who became technical director in 199, and then CEO in 1995. An ambitious leader with a very large ego.

I do not like Charles Edelstenne and Bernard Charles from a human point of view, but I respect their significant contributions.

The Dassault Systèmes’ management team in 1987: Francis Bernard, seated; standing in the foreground (on the left): Dominique Calmel; at the back (left to right): Bernard Charlès, Bernard Vermersh, Bruno Latchague, Philippe Forestier, and Jean-Michel Morin

 

Levin: What are some key reasons for the success of Dassault Systemes?

Bernard: Let me give you a high-level summary:

  1. To be at the right place at the right time; this was the luck or the opportunity that we realized only years later, in that we took advantage of the IT revolution, the Cold War, Dassault Aviation, then globalization

  2. To invent a major transformation with a long-term vision: “3D for all”; this was more than just inventing a gadget, it was the 2D-to-3D revolution thanks to IT

  3. To make the right strategic decisions: the creation of a Dassault Systèmes independent of Dassault Aviation; the IBM partnership; the strong ecosystem of partners; partnerships with customers; and well-targeted acquisitions

  4. To set up a robust management and execution system

 

Levin: What are five of the most important milestones during your time at Dassault Aviation and Dassault Systemes?

Bernard: This is a difficult question to answer, because there were dozens of important events. Here are five:

1967: My decision to join the aerodynamics department where the IT was initiated

1968: My first CAD software, which created and smoothed curves, which became part of the initial Catia release ten years later

1977: The start of Catia development

1981: The launch of DS’s partnership with IBM

1986: Landing Boeing as a customer

 

Levin: What do you consider to be the most interesting CAD trend you observed during the last decade?

I am not very much involved anymore, but I do see two major trends:

  • The development of the IT platform on the cloud

  • The beginning of the implementation of PLM concepts in the medical domain: a numerical definition of the human body; analysis and simulation of its functions; maintenance and correction of deficiencies; and so on.

 

Levin: Do you agree that CAD has become less important in the contemporary IT world? Perhaps there are not enough ambitious challenges for CAD to address now.

Bernard: I believe that it is like a concept of layers: more and more, CAD will become a de facto set of basic functions. Applications using these basic functions will be the visible part of a system.

 

Levin: The role of AI in CAD software is still quite limited, especially compared to other areas. Do you expect a breakthrough here?

Bernard: Yes. As I briefly described earlier, CAD may become an invisible layer below the AI layer.

 

Levin: What do you think about cloud-based CAD modeling? Will it replace traditional CAD on the desktop, or will it remain a niche solution for students and small businesses?

Bernard: I believe that the cloud is just a new platform, making it easier to integrate and to communicate. It will probably not replace the desktop, but will become a complementary option for most customers.

 

Levin: Sometimes it seems to me that MCAD, in its classic meaning for manufacturing, is to some extent already exhausted. It is very effective, but any great new thing can hardly be done. If so, there could be two ways in particular for progress in business and technology: (1) CAD + real artificial intelligence, and (2) expansion of technology to new domains, such as medicine and finance. What do you think of this?

Bernard: Yes, AI will become a major part of the future.

Yes, new domains like medicine will be addressed; Dassault Systemes acquired recently Medidata in USA to go in such a direction. Finance, I am not sure because it is not at all related to shapes and physical/chemical simulations and it is already addressed by CRM and ERP applications.

And never forget: it is basically impossible to predict a development in technology more than ten years in advance. I like the quote from Henri Ford (1863-1947): “If I’d asked customers what they wanted, they would have said ‘a faster horse’.”

 

Levin: What are the criteria for a CEO to quit the position? What do you think is the difference in success and time limitations for keeping a top position as the CEO of a company and the president of a country?

Bernard: Any CEO will be replaced, because he is retiring, or he is not productive enough, or he is in conflict with the shareholders or the employees, or he wants to quit for another position, or ultimately he dies. The question is to manage this process with no negative impact, and, if possible, a positive impact on the company, the employees, and the shareholders.

In my case, there had been a kind of agreement between Charles Edelstenne (board director), Bernard Charles (technical director), and myself as CEO. Bernard Charles was younger than me by 18 years, more ambitious (a killer), and more motivated than me to manage the exponential growth of the company.

I am not an ambitious killer; I am just passionate to work for and with people and customers all around the world. Charles Edelstenne arbitrated an agreement to transfer the CEO position to Bernard Charles and to let me address new markets at the time and emerging countries. (See my earlier response on Russia). The process went quickly and smoothly, without any frustration or trouble.

The success criteria for a CEO is to meet the company’s objectives in terms of revenues; for the president of a country, it is to be re-elected.

The limitation for a CEO is the company’s performance; for a president, it is the support of the chambers and the electors. Of course, I mean this for a democracy that is like a company in which the customers are the electors! The more a state looks like a dictatorship, the more it looks like a company with no customers!

 

Levin: As an advisor and a member of the board, you have contacts with a lot of companies and startups. Which are the most interesting to you?

Bernard: I have contacts only with startups in the digital domain with B2B [business to business] solutions. This is related to my past experience with Dassault Systemes, CAD, and PLM. But you must recognize that Dassault Systemes was not a startup but outsourced from Dassault Aviation. As long as we had Dassault Aviation as a reference, a good motivated team, and the IBM partnership, the risk was limited.

When I look at a startup, I verify the vision (a statement with a clear objective) and the product (what is the value to the customer? is it a must-have solution?) with the early customers, the competition, the team (is the leader heading a reasonable management structure?), and the ecosystem. In our complex environment, a startup without technical and/or sales partners has nearly no chance to succeed.

[This article first appeared in isicad, and is reprinted with permission. The interview has been shortened from its initial form.]

 

And in Other News

Open Design Alliance launches its Strategic Interoperability Group (SIG) to extend interoperability through member-led initiatives that could include file formats (other than those already supported, like DWG), digital twins, and scan-to-BIM.

Existing SIGs [special interest group] already handle ADT and RVT. “More than 60 companies now use ODA Revit support in of their software,” reports Randall Newton. https://www.opendesign.com/sig

- - -

ARCHLINE.XP 2021 is now available and offers real-time elevations and sections, schedules with images, rule-based filters, certain kinds of automated dimensions, and push/pull for 3D conceptual modeling. Get video overviews of what’s new through archlinexp.com/webinars.

- - -

Siemens updates Simcenter STAR-CCM+2021.1 to open simulation files in read-only mode, thus not using up a license. Surrogate Models predict the performance of thousands of variations. Engineers can sketch complex circuits with the new Electric Circuit Editor.

The software is now AWS HPC [Amazon Web services high performance computing] Competency certified. More details at blogs.sw.siemens.com/simcenter/simcenter-star-ccm-2021-1/

- - -

Vectorworks releases service pack 3 of its eponymous software with direct connections to Solibri and Twinmotion, and improved IFC exports. The 30-day free trial of Vectorworks Designer is downloadable from vectorworks.net/trial/form (after registration).

- - -

nPower Software ships Power Surfacing (sub-d organic modeling) and Power Surfacing RE (reverse engineering) v6 for Solidworks with power shell and power thicken, multi-directional mirroring, new quad wrap that automatically fills most holes, updated shrink wrap that checks for self-intersections, and new mesh smoothing that applies to the whole model. More info at npowersoftware.com/pressreleases/pressreleasePowerSurfacing60.html

- - -

Here are 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

Re: Q&A With the Inventor of Catia

I read with great interest your Catia article and took special notice of your picture of Mr. Dassault working on a Catia workstation.

As a long retired drafter who morphed from hand drafting to CADD, I remember learning CADD on an IBM Fastdraft system in 1984. It looked much the same as shown in this picture. It had two 19" black-and-white monitors and you drew using a light pen. The CPU unit was the size of a refrigerator and only had 11MB of memory. I saved my work to 11" floppy disks and plotted to an IBM pen plotter.

Cost of this two-monitor system was $125,000. It did include a service contract. Might the Catia system be the same system marketed by IBM as Fastdraft?
- Bob Melusky

The editor replies: I think it is a different system. IBM sold quite a few different CAD programs over the decades. For instance, I have a copy of IBM CAD/3X V3R2 ($99 back then in 1993), which was a 2D CAD program for DOS and OS/2 derived from IBM’s Altium CAD/PCB design group. (It’s interesting to see IBM targeting AutoCAD 12 users.)

From the official IBM history site, I read that in 1982 IBM introduced “the 6361 Fastdraft System, a low-cost drafting system using a light pen and a CRT screen.” I think that it looked similar to Catia because CAD systems used similar hardware in those days.

It was great to read your remembrances!

 

Re: CAD for Chrome OS is Possible in 2021

FWIW. Onshape, on Chromebook, a big reason Onshape recently surpassed +1M users in education. Onshape on Chromebook is excellent.
- Joe Dunne, PTC

The editor replies: Onshape is CAD that runs in browsers, as do many other CAD programs, such as AutoCAD Web and ARES Kudo, whereas I am advocating for native apps designed for tablets that run with no Web connection on Chromebooks through Android, like Krita for paint programs.

 

Notable Quotable

“We are looking for like-minded people to join our diversity committee.”
- Management Speak (@managerspeak on Twitter)

 

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:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

 

*4738

Posted at 07:00 AM in Interviews, Q&A | | Comments (0)

Monday, March 15, 2021

Q&A With the Inventor of Catia, part i

Issue #1,087  |  The Business of CAD  |  15 March 2021

 

For the upcoming 40th anniversary of Dassault Systèmes, we offer this interview with Francis Bernard, co-founder of the company. He was interviewed by David Levin, co-founder of LEDAS Group, which develops software for CAD vendors.

Mr Bernard was born in French Indochina (now Vietnam) where his father was a mining engineer. His family returned to France around the time he turned 12. Here is the rest of his story.

- - -

David Levin: What influenced your interest in aerospace engineering?

Francis Bernard: I was fascinated by airplanes. When I was 12-17 years old, I spent most of my free time constructing aircraft models, including one with a radio transmitter that I developed by myself with tube amps, because there were no transistors yet, and then flew them in a park in nearby Paris.

As a young student, I worked very hard to enter Supaero, the top aerospace engineering university in France. At Supaero I had the opportunity to fly as a pilot in private airplanes. And I discovered one of the first computers of this time, the CAB 500, which was as big as a wardrobe but a lot less powerful than pocket calculators that you today buy for $10 in a supermarket.

 

Levin: Was joining Dassault Aviation accidental?

Bernard: Joining Dassault Aviation was not accidental. Dassault Aviation was very prestigious because of its Mirage fighter jets at the time of the Cold War. The technology there was quite sophisticated and the salary quite attractive.

Cutaway view of a Mirage fighter jet from conceptbunny.com

I had already a pre-employment contract with Dassault Aviation while I was still a student at Supaero, receiving a monthly fee for several years (including during my military service) before joining Dassault Aviation. So I had a legal commitment to join!

 

Levin: At first glance, your initial specialization in theoretical aerodynamics appears very different from professional software development. How did it happen that you became so quickly involved in a domain that seems new, given your background?

Bernard: When I began with Dassault Aviation in 1967, there were no computers anywhere. It was still the time of paper, pencils, and typewriters. The two first computers, the IBM 1800, were installed by coincidence the same time that I arrived.

We began developing mathematical algorithms to calculate aerodynamic flows along wings and fuselages. We learned how to convert our mathematical language into programming language to deliver air pressure values on aircraft geometry.

Of course, the first fundamental problem was to create the mathematics, then to create a software/data representation of the airplane’s shape, because it was used as input to the aerodynamics computations. Like most engineers in the world at this time (end of the 1960s), we had to learn to experiment with software development on these very early computers.

 

Levin: There is a serious difference between computational software modules that were the predecessors to Catia, and Catia on the other hand as a universal CAD engine. Does this mean that you had to design a new architecture for CAD?

Bernard: In the beginning, at the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, the only way to communicate with a computer -- to create and manipulate data -- was to write software in an alphanumeric language that we entered on punch cards. So, we invented a specific language to create and to store the shape of the airplane in the memory of the computer: wings were ruled surfaces between profiles defined by fifth-degree curves, and fuselages were conics evolving along fifth-degree curves.

We also invented a specific alphanumeric language to exploit the shapes: input for computation of aerodynamics, sections of planes, and cutting-tool motions for numerical-control machines.

Then in the early 1970s we had the first black and white graphics terminals (first the IBM 2250, then the IBM 3250 terminal) together with a new generation of much more powerful computers (the IBM/360, then the IBM/370 mainframe). It opened up the opportunity to convert our alphanumeric language (on decks of punched cards) into a much simpler-to-use language on interactive graphic terminals.

IBM System/360 mainframe computer came in several models, from small to huge

In 1977, I decided, with the support of my management, that it was time to rewrite all our software to handle the conversion. As with the first generation on punched cards, we did all the software development ourselves, of course taking benefit of our experience with the mathematical definitions of the shapes and converting the alphanumeric language into an interactive graphical interface.

At this time (end of 1970s) there were five developers on my team.

 

Levin: What is common and what is different between the development of an airplane and a CAD system?

Bernard: What is in-common: we learned from the airplane engineers all about the shapes and optimization of the shapes of airplanes. And how to manufacture these shapes.

What is different: airplane engineers develop an airplane according to specific requests (performance, capacity, range, and so on) but we develop software as a tool to help them develop more competitive airplanes at lower prices.

 

Levin: Aside from Dassault Aviation and Boeing, what was the most significant usage of Catia in terms of new experiences for your team?

Bernard: My first customers, even a few months before the creation of Dassault Systemes in 1981, were Mercedes, BMW, and Honda -- I mean the engineering divisions of these automotive companies. I developed group meetings that involved the three of them, despite them being competitors in the market. I explained and demonstrated Catia to them, and they explained to me the automotive specifics of shape design (body engineering) as well as manufacturing.

As a result, they accepted the offer to evaluate Catia on their sites. My team worked with them to understand and to satisfy their requirements for Catia.

In summary, I implemented as successful a relationship with them as I had with aircraft designers to expand Catia to support the needs of the automotive industry. Similar processes were implemented during the 1980s and 1990s with the industries we support: shipbuilding, equipment, consumer goods, and so on.

This is really a profile of a software developer: create an innovation of value to the customer, by mixing an understanding of each industry segment process with new IT technology.

Catia in 1987

Levin: Catia is 40 years old and it the oldest CAD software still on the market, and yet it still takes the leadership position. How many more years will it live on?

Bernard: I don’t know, but let me remind you of the history of design:

1.  Sketches from antiquity to 19th century (5,000 years): pen and paper, written by individuals for their own purpose; for example, the sketches by Leonardo da Vinci.

2.  Drawings from the 19th to the 20th century (150 years): pen and paper, with the standardization of drawing representations acting like a language for large teams to be able to cooperate; this was the design/manufacturing platform for the Industrial Revolution.

3.  2D CAD from 1970 to 1990 (20 years): computer graphics terminals that optimized the performance of 2D drawings; this was the Cadam positioning.

4.  3D from 1970 to 1980 (10 years): computers with alphanumeric languages on punched cards; this allowed the first exact 3D definition on computers.

5.  3D CAD from 1980 to … (?? years): computer graphics terminals that optimize the performance of 3D design; this is the Catia positioning.

6.  Next Step: probably the automatic generation and exploitation of 3D shapes based on artificial intelligence, with full optimization through integration of simulation and interaction with any type of constraints.

Each step demonstrates a significant innovation in design, but does not eliminate the previous steps. Sketches, for instance, are still in use.

It is extremely difficult to predict the future in technology. Who in 1990 knew about the Internet and smartphones? Nobody!

 

Levin: Catia was a revolution in the CAD industry by being the first 3D design system. Do you see the potential for any technology to transform engineering industry as much in the twenty-first century?

Bernard: See my answer above.

 

Levin: If you could go back to the 1980s, is there anything you would like to change in Catia to make even more successful today?

Bernard: I believe that we did our best in the 1980s, according to the technology of the time. We had graphic terminals in color (the IBM 5080) only in 1985, PCs powerful enough only in 1995, and now the cloud. These developments significantly impacted Catia by opening new opportunities to develop new applications.

 

Levin: What was the key to the success of Catia: excellent product management? Brilliant software developers and mathematicians? Sales people from IBM?

Bernard: All three must be taken together. Only one or two would have been insufficient.

For instance, Cadam had brilliant software developers and sales people from IBM, but poor product management, so they missed 3D.

[Catia is short for “Computer-Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application” while Cadam is short for “Computer-Augmented Drafting And Manufacturing.”]

[Independently-developed] ComputerVision had brilliant software developers but poor product management. By developing their own hardware, they missed the standardization of hardware, and had no sales force as strong as the one from IBM.

[Independently-developed] Matra Datavision lacked a sales force as strong as IBM’s.

They all disappeared after being acquired by other companies.

 

Levin: There is a well-known picture of a Catia demonstration being given to Marcel Dassault. Was this episode important to further business development? Please share the impressions you had from this demonstration.

Francis Bernard and Dominique Calmels introduce Marcel Dassault to Catia

Bernard: This episode was important and at this time probably key to our future.

Marcel Dassault was the extremely respected founder of Dassault Aviation, and the inventor of the new generation of fighters, the Mirage -- quite an important achievement during the Cold War.

At this time, Dassault Aviation was trying to extend its business to commercial airplanes with the Mercure, and so compete with the emerging Airbus conglomerate. He was an engineer, even more than a businessman, therefore he asked for a demonstration of Catia, because he was told that it was such an innovation that it would replace the drawing board for the design of airplanes. This really was his intent during the demonstration: “Show me how you design a fuselage!” Then, as illustrated in the picture, “Let me do it myself!”

In summary, Marcel Dassault wanted to be convinced that Catia was a tool to design and build Dassault’s airplanes in the future. He was 90 years old, and therefore probably not interested in Catia as a new business.

 

Levin: How did you come to the decision to market Catia externally? Was there by this time a lot of CAD use at Dassault Aviation?

Bernard: At this time, in 1980, CAD use at Dassault Aviation was quite high, even at such an early period. More than a hundred 2D Cadam systems had been installed since 1975, and a few Catia systems were installed for the 3D external shape definitions of the airplanes.

An interface between Cadam and Catia had been developed to transfer, for instance, 2D sections from Catia to Cadam as input for the design of wing ribs by Cadam. But it was already obvious that the use of Catia would be extended and so progressively replace Cadam within a few years. This was due to the development of 2D functions in Catia, and the installation of more powerful computers/PCs to extend 3D to mechanical parts design, based on innovative 3D processes being implemented in the Dassault Aviation design office.

The decision to market Catia was due to several reasons. Firstly, the French government was interested in helping Dassault Aviation make such decision. Secondly, Lougheed was interested in a partnership to integrate Catia and Cadam. Thirdly, IBM was a candidate to sell Catia, in addition to Cadam. It took a few months in early 1981 to make the decision on the third option.

And who could believe that when we created Dassault Systemes in 1981 with my team of 20 people, that 40 years later Dassault Systemes would be much bigger (20,000 employees) than Dassault Aviation?

Next week: Part ii

[This article first appeared in isicad, and is reprinted with permission. The interview has been shortened from its initial form.]

 

And in Other News

vdR Group and Sinequa integrated Sinequa’s Intelligent Search platform with vdR Group’s CADnection for search-based applications. data is extracted, enhanced, and then passed to the Sinequa Intelligent Search Platform. Sinequa lets engineers and managers to access content regardless of format all in one place. Visual representations of CAD models are produced for 2D and 3D viewing. sinequa.com

- - -

From CADLine we hear they are hosting an online expo focusing on ARCHLine with 15 presentations and ten languages during 24-26 March. More info here, in case you want to take part: archlinexp.com/events

- - -

3D Systems ceo Jeffery Graves made this comment during its Q4 2020 earnings call: “3D Systems technology provides over half a million production parts every day, 365 days a year, which is more than the rest of the industry combined.” You can read more at Deelip Menezes blog deelip.com/3d-printing-half-a-million-parts-a-day

- - -

I was saddened to learn of the death of Bruce Lowell Jenkins Jr, who passed away in December 2020 at age 61. He was a genuinely nice guy, who took an interest in other people. Another editor said of him, “He was an interesting character and always deeply thoughtful. Very sharp mind.”

- - -

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.

 

Spin Doctor of the Moment

“It was written by a working human being, who made a mistake. It was deleted.”
- World Economic Forum (@wef on Twitter)

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • Design Master Software (small company donation): “Your newsletter has always been the best source of industry news over the last 20 years.”

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, then please use www.paypal.com and use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4734

 

Posted at 07:00 AM in Guest Editorials, Interviews, Q&A | | Comments (0)

Monday, March 08, 2021

CAD Trends as Real Changes -- or Marketing Hype

Issue #1,086  |  The Business of CAD  |  8 March 2021

 

Recorded by Ralph Grabowski

CIMdata held an online seminar to talk about CAD trends in 2021. At least, that's what I signed up for. The subtitle has been "Real Change or Marketing Hype?"

By the day the seminar began, however, the title had changed to “A Totally Subjective View of CAD Technology Trends.” That was okay, because we still got to hear Ken Versprille’s opinions on CAD trends, and whether they really are trends in CAD.

Understanding CAD trends is important today, because they will affect most CAD systems into the future.

- - -

Ken Versprille distinguishes between trends in CAD by asking, “Is it a CAD trend, or a software trend in general?” To be a legitimate trend, it should last more than a year, and it should change the internals of CAD, such as its file format or technology, or how the operator interacts with the software.

A search of the Internet showed Mr Versprille a half-dozen topics considered by other commentators to be CAD trends as shown in the figure below. The white box lists the trends that he discussed in the seminar.

CAD trends of the current time

Generative Design

A maybe-trend. On the one hand, it is not a trend because it simply automates the loop of how CAD has always operated: design -> analyze -> design -> analyze. On the other hand, it is a trend, because of the way it allows mesh and solid geometry to work together, which is a CAD trend being worked on by Spatial in ACIS and Siemens in ParaSolids.

CAD on the Cloud

No, not a trend: it is more of a software trend than a CAD-specific one.

SaaS

No. Software as a service is just like desktop CAD but with subscription fees; it is a software trend.

MobileCAD

No, for the same reason as SaaS: it is a software trend.

IoT

No. Internet of things is more of a PLM [product lifecycle management] trend than a CAD trend, but this may change in the future if IoT were to be integrated into CAD.

Model-based Definition

Yes: while MBD can be seen as simply applying GT&D [geometric tolerance and dimensioning] to 3D models (so as to annotate 3D models instead of 2D drawings), it does change how designers interact with CAD models, and it causes the internal CAD data structures to change.

AI/Machine Learning

Yes. Artificial intelligence is logic added to CAD, such as improved feature recognition, prediction of next steps, and predictive selection.

Integrated Development Platform

No, because it is a PLM trend. There is no change in the way CAD works when part of an IDP system. See figure below.

Elements of an integrated development platform

Visualization, VR, AR

Maybe. There was a massive focus on the three ever since covid began. They do change the way the operator interacts with CAD software, but they do not change the way CAD itself operates.

Functional Geometry

Yes, because it creates model geometry from equations and logic.

Q&A

Q: I don’t think we should lump mobileCAD with cloudCAD, because mobileCAD works offline.

Ken Versprille: To me, mobile and cloud CAD are technologies which are the same at their foundation, whether on desktop, cloud, or mobile. It is a technology-shift, not a CAD-shift.

 

Q: Is cloudCAD scalable?

Versprille: Definitely, although it may become cost-prohibitive, such as paying for going from ten CPUs to 20,000 CPUs.

 

Ralph Grabowski: CloudCAD is more difficult to implement than other kinds of software.

Versprille: I don’t think so, although CAD has some unique challenges that are different from regular software. Programmers of regular cloud software would have problems switching to programming cloudCAD, but programmers steeped in CAD would not. They have to pay attention to multi-threading and so on.

 

Q: SaaS for CAD is probably early days, with limited numbers of users.

Versprille: Autodesk and PTC are leaders in it, and actually are doing very well with SaaS. You can blame Microsoft for it!

 

Q: Does the definition of generative design include convergent modeling?

Versprille: Yes. I see a lot of possibilities for convergent modeling [where the software arrives at a design solution thru iterations], more so than for generative design [which optimizes a design for maximum strength and minimum material].

 

Q: IoT and AM have been trending on CAD for some time.

Versprille: I have not seen IoT on CAD.

Every example of additive manufacturing (AM) is coming out of generative design, which creates designs that cannot be made by subtractive manufacturing. This is why generative design is popular again after having been invented 30 years ago.

 

Grabowski: Functional geometry has been around a long time, such as with Grasshopper.

Versprille: That is something outside of CAD, just as there is a lot of math software that can be used with CAD.

 

Q: How is functional geometry different from knowledge templates?

Versprille: It comes down to ease of use. Vendors who had it ten years ago never saw a big up-take in knowledge applications. What is new is the way it is being implemented [by firms like Siemens and Dassault], in being able to program it by putting together logic blocks, without having to know how to program.

 

Q: What do you think about integrating simulation with CAD?

Versprille: I think it is great! Simulation should drive CAD modeling, not the other way around. It was not possible in the past, but now it is starting to happen.

 

Q: Is PLM dead? Will CAD survive?

Versprille: I don’t know that PLM is dead, but CAD will survive. I learned 2D drafting and it will survive for another couple of centuries!

 

Q: Will we continue with a hybrid system of desktop and cloudCAD?

Versprille: We will, for quite a while. With the pandemic, cloudCAD has come into play due to working from home. People get around it by creating private clouds, but we have to solve the security problem.

 

Q: Is shape-search a CAD trend?

Versprille: No.I think it is a CAD application. It is an add-on to CAD, and does not change CAD per se. (I define CAD as authoring 3D models.)

 

Q: What about integrating PLM with CAD on the cloud?

Versprille: What about it? PLM is on the cloud, and it is integrated with CAD.

 

Q: Any trends specific to ECAD?

Versprille: No really, but I am not an expert in ECAD [electrical design CAD].

 

Q: Why do companies pay for [externally-developed] CAD? Do you see any other business models out there?

Versprille: Not right now, other than SaaS, such as some airlines no longer buying jet engines but paying for their use.

It is very difficult for a company to develop its own CAD system [so as to not pay for CAD]. We see spin-offs concentrating on one area, like shoe design and clothes design -- they are trying to narrow the demands that are pulling them in different directions. It can be difficult to find programmers who know how to write a certain kind of CAD function, and then they might not be able to sell enough to pay for the effort.

 

Q: What is the distinguishing factor for CAD systems that follow trends?

Versprille: They all follow trends, so the factor is in how they implement them. All CAD systems have a common base; it is the unique differences that make a CAD product stand out. There are different types of customers -- large, small -- to whom CAD vendors cater to, for either better or worse.

 

Q: Is there something that you see as a future CAD trend?

Versprille: We are constantly looking out there for something that is coming. Things are swirling around with the cloud and other things, but nothing is jumping out at me that is revolutionary. We’ll keep looking for it.

- - -

The slide deck (PDF) of this talk is available from cimdata.com/images/Webinars/CIMdata_Webinar_CAD_Trends_2021.pdf

The seminar can be replayed from register.gotowebinar.com/recording/2252568784946569743 (registration required).

www.cimdata.com

- - -

Ken Versprille is with CIMdata, was formerly with ComputerVision, and was the first to publish a description of NURBS — the non-uniform rational b-spline used by most CAD systems today.

 

== 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 lansd@okino.com.

www.okino.com

 

And in Other News

The Maxon division of Nemetschek Group acquires forger 3D sculpting app, which runs only Apple’s portable devices. “We look forward to exploring what more it can bring to our users,” the company said. forger.app/features/

- - -

Design Master Software celebrates its 20th anniversary this month. The firm, launched by three brothers, focuses on electrical and HVAC design add-ons for Revit. During the 2010s, the firm ran an annual survey of users that found MEP use in Revit did not increase during the decade, confounding experts. designmaster.biz/blog/2021/03/design-master-software-celebrates-20-years/

- - -

Enscape 3.0 from Enscape renders CAD models in real-time. New functions include access to commands in full-screen mode, timeline view for the video editor, more accurate mirror materials, and better support for Vectorworks and other CAD programs.

The 14-day demo version can be downloaded from enscape3d.com/latest-version (after registration). By subscription only; free for students.

- - -

Here are some posts that appeared 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

You might want to fix ‘upFront.eZine Archvies’ on your Web site.
            - Dik Coates

The editor replies: Thank you for catching that. It should read ‘Anchovies’.

 

Re: Autodesk Wants to Kill the File

Take a look at the isicad.ru cover for February; it corresponds to your article about Autodesk killing files.

The cover’s Russian title translates something like “Files -- Into the Furnace!”
- David Levin, isicad

- - -

You have gotten loads of emails regarding Autodesk’s desire to “kill the file.” Astonishingly, almost all of them completely miss the point. My thoughts on Autodesk’s wish to kill off discrete files: GOOD, and it’s about freakin’ time!

What they are envisioning is a standard client-server solution, which is nothing new; it’s just driven by Forge, which kinda is. But the concept is tried and true: the database backend feeds the light and heavy apps to the client end.

Anyone who has used Outlook fed from an Exchange Server stuck in the IT closet is intimately familiar with the concept, even if they don’t know it. I would hope Autodesk is moving to something similar.

However, instead of making it completely cloud-based, it does need a purely locally-hosted option, or one where data can be freely segregated and assigned to the combination of cloud and local servers. Revizto follows this model pretty well.

Cloud-only solutions will kill the initiative for organizations who cannot use cloud-based solutions (for whatever reason) or who simply opt not to do so. As we have recently witnessed with Parler, it can be a losing proposition having your entire company’s livelihood dependent on the pleasure of Amazon, Microsoft, or whoever is hosting it.

Contrary to popular belief, there are folks who want and/or need to truly own their own data, and not be beholden to a dopey Internet connection to keep their business alive. They understand that hosting the heavy data usage requirements associated with AEC and other design markets on the cloud is like sucking the ocean through a straw.

Ask any cryptocurrency miner: building out a decent localized data center to process and host server data is relatively cheap and has been done well for a long time now. There are plenty of specialized server tools which can really accelerate data-crunching roles. Just like the Bitcoin guys, one can easily envision BIM-centric ASICs [application specific integrated circuits] built by Intel, nVidia, AMD, and so on.

The benefits of getting rid of files are many, but one that never gets talked about is simple data assurance. Solutions like Microsoft Exchange are transactional in nature. As you make changes at the client end, those transactions are recorded, registered, and threaded at the server to be merged into the central database as load allows.

Databases are constantly fed, maintained, and cleaned by the server. If a server or client crashes, the database transaction logs are simply played back to make the database whole again. Apply this concept to any Autodesk solution: you don’t have to save “files,” because the changes are always being recorded and committed. You never have to worry about having an app crash and losing potentially hours of work. This, after all, is Autodesk, so app crashes will still happen, they will just be a lot more benign.

But more importantly, client apps are decoupled from the data itself, so innovative apps on any platform can present data in various ways and provide specialized clarity. Or course, the data can always be exported to old-skool files for those still living in the 18th century.

To everyone who says, “Even though Autodesk isn’t using files, they’re still using files!” it’s time to grow up. Of course, as with email, you still have files that are created, consumed, and leveraged by the database. The difference is that you don’t have to worry about where they physically are, or whether IT has installed the correct client software (and version!) to interact with them, permissions, corruption, etc. They simply live within the database and are fed to the client(s) as required.

The nice thing is that multiple people can now interact with these beloved “files” at the same time, thus improving collaboration. They are stored only once, instead of having disparate copies strewn about the Wild West that is the dozens of workstation silos that stretch across your organization. Which do not get backed up.
            - Matt Stachoni

 

Re: What BricsCAD Offers MCAD Users

You state that a user needs a BricsCAD Pro version first and only then they can buy a BIM or a Mechanical “module.” This is incorrect. BricsCAD Mechanical can be bought stand-alone. In fact the verticals BIM and Mechanical can be bought as stand alone, see bricsys.com/en-intl/store/bricscad.

Only Communicator requires a BricsCAD license as this is an add-on.
            -Sander Scheiris, global marketing director
            Bricsys

 

Re: Why Apple is taking on Facebook

I have always disliked Apple with its exclusive environment and very pricey products, but when it came to migrate from my Blackberry Z10 (which is still working as a second phone line!) I chose Apple over Android simply because of Apple’s commitment to privacy and vetted apps vs. Google’s data-sucking industrial soul.
            - Dairobi Paul (via WorldCAD Access)

 

Spin Doctor of the Moment

“Together, we expect these actions will help us to optimize the business by reducing the number of unprofitable customers.”
- Enrique Lores, ceo, HP

 

Thank You, Readers

Thank you to readers who donate towards the operation of upFront.eZine:

  • R&B (Models) Ltd., Israel: “Thanks for the weekly updates.”

To support upFront.eZine through PayPal.me, then I suggest the following amounts:

Should Paypal.me not operate in your country, go to www.paypal.com and then use the account of grabowski@telus.net.

Or mail a cheque (US$ or CDN$ only, please) to upFront.eZine Publishing, Ltd., 34486 Donlyn Avenue, Abbotsford BC, V2S 4W7, Canada.

*4758

 

 

 

Posted at 07:00 AM in Interviews, Q&A | | Comments (0)

« Newer | Older »

Advertisements


Search This Blog


  •  

Recent Comments

Translate

Subscribe to this blog's feed

About

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

Thank you for visiting!