Archive for the ‘Digital Prototyping’ Category

« Older Entries

Kenesto: What is it?

December 18, 2011

18 Dec 2011:  Just a few weeks ago Mike Payne, one of the founders of PTC, SolidWorks, and SpaceClaim, noted on his LinkedIn page that he was un-retired. I found this exciting enough to reach out to Mike to find out about his new company. As a result Mike Payne, Kenesto CEO since March of this year, hosted me earlier this week at their offices in Waltham, MA. He and some of his staff filled me in about the product and where it’s heading.

Basically, the product is the antithesis of Payne’s formerly complex products in the CAD arena. Aimed at the category called business process automation, this cloud-based application allows asynchronous spawning of processes. Different from similar systems that try to model processes, Kenesto builds processes on the fly. Users wanting to track a process they are initiating, for instance an ECO, initiate a process, attach documents to it, and add users to the next process by adding their email addresses. Different types of “next processes” can be defined, such as “review and approve.” At each step in the process the recipient can add additional processes that add steps to the overall process. Kenesto builds the process diagram as steps are added. Note that this differs significantly from the BPM (Business Process Modeling) approach that models processes using a cumbersome programmatic approach. Kenesto calls it Business Process Automation (BPA).

We spent a fair amount of time discussing security and about control of attached documents. Jerry Meyer, Kenesto’s chief product officer, explained that most documents  (CAD images, docs, pdf’s or other related files) could be made view only, limiting the need for most security. In addition, Meyer and Payne both emphasized that ideally Kenesto would point back to the primary data vault, which provides primary security for collaborative data sharing. Users would most likely, if needed, upload to Kenesto more concise files, such as JT.

Each user of the process can examine all of the process steps, and see who did what and the entire process status. Processes can complete, but are left in the system for inspection and review. This brings up many possibilities of additional value. Different than is done in most cases today, each Kenesto process contains value in that the steps are recorded as to who did what, when it was done, and the reasons for certain decisions. Imagine, as might be the case for an FEA analysis of a product during the design cycle, if you could record the various simulation alternatives and capture the alternative finally selected and the reasoning behind it. IMHO, this might be easier than the complex simulation capture and record systems being proposed by many CAE systems such as Simulia and Siemens’ PLM Software.

Product status: Kenesto is approaching their first Beta and will use this to refine their product and its UI. Right now the user interface appears to be very simple. Being cloud based, and storing little or no CAD data, implementation involves signing up for the product and picking some areas to begin using the system. Ideal areas would be those that require tracking of the process status.

Pricing is not yet available. Payne described that the company is searching for a pricing schema that encourages the use of the system rather than the alternative. Kenesto is building up its staff. Currently the company is small, with development in Israel.

I like the approach. Clearly the system is evolving rapidly. Not too different than Autodesk’s 360 Nexus approach, the idea of fitting in to the way organizations work rather than forcing each company into using “best practices” should simplify implementations. Most importantly, Kenesto enables tracking the flow of information across organizational boundaries and can insure that critical design and review steps are not lost in the day-to-day miasma of paperwork and deadlines.

You can find put a bit more at www.kenesto.com and download a paper describing generally describing the product.

——

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry | 3 Comments »

Autodesk 360 and Nexus – PLM 1.0: not perfect – but a great start

December 2, 2011

3 Dec 2011: Errata. I was incorrect in stating that Buzzsaw was a local PDM vault for AEC/BIM. Several people have written me about this, one being Stephen Bodnar of Autodesk. Bodnar stated that “Vault is the on-premise DM solution for both industries, whereas Buzzsaw is cloud-based and is also built on Autodesk’s Cloud, and is intended for design file collaboration between partners/suppliers and other users and does, in fact, have bi-directional push/synchronization with Vault)”

1 Dec 2011: I am on my way back from Las Vegas, where AU 2011 was held. The highlight of the event, at least for me, was the announcement of what I am calling Autodesk PLM 1.0. The announcement was not a well-kept secret, but the content of the announcement was closely held.

Monday’s media day preceded the conference. The actual PLM announcement came late Tuesday morning. Carl Bass retracted his oft quoted remark about PLM not being something customers worried about; instead, it was revised to mean “until the technology was right.” I couldn’t agree more with his reasoning. Most of Autodesk’s competitors PLM systems offer expensive, difficult to use, and almost impossible to install PLM systems, that rarely have met expectations. Even then, it is often at the cost of massive consulting assistance, rarely meeting anticipated timeframes, AND generally involves the implementation of substantially revised business processes.

Different than my analyst peers I have always been skeptical of such large and costly projects. Not being on the implementation side, I could afford to be skeptical. Many such projects, aside from basic PDM, seldom actually get implemented. Most stall. Autodesk estimates that most deliver only PDM. To test this thesis, I tweeted my followers and asked what they had accomplished. With just a few responses, this is hardly scientific. Several stated that did not yet have even PDM fully implemented!

So what was actually announced? The system is being called Autodesk 360. It is based on having locally installed PDM. For mechanical and for AEC this is Vault. Buzzsaw, a cloud based application provides design file collaboration for AEC teams. The third, and new software piece is called Nexus. The dictionary describes the word nexus as a “connector.,” and is a good description of what the software aims to do. In the following discussion I concentrate solely on mechanical PLM. For information on Buzzsaw and how it uses Nexus readers will have to go elsewhere. Try here.

Nexus is cloud based, and comes with 140 or apps. Each app looks like a series of specialized templates, along with customizable (by the user) workflow logic. Delivery is expected by the end of March 2012. No pricing was announced, however, the implications were that it would be modest. It will be sold on a per user subscription basis. All Nexus data and apps will be run in the cloud, using an ordinary browser. The mass of data will remain locally hosted using Vault. Having and maintaining Vault locally solves the issue of loading very large cloud based data while still maintaing some degree of interactivity.

How will it interface with Vault and other PDM systems? Very well with Vault. No connectors were announced to integrate with other PDM systems. Autodesk hinted that this is a good opportunity for third party developers and VARs. Connections with Nexus could be implemented via as yet unannounced APIs.

Today, the connection between Vault and Nexus is one way. CAD data cannot be sent from Nexus to Vault. Nor is it synchronized among Vaults, as is done among Apple’s iCloud apps. However, Vault data is automatically synced up to Nexus. Expect bi-directional sync in the future.

Is it easy to install and operate?

Keep in mind that my total exposure to Autodesk 360 Nexus comes from a 30 minute, main stage presentation, followed by a 60 minute working session where about 20 people per workstation watched a very capable Autodesk developer demo and responded to questions, often by showing us how Nexus would solve the proposed question.

Nexus appears to be an out of the box system. Nexus comes with predefined templates and workflows. Yet they can easily be added to and/or modified. Fields within templates (apps) can be defined on the fly and their characteristics (such as numeric, values, dates, etc.) as well. A Visio like graphic interface defines workflows. Many are offered in the starter system. A typical administration system allows assigning users to tasks and roles. Somehow, data fields can be interconnected, allowing visibility to see what drives or is driven by what.

So. There you have it. I imagine Autodesk will soon, if not already, have many seminars and pre-recorded AVI’s showing the software. Try here: http://usa.autodesk.com/360-lifecycle-management-software/

My conclusions

I think the product is outstanding. Being cloud based resolves many operating issues. Some users might question the security aspects of hosting much of the data remotely, and would do well to satisfy themselves that either this is not an issue, or otherwise. I think, that perhaps except for very special circumstances, the cloud-based security might even be vastly superior to what they could do locally. I think this is a non-issue.

Cost wise, I think this will prove to be much less expensive, long term, than most of today’s solutions. Again, this is a non-issue. Just take a look at the slide Stephen Bodnar of Autodesk, VP of Data Management, presented below that compares some costs for a 200 user deployment.

For collaboration, data can be uploaded, either in summary format, or detailed CAD files. Nexus has controls over what user sees what data.

Included are project management capabilities that allow rolling up from completed sub-tasks automatically. Defining projects involves defining sub-projects with easily configurable tasks and reporting procedures. If you have already implemented workflow as part of Vault, then is should be redone using Nexus. It allows more flexibility and better visibility.

If you want visibility by projects, by project managers and contributors, with flexibility to change workflows and processes to meet how you do business, it’s all there. My only question is how soon can I get it?

Ray with his skeptical face during AU2011 —-

—-

Here are a few slides from the presentation to give you an idea of what Autodesk presented. Sorry for the quality – I used my phone.

The overall concept of Autodesk 360.

Stephen Bodnar discussing their view of PLM:

Why is it called 360? Showing how the Vault and Buzzsaw make up local PDM systems:

Brenda Discher discussing why users don’t like competitive PDM systems.

What Autodesk is doing about it with Nexus.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, New Technologies, PLM Industry | 2 Comments »

Siemens NX CAE Symposium: Users show their love

November 27, 2011

27 Nov 2011: The week before last I attended an invitation only event in Charlotte, NC, as a guest of Siemens at their first NX CAE Symposium. Designed as a way for users to get together to exchange ideas about how they use NX CAE software, some 80 customers attended the symposium, held at the Joe Gibbs Racing Facility just outside Charlotte.

The overall consensus of the presenters and the attendees I spoke with was satisfaction with the NX CAE suite. Many complimented the breadth of the CAE software, some of which I summarize below. Overall users were most satisfied because of the inherent associativity of CAE models with design models.

Several users told stories about how, in the past, they were asked by the design team to evaluate designs and get back to them. Even with an integrated system, the CAE analysts often spend substantial amounts of time simplifying models, insuring that the mesh is adequate for an accurate design, performing a series of analyses, and making recommendations to the design team, only to find that the design team has moved way beyond the design they were working on. Thus their work had to be scrapped. NX’s CAE and design integrations allow analysts to work on the design model, thus having a better ability to stay synchronized with the design team.

Also, NX seems to play well with external solvers, often integrating them tightly into the design stream workflow. Among these were Ansys solvers as well as specialized fluids solvers, such as those from MAYA.

My reactions:
Siemens PLM Software has a well-focused and wide breadth of solutions for heavy-duty CAE experts. Jon Heidorn, Siemens PLM Software (SPLMS) Vice President welcomed the attendees, stressing that simulation is one of their fastest growing markets, encompassing integrated modeling and solutions, system level modeling, multi-discipline simulation and optimization, and the intensely complex simulation data and process management. Beyond 2010 Heidorn predicted software would be available that would perform topology optimization. SPLMS also announced that their partnership with Joe Gibbs Racing was extended to 2016.

Mark Bringle and Nelson Cosgrove of Joe Gibbs Racing discussed their facility and their focus on engineering. Building their cars from scratch, and their engines almost from scratch, but carefully following NASCAR rules for each car, provides an impetus to carefully hone each major subsystem for optimal performance. Fascinatingly, their design cycle during racing season is one week! The three main groups include chassis and vehicle dynamics, aerodynamics, and powertrain. The latest version of NX allows for full chassis FEA modeling. With NASCAR demanding similar car frames and engine performance, their engineers carefully analyze every part to improve weight and aero performance so they can achieve even small advantages over their competition.

Jim Rusk of Siemens PLM Software discussed the latest trends in product development with NX CAE Simulation. He highlighted a few concepts they are working on sand delivering to make it easier than ever. Among these are Synchronous Technology for the CA analyst which makes for easier simplification, workflows for the advanced analyst, continuing improvements in multi-discipline analysis, motion analysis for flexible bodies like springs, multi-solver support, topology optimizations, and HD3D requirements management and validation.

ATK Aerospace, MDA of Canada, and JPL, Proctor and Gamble, and Solar Technologies spoke about their analyses ranging from rocket design to cryo engineering of spacecraft to making 1 million paper diapers to designing complex solar collectors.

Hendrick Motorsports’, Charles Macdonald, discussed detailed part analysis and the tradeoffs they make for lighter, yet strong and most of all highly serviceable parts of a suspension.

Kendra Short, of JPL and the mechanical manager of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), successfully launched just two days ago, spoke eloquently about how having a sophisticated analysis system working directly on the design model enable them to perform many more complex analyses than would have been possible without simulation done directly on the design models. Without the ability to service the MSL (it’s a long trip to Mars), Ms. Short chatted about the enormous planning that goes into having multiple alternatives in the event of a failure. I found fascinating during a break discussion about how the MSL is to be deployed to the surface using a tether. No backup here, just reliable explosive bolts.

One of the symposiums objectives was to have users exchange ideas about how they use simulation. This seemed to be more than fulfilled. If you have a chance to attend the next symposium, don’t miss it.

Disclosure: Siemens paid for my travel expenses to attend the event.
—

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, PLM Industry | 1 Comment »

Autodesk Takes Simulation Mobile with New ForceEffect App for iPad

November 27, 2011

If you have not yet had a chance to see how Autodesk ForceEffect works, visit http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4F9264A84AD2085B for a series of videos on how this 2D force simulation app works.

Autodesk ForceEffect, a new mobile simulation app for iPad allows engineers to quickly and easily simulate design options during the conceptual phase, and is now available on the App store. Autodesk, as it has done with other iPad apps, offers Autodesk ForceEffect for free.

ForceEffect provides an easy to use environment for drawing, constraining and simulating concepts using free body diagrams by tapping objects to select, move, rotate and scale. Real time solving capabilities provide immediate feedback on the static stress performance of a design, enabling users to use engineering analysis in the field.

Users can send the geometry as DXF files, via email, for further analysis.

It’s not quite clear how or whether Autodesk plans to generate revenue from these free apps, yet their thinking is way out in front of their competitors in exploring new ways to use mobile computing and simultaneously explore potential uses of cloud technology. It’s refreshing that the company is forging ahead, exploring new ways of delivering software and testing the waters for new paradigms, both in software and pricing models.

—

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, New Technologies | 1 Comment »

Creo Freestyle exposes its shape

July 5, 2011

5 July 2011: Last week I had the chance to spend some web time with Paul Sagar, Director of Product Management at PTC. Paul is in charge of PTC’s surfacing and industrial design (ID) products. Paul’s background is in industrial design (ID) and design engineering in the UK and has spent about 11 years at PTC.

At PlanetPTC, Creo Freestyle was one of the many product announcements that struck me as fascinating. Just the idea of having incredible ID software as a freebie within Creo Parametric was one I wanted to explore further. After searching the PTC site for more detail with limited success, PTC’s VP and PR leader, Eric Snow, organized a web conference that “knocked my socks off!” You will see what I mean soon.

Immediate after my return from PlanetPTC I asked for a clarification as to precisely what Freestyle was and how it worked. Paul kindly responded with this piece of information -

  • “Freestyle is a new feature inside Creo Parametric that allows for rapid freeform surface creation. It is built upon the concept of subdivisional modeling.
  • The result of the Freestyle feature is a quilt of surfaces. The resulting surfaces or quilt can be added to, just like any other surfaces, with tools such as trim, merge, round, etc, or even thicken or solidify to make the model solid.
  • When working with Freestyle you always have to start with a primitive shape. A gallery of primitives is available for you to choose from such as sphere, cylinder, circle, disc, etc.
  • You are always working and manipulating the control mesh that surrounds the primitive. The control mesh can be subdivided up to add more detail or control. Adding more details allows for more control over the shape.
  • The 3D dragger allows for quick and easy manipulation of the control mesh and consequently the resulting geometry shape. The resulting geometry is high quality, curvature continuous, manufacturable surfaces.”

Here is what I wanted to find out about on the call:

  • What it does and what it cannot do,
  • Where it fits competitively,
  • How does it compare to a full ID system,
  • How the designs get started and how they are stored within Creo, and
  • What is sub divisional modeling?

Paul explained that Freestyle is a new freeform surface modeling capability added into Creo Parametric. Called a super feature within the model tree, Freestyle appears as a single feature with the tree. It’s almost like a modeling environment within a feature. It’s a simple and easy tool use, and is designed to be intuitive, interactive and quick. Targeted to industrial designers who want a tool to conceptualize but are not interested in the methodology of building surfaces, which has traditionally been done by building curves and surfaces from those curves. Modifications are made to the surfaces by going back and manipulating the curves. Instead Freestyle is designed to just deal directly with the shape. Thus users can concentrate on the form rather than what’s behind the form.

See the video of the bottle design that Paul downloaded.

The resulting surfaces generated by Freestyle are of high quality. You can take them directly to manufacturing. They can be thickened and brought directly into Creo Parametric as solids. They can be acted on as a normal solid with all solid modeling features, for instance, by adding ribs and bosses and holes. It can be brought directly into machining.

Surface manipulation. Can you control how the resultant surfaces by, for instance, controlling tangencies or other typical surface controls? His comment: “No. That is not how sub-divisional modeling works. It does not use normal surface patching techniques.”

A design starts with a primitive. Each primitive comes with a control mesh.

Creo Freestyle Primitives

Each mesh has edges, vertices, and faces. You can push or pull on them, or you can subdivide it. For instance, you can chose and edge and “split this edge,” and Freestyle will add more controls on that edge. The more controls, the more flexibility to manipulate the surface.

Each face of the control mesh corresponds to an actual patch in the resulting geom. that is created. Each patch is curvature continuous, resulting in a smooth model. Surfaces are G2 continuous, with some exceptions.

In the movie file of the bottle design, you should be able to see the design being developed. Unfortunately there is no audio file describing the workflow, but I am sure our readers can follow the concepts of Freestyle from watching the movie. Note that the design starts by building a solid model from a scanned sketch.

A sketch of the bottle

Trace Sketch allows importing the image and manipulates it, such as for fit or scaling, the objective being to use the image as an underlay for the design. A sphere is used to start designing the solid model using Freestyle. Special features during the process such as “connect” joins two faces together for completing the handle. Other operations such as a crease can generate either a hard or soft edge. Also note that Creo does not capture the history of the Freestyle design; only as a single Freestyle feature.

The 3D model of the bottle

Other sub-divisional modelers like Maya and 3D Studio Max, use sub-divisional modeling, but none of these modelers create NURBS surfaces — Creo Freestyle does. It creates regular Creo Parametric surfaces. Similar capabilities to Freestyle exist in Rhino’s T-Spline models and CATIA’s Imagine and Shape.

Conclusions:

  • You can build geometry very quickly with Freestyle.
  • It’s full integration with Creo Parametric integrates Freestyle design into the traditional design workflow.
  • It has only a few commands and should be relatively quick to learn.
  • The resulting geometry is of high quality and thus not throwaway work.
  • The resulting surface geometry can be operated on directly using Creo Parametric surface commands or converted directly to a solid and manipulated with traditional Creo Parametric commands.
  • With Freestyle free and relatively easy to learn, we recommend that users who do any industrial design begin using Freestyle right away.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry | 1 Comment »

Notes from Siemens PLM Connection 2011

May 24, 2011

A few weeks ago I attended the Siemens PLM Connection 2011 conference in Las Vegas. Since returning I have been busy with all kinds of matters, but I wanted to get some of my thoughts on the conference to you, my readers. Siemens promised me copies of the slide presentations, which I have recently received. As any of you who have attended similar conferences, the slides go by so fast that there is little time to write the key points down.

Arriving at the hotel on Sunday, May 1st, the event started with a small cocktail party of the media with some Siemens executives. I had a chance to meet with a briefly speak with some executives before going to my room exhausted from traveling and standing on my feet for three hours. Among the execs I had a chance to speak with were Eric Sterling, Dave Shook, Kris Kasprzak, Tony Affuso, and Dan Staples. The mood was decidedly upbeat and all were excited about their performance the previous year and so far in 2011. I was unable to get specific details, as is Siemens’ custom.

At the kickoff keynote the next morning Dave Shook, Sr. VP Americas, opened the session and introduced keynote speakers from Microsoft and IBM. These were the usual pitches from cooperating vendors. Instead both companies discussed interesting technology challenges; Microsoft discussing how unstructured data can be managed, and IBM discussing the challenge of hyper digitization and the need to close an innovation gap with the velocity of change accelerating.

Tony Affuso, Chairman of Siemens PLM followed with highlights of the company’s year. Basically Siemens PLM is on track after five quarters of growth, now with 68,500 customers, 7.2 million seats, and double-digit license revenue growth. This compares to Dassault Systemes (DS) real growth last year of 7%, less the temporary revenue bump from the IBM PLM acquisition. The company has a good backlog and is executing across the board and winning substantial accounts. Following Tony was Claus Oesterschulze, describing Siemens extensive effort to internalize the use of their own software (NX, Teamcenter, and associated apps). No easy task, as in most customers, organizational changes are required along with process changes. Convinced that “IT is a big lever for business” Siemens is aggressively moving ahead and focusing on how to manage complexity. Below are a few slide from the Oesterschulze presentation.

 

Later in the morning Chuck Grindstaff, President and CTO of Siemens PLM Software presented his “technology vision.” He viewed where they are today in fully integrating Teamcenter across an enterprise to fulfill its PLM needs: view models fully and anywhere, check a model against its requirements and be able to trace these on the products; review and initiate simulations against specs directly in the CAD environment and to ask highly complex questions; ability to optimize the design for performance including cost and sustainability; using Tecnomatix to insure that manufacturing has correct models, processes and allowable variations thus enabling what-if manufacturing studies. Thus his focus on a fully integrated system, much of which is already in place today, with more coming shortly, as evidenced by the NX, Teamcenter, and Tecnomatix presentation we saw later in the week. Grindstaff feels they are far ahead of their competitors and that customers can now see that. A strong point in his direction is the ability to implement continuous changes in the product rather that the discontinuous changes that the competition [Dassault Systemes] makes. An interesting point about his thinking was his comment that “If we [Siemens PLM] can formulate the value proposition correctly then customers will listen.” His key investment areas are in intelligently integrated information, continuing their future proof architecture using SOA and XML that isolates and allows ready integration of new software, expanding their TC HD experience, systems engineering expansion, integration of domains such as MCAD, ECAD, software, plants, etc. and continued openness.

Joan Hirsch, VP of NX Products, and Paul brown, et al reviewed their thinking about the future of NX. Some of their goals include: building an effortless UI, improving complex product visibility by allowing viewing of multiple data sources and using HD3D visual reporting, integrating multiple design disciplines together, allowing front loading of best practices and knowledge, and requirements management and validation. The chart below summaries much of what they discussed.

What I found most impressive was their emphasis on non-disruptive improvements and Siemens focus on using making HD3D easy to use to “bring to life” the enormous reserves of data stored within TC. This is their 4th release of synchronous technology (ST) within NX and strides continue to be made in its use, some of which I hope to explore in more detail in an upcoming report.

Later Steve Bashada, VP of Teamcenter Products and Bill Boswell, Director, gave a Teamcenter update. New versions are due next February, with a “more visionary” version due next September 2012. Bashada viewed their key investment areas as the following: systems engineering, corporate social networks, cacheless search, massive model viewing, HD-PLM extensions, and thin client access. A Teamcenter mobility app for the iPad was announced. I downloaded it, but have yet to try it out, because I need to sign into their TC central demo app and database. I may report on this later. Think it’s complicated? Take a look at their portfolio list below.

Getting tired from furiously scribbling notes, I then attended a Velocity business update starring Karsten Newbury, SVP and GM of the unit. Newbury discussed their business momentum, noting that in 2010, their growth in licenses was 30%, with Solid Edge (SE) accounting for 50% of that. He is investing in an expanded presence by adding resources [people], channel enablement [his words], and a focus on community for a bigger academic presence and mode direct feedback events. ST3 was well received due to its ability to support both ordered and synchronous approaches.

Mario Joyal, of Matritech, a small company in Quebec, described his results using SE with ST3. A recent design took 50% less time and other users found it easy to use. Kris Kasprzak, product manager for SE, described ST4 which is due to release on June 15. We are allowed to discuss some info about the upcoming release of ST4. New tools and functions coming include those for: advanced machine design, expanded collaboration, simulation for sheet metal, and improvements to their already impressive drafting.

After a delightful dinner and cocktails for the press and analysts Monday evening on the top floor of the Rio hotel, we finally ended the day.

On Tuesday we heard a digital manufacturing (DM) strategy update from Ziyon Amran, VP of digital manufacturing software, followed by an amazing presentation by Gene Coffman of how Ford performs virtual manufacturing. Siemens still leads the industry in revenue by a wide margin, as shown in this chart.

Key manufacturing technology domains include assembly planning and validation, robotics and automation planning, part manufacturing, and plant design and optimization. Amran discussed many of the new capabilities in each of these areas. Amran summarized what Tecnomatix offers their customers

  1. Breadth and depth of offering addressing all DM functional Areas
  2. Focused industry and domain Solutions
  3. Integrated Knowledge Management through single source of Product & Manufacturing data as part of the Teamcenter PLM platform
  4. Advanced technologies for Machining, Robotics and Human Simulation and for Enterprise Process Authoring

Coffman’s presentation focused on how Ford makes virtual manufacturing work at Ford (it isn’t easy) and how it contributes to Ford’s profitability and design to manufacturing cycle reduction. Here is one example of the continuing benefits shown by Coffman.

And finally, to wrap things up I met with Al Hufstetler, VP Quality Planning and Validation, who took me to task on a comment I made in my blog about the DS acquisition of Intercim. I stated that “In shop floor analytics DS now has the edge.” Hufstetler pointed out that Intercim’s solution uses analytics to isolate issues, whereas, Siemens solution uses a better solution, a feedback system that not only can detect quality issues, but can actively correct them. For more details on this, contact Siemens PLM Software.

www.siemens.com/PLM

Disclosure: Siemens paid for my hotel and conference admission. TechniCom paid my other travel expenses.
—

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry | Leave a Comment »

About Autodesk’s Eco Materials Advisor

May 20, 2011

Eco Materials Advisor (EMA) was announced On March 22, 2011 along with the announcement of Autodesk’s 2012 Manufacturing Software Portfolio. Two days ago I had a chance to meet with Sarah Krasley, the Autodesk Product Manager for EMA in lovely downtown New York.

During the 45 minutes we were together Sarah reviewed what the EMA product does, its cost, and the benefits to its users.

As opposed to SolidWorks Sustainability Xpress, which is oriented towards a more macro like ability, EMA focuses primarily on the materials used in the product and is designed to be used in the early stages of design.

Using Eco Materials Adviser, a designer can quickly generate an eco impact analysis for a product part or assembly within Autodesk Inventor software. An easy-to-read dashboard display shows key indicators such as energy usage, CO2 footprint, water usage, and materials cost. The user can interactively explore the effect of changes in the materials choice or design of their digital prototype. The tool is powered by Granta Design’s (http://www.grantadesign.com/) expert materials database and proven sustainable design methodology. With Eco Materials Adviser, designers and engineers can:

  • Address environmental requirements early in the design process – when changes matter most and cost least
  • Access a practical eco design tool that does not require the user to develop expertise in sustainability, or to hunt for the right eco data
  • Design more sustainable, cost-effective, and durable products
  • Clearly communicate the benefits of enhanced materials selections

This looks like a terrific product and is integrated with all versions of Autodesk Inventor at no extra cost. Any Inventor user can access it via the Environments tab. The Base Version delivers the full Eco Materials Adviser functionality, but uses a starter version of the materials database. So far all of the core Inventor material library has been mapped. The eco impact analysis in the Base Version operates only on the first twenty parts in an assembly. The Full Version will be available for download from the Granta website – release date to be announced in the next few months. This will provide a choice of many more materials and remove the limit on the number of parts in the Inventor model.

Tags:, ,
Posted in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, PLM Industry | Leave a Comment »

TechniCom test-Part 8 shows how Inventor and SolidWorks compare for Mechatronics

March 10, 2011

Mechatronics

This blog series and the tests reported herein is designed to show some of the key differences between Autodesk Inventor Professional 2011 and SolidWorks Premium 2011 for digital prototyping workflows. This final part of our 8 part blog series examines Mechatronics – the ability to perform cable and harness design in an existing design from an imported electrical wiring diagram.

We test the ability of the mechanical CAD system (MCAD) to leverage data from an electrical CAD system (ECAD). The ECAD system specifies the appropriate connectors, wires, and their connection points while the MCAD system specifies the physical location of those wires and connectors within a product.

Electrical schematic to be imported into mechanical assembly on the right

Autodesk supplied an Inventor video of their solution, a net list in Excel format, a STEP file of the enclosure assembly, and a schematic drawing (.dwg) of the connections.

What’s Important in Mechatronics Design

  • Leverage the data stored in schematic drawing files to design wire harnesses in the mechanical system. Such data can be stored exported from an electrical design file using various techniques. At its most basic, the electrical design software sends a net list to the mechanical package containing connector information for each wire, wire types, and a list of pin-to-pin connections.
  • Generate correct wire lengths
  • Generate output to enable manufacturing of the wire harness
  • Not tested were two-way associativity between the electrical and mechanical software, nor were any tests designed to simulate electromechanical interconnections such as activating switches or sensors based on mechanical actions.

Autodesk supplied us with an Inventor video of their solution, a net list in Excel format, a STEP file of the enclosure assembly, and a schematic drawing (.dwg) of the connections.

What we found out

The two software packages (Inventor and SolidWorks) are comparable. Inventor has a tight connection to AutoCAD Electrical with the xml file transfer. SolidWorks has similar tight coupling with some third party software such as Zuken’s E3. Both systems use added cost electrical software to generate the net-list. SolidWorks was not able to read the AutoCAD Electrical generated xml list, and instead used an Excel file with similar data that needed manual cleanup in Excel.

It appears that there are a few more interactions with SolidWorks, but this may be due to the operator-preferred method. Both systems effectively produced the required output. There appears to be no real operational advantage to either package when used with tightly integrated electrical schematics software. Since AutoCAD Electrical is one of the most widely used electrical schematic packages, the advantage goes to Inventor.

Observations

For this test, on the AutoCAD side, AutoCAD Electrical exports an XML file to Inventor. Inventor reads this file and generates the 3D wiring and, under user control, assigns wires to cables. It can then generates wire lengths, a flat wire harness diagram and a pin board for manufacturing.

Inventor opens the 3D model and then the xml file of the net-list from AutoCAD Electrical. This designates the pin-to-pin connections where the wires are to be placed. Different than SolidWorks, the Inventor user placed the harnesses in anticipation of the wiring to be imported. The wire import could also have been done first, as seen in the SolidWorks video. The names of the connectors and the number of pins on each connector are stored in coordinated libraries in both the electrical and mechanical systems.

Importing the wires in Inventor

Importing the wires in SolidWorks

After the import, the imported wires appear as direct point-to-point connections between the pins without using any harnesses. 19 wires were imported and identified as un-routed. Then Inventor asks for an auto-route of all un-routed wires. It then places all 19 wires into the predesigned harness, we guess by using closest entry and exit points. Then Inventor builds (and reports) a pin board payout of the harness showing the 3D derived wire lengths. The video below shows an Inventor user performing the test. 

SolidWorks takes a slightly different, albeit very similar approach. After importing the net-list, the operator builds a 3D representation of the harness and then places the wires into the harness, with the software computing the wire lengths. This took more manual interaction than the Inventor solution, but yielded the same end result. The video below shows a SolidWorks user performing the test. 

–

This is the final blog in this series. Users can review a summary of these tests, published as Part 1 of this series by clicking here. We have also published a pdf file of the complete report here. The pdf file does not contain any videos. To see them you have to revisit this blog series at raykurland.com.

About the author

Raymond Kurland is president of TechniCom Group LLC and its principal consultant and editor. His firm, founded in 1989, specializes in analyzing MCAD and PLM systems and has been involved in reviewing and comparing such software since 1987. Ray frequently consults with both vendors and users. Ray has degrees in Engineering from Rutgers University and from NYU. His career included stints with Bell Telephone Laboratories, IBM, and Dassault Systemes. Ray can be reached at rayk@technicom.com.

For more information about TechniCom Group and other software reviews please visit www.cad‑portal.com and Ray’s blog at www.raykurland.com. You can also follow Ray on twitter using the id technicom.

——

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry | 1 Comment »

TechniCom tests Part 7 reveal key differences between Inventor and SolidWorks Design Automation Solutions

March 8, 2011

Design Automation

Continuing on with part 7 of our 8 part blog series dedicated to showing the differences between Autodesk Inventor Professional 2011 and SolidWorks Premium 2011 for digital prototyping workflows, we examine the ability to automate the design process by automating the creation of drawings for part families, creation of parts from parameters, and creating copies of an assembly constrained along a variable path.

This test looks at simplified automation examples, yet it provides a glimpse of this capability in both products.

  • Create a simple piece of stock lumber (2×4 board) and examine how a user can make that same part file represent several variations of lumber that could be used in a project.
  • Automate the variation of individual drawing views, scales, and annotations.
  • Automate assembly variations that vary by size and position.

Autodesk provided us with three movies showing Inventor completing the tasks. They also provided three STEP files of the frame, the assembly, and the curves to follow for the frame assembly resizing.

Key differences you will see in this test

SolidWorks has some of the same capabilities built into the core modeling system and by using DriveWorks Xpress, a 3rd party add-in delivered with SolidWorks. It can handle configuring a part when placed into an assembly, but updating it in the part model on the fly is not possible. It was able to create the multiple configurations of an assembly – although it required more steps than Inventor to achieve the same solution. SolidWorks Premium was unable to automate the creation of drawings for part families, which requires users to go through the manual process of creating a drawing for each instance of the family. SolidWorks’ third party partner, DriveWorks, offers software that can perform this process, although at additional cost. The no-charge version was not able to control the final drawings, as desired. We did not evaluate DriveWorks, although the extra cost versions of DriveWorks Solo and DriveWorks Pro appear able to perform this task, again, at added cost.

Autodesk Inventor includes iLogic and iCopy technologies that use rules to control the parameters of the part, assembly, or drawing and these capabilities were used to complete this test. Inventor created the lumber workflow, the frame resizing and the drawing scaling without flaws.

What’s Important for Design Automation

  • Engineers can capture design intelligence by using rules to embed design intelligence into parts, assemblies, and even drawings
  • Such design intelligence, in the case where repetitive designs or portions of repetitive designs are used, can radically reduce design time and produce more repeatable results.
  • What techniques are used to build the design intelligence (often programmatic)
  • How easy is it used to create new designs once the rules have been built
  • How such design intelligence is accessible and how it can be maintained in the future

Observations

Autodesk Inventor includes iLogic and iCopy technologies that use rules to control the parameters of the part, assembly, or drawing. Inventor controls the parameters of a part through a single dialog box that updates the model on the fly. It is also able to automate the process of creating unique assembly configurations by modifying the parts and sub-assemblies automatically for the user. iLogic also can use rules to drive drawings – from view placement to scales and annotations – for a family of parts or assemblies, which can save significant amounts of time in large scale projects.

SolidWorks has some of the same capabilities built into the modeler. It can handle configuring a part when placed into an assembly, but updating it in the part model on the fly is not possible. It was also able to create the multiple configurations of an assembly – although it required more steps. Without using extra cost third party software, SolidWorks is unable to automate the creation of drawings for part families, which requires users to create a drawing for each instance of the family.

For the stock lumber workflow, both Inventor and SolidWorks were able to capture all the variations within a single part file.

A family of parts or assemblies also requires a family of drawings to document their design intent. Recreating essentially the same drawing, which only varies by a few critical dimensions wastes time and effort. Inventor allows the user to easily automate drawings using iLogic functionality. Inventor drawings can be set up to automatically vary view placement, scale, and annotations for a family of parts or assemblies. SolidWorks, without extra cost third party software, is unable to automate the creation of drawings for part families.

Creating copies of a frame along a path using Inventor

Creating copies of a frame along a path using SolidWorks

For the frame variation example, Inventor allows the user to automate complete assemblies that vary along specified paths. SolidWorks was able to manually model the frames along a path, but took substantially longer.

See how an Inventor user solved the problems in this 3 part video series:

6-1 INV Design Automation – Part Only

6-1 INV Design Automation – Part Only

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.
 
6-2 INV Design Automation – Assembly

6-2 INV Design Automation – Assembly

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.
 
6-3 INV Design Automation – Drawings

6-3 INV Design Automation – Drawings

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.

See how a SolidWorks user solved the problems in this 2 part video series – automating the drawing was unable to be done without additional cost software:

6-1 SW Part Only 2X4

6-1 SW Part Only 2X4

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.
 
6-2 SW Copy Assembly

6-2 SW Copy Assembly

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.

—-

The next, and final, blog in this series will examine Mechatronics – the ability to perform cable and harness design from an imported electrical wiring diagram. Stay tuned or sign up to be notified of my blog updates.

—-

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry | 3 Comments »

TechniCom tests Part 6 show why Inventor’s digital prototyping outshines SolidWorks in Interoperability

March 3, 2011

Interoperability and Direct Modeling

Continuing on with part 6 of our 8 part blog series dedicated to showing the differences between Autodesk Inventor Professional 2011 and SolidWorks Premium 2011 for digital prototyping workflows, we examine the ability to import MCAD models from CATIA and to perform direct edits on the imported geometry. Finally we take a drawing off the final model.

As in the other blogs in this series, this blog includes videos of both systems being used to perform the test.

To examine interoperability, we tested the capabilities of the software by importing a CATIA part, modifying the imported part, and creating and validating the accuracy of a DWG drawing of the part for communication with vendors.

View of the bell housing used in this exercise

Autodesk provided a video of Inventor accomplishing this test, a DWG drawing of the bell housing, the bell housing in CATIA format and the bell housing in IGES format.

Key differences you will see in this test

Autodesk Inventor is able to import and export most common CAD formats as well as neutral formats. Working with imported data uses the direct modeling tools found in Inventor Fusion Technology Preview to make changes. Creating a fully associative drawing in DWG format requires no additional effort since Inventor uses native DWG as the file type for drawings created from the 3D model.

SolidWorks can also import and export from a variety of CAD formats but has no support for CATIA files, which must be translated into a neutral file format introducing opportunity for errors. It also has tools for modifying geometry with several functions like feature recognition and move face. Lastly, DWG drawings are not associative to the 3D model and may require a significant amount of time and effort to clean up translation errors prior to sending them to customers and vendors. In this test, the SolidWorks DWG associativity did not work, however, SolidWorks supported this capability in past releases. It did not work on TechniCom’s version of SW2011; it may work in other installations.

What’s Important in Interoperability

  • Directly reading the other systems data directly – in this case CATIA – rather than performing a multi-step and error prone process of intermediate data conversion.
  • Easily share design data with customers, vendors, suppliers, and other departments using different CAD systems.
  • Reading and writing native DWG files for production, and publishing designs in formats that customers can use in their own applications.

Observations

Importing CATIA Part

The desired result of this test was to import a CATIA V5 model into the software.

Autodesk Inventor read the CATIA data directly and was able to open the model with no issue.

SolidWorks was unable to read the model and requires a third party add-on at additional cost to import CATIA V5 models. To perform the later tests, an IGES format file was made available and was imported successfully. This is a major issue for automotive and aerospace suppliers and OEMs since there are many companies involved, many of which require data in native CATIA format! Oddly enough SolidWorks is owned by the same company as CATIA and yet cannot read the data directly.

Modifying Imported Geometry

This test examined the ability of each software system to make small modifications to the “dumb” solid created from the imported file.

Modifying the geometry in Inventor Fusion

Inventor made the necessary modifications using the free Inventor Fusion Technology Preview labs application. The changes were made successfully and then Change Manager was used to update the dumb solid in Inventor.

SolidWorks had no problem with the direct modification of the imported part. Feature recognition capabilities were used to modify the plates and the holes as required.

Modifying the geometry in SolidWorks

In this case it was easier than Inventor, which required back and forth interaction with Inventor Fusion.

Creating DWG Drawing

This test involved creating a drawing in DWG format, opening the DWG in a 2D viewer, and making a change to the 3D model and updating the DWG.

Measuring the resultant DWG created by Inventor

Measuring the resultant DWG created by SolidWorks

Note the incorrectly scaled dimension in the SolidWorks created drawing.

Inventor created the drawing in DWG format so no translation was required. The file was opened in AutoCAD and presented exactly as it was in Inventor. After making the change to the 3D model, the DWG version of the drawing updated automatically.

SolidWorks could create DWG files for export to vendors. It lacked the ability to be fully associative with the SolidWorks 3D model. Adding dimensions or taking measurements in the scaled view in the resulting DWG drawing were not scaled correctly with the view. In this case SolidWorks added a dimension that showed as 64mm instead of the correct 32mm.

See how the Inventor engineer performed the test: 

5-1 INV Interoperability

5-1 INV Interoperability

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.

See how our SolidWorks engineer performed the test: 

5-1 SW Interoperability

5-1 SW Interoperability

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.

—-

The next blog in this series will examine design automation and creating drawings from the resulting design. Stay tuned or sign up to be notified of my blog updates.

—-

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry | 3 Comments »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 400 other followers