Category Archives: Manufacturing industry

Notes from Siemens PLM Connection 2011

May 24, 2011 By in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

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.
—

Highlights from the Versata think3 conference call on 19May2011

May 22, 2011 By in 3D Design, CAD, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: , , 1 Comment

I listened in to the conference call held by Austin Scee of Versata think3. He was there to discuss Versata and the future of think3 on the conference call. Much of this was covered in his letter posted in my previous blog. Here are some of newest highlights:

  • Scee and his predecessor have spoken to more than 300 customers since last October. Their mission is for customer success.
  • He urged customers, if they are in a quandary as to who to pay for maintenance, to withhold payments until it is clear. Customers can still call Versata for service whether they have paid or not.
  • He further urged customers not to pay for any licenses other than those generated from Versata; otherwise “you are stealing from us.”
  • The company strategy is: Reset, Revitalize, Relaunch.
  • Versata has acquired 20 companies over the last 6 years, most of which were in distress. The first 100 days are the most difficult. [Ed. In this case we are way past the first 100 days!]
  • His strategy for the first 18 months is to focus on existing customers.
  • Scee unequivocally stated that Versata owns the IP and is asserting its rights in Italy and elsewhere. They bought the rights from think3, Inc., the US based company. Versata believes that the Italian court is using improper legal concepts; that an exclusive license (which they evidently purchased) is the same as an IP purchase.
  • An independent auditor was employed by Versata to evaluate the value of think3 before the acquisition. Versata spent millions of Euros on the IP. Versata paid twice what the auditor valued the company.
  • There are 15 global “success managers” to support customers [Ed. What we would call account managers.]
  • They are looking to improve the usability and speed of think3.
  • The company seeks CAD development expertise to “plug into the devFactory.”

Check out devFactory for yourself at www.devfactory.com. It’s pretty obscure what they do and there is nothing that indicates they are part of Versata.

You can check out the website at www.think3.versata.com. Oddly, the support site referenced contains nothing on think3. So far — much talk, but little action!

VX is back and better — as ZW3D!

May 12, 2011 By in 3D Design, CAD, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: , , 1 Comment

VX is now part of a Chinese company called ZWCAD Software Co. Ltd. All of the IP and the company were purchased last year.

Yesterday I had the chance for a 45 minute demo of their new software called ZW3D, 2011 version, available in 4 options: ZW3D for $2500 with 2D and 3D modeling and loads of import capability, ZW3D Professional adds mold and die capability, ZW3D Premium adds machining, and a 5 axis machining option. Prices range from $2500 to $12,000.

Bob Fischer, VP of Marketing, ran the demo and answered my numerous questions about the software and their new strategy. He explained that the former VX 20 man team located in what he called Space Coast, FL, was now buttressed by nearly 400 developers in China. The new offering as a result has been greatly enhanced, making it easier to use, using a feature tree based form of direct modeling, incorporating a workflow based machining method that recognizes and machines features (better than using templates), improvements to the mold and die applications, and the ability to manipulate and machine directly from STL or mesh scans.

Here is an example of direct modeling:

Asked about their differentiators, Fischer cited their ability to directly import a great variety of geometry sources, a built-in training system, an all-in-one package that can go from design to machining, and a single support organization that can handle design to machining questions. ZW3D uses the proprietary kernel developed by VX and since enhanced.

My take is that ZW3D is optimal as a point solution for machine and mold and die shops. The usability appears better but seems mired in the last generation, for the most part requiring icon pick from a large variety of icons, many with drop-downs. The exception is in direct modeling where picking directly on the geometry allows instant modifications.

The beta version is available to test at http://zw3d.zwcad.org/.

The think3 story keeps evolving –badly

May 8, 2011 By in 3D Design, CAD, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: , , 2 Comments

Just 4 days ago I tweeted that “think3 Italy and Versata are duking it out. Both claim IP ownership. See think3.com and think3.versata.com. Trying to speak with someone.”

Since then I have received a few email messages from Austin Scee, the new General manager of the think3 products Division of Versata, as well as a few messages from Silvano Joly, the prior marketing head of think3 who evidently still works for think3.

Apparently both are now claiming ownership of the intellectual property (IP). Versata claims to have purchased it from think3, Inc. the US parent company; think3 Italy, via the bankruptcy court also claims ownership of the IP and is attempting to restart the company. Joly wrote on 5 May that think3 is working hard on codes and licenses instead of making promises using e-mail. think3 is trying to recover and re-establish think3 and also considering partnerships and M&A alternatives.

Evidently Versata is moving ahead anyway. Here is what the latest missive from Versata received on 6 May says:

think3 and Versata Logo
Dear think3 Customers and Partners,
My name is Austin Scee, and I have recently been appointed as the General Manager of the think3 Products Division of Versata. I’m writing both to introduce myself and provide some clarity on the recent confusing series of events, including the bankruptcy proceeding with the Italian branch of think3.As I write this, I have just landed in Madrid to begin two weeks of on-site meetings with customers all over Europe. I am energized about what I am hearing from customers and about the future of the think3 products.

I look forward to sharing our vision of rebirth for think3 with as many of you as possible over the weeks to come. We will be having a webinar in both English and Italian on May 19 that will share our future vision for the think3 products with you and also provide you with the ability to ask questions. You can register for the English webinar here, and the Italian webinar here.

In the months since Versata acquired the software assets of think3, we have shipped four product releases (more than think3 had shipped in the prior two years), completely rebuilt the support organization around the world, improved support quality from a customer reported rating of 28% “excellent” to 75% “excellent”, and launched two exciting new programs - Platinum WOW Support & The “Stop The Shelfware” Promotion – that have been adopted by hundreds of customers.

Perhaps most exciting is our work on the new Enterprise versions of each of our major product suites – thinkDesign, thinkPLM, and thinkDesign PLM. The Enterprise versions will be a ground-up revamp of the products that will improve performance 10x, vastly enhance usability via new screen designs, improve quality, include native 64-bit support, better leverage the Cloud, and provide a strong foundation for future features that will make the think3 products world class leaders again. We are tentatively planning a first release of the Enterprise Edition as early as this summer.

There has also, unfortunately, been a great deal of confusion surrounding Versata’s acquisition of the think3 intellectual property assets and the recent bankruptcy proceedings of the think3 Italian Branch and subsidiary distribution entity. The truth is relatively straightforward. Versata purchased the software intellectual property assets from think3 Inc., the US-based parent company. Roughly two weeks ago, the Italian branch and subsidiary were placed into bankruptcy by a court in Bologna, Italy. Since being placed in bankruptcy, a local administrator was appointed to run the local Italian Branch and subsidiary distribution entity.

This administrator has since taken a number of steps that we believe to be damaging to think3 customers and which are not consistent with applicable law. He has seized the think3 website (our new website is available at think3.versata.com) and posted threatening messages. Contrary to what is claimed in these threatening messages, a local Italian administrator does not have the legal authority to “terminate” Versata’s ownership of the think3 products. Versata spent millions of Euros – well above market value according to independent auditors – to legally purchase these assets.

The priority of the administrator clearly is focused on protecting creditors, even at the expense of customers. Conversely, our focus is squarely on customer success – and Versata has the resources, assets, and capabilities to advance the product and support the customer base at levels that think3 could not before and certainly cannot today. We have also begun investing in CAD expertise, including an effort to hire noted industry leaders to join our team. We believe the future for think3 products is extremely bright. We ask you to give us a year to prove it to you.

We expect that the administrator in Italy may persist in issuing confusing or threatening communication. We will work to proactively address every misleading or inaccurate statement. And we promise to be completely authentic – you will hear the complete, unfiltered truth from us – none of the “legal speak” you get from the administrator. We also commit that we will be using every legal means at our disposal to aggressively protect your investment in the think3 technology.

Further – and most importantly – we commit to you that we will put your interests ahead of everything else. Every decision we make will be guided by our prevailing philosophy of 100% customer success. And you should feel free to email me directly if there is anything that we can do to increase your success with the think3 products or if you have any questions or concerns. Please email me directly at austin.scee@versata.com.
Warmest Regards,

Austin Scee
General Manager, think3 Division
Versata

Dassault Systemes discusses their Intercim acquisition

April 24, 2011 By in Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Recently I had a chance to speak with both Dassault Systemes (DS) and Intercim about the acquisition of Intercim by DS. On the call were Patrick Michel, Vice President, Solutions and Marketing, DELMIA and Romain LaVault, Vice President Strategic Development, Intercim.

About Intercim

Intercim provides software to help customers in advanced and highly regulated industries with real-time Manufacturing Operations Management (MOM) and Predictive Analytics for Discovery, Design, Manufacturing, and Operations. Intercim enables the supply network to better define manufacturing processes, execute shop orders, manage non-conformance and ensure quality. One of the benefits is that real-time control and intelligence on Manufacturing Operations helps Intercim customers achieve their Lean Manufacturing goals quicker and accelerate time-to-market.

Their software, the Pertinence Suite, provides manufacturing execution modules, manufacturing intelligence modules, and is already well integrated with CATIA and Delmia.

Background

In 2007, Intercim acquired Pertinence, a French company with technology for using real time production data to analyze potential quality issues. In 2009, Dassault Systèmes announced a minority position in Intercim LLC and in 2010 announced a global reseller agreement. The idea was to use the DELMIA – ENOVIA Manufacturing Hub or the DS V6 environment to deliver manufacturing process plans and work instructions to the shop floor via the Intercim Pertinence MES system.

Intercim is a US based company in Egan, MI, with French connections; revenue in the last fiscal year I estimate at between $7 – $10 million; DS is purchasing the company for 36.5 million USD. The company employs 70 people worldwide. Its customers include Boeing, BMW, Airbus, Ball Aerospace and Honeywell.

Details on the acquisition

Q. Why is DS making this acquisition?

A. To show our serious commitment in the Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) space. DS expects to integrate Intercim into the Delmia framework, possible for the creation of a Delmia Shop Floor module.

Q. What is the value in “closing the loop” between manufacturing planning and execution?

A: Faster turn around time in case of a problem and it improves the ability to work on and deliver engineering or manufacturing initiated changes.

Q: Give me some idea of the size of Intercim.

A: We have outstanding about 100,000 software licenses focused on the integration of PLM and Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES). We are widely used in the US, particularly within the aerospace industry. Only 10% of our target market are equipped with an MES system from any vendor, thus offering a huge market potential.

Q. How is the software used for regulatory compliance?

A. I can give you several examples. We are used for NASA’s space shuttle for the cargo tracking and have replaced mountains of paperwork. Obviously, for aerospace, individual part serial number control is required; Intercim software accomplished that. In the pharmaceutical industry, the process is important. Such items as temperature, time stamps for dating, operator and machine usage are important and can be captured and fed back to the engineering department as well. In the case of creating flu vaccines data can be read real time to enhance rapid build up of the vaccine. Many data points can be read with no need to wait for later batch analysis results.

Q. What about any potential existing OEM contracts?

A. Our only OEM arrangement is with DS.

Q Tell me about the analytics aspect of Intercim.

A. Analytics allows access to as built data for the PLM system. Decisions can be made as to whether the as-built is the same as the as-designed. Further, we can analyze the reasons for generating scrap and even to understand the commonality of scrap.

Q. Does DS envision major changes in the Intercim management?

A. No, the people in Intercim are very important to our plans and we hope for a high retention rate.

My take

This appears to be a natural extension of DS plans to extend Delmia throughout the enterprise. The two companies were already very close for the last several years and this fills a gap in shop floor control, as well as data analysis to predict potential quality problems. On the shop floor side, it brings DS closer to Siemens Tecnomatix offering, their archrival in aerospace and automotive companies. In shop floor analytics DS now has the edge.

I admit that I have been wrestling with the idea that shop floor control (SFC) is driven by a manufacturing production release system, namely material requirements planning (MRP) and ERP systems, which generate the manufacturing plans that SFC tracks. DS never likes not being in the driver’s seat. Could there be some exciting possibilities for this in the future? Hmmm. I doubt it, but one can never tell.

www.3ds.com

www.intercim.com

Fascinating: sneakers, welding, brittle analysis

April 15, 2011 By in Manufacturing industry, New Technologies Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Just browsing new product announcements today, and I discovered three that fascinated me. I think you will find them interesting also. They involve sneakers that feel and act like running in bare feet, a new method that GE is using to weld even thick metals in one pass, and the publication by an Alabama professor of a new math model for analyzing brittle Materials under High Speed Impact (especially useful for aircraft windows). Here are the links:

Reebok bare feeling sneakers: http://bit.ly/fANF0N

Sensor sneakers feel like bare feet

Brittle analysis: http://bit.ly/fAIoYK

GE welding: http://bit.ly/h1xghD

GEs Hybrid Laser Arc Welding (HLAW) System

GE’s HLAW system welding a steel pipe. At 20 kW, GE’s system is one of the largest HLAW facilities in North America. It wields enough power to weld steels nearly one-inch thick in a single pass versus the up to a half dozen passes required with current welding technologies.

I found the GE welding video at the link above to be particularly interesting.

—–

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

March 10, 2011 By in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: , , , , , , , 5 Comments

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.

——

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

March 8, 2011 By in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: , , , , , , 3 Comments

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.

—-

Ray Kurland interviews Blake Courter, co-founder of SpaceClaim, about the LG Electronics win

March 7, 2011 By in 3D Design, CAD, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: , , , , , 1 Comment

On 22 Feb 2011 SpaceClaim announced that LG Electronics “is optimizing their engineering processes by using SpaceClaim to modify and manipulate CAD models.” This piqued my interest because LG Electronics is one of the largest electronics consumer companies in the world. I immediately placed a call to Blake Courter, co-founder of SpaceClaim, to find out more details. I was warned by their PR firm that they could probably not discuss any more details about the win, but I went ahead with the interview anyway to get Courter’s opinion of what drove the win and where SpaceClaim is finding success.

Q. SpaceClaim seems to have invented, or at least popularized direct modeling. Now everyone is trying to get in the game.

A. SpaceClaim did not invent direct modeling. It predated feature based modeling. We just realized that if we were going to get the rest of the world using CAD, it was not going to be with feature based CAD. We recognized that there was a market for the right tools [direct modeling] for specific users in specific markets and that was the way to go.

Direct modeling is the right way for most of the world to do 3D. Clearly the vendors have bought into this. Every one has a direct modeling strategy.

It’s great for all users to have these capabilities that are much easier to use than a feature based CAD system. For engineers doing certain jobs that do not require a history based or feature based system, such as simulation, manufacturing, sales engineers doing bid modeling, we have the best tool for the job. Rational companies are using SpaceClaim because we figured out how to make the right tool for this class of users. We are looking forward to having the opportunity to have that conversation with more customers as more users are introduced to direct modeling technology. This will be great for us.

Q. Clearly the market is agreeing with you and the vendors as well, considering that they are all introducing products in this area. Why did LG select SpaceClaim and where in their business do they intend to use it?

A. Can’t speak to anything outside the details shown in the press release, but I understand that they are using it for general use cases around manufacturing model preparation and manufacturing engineering.

Q. Was it a reseller closing the sale? Why can you not discuss any more details?

A. It was a direct sale. LG only agreed to let SpaceClaim disclose what was stated in the release.

Q. What is their current CAD system?

A. They have a CAD system; I think they have several and obviously have had and used CAD systems for a long time. For certain use cases they claim that SpaceClaim is a better tool for the job.

Q. Do you foresee that after they manipulate the models they would be brought back into the CAD model?

A. I cannot speak about LG, but can discuss how in general how customers use SpaceClaim as compared to how they use a detailed design CAD system. In general we see two workflows. One is doing concept models up front of traditional CAD. This uses existing CAD data plus new requirements. Users would bring all this together to create a new design. This is hard using history based systems because feature based constraints limit design flexibility. In SpaceClaim it’s a piece of cake. Users can sketch in SpaceClaim’s 3D environment to get a clear idea of what the new design might look like. Then they will release the SpaceClaim model to detailed design to develop all of the final details using a feature based design system.

Q Do you expect that detailed CAD design might directly read the SpaceClaim model or remodel the design?

A. It depends on the use case. For example, if the new design is heavily based on an existing design, SpaceClaim provides what might be needed for redesign or remodel. It is up to the user to make that decision. Dumb solids (non history based) are not so dumb anymore. Many detailed CAD systems can use non-history based solids as a starting point, can recognize features, and can even directly edit these models within the CAD system. In addition, many companies now outsource detailed designs, and thus do not even work with the detailed CAD model. Thus SpaceClaim is easier to use in many cases.

Q. What was the size of the LG order? Was it sizeable or just a handful of seats?

A. I cannot comment, except to say that is was a decent sized order. Not just one seat. In general, companies that we do announce have done a pilot and plan to use it SpaceClaim substantially in the future. We are not claiming that such customers plan to replace all CAD; instead the seats are additive for new users. For manufacturing engineering, SpaceClaim is a better tool than a detailed CAD system.

There are a lot of big name companies that use SpaceClaim software and there is a consistent pattern of where they see SpaceClaim playing a role. The usage is a different model than the traditional CAD usage we are used to. I can point to Tyco as an example. Customers like this have done pilots and intend to deploy. We are seeing a different world than the tightly integrated CAD system world, where it is  difficult to send data from one system to the other. We saw a need for all users and their supply chain to use the same system. Not having a history based system enables easy transfer of models. Most users want to visualize models, take measurements, do some what-ifs, investigate alternate components, and change some variables in the design. Feature based models are not right because they do not allow these questions to easily be answered.

We are seeing SpaceClaim used for bid modeling by sales engineers, concept modeling, simulation both up front and used with existing CAD data, and to cleanup and prepare models for manufacturing and to create tooling. That is the kind of use our customers are making of SpaceClaim.

I think it’s pretty clear that SpaceClaim’s direct modeling tools are the best tools for these uses. It does not matter whose CAD tool is in use at a company. If you want all these other people to be empowered with 3D then SpaceClaim is the best application than any other and I would welcome the chance to prove it. We are showing it over and over again to many types of companies in industries as diverse as: automotive, aerospace, defense, consumer electronics, and medical devices.

Q. Can you tell me anything about the company today so I can share how fast SpaceClaim has grown?

A. In 2009 the business was 3.5X the size in 2008, and in 2010 it tripled again. We are hiring and there are lots of job openings. However, we are a private company and are unwilling to release number of seats or revenue.

Q How many people are in the company?

A. We have about 50 in total, including development and are hiring for Concord, MA as well as some positions worldwide.

Q. Are there any aspects of recent SpaceClaim releases that drove this kind of business?

A. We have achieved a level of maturity now, with our recently shipped 7th release of SpaceClaim 2011. It’s now robust and stable – a very important factor for customers. We think we offer a more reliable system than traditional CAD vendors, which often crash a few times a day. Our goal is to be as reliable as Microsoft’s operating system.

We have several case studies available on our website that show how customers use SpaceClaim. Particularly interesting are the ones from Emhart Glass, Batelaan Plastics, and Schramm Inc. We believe that there is a high degree of pent up demand by customers looking for a tool that lets people get their jobs done without wrestling with the complexity of feature based CAD systems. This is the primary need driving the business.

Q. Do you see significant competition from CAD vendor direct modeling solutions?

A. These big beefy products are not what the customer wants. They are not appropriate for the customers we are going after. What does direct modeling in most CAD systems get you? You can edit imported parts better and easier. Is that useful for most users? Users will still need to use beefy CAD system to do their job along with a lightweight viewer. This is not the way I see things going; eventually people are going to be creating ideas in 3D, mailing them to each other and collaborating with customers and suppliers. To enable this, we are looking to remove all the CAD friction and help customers get products to market faster. SpaceClaim is the only tool able to do that – to enable really pervasive 3D. Maybe Autodesk might understand this, but other CAD vendors don’t seem to get it.

We figured out what most users want and made the best tool.

——

Click here to see the SpaceClaim – LG Electronics press release. Users can see more information on the SpaceClaim website, including case studies and self-running demos at www.spaceclaim.com.

——

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

March 3, 2011 By in 3D Design, CAD, Digital Prototyping, Manufacturing industry, PLM Industry Tags: , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

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.

—-

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers