The CAD industry is split by History
I understand confusion when I see it. Different segments of the CAD industry are moving in different directions, and it is by no means a given which direction is the correct one. In the end, I believe we are going to see more direct editing (non-history) based tools, but I don”t think FrankenCAD is the obvious choice.
In one corner we have the noisy, but still rather stuffy Siemens/UGS with its Synchronous Technology pom-poms and cheerleaders, claiming that history based modelers are going to give way to non-history based direct modeling, or at least mixed modelers which employ non-history based modeling within a history-based framework. This is an ugly FrankenCAD mix, and as details leak out, I don”t think it gets any prettier.
And then in the other corner we are seeing the budding romance of a non-history based modeler (Spaceclaim) with another non-history based modeler (Rhino), but then one of them goes and adds some history based functionality. Rhino with implicit and explicit history shows that the direct editing crowd understands parametrics has value that they can”t deliver. This is FrankenCAD from the other direction. How does adding random parametric history dependent features to a non-history based model work? This sounds rather like CoCreate software, which is another also-ran in the direct editing miasma. This story of Spaceclaim and Rhino teaming up and Rhino adding history isn”t getting as much press as the other Synchronous story, but I think it is the more important of the two.
Here”s why. Oreos. Yes, oreo cookies.
Spaceclaim on its own is limited. It has cool editing capabilities, but they are limited to analytical geometry – prismatic stuff with lines and arcs, single curvature, developable surfaces. It has some limited capability with general case NURBS shapes, but it is really limited. You can make simple machined parts and sheet metal parts, but more complex castings and plastic parts aren”t really part of the Spaceclaim equation. What Spaceclaim is missing is exactly what Rhino is best at – swoops. And frankly, Rhino, in all of its complex shape surfacing glory, is no match for a solid modeler when it comes to prismatic work. Plastic part engineering in Rhino would be tedious. What Rhino is most missing in its software is exactly what Spaceclaim does. Oh, and they are both direct modelers.
Everybody has been waiting for Dassault or Autodesk or PTC or UGS to swoop down and snag Spaceclaim, but it keeps not happening. What is happening is that these two small, rogue, direct editing CAD companies are starting to work together. It”s like an Oreo cookie. The wafer is good, but I wouldn”t eat it by itself. The filling is also yummy, but by itself isn”t satisfying. Put them together and you”ve got something that stands the test of time. I would like to see these two companies do more than just share files.
We”ve heard a lot of explanations about what is going on with Synchronous Technology, but the message is getting more rather than less confusing. At first it was just direct editing tacked on to parametrics, Spaceclaim bolted onto SolidWorks. Then it became something far more than that that mere mortals could not possibly understand, and self-proclaimed brilliant people could not explain. Now it appears to have many aspects to it, including everything previously mentioned, procedural features, form features, and feature recognition. That”s an awful lot of “features” for a direct editing (non-feature-based) modeling scheme.
Secretly, I”m hoping that it might be condensed to a statement something like “parametric relationships brought down to the final model faces, rather than intermediate features”. So you make geometry somehow, anyhow, and then put parametric relationships directly to the faces. You get the benefits of paremetrics without the overhead of history. This is something I wondered about in an earlier post. I”ve been writing a lot about the direct editing conundrum for about a year, mainly due to the appearance of Spaceclaim on the scene.
The alternative to a simple statement of the software seems to be something that is too complex to trust or use. Siemens is using the term “feature recognition”. Feature recognition is something I”m familiar with from two sources – FeatureWorks, which is one of those 40% solutions, and FeatureCAM, which also recognizes features for machining. In both cases, a lot of manual intervention is required to do real work, and in both cases, it works best on very simple geometry.
Another warning flag on the Synchronous stuff is that when I have mixed modes in SolidWorks (history based parts with direct editing features), you get a lot of confusion about how to change things at the end of the tree. Geometry gets “double jeopardy” because you could change it using either history based or direct editing features. Especially if multiple people do the work, this will add to the confusion. The mixed modeling that Synchronous Technology represents is an ugly frankenCAD, in my opinion. Cool idea, yes, but I think in practice this is going to be a bad idea. People will prefer a clean break.
In all of the times I have heard top SolidWorks users talk about the direct editing tools in SolidWorks, they have done it from the point of view that these tools are cool, and can make some tasks easier or simply possible, but they are also a best practice nightmare in terms of maintaining editability, and that its a sloppy way to work.\n\nTo me this suggests that if you”re going to move from history to non-history, it is best done either sparingly within a single CAD file or by moving from one CAD file to another, even moving to a different application. Once you start doing direct modeling on a part, switching back and forth causes a lot of confusion.
History based modeling is not going to disappear, let”s be clear about that. There are too many proven benefits. I”m sorry if sometimes history based modeling is intellectually difficult. I”m sorry about that. How else are you going to get the history based benefits of things like the shell feature, or fillets? History is not history.
What”s happening here is that the CAD industry is again appealing to the CAD bottom feeders, a trend that seems to be gaining momentum in an effort to expand the CAD market into new areas it hasn”t previously occupied. People who can”t hang with the intellectual/training demands of history based modeling are going to go for direct modeling. But I don”t think it”s a given that they are going to flock to the unnatural FrankenCAD combination of history and non-history modeling.
It boils down to this: Machinists and people doing simple concepting work will use direct editing because its a no-brainer (think Sketchup) and less expensive. Engineers responsible for production models will still use history based modeling because it represents more complete control. To the extent that you have both types of people in the same organization, it may make sense for that organization to get one tool that does both, but honestly, direct editing comes at the end and the beginning of the project. At the beginning, their models are used as reference, but the production model is made from scratch. At the end of the project, it doesn”t matter because edits are for mfg, for example adding stock, and won”t be pushed back up to the engineering model.
As an aside, all the references to Synchronous Technology so far have been with respect to solid modeling, not necessarily to surface modeling. Add to that the seeming lack of capabilities around complex shapes, and I for one will not be able to make use of this concept at all. I will be much more likely to be able to use whatever comes of the marriage of Spaceclaim and Rhino.
Spaceclaim + Rhino = solids, surfaces, prismatics and general NURBS, mainly direct editing with some history
Synchronous Technology = solids, prismatics, mainly history with some feature recognition and a lot of unknown details\n\nTo me, the Spaceclaim/Rhino FrankenCAD – SpaceRhino – seems like the more attractive combination. A big part of the reason for that is that you can see what that combination is, and what it does. This Siemens thing is still too much of a pig in a poke.
Hi Matt,
This discussion and all point raised are very good and for each person in similar positions the solutions will be ‘similar’.
What I personally believe the software industry need to do is understand functionality and flexibility of software is of the greatest importance and ease of use and automation should be a distant second. For those following set processes to produce product variations, ease of use/automation plays a significantly important role in both time to market and cost containment/reduction.
But for the many of us who do jobbing/training work and work across a number of disciplines, automation is of lesser value; it is often a handicap.
Bruce Buck says “You really can’t please everyone with a single piece of software” and he is partly correct. However, I believe a piece of design software should, and can, have ALL the necessary tools to complete any design in any discipline and that means the choice of tools must range over both 2D and a choice of 3D methodologies simultaneously and those tools must be able to be used in any combination not the in segmented way we currently have – this is one reason why I like Synchronous Technology. I feel it makes Solid Edge more complex to implement and use but the flexible has a greater value.
As one firmly entrenched (supplying, training and supporting) in Autodesk’s world I also agree with beekerly, Autodesk have made a ‘dogs breakfast’ out of their software. Their pursuit of ‘verticalization’ and 3D at any cost was and is their greatest mistake.
However flexibility comes with a penalty, complexity; as a jobbing person heavily involved in training I believe that is more important. If CAD software is flexible and complex enough to satisfy ‘jobbers’ and trainers, and includes an appropriately suitable (customizable) interface those that would benefit from automation will also be accommodated, but the reverse is not true.
Autodesk’s software is the obvious example: AutoCAD, ‘not great’, very ‘complex’ and criticized by many but just look at what people have done with that ‘tool box of bits’ and their own ingenuity. On the other hand, the criticism(s) leveled at Inventor by many is its lack of flexibility; as one guy puts it, “it doesn’t work the way I do and slows me down”, and it is struggling to gain the same acceptance as its so called obsolete predecessor.
Once again you have provided us with a thought provoking post, and good points in the comments. As an instructor I see the people coming into the solid modeling arena with a deer in the headlights look. There needs to be a balance in functionality. The software has to have ease of entry to produce longevity. Once you have longevity, five plus years say, then you have the luxury of a broader view. The functionality we need now is not the same as when we first started.
I see the the 80/20 rule in day-to-day tasks, 80% mind-numbingly tedious get it done stuff so I can do the 20% really cool stuff. Some of examples of automatation mentioned fall into the 80%, and some can leave me to my own devices. As long as they work when I need them I am not going to be too picky about how I get there. Back to the point: get the job done.
I believe Autodesk tried to be everything to everybody which diluted their products. And the lesson was do what you do well. Take risks, expirement, make mistakes but somewhere somehow figure out what you do well. Enhancements are great but the users ulitmately detrermine value. We all know the software will evolve. If the software is truly user driven, the users will keep it on track. Maybe they can increase the functionality of Cosmic Blobs a little and have the second tool? 🙂
My skepticism on intelligent CAD is
also what makes me suspicious on
Syncronous Technology. I did not yet
use it so I may be well wrong but
when they say that the software is
inferring features and constraints
I cannot avoid to think that the software could easily infer wrong things given a dumb model.
History approach is for sure more rigid
but here the designer is explicitely
telling the system what are the features
and what are the constraints.
****
Roberto,
Interesting to hear your point of view on ST. There is actually a way to see and disable/limit the constraints it makes as you edit. After seeing this aspect of ST, it is easier to trust.
I think there are situations where the CAD system can help the user with automated “wizard” like functions. Take rendering for example. Up until 18 months ago rendering was a chore in any system that required skill, knowledge and sheer luck frankly. Now with Hypershot and PhotoView 360 I can get results ina fraction of the time that before would have taken me days. That kind of intelligence/functionality is good.
In modelling terms every user who has to create anything more complex than a extrude/fillet/shell combo can list numerous situations where having TRUE design intent would be useful. I used to use Think3 products and the GSM stuff in that was great for that 10-15% of times I struggled to get the shapes I needed via standard methods.
I think there are three stages in modelling.
1. Initial shape generation – defining the major surfaces and features
2. Detailed modelling – defining things like ribs, lips, cut outs etc.
3. Editing modelling – going back and redefining to meet either changed criteria or advice from the toolmaker.
I think some apps to 1 well (Alias/Rhino/Ashlar), some do 2 well (SolidWorks/Pro/E), hardly any do 3 well (maybe Think3 with GSM or CATIA with functional part – both $$$) unless you know what the changes are likely to be and can build this into the model from the start.
Of course this also sums up neatly exactly what most big companies (and some small ones) do during development.
Stage 1 – concept – IDers using above tools
Stage 2 – development IDers and engineers using SolidWorks
Stage 3 – tooling – mainly off loading the mods to the toolmaker using something like Delcam Powershape or Think3 or CATIA – or – a total rebuild in SolidWorks or whatever.
And there’s the thing. I don’t think you can get the best of everything in one system. Like in many things in life you get the best by using the best not by sticking to a single brand. So for the mainstream sector where does that leave the SolidWorks user? Well I think the core application is pretty good. I would like to see the focus on modelling retained and I would like to see more basic functions added (like conic curves, or the ability to delete part history without having to export and import it). I’d like to see Rhino or Ashlar like curve handling (something ALL the MCAD sector gets wrong IMHO).
The common thread here is if your absolute basic building blocks are sound and robust and very easy to use and edit you have a strong foundation to build from – or rebuild if that is the case.
Matt,
Have you thought about SW dumbing down in order to separate it from Dassault’s premium product CATIA? In other words, if experienced users cannot get the “functionality is what is needed in order to complete the job”, maybe we are using the wrong Dassault product? Maybe a sophisticated SW and the CATIA product were overlapping a little too much?
Phil Sluder
****
Phil,
I’ve often thought I’m using the wrong product. I don’t think I ever thought I was using the wrong DS product. Catia is probably not the correct tool for an independent doing product design, at least I haven’t seen anything to indicate that. There are plenty of other tools that accomplish what I need to do.
I think that Bruce is right in using the
analogy of the cameras that have both
automatic and manual UI.
Also the last sentence is perfect : design
happens in designer’s mind not in the
software.
I want to point out also that I am very
skeptical of the possibility to write
really intelligent software , it seems to
me that intelligence is deeply linked to
context knowledge and the design context is
(like most) incredibly complex.
So trusting a supposed-intelligent CAD
program will usually end-up in decisions
that the designer will not like and maybe
he/she will discover it too late…
“You really can’t please everyone with a single piece of software.”
I think you’re contradicting yourself when you say just before that, “In one mode it enables tools like extrude and revolve, and in the other, it gives the user more control.”
And there in lies the solution. The best comparison I can think of is photography and cameras. Many of the newest cameras, compact and even dSLRs, have BOTH manual and automatic modes and controls. For those who don’t know, need help, or are just lazy, you can use the automatic controls, and get decent, good, well exposed pictures. BUT, if you KNOW what you’re doing, and want more than just a good picture, but a great picture, a stunning picture, and have the creativity, then you can use the manual controls to get the look, feel, color, etc. that you want to create your masterpiece.
So I think what you and others (myself included) are really asking for, is MORE manual controls. I have absolutely no problem if they want to add automated functions, but give us more manual controls for the “CAD artisans” who want to create CAD masterpieces we envision in our heads.
****
Yes, the camera analogy is a good one. Is there a single camera that is best at both automatic and manual photography? Probably not.
you are right absolutely.
I prefer a tool that is organized and used according to principles. The alternative is one that has little structure and a cookbook or menu of loosely related functions. When I define a sculpted shape I prefer to use a few well placed splines, curves and sections. The alternative is one with many small features glued together, it will never be perfectly fair, but will closely approximate the shape.
I want a few good reliable tools. I do not want the software interrupting with useless dialog boxes. (My current gripe is the X to close a sketch that has not been edited in any way that brings up the “Do you want to save changes?” dialog) The automatic relations that break the sketch are also most unwelcome. The wizard functions are awful. Automatically generated mistakes are the worst.
I wouldn’t mind so much if I could just shut off the trash that gets in the way of what I really need to do. In fact, I still do much of my modeling in a way very similar to what worked in 1997–partly because that’s the only way I could learn to do it back then and partly because it’s proven always to be the most reliable method of getting what I need to do done.
Several of the things you mentioned above–mold tools, sketch relation automation and even Toolbox are things I cannot possibly make use of most of the time. I only started using the Hole Wizard about three years ago because I couldn’t count on it to properly call out my holes, or switch from default of minor pitch to major pitch. Ever had that one bite you? You get parts/prototypes back and all the holes are so cored out that the fasteners have no metal/plastic to bite? How does this help me?
When it comes down to the tools I rely upon, they’re simple and (for the most part) tested and fail-safe. I frequently get tooling cut worth more than my house–how could I justify trashed tooling because my CAD tool failed me when I wasn’t looking? It’s too much to ask.
Maybe that’s just my personality. I charge clients a decent amount of money to get the job done, and I cannot fathom failing that task (or worse, costing them money). It doesn’t matter if it’s a glitch, I’m the guy doing the design and they must ultimately trust me.
I know I mentioned it before, but it’s like back in my physical model-making days. Simple set of tools. Almost everything I needed (apart from a Bridgeport, of course) fit in a wooden cigar box. Not many tools. X-Acto knife, oodles of spare blades, custom-made sanding block, small files, radius gauges, and plastic-working solvents, adhesives, etc. along with my trusty vernier calipers, 1-2-3 blocks, and squares. With those tools, I could create models to within +/- 0.005″ fairly quickly. I learned a lot then, too. Master a few tools well, and you can do anything. Clutter your repertoire with complex, specialized tools, and you face a diminished return on that investment, as well as your own productivity.
CAD is a tool. Is it cluttered with slow functions that might fail when I’m not looking and cost many thousands of dollars? Then I don’t need it. I’ll go “old-school” and create what I need with more reliable tool sets. Sure, sometimes it takes longer, but it won’t fail me and it often takes even LESS time.
I think this is a terribly relevant discussion, as I’ve also lamented some of the poor choices in flaky tools in recent releases of SolidWorks. And worse, many of the flaky tools haven’t been redressed in future releases, but left to languish in permanent uselessness. I don’t leave tools of that sort around my office, and I guarantee tools of that sort will never make it into the trusted cigar box.