Cad Revolution 1 En

8/6/2019 Cad Revolution 1 En

1/11

The CAD Revolution...... and What It Means for You

Published by:


2/11

2

The CAD Revolution and What It Means to You

Subscribe or Follow Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideasdeveloped independently, 2010 LC-Insights LLC

Introduction CAD is a boring, staid and burned out commodity.

With stark clarity, I remember the first time that thought

ran across my mind. It was at an analyst event in themiddle of a product update briefing. The productmanager was in the middle of explaining one of about athousand new things in the latest version of thisparticular CAD tool. All of them minutely incremental.None of them groundbreaking. I wish I could say thatkind of briefing was the exception instead of the rule, butthat just wouldnt be true. Basically, CAD is the softwareapplication than innovation forgot. Well, at least for awhile.

Then a couple years ago, the revolution started. Googleoffered SketchUp for the masses. SpaceClaim startedsuggesting 3D could be used beyond traditional CADusers. Siemens PLM provided both modeling paradigmsthrough newly launched Synchronous Technology.Autodesk started experimenting with new technology insomething called Fusion. And most recently, PTC haspromised to change the world with Creo. Suddenly, CADis a hot and vigorous issue worth talking about again.

But somethings a little different this time. Its not thesame old game of leapfrog played out between softwareproviders. Its not just about getting the latest whiz-bangfeatures in front of CAD specialists. Its not just aboutdetailing out engineering drawings. People are talkingabout getting sketching and modeling tools in front of entirely new roles. People are talking about processchange of all things. Its exciting to see and understandsome of the new applications for CAD. But as exciting asit might be, its a touch confusing and scary too. Whywould someone else use CAD? Whats the advantage? Willthis end up being disruptive? Questions abound.

Thats where this series of eBooks might help. Theyprovide a straightforward look at how the ongoingrevolution in CAD affects different individual roles andthe resulting implications for their organizations. So sitback and take it in. Because it may have taken a littlewhile, but CAD is finally worth our time again.

Chad Jackson is the Founder andPresident of Lifecycle Insights, aresearch and advisory firm thatstudies the issues that mattermost to engineering. Results of studies are published onengineering-matters.com . Chadcan be reached via email or (512)284-8080.
http://www.engineering-matters.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.engineering-matters.com/http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


3/11

3



A Powerful YetTaxing Path... Before we can understand the impact of the CADrevolution, its important to understand how thetechnology works and its resulting implications. Heresthe quick overview of the feature-history paradigm, thebasis for traditional CAD.

The building blocks of a 3D model are geometryfeatures that are parametrically controlled. Someexamples are sketch-based extrusions androunds.

The features are placed into a history basedsequential order. Furthermore, successive featuresoften use geometry of prior features as references,generating a network of parent-child likeinterdependencies.

The features can be changed by modifyingparametric dimensions or variables or throughdynamically pushing and pulling geometry.

Modifications however are limited to the initialfeature definitions used to create the geometry.

Because of the way this technology paradigm works,there are some implications for users.

Parametric control and interdependency in the

feature history enables very intelligent reactions tochanges as well as powerful design automation.Models can morph in an automated way torepresent various product configurations.

There is an overhead cost to this power though.Specific knowledge and skills must be gained andretained to both build as well as manipulatemodels based on a feature-history network.

Feature-History Paradigm

Feature-HistoryModeling

Geometric created through features

Feature definitions persisted

Geometry rebuilt in history based sequence

Explicit Modeling

Geometric created through operations

Geometry topology persisted

Geometry Creation Geometr Manipulation

Parametric Changes made through

explicit modification todimensions or variables

Push, Pull or Drag Changes made through

push/pull/draginteraction withgeometry, handles, etc.

Feature-Based Modifications made

through existing featuredefinitions. Changes propagate to dependent features.

Selection / Inferenced Changes made to

explicitly selected and/or inferred sets of geometry

Direct Manipulations Geometry manipulated

directly with actions
http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


4/11

4



A Path a Little Less... Constrained. So whats the alternative to feature-history paradigm? Itsa combination of explicit and direct paradigms that hasactually been around for some time. Heres the rundownof how it works.

Geometry can be created as features or asindividual operations. Then, instead of remembering the history based sequential order of features, the geometric topology definition ispreserved. As a result, there is no network of interdependencies between features.

Manipulation of geometry is a two-step process.First, users select the geometry they want tochange. This can be augmented with geometryinference; a capability that automatically andintelligently determines what else should also bemodified. Second, the user primarily uses apush/pull/drag interaction to manipulate thegeometry. Alternatively, parametric modificationsto geometry can also be made.

Just as before, there are some implications as a result of using this type of modeling paradigm.

The knowledge and skill overhead to using thismodeling paradigm is low. There is no network of interdependent features to manage.

Without a network of interdependent features,there is no basis for design automation orintelligent reaction to change. These modelscannot be morphed in an automated way.

Direct & Explicit Paradigms

Feature-HistoryModeling

Geometric created through features

Feature definitions persisted

Geometry rebuilt in history based sequence

Explicit Modeling

Geometric created through operations

Geometry topology persisted

Geometry Creation

Geometry Manipulation Parametric

Changes made throughexplicit modification todimensions or variables

Push, Pull or Drag Changes made through

push/pull/draginteraction withgeometry, handles, etc.

Feature-Based Modifications made

through existing featuredefinitions. Changes propagate to dependent features.

Selection / Inferenced Changes made to

explicitly selected and/or inferred sets of geometry

Direct Manipulations Geometry manipulated

directly with actions
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters


5/11



The Status Quo of Traditional CAD As modeling technology in the industry matured, initialthoughts on the use of CAD formalized into consensus.And over time, consensus settled into a number of assumptions. Assumptions that practically no onechallenged any longer. Heres the quick list.

2D CAD is for laggards. Its not the mostprofessional thing to say, but it has been theindustry drumbeat for years. The use of 2D CADhas always been painted as an intermediate stepon the way to 3D CAD. Those who stayed on 2Dhave been seen as procrastinating the inevitable.Over time, a serious stigma developed around 2D.And the stigma stuck.

Pick a 3D modeling paradigm and stick with it. By and large, the feature-history and directparadigms have been seen as mutually exclusive.Organizations often went down one path, neverlooking back regardless of the advantages oraccessibility of the other paradigm. But sometimesit went beyond that, with proponents on bothsides arguing with great passion and fervor. Formany, it became personal.

The New Rules of the CAD Revolution With a revolution in technology, CAD suddenly gainedsome mindshare in the industry again. People started toask questions. Did the old assumptions about CAD stillapply? And after revisiting some issues that hadnt beenchallenged in years, some new thinking emerged.

2D CAD is a legitimate design tool. Now dontget me wrong here. No one wanted to go back tomanually creating 2D drawings. However, theresbeen an admission that designing products is trulydistinct and different than documenting products.And in that case, designing in 2D is an entirelylegitimate means to capture concepts, develop andmature designs and make design decisions.

Use complementary 3D modeling paradigms. Many in the industry would agree that eachmodeling paradigm has strengths andweaknesses. And interestingly, ones strengthactually complements the others weakness. Thenew thinking is to leverage both paradigms,switching between the two and using the right onefor the right job. Its no longer an either-ordecision. Its both.


6/11

6



Whats it mean for CAD Specialists? If theres one thing we know about CAD specialists, theyare the top experts in the feature-history paradigm.Theyve learned how to build and navigate networks of interdependent features as well as diagnose problemswhen they occur. Theyre masters of their trade.

The Partially Fulfilled Promise of ReuseOne of the great original advantages behind the feature-history modeling paradigm is reuse. The idea has been tomorph an existing model into a new one with changes.But there are sometimes problems. In unstable models,small tweaks can start a chain reaction of failures in thenetwork of interdependent features.

Given time, CAD specialists can readily seek out andresolve those problems. In some cases however, it canactually be faster for them to do a complete or partialrebuild of the model instead. Either way, they end upspending valuable time fixing or rebuilding modelsinstead of creating new ones.

Realizing the Reuse Promise For CAD specialists, the new vision for CAD is all aboutflexibility and power. Direct modeling can be used tomodify legacy models and reuse others models without

needing to recreate it or invest lots of time fixing it.Feature-history modeling can be used to explicitly definegeometry or programmatically automate modeling. Thebiggest advantage however is both of these modelingparadigms can be used in a complementary fashion,offering the right tools at the right time.

Final Thoughts for CAD SpecialistsTheres really no doubt that CAD specialists could fix orrebuild models so they could morph into new designs.But is that really a great use of their expert skills andknowledge? Instead, leveraging complementary modelingparadigms lets them find the shortest path to the finalgoal. In turn, that lets them focus their expert knowledgeand skills more on modeling new parts and products.

Issues withTraditional CAD

The Change with theCAD Revolution

Advantage and Benefit

In feature-history paradigm, CAD Specialists must often fix or recreate models,

instead of reusing them, due to complex

interdependenciesbetween features.

Capabilities provided through direct andexplicit paradigms allowquick and easy edits toexisting models without feature manipulations.

Time that CAD Specialists would have

spent fixing or recreating models can

be applied to newdevelopment projects

instead.


7/11



What it means for CAD ManagersTheres no doubt that being a manager during therecession was difficult. For a team whose bandwidth isdetermined by how many bodies there are in front of CAD workstations, staff cuts hit hard. With practicallyevery project undermanned, productivity is paramount.

Unpredictability Undermines ProductivitySome days they love it. Some days they hate it. But whatsalways the same is that manipulating models with thefeature-history paradigm is a complicated task. Itsdifficult to predict if a team will be able to turn an olddesign into a new one or theyll have to recreate it fromscratch. That makes it terribly hard to stay on schedule.

And they dont mind helping out others, but there areendless lists of requests for help with CAD whether itsan engineer modeling up a new concept, an analystprepping a model for simulation or a manufacturingengineer trying to figure out why his model is failing. Andthat can certainly make it difficult to be productive.

Addressing Reuse, Enabling Others IndependenceFor CAD Managers, a major boon of the CAD revolution isthe elimination of the unpredictability around designreuse. The direct modeling paradigm offers new tools to

manipulate model geometry without the fear of catastrophic failures.

But theres more to it for CAD Managers than justaddressing reuse. Part of the promise of the CADrevolution is enabling many other roles to be productivewith CAD. That means the endless list of request can bedramatically reduced, if not eliminated.

Final Thoughts for CAD ManagersFor CAD Managers, there are two major issues that

undermine productivity: the unpredictability of designreuse and others requests for CAD assistance. The CADrevolution addresses both head on. Tools in the directmodeling paradigm directly address design reuse needs.The vision behind the CAD revolution places role suitabletools in the hands of others.




With feature-history paradigm, difficult to predict extent to which past designs can be

reused. Also, other rolesconstantly needassistance withmodeling tasks.

Capabilities of Direct andExplicit paradigms enable

higher rate of reuse,increasing predictability.More accessible forms of CAD enable other roles to work independently.

Letting CAD Specialistsand other roles use theright tools for the right job saves time in theschedule and makes workload far more

predictable.


8/11

8



What it means for Product EngineersBeing an engineer today is no easy task. You have to wearmany hats while rushing between your desk, the test lab,the shop floor and everywhere else. And between it all,you have to capture your ideas and concepts quickly soothers can take action.

Going Rogue with Concept Design What is the best way to capture design concepts? It hasalways seemed like 3D CAD would be a great fit becauseof its ability to quickly explore design iterations. But thatpotential has never truly been realized. Engineers areconstantly juggling the lifecycle responsibilities of theirproducts. And as a result, theyll only ever be an

infrequent user of any application, including CAD. Inturn, they cant dedicate the time necessary to gain theknowledge and skills to effectively use the feature-history paradigm. Instead, engineers often go rogue withfaster and simpler to use 2D CAD, even with the stigma.

Productive Concept Design without the OverheadFor engineers, the CAD revolution is all about enablingthem to capture their concepts without making them CADexperts. Because the barrier to using 2D sketching or

direct modeling is relatively low, engineers dont needextensive knowledge or skills to capture their concepts.Furthermore, these modeling methods are also integratedwith the feature-history paradigm, enabling CADspecialists to use them, instead of recreating them, tobuild detailed models. In all, theres no need to go rogueanymore.

Final Thoughts for Engineers Traditional CAD has always held great promise forengineers to capture their concepts. However, engineerssimply cant afford the time to become CAD experts. TheCAD revolution puts 2D and direct modeling tools intotheir hands, letting them productively capture conceptswithout the knowledge and skill overhead. In short, CADhas become accessible to the engineer.

Engineers can independently capture their concepts in a

deliverable format thatCAD Specialists can

leverage to createdetailed models later in

the design phase.




Skill and knowledgeoverhead of feature-history paradigm too

high for engineers, whoare infrequent users.

Often use 2D drafting tools instead, creatingunusable deliverables.

Direct modeling and 2Dsketching tools enableengineers to captureconcepts and ideas

quickly without highskill and knowledge

overhead.


9/11



What it means for AnalystsWhen it comes to model geometry, there couldnt beanything that is both more critical and less interesting toanalysts. Its the basis of simulation models but to behonest, they dont care how its created. For them, itssimply a means to an end.

The Challenges of Defeaturing ModelsWhile the CAD model is the basis for simulation models,analysts often remove some pieces of geometry that areirrelevant to the simulation. But unfortunately, because of dependencies between features, removal of a feature cancause others to fail, rendering the model useless. Of course, an analyst could gain the skills to use feature-

history based modeling, but with all of the otherknowledge required of a simulation analyst, thats notexactly the highest priority. As a result, analysts spendexorbitant amounts of time prepping the model,recreating the model in simulation tools or rely on time-constrained CAD specialists to do the job for them.

Direct Modeling Enables Analyst IndependenceHow does the CAD revolution change things? It turns outthat the direct modeling paradigm not only offers newways of modifying geometry, but also offers tools to

quickly and easily remove geometry without triggeringchaotic failures throughout the interdependent networkof features. This means the analyst can perform theiranalysis preparations on their own without fixing orrecreating the CAD model.

Final Thoughts for AnalystsModel geometry has always been critical to an analysts

job. Trouble begins when simplification or defeaturing amodel in preparation for simulation triggers featurefailures. As a result, analysts can waste tremendousamounts of time fixing or recreating the model or waitingfor a CAD specialist to help. The CAD revolution putsdirect modeling tools in the hands of analysts, enablingthem to simplify models without the threat of featurefailures.




Simplifying or defeaturing models

created with the feature-history paradigm can cause failures, forcing

Analysts to fix or recreate them.

The direct modeling paradigm offers quick

and easy tools to simplifyor defeature models

without risk of model failures.

Time that Analystsusually spend fixing or recreating models can

now be spent setting upand running more

simulations.


10/11

10



What it means for ManufacturingEngineers?

Where the engineer designs the product virtually, themanufacturing engineer must bridge the gap to reality.That not only includes planning out the productionprocess but also the design of the necessary jigs, fixturesand tooling to manufacture the product.

A Lack of Palatable Choices for Tool Design For the manufacturing engineer, it all starts with the CADmodel that is released from engineering. While thatmodel is frequently built using the feature-historyparadigm, theres no need for the manufacturing

engineer, an infrequent user, to make tooling design anymore complicated than it already is. So, they have achoice. They can design tooling using the feature-historyparadigm, forcing them to use a more complex tool.Alternatively, they can import the design into aspecialized yet simpler-to-use application, therebybreaking the associativity between the

product model and the tooling model. Both choices wereless than ideal.

Simpler Yet Associative CAD for Tool Design For manufacturing engineers, the CAD revolution offerssimpler and easier to use applications for tool design thatare integrated with product design. This includes 2Dsketching, capabilities from the direct modelingparadigm or even specialized tool design functionality tocreate the simpler geometry of the jigs and fixtures. As aresult, tool design isnt any more complicated thannecessary and product changes are propagatedassociatively.

Final Thoughts for Manufacturing Engineers

In the past, manufacturing engineers had to choosebetween using complex applications for simple tooldesign and simpler applications that broke associativity.The CAD revolution lets them avoid the compromise byproviding the right capabilities with associativity.


Manufacturingengineers no longer need to choose between modeling simplicity

and design associativity. They can have both to save time

and avoid errors.



Jig and fixturegeometry is often simple and doesnt

need the more complexcapabilities of the feature-history

paradigm used tocreate design models.

Manufacturingengineers can use simpler and faster tools like direct

modeling and 2Dsketching for jig and fixture design yet

maintains associativity with the design model.


11/11

11



Conclusion: What does it all mean?In the past few years, there have been some dramaticshifts in CAD technology and new thinking about how itcan be used. But that alone doesnt necessarily mean youshould change what youre doing. First, you have toanswer a critical question: what does it all mean to thebusiness? Fundamentally, the answer to that question isincreased productivity in two specific ways.

#1: Enabling CAD Independence across the TeamUnder the status quo of traditional CAD, other rolesbrought their CAD difficulties to CAD Specialists to fix orrecreate their models. As a result, the organization hasbeen constrained by the bandwidth of that one role.

Under the new rules of the CAD revolution, each of theseroles possess right-sized CAD technology that enablesthem to do their tasks independently, including:

Engineers capturing design concepts with 2Dsketching and direct modeling.

Analysts simplifying design models with directmodeling in preparation for simulation.

Manufacturing Engineers associatively designingtooling with 2D sketching and direct modeling.

Ultimately, this independence results in two advantages. The elimination of many tasks for CAD Specialists,

freeing them up to focus on new product designs. The elimination of delays caused while waiting for

CAD specialists to complete other peoples tasks.

#2: Elimination of Non-Value Add ActivitiesUnder the status quo of traditional CAD, occasionalfailures in models built in the feature-history paradigminstigated a variety of activities that fundamentally do not

add value to product development projects, including: Fixing or recreating unstable models resulting

from reusing or modifying existing designs. Creating new 3D models from scratch instead of

leveraging 2D conceptual sketches. Fixing or recreating models after attempting to

simplify them in preparation for simulation.

Under the new rules of the CAD revolution, leveraging theright paradigm within a set of complementary andinteroperable modeling technologies can reduce if noteliminate many of these activities. As a result, more of the organizations time can be spent on moving theproduct development project forward.

Final Thoughts... and a Question Its been some time since CAD was really worth our time.After years of incremental improvements and leapfrogfeatures, the technology advances and new thinking of the last few years offers some real change. And its notmerely interesting. There are some real implications not

only for the traditional CAD Specialist, but also forEngineers, Analysts, Manufacturing Engineers and manyothers. So after all these years of sleeping on CAD, andrightfully so, you may just want to ask yourself:

Is it time to start paying attention to CAD again?

To follow the rest of the CAD Revolution eBook series, visit www.ptc.comor follow to Lifecycle Insights.
http://www.ptc.com/go/cad-revolutionhttp://www.ptc.com/go/cad-revolutionhttp://www.ptc.com/go/cad-revolutionhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/chadkjacksonhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/engineering-matterscom/133605950005699http://twitter.com/chadkjacksonhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/engineering-matters

Documents

Cad Revolution 1 En