This is probably a good time for a brief, updated review.
In Part 7, previous installments were reviewed and the impact of Web 2.0 thinking on digital tools was discussed; particularly usability and collaboration.
In Part 8, a Web 2.0 “filter” was applied to a specific set of digital tools, 3D CAD applications; with tool migration to the masses being the central thought.
In Part 9, three roadblocks to 3D CAD migration were highlighted: data portability, proprietary file formats, and the lack of support for extensible semantic information (e.g. a door knowing it’s a door).
In Part 10, the focus went to data portability and proprietary formats, as they’re issues in regards to both the current industry and to any potential Web 2.0-style developments.
In Parts 11, 12 and 13, recent developments in the 3D CAD industry were covered with particular attention being paid to the increasing adoption of “direct modeling” functionality, which by its nature seems beneficial to any potential link between these CAD applications and 3D virtual worlds. In addition, there also appears to be a synergy between a potential CAD-Web 2.0 convergence and integrated Intellectual Property features being pursued.
At this point, we’re probably on the downslope of this series, so if you’ve managed so far the rest will probably be easier. I certainly hope it is.
In the next installment, we’ll begin shifting focus from the tools over to the users.
In my last entry I said I’d post some examples of recent developments in the CAD arena. So without further delay, here’s some items which caught my attention.
Dassault CATIA V6
What’s notable about the forthcoming release of CATIA is the continued aggressive push towards a virtual interface along the lines of Microsoft Earth. From MCAD Online (Link):
The platform has been re-architected to make use of 3D in an online context, distributing engineering Intellectual Property (IP)* and product data to people via the internet in a compelling virtual environment.
…
V6 is the first outing of a ten year, multi-PhD, multi-patent research and development work on Catia’s core 3D modelling kernel. V6 is a brand new kernel, one that has capabilities that Florack claims to be unrivalled in the industry, being able to resolve Geometry and Topology simultaneously and being able to open files from pretty much any existing CAD system and edit it natively.
Dassault is certainly making some bold claims. In addition, the above video (for better quality, watch it on Dassault’s website - Link) seems to show some direct modeling functionality, though that isn’t a surprise considering what I understand of the product’s development history. Regardless of where Dassault falls on direct modeling, what’s more relevant to this discussion now is the Web 2.0/3DFlickr/MS Virtual Earth/3DVia social approach Dassault continues to pursue.
*Note: I don’t have any idea what “distributing engineering Intellectual Property” means, but keep it in the back of your mind.
Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 4
PTC has not, to my knowledge, made any public statements regarding the kinds of broad Web 2.0 functionality which Dassault is claiming; however, they do appear to have made progress in at least one important area: backward compatibility for feature history-based parametric modeling applications.
Well. Maybe.**
For now, all I’ve seen is the press release (Link), which I don’t trust, and the above video, which is nice but uses an imported STEP file. I’ve asked around if anyone’s tested the claims, but I’ve not yet heard confirmation.
Using the new intellectual property (IP) module, Rights Management Extension (RMX), and Adobe LiveCycle Rights Management ES, a user can protect parts, assemblies, and drawings files by assigning varying levels of security to those sharing the files. For example, the person charged with controlling the digital rights management (DRM) policy, does so from a policy server and can give someone in another department or a partner in a project an “only open” permission…
If you’re familiar with Second Life’s “Permissions” system, that probably sounds familiar. It’s most definitely the sort of functionality I’d hope to see in something like Dassault’s Enovia, or anything Siemens might do in the future.
Now you know why I told you to keep Dassault’s IP comment in mind.
What’s relevant to me is that a major CAD vendor, the third of four it seems, is making a big deal about integrating direct modeling kinds of functionality into their top-of-the-line, feature history-based, parametric application. And the news coming from all three has people who’ve never even heard of SpaceClaim or similar applications asking about direct modeling.
If you do read the chatter, you’ll see some people aren’t too happy about these developments … because they’re concerned the tools will fall into the hands of the unwashed masses. I’ve previously discussed that self-serving attitude and won’t repeat myself at this point.
-
So to condense things, here are my take-aways:
1) it seems as if data portability is on the verge of being resolved … to some degree at least, one way or another.
2) the buzz continues around the possibility of moving CAD applications beyond the desktop; whether or not as part of a software suite including virtual world-style interfaces.
3) two of the four major CAD vendors, Dassault and PTC, are addressing IP within the CAD system itself.
4) there may be some movement on the non-proprietary file format front; especially when I read about Dassault’s inter-operable capabilities. Just a feeling I have.
5) the fourth major CAD vendor, Autodesk, is currently no where to be seen on this particular front, though they continue pursuing acquisitions (Kynogon, MoldFlow, Skymatter) and pushing “Digital Prototyping”. Truth is, Autodesk, with its architectural market lock, still has plenty of time to move into the space Dassault is staking and Siemens seems intent on entering, so I’ll be watching them more closely in the future.
**For a good discussion that highlights the difficulty of PTC’s backward compatibility effort within their history-based system, as well as some insight into how Siemens’ parametric/direct modeling system is supposed to work, check out comments on NOVEDGE “Why Direct/Parametric Modeling Hybrid is an Oxymoron” (Link).
I previously offered (reLink) that there were three issues of particular relevance to the future evolution of “next generation” 3D CAD applications:
Limited data portability
Proprietary, closed source formats
Insufficient support for extensible semantic information
My last entry, in which I discussed the emergence of “direct modeling” 3D CAD, was still very much about data portability. While I’d previously confessed to “largely ignoring the trend toward ‘direct modeling’ “, the truth is that in researching next generation solutions I found I couldn’t ignore the trend. And this is because the direct modeling segment of the 3D CAD market is solving the kinds of data portability issues which is frustrating so many users.
First let me confess to not having paid sufficient attention to the “direct modeling” wave that’s flooding the CAD market. While the technique isn’t new, it’s made substantial gains in recent years… both in the release of some interesting new modeling applications (e.g. SpaceClaim) and noteworthy upgrades (e.g. Siemens NX5), as well as in significant investments (e.g. PTC acquiring CoCreate in Dec 2007). Read the rest of this entry »
In my previous post I touched on the data portability issues which plague CAD applications, particularly those which employ parametric, feature-based history trees (a dynamic, rearrangeable record of the creation process). However, whether it’s within a corporation’s own firewall or between businesses and their vendors online, CAD applications must become increasingly “cooperative” if their developers expect them to survive. Read the rest of this entry »
One reason for the current level of relative application complexity is the segmented, proprietary CAD market and the gated communities which form around a particular application. As we saw with SolidWorks some time ago, a productivity enhancing user interface combined with competitive pricing can breach insular walls and drive “volume” migration/adoption. The consequence of course being that competitors are forced to respond in kind. Read the rest of this entry »
In my previous entry the migration of digital tools in general was discussed; in particular, advancements in both usability and collaborative capabilities. In this and a couple of follow-up entries, I want to apply those filters to 3D CAD applications.
The Inevitable Fall of the CAD Priesthood
With any difficult to master skill there usually arises a group of experts who, over a period of time, too often take themselves a bit too seriously. The CAD community has plenty of these priests. And they’re not especially interested in giving up their lofty positions. That’s why I’m not surprised to read some of what I find being posted online by old school CAD experts; a significant portion of which amounts to “this new-fangled stuff will never work, I tell you”. Read the rest of this entry »
To cover the gap between this installment and my last entry:
In parts 1 and 2, I covered the current low-end and hints of the future high-end potential for augmented reality.
In parts 3 and 4, I touched upon both current mass production methods and emerging rapid manufacturing technology.
In parts 5 and 6, I linked tangible to virtual (via “Digital Direct Manufacturing”) and discussed both virtually-created and physically-sampled three-dimensional objects.
In this section I’d like to do one thing: call attention to technology migration and the accelerating pace at which this migration is occurring. Read the rest of this entry »
