NOVEDGE blog

Interview with Paul Bay, CEO of Punch! Software

Not all CAD companies play in the same arena. While most CAD companies stay busy talking to the press, explaining strategies to financial analysts, and placing expensive ads in magazines nobody reads anymore, some CAD companies invest their time and money in talking to customers. These companies are less likely to be on a stage under a spotlight, but they are out there in the market enjoying a strong dialogue with their customers and selling licenses by the millions. Punch! Software (website) is one of these kinds of companies. They make a powerful product line that includes products such as ViaCAD, Shark, HomeDesign, and more. It's time to invite Punch! Software's CEO Paul Bay to the stage of the Novedge blog, turn on the lights, and ask him a few questions.

Paul can you tell us a bit about yourself and your company?

I have a strong background and intimate knowledge of retail, internet, SMB, commercial, corporate, and vendor markets

Sure. I am Paul Bay, the CEO of Punch! Software and I’ve been with Punch! for over three and a half years. I have a strong background in technology distribution where I spent eleven years with Ingram Micro, Inc., the world’s largest technology distributor, headquartered in Southern California. I was Senior Vice President of North America at Ingram Micro with Executive Management responsibility for purchasing, vendor relationships, business development, category management, vendor marketing as well as the components business unit. I have a strong background and intimate knowledge of retail, internet, SMB, commercial, corporate, and vendor markets and I’ve been thrilled to bring those skills to Punch! and utilize them in the role I hold within the company in order to grow and evolve as the market around us evolves and expands.

for the past 10 years, we’ve continued to dominate the North American market in home design software

Upon accepting the position with Punch! in 2006, I relocated my family from sunny Southern California to Kansas City, Missouri and have enjoyed the opportunity to explore family life in a completely different region than I grew up within Southern California. Around the months of December through mid-March I do miss the sunshine of the west coast, but we’ve learned to appreciate many things unique to Kansas City as well. I have yet to sway my allegiance to the San Diego Chargers and my family may very well be the only ones wearing navy blue jerseys each Sunday in Kansas City!
Punch! Software was formed in 1998 with the idea that 3D design software should be as fun to use as it is productive. Everyday we are focused on our mission to be the leading global provider and destination for design solutions. For the past 10 years, we’ve continued to dominate the North American market in home design software through our retail and online sales outlets and in late 2006 we decided to expand our 3D design breadth by acquiring CadSoft Solutions and were quickly recognized as the fastest growing CAD company in 2007. Through the acquisition we were able to add to the Punch! Software portfolio an incredibly strong lineup of 2D/3D CAD software for the professional architect and engineer, via our Shark CAD product line, as well as CAD products for the hobbyist, through our ViaCAD product line.

Who is the typical Punch! Software customer? Why does he or she select Shark CAD?

we have over three million Punch! Software customers

The typical Punch! Software customer is somebody who recognizes a truly powerful 2D/3D CAD solution that’s incredibly easy to use, in addition to somebody who appreciates the affordability the Shark CAD and ViaCAD products offer. We have over three million Punch! Software customers so our ability to truly bring 3D CAD design to anybody and everybody is something we believe to be highly achievable.
Our current CAD customer base has a very broad range from high tech manufacturers to creative artists; from set designers to recreational product designers; from luxury packaging designers to architects, school districts and prestigious universities. It’s quite broad, which I believe is a nod to our ease of use and powerful product capabilities, and the good news is that it just keeps growing!

The "ease-of-use" is among the most quoted quality of your products. What are the keys to making the end-user life easier while still providing high level features?

ease-of-use is a combination of the user interface, video tutorials, and software features

We believe that ease-of-use is a combination of the user interface, video tutorials, and software features that enhance the total user experience. For new users, we provide over 80 minutes of embedded video tutorials. These tutorials can serve as a learning syllabus, a reference tool, or simply as a guide as you go through your design process.
In addition to the video tutorials, our Shark CAD products provide an extensive set of software features aimed at enhancing the user experience and unveiling high level features as needed. This is accomplished through customizing tool options, smart prompting, tips and tricks pop-ups, and intelligent snapping using LogiCursor™. LogiCursor is often noted by our users as an indispensable tool for working in 3D as well as 2D. Using the tools provided within the ViaCAD and Shark CAD products, we literally can have a beginning 2D/3D design enthusiast designing within minutes!

Your products run on the Win platform as well as on the Mac. Do you receive the same feedback from the two categories of users?

we provide the ability to read native CATIA and Pro/E, which is a unique solution for Mac users

Aside from the resounding “Hallelujah” from the Mac community, we do tend to receive similar feedback from the two categories of users. Both categories of users want functionality and the ability to share data with others. Our out-of-the box functionality and ability to share data precisely using IGES, STEP, DXF/DWG and SAT is much welcomed. We also provide the ability to read native CATIA and Pro/E Wildfire parts, which is a unique solution for Mac users.
Our Mac users are thrilled to see we provide a native interface to Mac, much as our PC interface is native to Windows. Neither user community is compromised by our decision to support both platforms. However, our Mac users will find some extra translators as part of the Mac OS for reading EPS, PDF, and AI files. These file formats are great for Adobe users migrating into 3D.
With respect to our price point within the CAD software market, collectively we receive raised eyebrows, lots of comments such as “really?”, and deliberate nods of approval. The functionality combined with user experience at an attractive price point is appreciated by both categories of users.

What is the level of collaboration and synergy you have with CadSoft since the acquisition in November 2006?

there were lots of similarities between Punch! and CadSoft as we both promoted a very entrepreneurial environment

Collaboration and synergies were completely integrated shortly after the acquisition. We saw a unique opportunity when we acquired CadSoft Solutions to not only obtain a great technology, but also a seasoned veteran in Tim Olson. Tim has over 25 years of management experience in this industry and brought a wealth of knowledge within the CAD space.
There were lots of similarities between Punch! and CadSoft Solutions as we both promoted a very entrepreneurial environment. Tim and his team have become a part of the Punch! family and they continue to collaborate with sales and marketing as well as the core management team on a daily basis. We’re thankful everyday for their contribution, expertise, perspective and immense knowledge of the CAD market and industry.

The Shark product line integrates 2D and 3D in an effective way. What role do you think 2D will play in the design and manufacturing industry five years from now?

We see 2D continuing to play a relevant role especially in the presentation of 3D data through engineering drawings. Our goal is to continue to provide easy and affordable tools that automate this process providing an attractive migration path for 2D users.

Integration with other CAD system is a key feature of the Shark product line. How is Shark used in combination with the "big guys" (CATIA, Pro/E., etc.)?

[Integration with other CAD system] is a key feature of the Shark product line

You’re right Franco, it is a key feature of the Shark product line and something we’re very proud of. Tim and his team developed a precise kernel that facilitates the sharing of data with the “big guys” and we’ve seen it work to the advantage of the customer in several instances. We have many customers who have existing installations of CATIA, Pro/E, AutoCAD, Solidworks, you name it, and they’ve been able to add additional CAD licenses of Shark into the existing environment to share data seamlessly, and for a noticeably more affordable price tag.

I would like to thank Paul for taking the time to answer my questions. If you have any questions for Paul or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer.

Franco Folini

Shark CAD Video Punch! Software products are available from Novedge

An Interview with Robert Green, author of "Expert CAD Management"

Robert Green is the author of the new book Expert CAD Management: The Complete Guide (288 pages, published by Sybex) and the head of the Robert Green Consulting Group. Robert is well known for his insightful articles published by the popular Cadalyst magazine. Having spent a few years myself as a consultant to support CAD users in SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises), I learned how important and at times difficult this job can be. Therefore I sincerely welcome Robert Green's book as I'm sure it could help all CAD managers to fully understand the extent and limitations of their responsibilities, thus providing a better service to their companies and CAD users. I invited Robert for an interview in order to share some of his highlights from the book. Here are my questions and his answers. Please note that if you order Robert's book from his website you will receive a signed copy.

Robert, can you tell us a bit about yourself and your professional activities?

I’m a mechanical engineer who got bitten by the CAD bug way back in 1985. I had the opportunity to learn AutoCAD at version 2.0 while also using SDRC’s I-DEAS program to model and analyze large mechanical assemblies for semiconductor machinery. Somewhere along the way I became “the go to guy” for CAD applications and got the reputation of being the CAD manager.  I never really sought out the title, it just sort of happened.
Through the unfortunate event of a bankruptcy at the company I worked for I found myself without a job in 1991 and decided to start my own company providing CAD consulting services and I’ve been at ever since. I started writing professionally in 1996 for CADENCE Magazine which lead to my current involvement with Cadalyst Magazine and ultimately my new book. I also do a lot of teaching and public speaking on CAD management topics.

How does your book make a difference in the everyday work of a CAD manager?

CAD managers can use the book to expand their awareness and widen their skill

I’ve tried to make the book a complete guide (thus the title) on a broad variety of subjects from technology to personnel management to return on investment and budgeting. I think the breadth of topics in the book is a metaphor for how varied the CAD manager’s job really is. The best thing I can do for CAD managers is make them realize that their focus needs to be on a lot of items that aren’t necessarily CAD. After all, the word MANAGER is a lot bigger than CAD right?
I structured the book to have a unifying beginning section that every CAD manager should read then they can branch out into the other chapters depending on what’s applicable to them and what they feel are their weaknesses. My hope is CAD managers can use the book to expand their awareness and widen their skill set at their own pace.

What would be the background and personal features of a great CAD manager?

there’s no substitute for understanding the industry you work in via real experience

Background wise there’s no substitute for understanding the industry you work in via real experience. As an example, a mechanical engineer will be a better CAD manager in a manufacturing plant than an architect would be due to contextual experience. When you understand your user’s needs and how the company operates you’ll be a better CAD manager but you can only gain that perspective via experience. Exposure to some financial concepts like budgeting or engineering economics are great skills to have coming into a CAD management position, though you can learn those skills as you go.
Finally, I think the most important personal attributes of a CAD manager are the ability to learn on their own, a desire to solve complex technical problems and the willingness to take responsibility for a wide variety of tasks.

In your professional activities, do you spend more time sensibilizing people about CAD management or providing practical solutions and tips?

understanding why a problem exists will allow to remove the root cause of the problem

Actually it all seems to happen concurrently. I try to present things in the sequence of “what is the problem” then “why are you having the problem” then “what might you do to solve the problem” as the last piece of the puzzle. Typically it is during the “why are you having the problem” phase where the light bulb goes on for most CAD managers. That’s usually where they start to see their job as being more user based, more educational, more managerial and somewhat less technical than they might have thought.
When I give lectures to CAD manager groups I strive to demonstrate that understanding why a problem exists will allow them to remove the root cause of the problem. Then solutions can flow quickly once the root cause is eliminated. I do like to challenge CAD managers to think about the strategy of what they’re doing so they’ll take fresh new approaches to old problems. My goal is to have them walk out of a class emboldened to take charge and make things better.

What are the most common mistakes in CAD management in SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprise)?

(the main mistake) CAD managers aren’t talking to senior management in senior management’s native language

The most common mistake I see is the CAD manager not being involved enough in planning for future technology like hardware, networking and the new generation of design tools we see being adopted. When I hear a CAD manager complain about not having the right hardware, software or adequate budgets my first question is always, “What did you tell your management you needed?” After all, most senior management staffs know less about CAD than the CAD manager does so it behooves us to get involved in the planning early on.
The other main mistake I see made is that CAD managers aren’t talking to senior management in senior management’s native language which is all about business and money.  If you approach senior management with a solid business plan and show why that plan will generate profits for the company you’ll do a lot better than talking bits, bytes and bandwidth.

The transition from 2D to 3D can have huge implications for a CAD manager. What issues come up the most?

changing user’s software tools (from 2D to 3D) can be traumatic

The biggest issues I see are the human factors of the transition like training and desire to change. Changing user’s software tools can be traumatic and can lead to a divided user community: Some wanting to learn, some in the middle and some who simply loath change. But no matter what users think, the company simply wants their new software investment to pay off and is impatient to see the results. The CAD manager is now stuck between users who are stressed out by change and a senior management staff that wants things done immediately. Not an easy place to be!
Of course there are still the issues of upgrading hardware and software tools and fighting the budget battles that inevitably come up but in my opinion those things are easy compared to the staffing/training issues.

How does CAD management differ in a pure 2D environment from a 3D environment? What are the specific problems in the 3D environment?

3D tools require a lot more thought about data management, versioning and workgroup security

It differs in the amount of information that needs to be managed and carries a bigger emphasis on complex file to file relationships. Managing static 2D AutoCAD files is very different from managing a dynamically changing mechanical assembly with a collaborative design team, as an example. 3D tools require a lot more thought about data management, versioning and workgroup security.
There’s also the fact that 3D tools are developing/changing a lot more than the now familiar 2D systems so there’s more change to stay ahead of and bigger learning curves for the CAD manager as a result.
Finally, the interaction between 2D and 3D systems to facilitate communication with customers and vendors who use different systems is a big problem.  I call this mixture of 2D/3D the hybrid CAD office and have observed the phenomenon in all manner of private and government environments.  The translation headaches that result from the hybrid environment really keep the CAD manager hopping.

I would like to thank Robert Green for his taking the time for this interview. If you have any questions for Robert or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer. If you purchase Robert's book through his website the copy you receive will be autographed by the author.

Franco Folini

An Interview with Louis Gary Lamit, Author of the Book "Moving from 2D to 3D CAD for Engineering Design"

Louis Gary Lamit is a CAD professional and teacher with several years of experience behind him. He is the owner of Lamit and Associates and the author of the book Moving from 2D to 3D CAD for Engineering Design recently published by BookSurge. The transition from 2D to 3D has been an hot topic for several years, and is once again back with rich discussions involving almost every single CAD blog. This timely book captures the momentum the transition is gaining. It also provides me with a perfect opportunity to ask Gary for his first hand qualified opinion about this transition, the reasons behind it, and the forces that have been holding it back for so many years. Here is the interview.

Gary, can you tell us a bit about yourself and your company?
I am currently a full time instructor and CAD department coordinator at De Anza College in Cupertino, CA, where I teach Pro/ENGINEER, Pro/SURFACE, Pro/SHEETMETAL, Pro/NC, Expert Machinist, and Unigraphics NX.
I started in Detroit at the age of 16 in 1966 as a drafter for the automobile industry doing tooling, dies, jigs and fixture layout, and detailing. Subsequently I spent a number of years doing design, numerical control (NC) programming, technical illustration, and doing engineering work in the firearms, aircraft, and piping industries. My education included a BS degree from Western Michigan University, Masters' work at Wayne State University, Michigan State University and University of California at Berkeley and I hold an NC programming certificate from Boeing Aircraft. Since leaving industry, I have taught at all levels from Junior High School to University throughout the USA.
Starting in 1978 my publications include: Industrial Model Building, Piping Drafting and Design, Descriptive Geometry, Pipe Fitting and Piping Handbook, Drafting for Electronics, CADD, Technical Drawing and Design, Principles of Engineering Drawing, Engineering Graphics and Design with Graphical Analysis, Basic Pro/ENGINEER in 20 Lessons, Basic Pro/ENGINEER and PT/Modeler, Pro/ENGINEER 2000i, Pro/E 2000i2, IX Design, Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire, Introduction to Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 2.0, Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 3.0.

3D CAD systems have been around for many years. Why do you believe this is a good moment for a book about the transition from 2D to 3D?

50% of design and documentation is still being done with 2D CAD

There is presently a huge push from AutoDesk Inventor, PTC Pro/ENGINEER, UGS Solid Edge, and CATIA SolidWorks to entice the last 2D users to move to 3D CAD as their primary design tool. A team from PTC told me that 50% of design and documentation is still being done with 2D CAD. I was very surprised since Silicon Valley where I teach has been involved in 3D Design since the early 80's. When I met with four members of SolidWorks last summer I mentioned my project (book) and they flat out stated its 65% still doing 2D CAD and that they were deeply involved in every effort possible to get these companies as users of their version of 3D CAD.
With such a big push from all 3D CAD companies I would suspect that the use of 2D CAD will diminish to about 25% in the next 5 years. But, I was wrong in 1987 so I could be wrong now. I would have never suspected we would be having this discussion 20 years later.

How did your experience as teacher at De Anza College in Cupertino CA influence the content and style of your book?

why change to 3D, how to change to 3D, and what can you realistically expect to encounter in the process

I have a dislike for acronyms and sentences with long words and marketing catch phrases that when paragraphed do not sound like they should be uttered by people in real jobs doing real design work (no offense to marketing departments everywhere), but as drafters, designers, engineers, checkers, project managers, do we really speak like this? I have attempted to keep the book practical and focused on the subject; why change to 3D, how to change to 3D, and what can you realistically expect to encounter in the process.
Since my students are mainly professionals I have tailored my teaching to an educated and experienced individual who needs the mastery of the CAD tool to remain in the workforce. Writing textbooks on engineering subjects has been part of my life for almost 30 years (since 1978). The style of this book is straightforward and meant to engage the CAD or engineering design manager in their own way of seeing the world and what practical considerations they need to investigate and steps they need to implement in order to move their company from 2D CAD to 3D CAD with as little disruption as possible and with the maximum benefit at the end of the transition.

If the transition from 2D to 3D is inevitable, what are the reasons for the huge delay?
I will quote from my book where in 1987 we wrote: €"In the near future, a solid model will form the master representation of a part in contrast to the current practice of using the engineering drawing as the master representation. The main output of the design/drafting office will be a solid model of the part together with all the associated information that is contained on the engineering drawing and the provision of the engineering drawing will be a secondary function. In particular, the drawings, if required, will be generated from the model. The combination of a solid model and the necessary tolerance and associated technical data will be called the product model. Functions downstream of the design office will take the product model as their primary input."CADD: Computer Aided Design and Drafting", by Louis Gary Lamit and Vernon Paige.
A mere 20 years after I wrote this with my coauthor, industry is still engaged in the debate, 2D or 3D, or both. I had spent time employed as a drafter and designer (1966-73), and teaching "drafting" (1973-1984) all "on the board". In 1984 I took a job as the CAD/CAM instructor at De Azna College. I taught traditional drafting and design and descriptive geometry, but my primary class load was teaching ComputerVision. All work was done as 3D wireframe modeling and drawings were derived from the model. I thought I was in heaven, until, we added a new CAD system called AutoCAD in 1987. It was very difficult for me to understand why we would go backwards and do things similar to the drafting board - drawing in 2D, albeit with the aid of a computer.
I think that cost, concern over legacy design data, and transition implementation including training is the greatest influence. But, during the research for this book, there was one quote from a person I interviewed that really struck a chord: We simply could not be in business doing all the things we do if 2D were the only option.

Many believe that one of the major reasons we still use 2D CAD systems is because the current generation of designers have a strong background in 2D. Will the new generation of designers, having grown up with video games and the Internet, make 2D obsolete?

for the thousands of students my program has trained very very few ever want to do 2D design using a 2D CAD system

I suspect 3D games, HDTV, etc. will all have some effect in implementing a 3D world throughout engineering design. But I do not think we have to worry about people being trained to "see" in 3D like we had to train people to see and think in 2D. I have personally taught drafting and engineering graphics in Jr. High, HS, Technical school, Community College, Engineering College, and University. One of the most difficult things was teaching people to break down 3D objects into "6 standard views and an isometric". It is so much easier to teach 3D design using a CAD system. The only reason we have views in 2D is because that with the exception sculpting and physical modeling there was no other method to convey a design.
As the years have rolled by I have seen a definite change in the type of person and their understanding of design. Fewer and fewer individuals have 2D training as their basis of engineering graphics. But, regardless of when you started in engineering design, very few people think or see in 2D. In fact those who do were trained to do so. It did not come naturally. When you think about your car do you see the top, front, and right side? (How about when you picture your mom or dad or significant other- TOP, FRONT, and SIDE view? OK let's not go there.)  But, do you see the whole car- realistically in 3D, pictorially?
For the thousands of students my program has trained very very few ever want to do 2D design using a 2D CAD system. They realize that their career will be stunted if they get into a job that requires little or no 3D CAD and just getting them through the required AutoCAD series at De Anza is like pulling teeth. As a number have said- it's really hard to use 2D CAD! Modeling in 3D is so much easier, as is generating drawings from 3D models. Design and innovation happens in 3D -in your head- not 2D. Hopefully no one is dreaming in 2D except very old drafters (OK so I am old also- but I now only dream in 3D- in color- with shading- and realistic rendering).

Who should read your book: end-users, CAD managers, or executives?
This book is written to assist managers in their decision to go 3D and to guide them through the process. The best approach I have found is to evaluate 3D CAD software in terms of learning curve, legacy data re-use, total cost including software, training and support, and future scalability.
For those in the design industry, eventually your company and design department will be faced with the inevitability of transiting your design tool from a 2D CAD to 3D CAD system, either now or in the near future. Instead of "why change?" there is a more important question; with so many of the competition already using 3D CAD, "can I afford to stay with 2D design?" So the question of changing from your existing 2D CAD design tool to a 3D CAD tool becomes; when to start, not if to change. In the end, the real question is not, why change, but how to change. The challenge is to have the transition from a 2D CAD tool to a 3D CAD tool be as seamless as possible, limiting design down-time, expensive missteps, and internal discord.

How long do you believe it will take before we can consider the transition from 2D to 3D complete?

within five years fewer than 20% of mechanical design would be done using 2D CAD

Though a vast majority of jobs for my students (most are degreed professionals) are in positions using 3D CAD (50% Pro/E and 30% SolidWorks) there is still a need for the use and understanding of 2D CAD (AutoCAD in our case). Many companies still have legacy projects on 2D, and some still use it as their primary design tool. This book is meant to guide and assist individuals and companies in their quest for productivity and competitiveness through the selection and implementation of the appropriate design tool for their needs.
I suspect that within five years fewer than 20% of mechanical design would be done using 2D CAD. But then again I did write-predict in 1987: "In the near future, a solid model will form the master representation of a part in contrast to the current practice of using the engineering drawing as the master representation." Boy was I off by 10-15 years!

I would like to thank Louis Gary Lamit for taking the time to speak with me today. If you have any questions for Gary or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer.

Franco Folini

P.S. On this topic I would suggest an article I posted on this blog back in December 2006: Why the transition from 2D to 3D is taking forever.

Free CAD for Everybody

Is CAD software following the same path of web browsers? According to some small-size 2D CAD vendors (as reported by  Ralph Grabowski) there are too many free CAD systems and too long lasting free trials around. As a CAD reseller I should agree, and maybe I should say: free software is not good! But I don't see free CAD as a lost opportunity for a new sale, but as a changing market. I believe we are observing at least three different trends.

TREND ONE

lower prices means lower margins for resellers and therefore less resources

The price of CAD systems has been going down in the last few years, and where the price remains the same, the product comes with more features and modules. That's happening to all software, not just to CAD. Lower prices means lower margins for resellers and therefore less resources for demoing the software to potential customers, pre-sale training users, and promoting the software. CAD manufacturers are trying to deal with this situation by gradually transforming their product trial versions into a sort of sales tool. The trials are getting better, lasting longer and include more marketing features. We are going to see more of this in the future.

TREND TWO

(Autodesk) is using the profits from 2D to build a 3D success

All the companies focused on 3D as their core business are realizing their success will come only by converting the existing huge 2D installed base to 3D. They also know that the 2D world is mostly controlled by Autodesk. Because the San Rafael company is using the profits from 2D to build a 3D success, the only way to compete with Autodesk is the commoditization of 2D CAD systems. Only if and when 2D CAD becomes free or brands-insensitive, UGS, PTC, Dassault. etc., will be able to compete with Autodesk for the 3D market on a more even level. Those companies are not making any profit out of 2D systems, therefore why not give away 2D for free and by doing so try draining the fat revenues Autodesk is collecting from its 2D users base?

TREND THREE

(Autodesk) knows the transition from 2D to 3D is inevitable

At the same time, Autodesk is trying hard to move its user base from AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT to Inventor. They know the transition from 2D to 3D is inevitable, it's just a matter of time. And they know this can the best opportunity for their competitor to still their customers. Inventor is a good product, but in the 3D CAD arena it is just one of many, no better and no worse. In San Rafael they know it very well, and therefore they have an aggressive marketing strategy (see the recent report from New Orleans by Roopinder Tara and Rachael Dalton post) and they try everything, including giving away the product almost for free, to entice  their 2D users to switch to their 3D systems.

What's your opinion?

Franco Folini

PS: You can find a great selection of FREE CAD software on Novedge website on the FREE Downloads pages and on on the FREE Trials pages.

Frederick W. Taylor and 3D Technology

in 3D designers need to master the art of creating parametric CAD models

I was pleasantly surprised to see so many readers going through my recent post about the slow transition from 2D to 3D. Several readers left thoughtful comments explaining why they still use 2D technologies and tools. I really appreciate their feedback. I found also interesting Alex Neihaus comments on his blog. Alex has a point: 3D technology is not as easy as it should be. I don't like to admit it, but it's true. The slow 2D to 3D transition proves it. If using 3D technology gave companies an immediate competitive advantage, companies would jump into it, forcing all their CAD employees to adopt 3D technologies. Industry sectors, where the benefits are real, are already using 3D. The transition is obviously not happening on a full scale so there must be a problem somewhere. I have at least two suggestions:

3D Requires More Skilled Operators than 2D

Higher professional skills mean higher costs for companies. We work in an economic system based on over-optimized processes and where most of the employees can be easily and quickly replaced. Companies prefer to invest in processes more than in people: processes will stay, people can go. This approach doesn't really support the demand of higher professional skills generated by the 3D technologies. In an extreme synthesis we can say that 2D tools are more taylorist  than 3D tools.

3D is Not Truly WYSIWYG

The popular acronym WYSIWYG  (What You See is What You Get) applies to all sorts of software but not to 3D parametric feature-based CAD software, such as SolidWorks, Solid Edge, Pro/Engineer, CATIA V5, Alibre, etc. Even with a great rendering, the 3D shapes you see on your computer screen are just the top of a huge iceberg. What you see is the 3D geometry. You can't visually observe the complex network of relations and constraints that constitute the hidden portion of the iceberg. While you have to be an expert to understand and explore that part, you can experience its effects any moment by modifying some critical dimensional parameter. The hidden part of the iceberg will control how well and how much the 3D model will change. You can choose to not use the flexibility provided by the parametric engine running under the hood of your CAD system, but doing so means renouncing most of the advantages of 3D technology. On the other hand, fully embracing the parametric approach means committing to invest more time and larger resources for a better return, sometime in the future.

The two problems are related. A 3D system is more complex because is not WYSIWYG and therefore requires more skill in order to be properly and effectively operated. When switching to 3D we still need good designers, but they need also to know the complex art of creating and managing parametric feature-based 3D CAD models. Frederick W. Taylor wouldn't be happy about that.

Franco Folini

Why the transition from 2D to 3D is taking forever

For as long as I can remember, sophisticated 3D CAD systems have been on the verge of fully replacing the supposedly inefficient 2D CAD systems. For years it has been considered just a matter of time before the obvious advantages of 3D systems would push traditional 2D systems out of the market, all with great advantages for designers, companies, and users.

years have passed and 2D CAD systems are still around

Years have passed and 2D CAD systems are still around. We are now approaching the year 2007 and one of the most successful CAD systems is AutoCAD LT, a popular 2D system. If the 3D is so great, why all those people are still using a 2D CAD system?

In order to find an answer, let's ignore the few design contexts intrinsically 2D, where the benefits of 3D are not so obvious. Let's also exclude from our discussion those users that are  too rigid or conservative to switch to a new technology, regardless of the advantages. We still left with huge number of 2D users.

Today the cost of a state-of-the-art 3D parametric, feature-based CAD system is comparable with the cost of AutoCAD LT. What's keep those designers and their companies from switching to a 3D?

In order to explain my opinion I'll need an example.
Let's assume we need to design a simple L-bracket part. We can draw a couple of orthogonal views with a 2D system, add a bunch of dimensions and notes, and it's done. Similarly, with a 3D system, we can create a simple profile and extrude it to generate a 3D shape. So at this stage, there is no significant difference between 2D and 3D systems. The advantages of the 3D solution will become evident only if and when we reuse the 3D model in the following phases of the design and manufacturing process, such as when will have to go back to our computer to change the size or shape of our L-bracket. Designers know it very well: it's just a matter of time, someone will always want a change.

For the purpose of this example let's assume we are not a very skilled CAD user, or we are just thinking about our next vacation. Because of that, our sequence of commands to generate the CAD model of the L-bracket would be not optimal. If our system is a 2D system, nobody will ever know how we completed the design. A 2D model is just a collection of simple geometric entities and some text. As long as the drawing makes sense, it doesn't matter how we got it.

Based on our hypothetical limited skills, if we were using a 3D system instead of a 2D, the situation would have been completely different. On one side of the screen the "history tree" will reveal to everybody all our mistakes. Our (supposedly) poor skill would become evident the same moment we need to go back to our 3D model and change some dimension or add new features and details.

a poorly modeled 3D model is virtually unmodifiable

In every 3D CAD system, parametric models created by a "well designed" sequences of operations can support a wide range of dimensional modifications with predictable and consistent results. A well-crafted 3D model can become the archetype for a large group of products. The opposite is also true: a poorly modeled 3D model is virtually unmodifiable. Every tentative to change a critical dimension or to add more details will cause the failure of the model regeneration.

Most of the parts designed every day by CAD users are by far more complex than a simple L-bracket. The higher the complexity of the part, the more critical is the 3D modeling sequence of commands, and more challenging is the task for a 3D CAD operator.

With a 2D CAD system the situation is different. The design process can be even more difficult, because it must be done without the support of a 3D model, but the modeling phase (2D drafting, in this case) is a lot simpler than the corresponding 3D modeling phase. The effort to create a 2D model grows (approximately) linearly with the complexity of the part we intend to design, while the effort to create a 3D model grows with the square of the part complexity and size.

When we look at the big picture of the design and manufacturing process, the initial investment in building a 3D model will pay off with huge interest. (For more on the benefits of transitioning to a 3D system, check out the recent Cadalyst article.) A 2D solution can easily perceived as optimal only if you limit your analysis to the design phase. Transforming ideas into products is a long and complex process, and creating a 2D or 3D model is just one of the first steps.

I welcome your comments on this matter.

Franco Folini

Post Scriptum: You can find a continuation of this discussion on my more recent post: Frederick W. Taylor and 3D Technology.