NOVEDGE blog

Interview with Al Dean, DEVELOP3D Co-founder and Editor

It is difficult for me to write an introduction for Al Dean. On one hand I have read several articles and blog posts by Al, but on the other hand I've never had the opportunity to meet him personally (this interview was done by e-mail). What I like the most about Al and what keeps me going back to his blog is his frank attitude in expressing his opinions in a clear and honest way. This is a refreshing stance in a press world where the usual concern is more toward pleasing advertisers rather than informing readers. Al's rebellious attitude gives him credibility and makes his magazine not only a source of great information (professionally organized and beautifully formatted), but also a trusted one. On behalf of the CAD community I want to thank Al for his courage and determination in starting a new CAD magazine at a time when so many publications are simply disappearing.

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

Sure. I’m co-founder and editor of DEVELOP3D, it’s a web-site and a print magazine. As for background, how far back do you want to go? I’m British, grew up in a city called Wolverhampton; it has that multi-cultural, working class, post industrial kind of thing going on. Lots of burnt out factories, machine shops – it used to be the lock and motorcycle making capital of England, but as is inevitable, that all disappeared. Over the years I’ve been a barman and bouncer, butcher’s assistant, worked as a roofer on heritage buildings and for three hellish summer months spent 12 hours a day in a refrigerated chicken processing factory. That taught me four things. Firstly, never to put my fingers in a machine I didn’t understand. Secondly, how to sharpen a machete. Thirdly, that I can never face KFC again. Lastly, that I really didn’t want to wear white wellington boots and thermal underwear to work for the rest of my life.

[At MCAD] I got the job because I was under 40 and used more than AutoCAD

I trained in product design in the early 90s just as CAD was getting into the university mainstream, got myself a master’s degree and at the same time worked a lot of very short term contracts as a Pro/E monkey. After one memorable three-week period designing fridge handles, I decided enough was enough and applied for a CAD reviewer job at Computer Aided Draughting and Design magazine, which eventually become MCAD. I’m told I got the job because I was under 40 and used more than AutoCAD. I gave up wearing ties and haven’t looked back since.

At a time when many newspapers and magazines are switching to online editions only, you decided to start a new printed magazine. What were the reasons behind this initiative? Was there any overconfidence on your part or just faith in the destiny of your new, serious, professionally-written magazine?

Two things Franco. Firstly, look at the newsstand. What do you see? A lot of magazines. People love them. I know the future is the web, but until there’s a compelling method of reading them without lugging a laptop around, then people are going to continue to love magazines. Let’s be clear, this is about hardware, not delivery. Until you get a device that’s as easy to roll up, pop into a bag or just have lying around, magazines are liked and loved. I love my MacBook, but I’m never going into the restrooms with it and I suspect that most people are the same.
Now, does that extend into trade publications? Do people love magazines still? Yes, I believe they do – but not the run of the mill magazine that flick through and bin on a monthly cycle. The vast majority of publishers these days are lazy. They spend little effort on the look and feel and yes, content of their publications. They are typically defocused and badly designed. It’s a stream of revenue that they’ll run into the floor until they give up or the market gives up on them. This isn’t a reflection on the editors, but the powers above them – unless you have a passion for a subject, you don’t really care and you don’t really understand your community.

[...] to give those involved in design, product development and manufacturing, quality content and to engage with them

The concept behind launching DEVELOP3D was to give those involved in design, product development and manufacturing, quality content and to engage with them. You can write the best content in the world, but if it’s not laid out in an eye catching manner, in a visually compelling style, then no-one is going to read it.
Was there overconfidence? Sure. I have the luck to work with the most talented guys in this field and we freelance out to others that have incredible skills (josh @ solidsmack.com for one). We did a lot of research, and had a pretty good idea of what people like. What surprised me was exactly how much people liked the first six months. It’s nice to get that feedback and validation. We’re not stopping and have to continually evolve what we do – that’s the problem that many publishers face; same old shit, month in, month out - it doesn’t cut it. You have to change your game and realize that print is still incredibly viral. I’ve been giving out copies of DEVELOP3D wherever I can and the thing that I notice is how people interact with it, feel it, turn it in their hands and flip through it – then read it, cover to cover. When you hand someone a magazine and the first thing they do is flip it open and smell it, you know you’ve got something right.

Looking at DEVELOP3D, I see a great integration between online and offline content. Can you share some insights about your holistic approach as a publisher?

Content is king. But the online and offline world are different. Online (blogging if you have to use that word) is about speed, reaction and grabbing people’s attention. It’s quick, fast and dirty.

Content is king. But the online and offline world are different.

With print, you have more time, you can create a more interesting story, you can do things with design, with graphics that help to enrich that story – whether that’s a user story, about how they develop products at Lego, or Nokia, or whether it’s a product review. Would I run a story that’s written for a blog in print? Probably not, but with the comments you get, the feedback you receive, you can adapt and refine it and ensure that you do the story justice.

What is in your opinion the impact of social media on CAD users? Are engineers reading blogs and following Twitter discussions?

Are engineers and designers reading blogs and such? Yes. Of course, they are. But are they engaging and interacting with them? No – absolutely not. Not to any great extent. As for twitter, there’s a handful.

[in the Social Media] there’s a very small core number of users that are involved, the alpha geeks

If you look at the CAD/3D modeling within the design and engineering community, there’s a very small core number of users that are involved, the alpha geeks if you like. These are the same people that comment on each other’s blogs, write their own and generate the interlinking that makes the whole thing work. It seems a lot bigger than it really is, in comparison to the size of the user community as a whole. It’ll grow I’m sure and more rapidly than we probably expect, but at present, it’s a small percentage.

British magazines in several technical fields have a good reputation and are widely read in the US. Do you have plans to move to the US with the printed copy of Develop3D?

In an ideal world, we’d be there now, and we certainly plan to be there soon. We’ve been seeding a few places with the magazine to try and gauge what people think of it. The reaction has been good, solid and encouraging. But comparing the US to the UK, it’s a nightmare: logistically and financially. Mail costs outweigh the cost of printing the magazine to a good, solid standard. A lot of US magazines use much lower weight paper and feel pretty nasty (for good reason, it’s cheaper to mail) – we don’t want to compromise on quality – the audience we’re talking to deserve a good, solid and quality magazine.

[...] the interest is not just North American, it’s global. At the moment, the rest of world equals that of the US.

So, we’re stuck in the position that people like the magazine, we want to get it there, but we simply don’t have a way of funding it – unless people pay for the magazine, which is something we’re looking into. But one thing’s for sure,everyone will always have the PDF version.
What else is interesting is that the interest is not just North American, it’s global. At the moment, the rest of world equals that of the US. Considering that the magazine is English, this surprised the crap out of me. I love the idea that every month there are nine people in Lima in Peru, digging into Develop3D with their coffee in the morning.

As a journalist you have a view on the market that is perhaps wider than the rest of us. Looking back on 2008 what will be remembered as the most emblematic event or technology?

Do you mean for the CAD world or the world at large? For the world at large, I think the social media thing is endlessly fascinating – that’s perhaps the biggest revolution there’s been in decades, since the advent of email. Perhaps it’s even the year that email became secondary (personally, I hate it and its rigid structured ways). There’s also multi-touch. The iPod touch and iPhone aren’t the beginning and end of this but they herald a new way to interact with data and UI.
On that subject I think we need a massive shift in interaction hardware before it gets adopted for 3D CAD. For visualization and presentation, it’s perfect, immersive and interactive, but imagine using a multi-touch interface, however it’s configured, for 12 hours a day. Arm’s up, blood flow to your elbows. It’s a recipe for RSI. That’s something I can’t quite figure out – how it’ll work.

What will 2008 be remembered for? That’s got to be the rise of the dynamics, direct modeling technology

But what will 2008 be remembered for? That’s got to be the rise of the dynamics, direct modeling technology. Products like IronCAD, CoCreate and Kubotek have been around for many years, but with the introduction of Synchronous Technology from Siemens, SpaceClaim and now Autodesk with Inventor Fusion, then this is the year that things got really serious. Is it marketing hype? A little bit – most of the new generation of tools are highly embryonic, but it’s coming and coming soon. I think CAD just took the next leap – we’re just not too sure where it’s going to land and how well it’ll recover from the impact. But we’ve got consumer driven graphics hardware advancing, CPUs are going multi-core at a quick rate and with the code base change to accommodate these changes, we have the potential to see drastically improved usability and capability.

As a CAD user, what kinds of limitations of current systems do you have a hard time accepting or understanding?

Data exchange is the age old one that isn’t going away. Aside from the simple mismatch of maths and geometry and there’s a huge desire NOT to make it happen which means it won’t be cured soon. The idea that the rise of direct/dynamic modeling systems will change this is interesting. The ability to edit geometry between systems, because you don’t need the history/parameters and can create them on the fly is valid, but experience tells me, it’s not that simple. When you have two core solid modeling libraries that define something as simple as a cylindrical hole differently, then there’s a lot of work yet to do.

The speed at which UI trends change is incredible, and today, it’s driven by consumers to such a large extent that CAD vendors can get caught out

Ease of use and interaction design is something I’m endlessly fascinated by. How different developers work, what appears to be a good idea in one system, gets clunky in another. How good ideas proliferate – and bad ideas. The speed at which UI trends change is incredible, and today, it’s driven by consumers to such a large extent that CAD vendors can get caught out. There was a perfect example recently. A CAD vendor developed a web-based front end to a data management product that looked like MySpace. If they’d looked this year and last year it’s all been Facebook or more recently, Twitter. The product should have matched that. CAD vendors need to look around more regularly to get a feel for what’s happening and where the trends lie, otherwise they end up looking like dinosaurs.
For someone with a background in the conceptual side of things, the last one is that there’s a lack of decent 3D conceptualization tools out there. Something that builds in sketching and 3D. Autodesk is working on something - Alias has always been strong in that area, but I think other vendors could do a much better job. Design always started with a sketch, be that a digital one or an analogue, sharpie on a napkin type of thing. That gets forgotten. Same with model making – with the rise of rapid prototyping (something of which I’m a huge fan), the manual element is being forgotten and from that tactile input, that manual process, we can gain so much.

I would like to thank Al Dean for taking the time to answer my questions. If you have any questions for Al or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer. You can also follow Al on Twitter where he is twitting as alistradean.

Franco Folini

Interview with Paul Brown, NX Marketing Director

Siemens NX, with various names and affiliations, has been around for several years. Nobody would really expect a well establish CAD system to become the lead innovator of a new technology. Usually those kinds of CAD systems invest in maintaining their user base rather than trying to acquire new users and push technological limits. For these reasons I was quite surprised when I read that the new Synchronous Technology, developed by UGS first and then by Siemens, was being deployed not only on the younger Solid Edge but also on the more complex and older UG NX. These radical changes are  happening not too long after the acquisition of UGS by Siemens (May 7, 2007). To learn more about this important transition and the implication it is having for all NX users, I asked Paul Brown for an interview.

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

My company, Siemens PLM Software, is a business unit of Siemens Industry Automation Division and a leading global provider of PLM software and services We have 51,000 customers worldwide with 5.5 million licensed seats of software out there. I am senior director of NX Marketing worldwide. So I head up the marketing for the NX CAD product line.

we have 51,000 customers worldwide with 5.5 million licensed seats

I have been with our company more than 20 years, serving in various roles including technical support and marketing. I have a background in engineering and computer science. I got started in product design at a machinery company. One of my key roles is to work with customers and our development organization to look at how NX can meet the challenges that users face in their day-to-day work.

What impact has the acquisition of UGS by Siemens had on NX evolution?

We continue to lead the PLM market in R&D investment and we remain steadfast in our commitment to our digital product development software suite of products that help our customers develop innovative products faster and more cost-efficiently.

Siemens was impressed with [synchronous technology] enough to help accelerate the development project

One example of this was seen with our launch of synchronous technology. We disclosed the technology during the due diligence process and Siemens was impressed with it enough to help accelerate the development project. We believe the technology is a major breakthrough that is sustainable in the market for years. NX 6 features synchronous modeling in our “Design Freedom” tools.

NX has ambitions to set a new standard for usability in the CAD world. Can you explain how the NX approach is different from other CAD systems?

Traditionally, the approach is to remove functions in order to de-clutter an interface for enhanced usability.  I think the main problem with this is it assumes usability is all about two things…can I find the command I want to use and does it work in a way I would expect it to? And that’s fine for new users, but the problem is that usability is more than just those two things it does include those, but as my skills improve I then start looking for more efficiency in the way I have to use the system.  So just removing functions can leave you with a system that runs out of power when I get to more complex problems.

users have the ability to access more of the system as they become more efficient

So with NX we wanted to challenge that approach with a new interface that delivers usability without losing functionality. Our users kept telling us that they wanted something that was easier to use, but they didn’t want to lose functionality, so with that as a challenge we had to find a way to get new levels of usability without causing those existing users problems.  So we did this by focusing on the workflows our customers had  and working to make sure that as a user gets more experienced he can still be productive.We put a significant amount of effort into analyzing how CAD programs are used in a user’s day-to-day workflow. We leveraged an external firm to advise us on how workflows were done in NX vs. competing programs. And we focused interface changes to areas that could make the biggest impact to usability and productivity.
So that’s what lead us to the role-based interface you see in NX today. It means that users have the ability to access more of the system as they become more efficient.
We first introduced the roles-based interface in NX 5 to allow companies to decide exactly what they need in NX. For example, a company can choose to remove a command they never use in their design process, such as performing an extrude to add taper at the same time. We also looked at a number of standard workflows and built pre-packaged roles based around industries.  I think that’s important because when somebody installs NX they get a starting point that they are familiar with and can work from.  If we had simply said, you can do what you like and offered no guidance as to what you can do the effort we put in probably would not have had the same effect.
NX 5 really helps people get started into NX, but one thing we kept hearing from customers was that they wanted to be able to use more of the screen space. “Why do I want a tree like navigator down the side of my screen and dialogs taking up space? If I’m designing a product I want to see the product! ”That’s a fair question. With NX 6 we built on the foundations we made in NX 5 and added new tools that allow users to remain productive as they become more advanced.  So we added a full screen mode which we combined with customizable pop-up toolbars so you can get maximum size of graphics, as big as the monitor you purchase and have all of the commands you want to use used commands right under your cursor.  It’s also made even better by technology we’re calling Trueshade which brings advanced visualization capabilities to every user, it has pre-packaged lighting and environments so you can work full screen with shadows, mirroring, material properties. When we review versions with existing customers this is one thing they all like trying out.
This focus on ongoing productivity, allowing the user to control what they really need, makes NX both easy to begin using and highly efficient for the skilled user.

Why in your opinion is direct-modeling reappearing only now after being dismissed by many for several years as an ineffective technology?

I think that there are a number of technology advances that have made it more effective. The fact was the historical approach to direct modeling had mathematical restrictions which limited the types of changes that could be performed. Topology changes were either difficult or simply not allowed. Given that restriction the amount you could change was limited.
Another factor was that it required a lot of very specific user input to identify what geometry needed to be included in the calculation. Recent advances in geometry inferencing and selection have simplified the process. At the same time the underlying mathematics have improved to solve more complex cases making direct editing easier and more robust.

we’re combining geometry, rules and the geometric relationships that appear in a design and solving them at the time of editing

At Siemens PLM we took this drive into direct modeling technology further when we announced synchronous technology. We believe that NX 6 Design Freedom powered by synchronous technology takes this type of modeling beyond simple “direct modeling” that is purely a modification of the topology used in a design.  It takes us into what we are calling synchronous modeling. What we’re doing is combining geometry, rules and the geometric relationships that appear in a design and solving them at the time of editing. We automatically recognize and maintaining relationships such as tangency and symmetry in real-time as the geometry is modified. This gives us the ability to make model changes that can’t be done with traditional direct modeling.
Having said it’s clear that there are still cases that are not suitable for direct interaction. That’s why we continue to invest in the underlying architecture and the user interaction, allowing users the ability to work the way they want. Our goal inside NX is to give designers the freedom to work the best way to get the job done, offering parametric history-based and history-free approaches to design.  We’re not saying direct modeling is the only approach to design, we’re really saying you need the best of both worlds.

What is the status of JT as an open file format? Does JT have a new role to play in the context of a big company such as Siemens?

With over five million JT-enabled licensed software applications installed worldwide, JT is the most widely used lightweight 3D data format for product visualization, collaboration and interoperability throughout the CAD and PLM industries, making it very useful in today’s multi-CAD environments.

in December 2006, the comprehensive JT File Format Reference document was published and made available for free download

As for its status as an open format, a couple of items come to mind. First of all, the JT Open Program is accessible to all organizations and makes the JT toolkit available to all members – including companies that directly compete with Siemens PLM Software. Second, in December 2006, the comprehensive JT File Format Reference document was published and made available for free download from the Siemens PLM Software web site. This completed the next logical step in establishing a common, open 3D language for the PLM industry to share product related information and further established JT as a long-term data retention format.
As for JT’s role within Siemens, the company has been a long-term user of JT with an internal user community sponsored by its Corporate Technology department that provides advocacy and support for the growing JT usage throughout the global Siemens enterprise.

What sort of changes should users expect in their CAD system in the next few years?

I think that there are a number of ongoing challenges that users are looking for their vendors to address.
In terms of modeling technology, users continue to seek solutions that are quick and easy to work with especially when working with geometry that they haven’t designed. This may or may not have parametric history, so the freedom to work directly on models with a level of intelligence that gets added at edit time rather than at creation time.

users continue to seek solutions that are quick and easy to work with especially when working with geometry that they haven’t designed

There will always be improvements to usability, such as the display of relevant information to support the decision process, or alternative input devices (it’s hard to see that the traditional 2-D mouse and keyboard approach will be the only way forward).
I believe you will also see more use of alternative representations of data, polygon modeling that has traditionally been targeted at reverse engineering applications could have a wider use in CAD technologies. One thing is clear, nobody in this industry is standing still.

I would like to thank Paul Brown for taking the time to answer my questions. A special thanks also to Dora Smith for her valuable support in putting together this interview. If you have any questions for Paul or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer.

Franco Folini

Interview with Anthony Frausto-Robledo, Owner of Architosh

Creative professionals have always had a fascination with Apple products and the Mac personal computer in particular. While Mac was one of the first personal computers to have a graphic user-interface, the connection seems to goes beyond that -- and to continue even after the GUI became a standard. One of the first websites who endorsed the partnership of Architecture and Mac was Architosh. This website survived the collapse of the dot-com bubble and still today brings fresh news from the computer graphics and architectural field, high-quality interviews, product reviews, and offers a public forum where Mac fans can exchange opinions and share experiences. The person that makes this possible with his daily work and dedication is Anthony Frausto-Robledo.

Anthony, can you tell us a bit about yourself?

Sure. I'm a design person by nature, not a tech person and I think that gives me a slightly different perspective about tech in design fields.
I have a bachelor's of architecture degree. I have worked in architecture firms since I was in high school. I was always very good at art. Because I am old enough to have experienced the architecture firm prior to the computer I remember the predominant feeling of a typical pre-computer firm. It felt like a studio. The spectrum of focus was unbroken. When computers came into practice there was this mental shift that occurred. The spectrum of focus within the creative firm got split, like an axe splitting a log. This interrupted the combination of energy and calm that I normally felt and associated with an architect's office.

I'm a design person by nature, not a tech person and I think that gives me a slightly different perspective

When I graduated from architecture school I went to work for Fred Koetter of Koetter Kim & Associates, in Boston. Fred was dean of architecture at Yale at the time -- he's an absolute brilliant architect -- and he was my primary architectural hero. Anyway, his office had the same focus of the pre-computer office yet it had computers everywhere. And they were Macs. What I learned was this office did amazing things with these Macs, with great efficiency and simplicity, and that these computers calmly fit into the backdrop of the office. In other words, they never got in our way. And because of this there was no need for the spectrum of focus to be split. The Macs simply "served us."

Did you really feel that strongly about technology interfering with the design process? When did Architosh start?

Yes and no. I could see that some people were not as affected by the disposition between the machine and their craft. But for me it just really interfered and affected me more. When I am working at my highest level, creatively, I can't have any kind of major interruptions. But the personal computer is full of potential disaster and disruption. At this point in the late 90's I decided I needed to get a hold of technology for myself. I needed, in other words, to figure out how to get technology to simply serve, serve really well... and without interruptions. I needed to ensure that tech in practice would be a lot more like R2D2 in Star Wars versus his always yacking robot companion C3PO. So I started a consultancy in 1998 and launched Architosh.com in February of 1999.

I launched Architosh.com in February of 1999

When it launched it was simply a listing of my research on Mac software for CAD, 3D and AEC. I was just exploring back then, but I soon found I had a very large global audience. At that time the Net was all the rage and so I began to look at it differently. Within two years I realized I loved the journalism challenge and opportunities it presented.

As a long time Mac user can you explain the reciprocal fascination between the graphic world and the Mac world?

The relationship you speak of centers on just a particular body of creative people -- and not just in the graphics world. I think they see a reflection of themselves in the way the Macintosh computer is conceived as a whole. In other words, there is a shared sense of design values.

there is a shared sense of design values [between Mac and creative people]

The fascination part comes in because the personal computer by nature is an enchanting device -- like the TV was back in the 50's -- except that you interact with it. When you meet someone who shares the same values as you, sees the world the way you do, you feel affirmed and that mutual affirmation sponsors a bond. In a sense the Mac has a powerful way of affirming one's sense of values as they relate to being who they are -- as creative individuals.

Architects seems to be particularly attracted to the Mac platform. What are the specific features of the Mac that are more important to architects?

Well... architects are creatives like painters, photographers and other graphic artists. It makes even more sense that they would like the Mac because they often have large philosophical views about the world and they design and conceive at very large urban scales. The more important they hold their values the more likely they are going to want to surround themselves with same or supporting values. Apple's products speak with a crystal clear voice about the values behind them.

Apple's products speak with a crystal clear voice about the values behind them

This makes them ideal models for creation. I can't say that there are particular features of the Mac or any Apple product that make them more popular with architects. I would be speculating if I did that. What I can say is that Apple's products lead the world in the areas of ease-of-use, product and service integration, and that Apple's products are generally more beautiful, by both critical and popular agreement, than any competitor's products out there.

There is a large community of users that orbits around your website. What kind of interaction is there between the community and the sponsoring companies or companies that are simply the topic of discussions?

Architosh is somewhat famous -- at least in the Mac news world -- for its executive level interview articles. These are very popular with a company's end users. They get a chance to hear what might be coming down the pike, where a company's values lie, and what to look forward to.

[Architosh users] get a chance to hear what might be coming down the pike, where a company's values lie, and what to look forward to

However, company's now use Blogs to do a lot of this, but that medium cannot authenticate a neutrality around larger issues -- which is the primary value in independent journalism. Architosh will be launching a new site this Fall that will be building in more interaction capabilities into its journalism.

The business rules on the Internet are always changing. Your website has been able to adjust and adapt to new trends and users' expectations. How do you manage to thrive in this ever changing environment?

There is a lot of writing about companies being nimble and flexible in order to survive and thrive, but I think that publications work more around issues of trust. In this case, discussions about be adaptive are a little different. Architosh is here because of a strategic long-term bet I made personally about Apple a decade ago. What we write about today is more relevant than ever. But what is more key now is that we have built up trust, respect, and reliability by doing this back when nobody else was interested in writing about Apple.

we have built up trust, respect, and reliability

So I think what I'm saying is, we have taken the long-view approach and have stuck to our guns. But doing that is not enough to win or be right. One only needs to look at US foreign policy to understand that. What you really need with the long-view approach is to be able to read the situation correctly at the beginning.

You contribute to your website content with high quality, professionally written interviews and articles. What are the limits of user-generated content and how much space is left for editors and journalists like you?

When the new Architosh launches this Fall there will be even more possibilities for user-generated content. Right now, this is mostly contained within the Architosh forums, but this will grow both in the Fall and next year. As for space for editors and journalists?

Anybody can contribute an article for publication, and many user-readers have

We have an open policy. Anybody can contribute an article for publication, and many user-readers have. In general, our product reviews are only written by knowledgeable and experienced product review writers.

The Mac has popularized the concept of no barrier between the desktop and the cloud (Internet). How will this approach affect architects and their work process?

We have been writing about this for quite some time now. We do quite a bit in the cloud internally with Architosh and have been for more than three years.

The Architosh team is globally dispersed, from Germany to Perth, Australia

The Architosh team is globally dispersed, from Germany to Perth, Australia. What cloud computing will do -- for not just architects but all businesses -- will enable them to globalize their reach for talent and services. I believe that doing this will allow them to strengthen their competitive position relative to their peers.

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

Franco Folini

An Interview with Evan Yares, Charismatic CAD Expert

Evan C. Yares is a well-known figure in the CAD world. He has the drive and vision to put himself in the right spot in order to maximize his influence on the CAD community and its products. He has opinions and is not afraid to share them, even when this means taking the risk of making a few enemies in some powerful corporations. His popular blog openly discusses critical topics, and his long advocacy for greater CAD interoperability was publicly recognized by the CAD Society that awarded Evan with the prestigious 2008 Joe Greco Community Award. After exchanging opinions with Evan about several CAD topics, I asked him for an interview. He accepted but took his time getting back to me with his answers. After reading Evan's responses I believe it was well worth the wait. Please feel free to judge for yourself; the interview follows below.

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

I’m an engineer who grew up in a family of artists. That might help add some perspective for people who can’t quite figure me out.

I’m an engineer who grew up in a family of artists

I started my working life as a construction worker and house painter, which was great motivation for me to get into college, and get my engineering degree. After graduating, I worked as a field engineer, then a design engineer. In 1982, I discovered AutoCAD (at its first official showing), and shortly thereafter, my career became CAD. Through the years, I’ve worked as a reseller, a consultant, a writer, and more. I was a co-founder of Cyon Research (co-creating COFES: the Congress on the Future of Engineering Software, with my partners Brad Holtz and Joel Orr), and for eight years was the president/executive director of the Open Design Alliance.
These days, I work as an independent analyst and consultant, continuing to focus on the engineering software industry, with a user-centric viewpoint.

You have earned a great reputation as a promoter of CAD users’ rights. Was this just part of your job at ODA (Open Design Alliance) or is this something you are passionate about?

It’s a personal passion. I originally came to CAD, about 25 years ago, because I was an engineer looking for tools to help me get my job done better and faster.

It’s a personal passion [to promote CAD user's rights]

I was already an outspoken proponent for users before I started working at the ODA.
I felt it was a great compliment when the CEO of a significant CAD company told me he was impressed that I’m willing to actually say what I think. I’m pretty sure there are some CEO’s that are not thrilled when I do this. Even so, there are companies of which I’ve been very critical, that still treat me with respect. Autodesk’s CEO Carl Bass may not send me a card for my birthday, but he returns my phone calls, and is willing to discuss substantive issues without saying “this is off the record.”

The last revolution in the CAD world was the migration to the PC platform, which happened over 15 years ago. Despite rosy predictions from marketing departments, true evolution seems to remain extremely gradual and slow. Why do you think this is so?

There is no one culprit: User mindset, lock-in, program complexity, poor development processes, lack of leadership, and economics are all factors slowing innovation in CAD.
I’d argue that the last major revolution in MCAD started in 1987, when PTC premiered Pro/Engineer, the first major CAD program to implement parametric feature-based modeling.

we’re in the midst of the next major revolution in MCAD, with the emergence of feature inference modeling...

I’d also argue that we’re in the midst of the next major revolution in MCAD, with the emergence of feature inference modeling, implemented in products from CoCreate (PTC), Kubotek, SpaceClaim, and soon Siemens PLM. What’s exciting about this new revolution is that it’s not about overthrowing the last revolution; it’s about completing it. Feature inference modeling and feature-based modeling are complementary technologies, that, when used together, have the potential to completely transform the product development process.

CAD users are frequently victims of “licensing systems” that shamelessly limit their rights to own and control data, transfer licenses, or travel internationally with their CAD license. What should users do to counterbalance the power of large software corporations?

You’ve probably heard of the case of Vernor v. Autodesk, where an ebay seller sued Autodesk in Federal District Court. A couple of weeks ago, the judge in the case issued a strongly worded ruling, tossing out all of Autodesk’s significant arguments. Realistically, Vernor never could have gotten this result with his original self-written complaint; he got it because Public Citizen, a high-profile consumer watchdog group, took his case on after hearing about it through the blogosphere. While this case involves Autodesk, it could have just as easily been almost any major software vendor. Autodesk is far from the worst offender in the CAD industry when it comes to unconscionable licensing restrictions – yet I’d argue that it was the company’s aggression towards customers that brought this to its doorstep.

There are only a few effective strategies by which users can counterbalance the power of large corporations: litigation, legislation, and regulation

The moral of the story, and a partial answer to your question, is that billion dollar software companies and $500 per hour lawyers are no match for pissed-off users who know how to tap into the power of the blogosphere.
The more complete answer to your question is that there are only a few effective strategies by which users can counterbalance the power of large software corporations. They are litigation, legislation, and regulation. Public pressure generated through the blogosphere is simply a tactic to help make those things happen.

Open source is affecting many areas of the software world but so far its impact on CAD/CAM has been absolutely negligible. Do you see any change coming?

It is possible to build a CAD or CAM program using open source software components, but that’s like saying it’s possible to build a skyscraper using standardized building components. There’s a big difference between something being possible, and actually being able to do it.
Separate from technical issues, there are pragmatic issues of money.

CAD is hard; it’s not the kind of thing that a few idealistic amateurs can knock out in a few months [talking about Open-Source]

CAD is hard; it’s not the kind of thing that a few idealistic amateurs can knock out in a few months. If you want to get a sense of scale, consider that the Pro/E Wildfire 4.0, the latest version, represents 349 active R&D projects, and over $100 million in R&D investment. And that’s just a new version, not a built-from-scratch program.
I believe we’ll continue to see specialty engineering programs (especially those developed at universities) delivered as open source, but I don’t anticipate that we’ll see open source being a significant factor in the mainstream CAD market. I would, however, love to be proven wrong.

Many believe that the adoption of standard CAD data formats can become the Trojan horse that brings back the ownership of CAD data to end-users. But the definition of standards is frequently based on obsolete, slow, and not always transparent processes. What can be done to improve the current situation?

The only answer I can find to this question is “educate users to choose wisely.”
It’s interesting that you should mention “Trojan horse.” There are some vendor-developed standard formats that deserve the title. I call these “write only” standards: Anyone can write these files, but only their developers can reliably read them, as their documentation is incomplete, or their specifications indeterminate. Examples of write-only standard formats include DXF, DWF, 3DXML, XVL, ACIS SAT, and Parasolid XT. (The CAD industry has no exclusivity on write-only standards: OOXML from Microsoft and SWF from Adobe both fit into this category. Neither company can legitimately argue that this is a mere accident or oversight.)
The only proprietary standard CAD formats I feel comfortable with are 3DM, which is supported by the free and unrestricted OpenNURBS toolkit, and JT, which has a seemingly complete format specification. (At least, it’s complete by my reading.) The gold-standard for CAD data formats is STEP. While it may have evolved slowly, and it isn’t perfect, it is very well thought-out, and (finally) robust.
I’m one of those who believe that standard data formats are the path towards giving ownership of CAD data back to users, but I believe that formats alone are insufficient. It is a combination of improvements in standards (e.g. the inclusion of PMI data in STEP ap203 E2), and the rise of feature inference modeling that makes it possible.

If CAD software reached the status of a mature technology, then we may start to see the transition from the traditional release-upgrade license model to a subscription based model. Are users ready for this? What is your opinion on the subscription model?

I see the today’s typical subscription model as being designed to benefit vendors more than users. It’s the same commercial-off-the-shelf software, with a more restrictive license, and a cost structure optimized to provide predictable annuity income to the vendor.

what is more interesting than software subscription is software as a service (SaaS)

The inherent problem with subscription software is that it begs the question of data ownership. While vendors may argue that proprietary data file formats are acceptable when used with perpetually licensed software applications, it’s hard to make such an argument in the context of software subscriptions. When software subscriptions are combined with proprietary data file format, users are effectively put in the position of paying a periodic “tax” to the vendor in order to access their own intellectual assets.
I think what is more interesting than software subscription is software as a service (SaaS). Done right, it can have real benefits for users, particularly in shifting maintenance and procurement costs to vendors, and in converting front-ended loaded overhead costs into scalable variable costs. Yet, I don’t know that any of today’s major CAD vendors are anywhere near the point of being able to deliver serious SaaS solutions. And I don’t know that the current SaaS platform vendors are anywhere near providing the kind of capabilities demanded by such solutions.

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

Franco Folini

Why Direct/Parametric Modeling Hybrid is an Oxymoron

Parametric CAD systems are based on a complex internal data-structure that represents each geometrical and dimensional constraint as a relationship among two or more entities. When the end-user requests a change to a parameter (dimension), the CAD system propagates the modification to the entire 3D model (it’s called model evaluation) following those relationships while preserving the validity of each single constraint.

In the data structure of a direct-modeling CAD system there are no constraints. They are created on the fly as a way to support high-level modification of the 3D model. For example, if the CAD system sees a tangency between a planar face and a cylindrical face it likely will assume that it’s a constraint and that it should be preserved to guarantee that the behavior of the system follows the original design intent.

The power and beauty of the direct-modeling approach is that in different moments the set of active constraints can change radically. Constraints “captured” to support modification "A" can even contradict constraints “captured” during modification “B”. This is great because gives the end-user incredible flexibility and power.

On the other hand, in a parametric CAD system the set of constraints can be changed only with tedious and complex operations. The benefit of this more rigid approach is that your CAD system knows all the constraints and doesn’t have to guess them. This makes parametric CAD systems more predictable and reliables. If the 3D parametric model was carefully created by a skilled CAD user this can be a huge advantage.

Because of the intrinsic difference between the two approaches, there cannot be a hybrid CAD system where I can create a parametric part, change it using some of the flexible tools offered by a direct-modeling system, and still have a fully parametric part.  A direct-editing modification to a parametric model is possible, but it becomes a non-return point -- the data structure that supports the parametric nature of the model will not survive.

The recent marketing brochures and blogs that are describing a possible future of CAD based on the hybrid approach make me smile. But we all know that marketing knows no limitations…

Franco Folini

An Interview with Ron KC Cheng, CAD Writer

Ron KC Cheng is the author of a new book Inside Rhinoceros 4 published by Thomas Learning, an introduction to the latest release of Rhino, the popular NURBS modeling system by Robert McNeel and Associates. This is not the first book about Rhino written by Ron; he is also the author of Inside Rhinoceros 3, a sort of classic for the Rhino community. Despite the rich set of training and learning resources available over the Internet, many people like the idea of having a real book to browse through as a reference or even read sitting on the porch. Ron has plenty of experience with Rhino as a professional and as a teacher and I'm sure his book will help Rhino to reach an even wider audience. To learn more about Rhino and the book, I asked Ron for an interview.

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

Thomson Learning has published for me seventeen English books related to computer-aided design applications

Leading the Engineering Design and Communication Unit of the Industrial Center of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, in addition to teaching, my main areas of interest are designing and product development related, in particular, to four kinds of projects (industrial, engineering, integrative, and manufacturing).
Over the years Thomson Learning of the United States of America has published for me seventeen English books related to computer-aided design applications. Among them, the Autodesk Inventor book was translated into Russian and the latest publication is the Inside Rhinoceros 4 book. In addition to the English books, the China Technology Press of Hong Kong also published for me computer aided design books in Chinese and a series of paper automata toys (Figure 1.)
Together with my team, through sensitive exploration, dynamic steering, critical changing, and strategic creation of needs, I continually develop and provide four major kinds of tangible products in terms of project works: industrial projects, engineering projects, integrated learning projects, and manufacturing projects. Basically, industrial projects and engineering projects are externally oriented, with clients mainly from the industry outside the university. These projects usually have clear definitions on what will be needed in the final product, in terms of aesthetic and functional requirements. In essence, they are similar in nature but differ only on emphasis, with industrial projects having more focus on aesthetic outcome and engineering projects having heavier engineering ingredients. In common, they are all unique, challenging, and interesting because they are dynamically driven by the market. The lead time for these projects is usually short and reaction to market enquiry has to be fast and immediate. Showing in figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 are some of the industrial and engineering projects.
Contrary to externally orientated projects, integrated learning projects and manufacturing projects are internally oriented, with clients being our students of the university. The common goal of these projects is to enable the students with different backgrounds to achieve specific learning outcomes, with the integrated learning projects being the primary projects and the manufacturing projects being the secondary projects. Here, primary and secondary refer to the stages in delivery in the course of learning but not their importance. As primary projects, integrated learning projects have to match individual program’s detail syllabus in terms of coverage in various processes, with preference on the balance of emphasis and leading to the advocating of product and process integration in the design and development of projects. Being secondary in the stage of learning, manufacturing projects are more flexible in nature and scope, as long as engineering application and problem solving techniques are properly emphasized. Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are some examples of the integrative projects and manufacturing projects.

What is so special about Rhinoceros 4.0 to explain its great success?

Rhinoceros is very user-friendly and can be picked-up in a couple of hours

There are several points contributing to Rhinoceros 4’s success. First of all, as compared with other 3D modeling tools, Rhinoceros does not require heavy hardware configuration. We can run Rhinoceros 4 on a computer with a Celeron CPU with as low as 256M Ram. Naturally, we need to turn off History recording. Otherwise, memory requirement will become quite high. Part of my Rhinoceros book was written while I was traveling on trains, using an ultra mobile PC, as shown in Figure 12.
Rhinoceros is very user-friendly and can be picked-up in a couple of hours, because it allows users to input command through pull-down menus, toolbars, as well as command prompt area. In particular, it allows users to select command options by selecting them from the command prompt area. To facilitate 3D manipulation, there are three default construction planes. In conjunction with using the Control key, we can input 3D coordinates very easily. Naturally, we can always set up our own construction planes whenever necessary but that would need a bit more knowledge on Rhinoceros. In terms of surface modeling, it supports both NURBS surfaces as well as polygonal meshes. NURBS surfaces are powerful tools for building 3D free-form surfaces. Using Rhinoceros, the NURBS curves and surfaces can be easily built and manipulated. With Rhinoceros’s UDT (universal deformation technology), we can manipulate NURBS surface objects to obtain very free-form organic shapes. On the other hand, polygonal meshes are useful in rapid prototyping. We can use it as a tool to manipulate rapid prototyping files, such as the bubble car in my latest book and the penguin toy in Figure 13.

NURBS is a very powerful technology, but not the easiest one to grasp for end-users. What has been done and what could be done to make it more user-friendly?

Rhinoceros’ development team has done a great job to make the construction and manipulation of NURBS surfaces easy even for the beginners

Indeed, Rhinoceros’ development team has done a great job to make the construction and manipulation of NURBS surfaces easy even for the beginners. By laying one or more background images in the default construction planes, even the novice can use the curve tools to produce curves and use the curves to construct various kinds of surfaces. Using various tools, such as curves from objects tools and curve and surface rebuilding and improvising tools, NURBS surfaces can be built and improvised with great accuracy and smoothness.
To illustrate how easy it is to use Rhinoceros in surface modeling, I am going to present the rendered images  (Figure 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) of the car models produced by my students, with the models constructed by using Rhinoceros 4 and images rendered by using Flamingo. Among these models, apart from the Audi car model, which is produced by a student who has prior knowledge on using other CAD applications, the remaining models are done by students who are CAD novices, learning Rhinoceros in my intensive course of 8 meetings (three hours in each meeting) within four weeks. During the course, I first let them work on the bubble car case study delineated in my latest Rhinoceros book and subsequently on a series of tutorials. Then they work on their own to produce the car bodies which I require them to export to Autodesk Inventor, from there they continue to construct the solid model of a transformer toy, transforming a car to a robot (take a look at the video).

Each CAD system has its own personality. How would you describe Rhino's personality?

it is so easy to use that we can use it to construct even illogical curves

Rhinoceros is very user-friendly. As a surface modeling tool, it is so easy to use that we can use it to construct even illogical curves, illogical in such a way that the curves intersect themselves, and use the illogical curves to construct surfaces that cannot be produced physically by any manufacturing process. Sometime even the curves do not intersect, but because of the shape and radius of curvature of the curves, the surface produced from them intersects itself, preventing physical models to be produced from the surfaces. Naturally, this brings about fallacious negative criticism that Rhinoceros surfaces, collectively, are no good for making physical models. However, I still consider that allowing illogical surfaces to be produced is a good point in terms of learning because it allows us to experiment with organic free-form shapes as perceived in our mind.
Consequently, we need to emphasize a water-tight and non-self intersecting surface model, if we are going to use Rhinoceros models in down-stream computerized operations such as solid modeling and rapid prototyping. Naturally, models do not need to be water-tight and non-self intersecting if we concern only about visualization. Here, the car models my students are working on need to be water-tight and non-self intersecting because the models are required to be used in Autodesk Inventor for making a transformer toy. Showing in the video is the Audi car to robot toy constructed by my student Wing-Keung Li, using Rhinoceros to construct the surface model, exporting the Rhinoceros surface model to Autodesk Inventor, and using Autodesk Inventor to produce the solid model of the robot toy.

What has been your approach in writing your last book about Rhino?

CAD should be used in design in much the same way as we would use the word processor in writing an essay

To most people, it may be very unusual to start with a series of case studies and then follow by the main description delineating the application. Therefore, some may say that I have done my book in a strange sequence by beginning with level 2 training and then proceed to level 1 training, reversing the normal process. Frankly speaking, I do not quite agree on clear cut level division in training because nowadays, CAD is no longer a separated, isolated operation in the product development process in which someone produces the sketches or concept drawings and someone else constructs the CAD model. On the contrary, CAD should be used in design in much the same way as we would use the word processor in writing an essay, because more and more designers and architects would wish to construct the CAD model themselves to realize their concepts.
Over the years, I learned from many designers and architects and my students that they want to learn how to produce 3D models of their designs quickly, caring very little about the details of the commands and the options of the commands. This is similar to when we first learn word processing, we always have an immediate need to know about how to use it as a tool to write an essay; and very few of us would, from the onset, care about the many functions, like page making and web publishing, of the word processor. Realizing that construction of surfaces is simple but making the curves is not, I designed some interesting case studies and prepared the template files in the Case Studies of my book, encouraging the novice to taste the sweetness of making a model by using the surface construction tools on the curves provided. To let the students know more about why and how, I put the main chapters after the case studies. This is why I wrote my book in such a way, beginning with a series of case studies. In fact, I have more case studies placed in the CD accompanying the book because of page number limitation. Showing in Figure 24, 25, 26, and 27 are the case studies in my book and an additional case study developed after the book is published.

What has been the role of the Rhino community in your latest book about Rhino?

The good thing about such a long WIP and beta period is that it gave me ample time to think about what should be and what should not be included in the book

Writing of my latest book about Rhinoceros, in fact, started since Rhinoceros released its first WIP (work in progress) version, which I learned about from the editor of Thomson Learning, who urged me to complete the book as soon as possible, in order to catch up with the pace of the release of Rhinoceros 4. Ironically, the WIP lasted for years and there were so many WIP versions that I cannot recall how many versions have been released. Following the WIP versions were the Beta versions. It took me nearly two years to keep track on the changes of Rhinoceros and thus revise my book. The good thing about such a long WIP and beta period is that it gave me ample time to think about what should be and what should not be included in the book, as well as to try out the case studies with my students. The bad side of such a long period is that it tends to become boring to keep track on a single CAD system for such a long time, because I am also interested in other solid modeling systems such as Autodesk Inventor, using it in designing. Over the years, I met a lot of people from the Rhinoceros’s company and they gave me a lot of help and information about the development of Rhinoceros. Among them, special thanks go to Jerry Hambly (my old friend) and Yoko of McNeel company.

From your personal point of view, how do you see the future of CAD?

In the future there will remain two kinds of CAD systems: the surface modeling and the parametric feature-based

Many years ago in the early 80’s, when PC was starting to become popular, people debated about whether to move forward to using CAD instead of drafting manually because in those days, PC based CAD systems are mostly 2D in nature, which were only marginally more advantageous than drafting manually. Later on, there are more powerful PC based CAD systems capable of handling 3D. However, those PC based 3D objects were still quite primitive, with limited modeling functions, leading to the debate of whether to move forward from 2D CAD to 3D CAD. Over the years, advancement of PC based CAD systems has escalated in such a pace that they are now capable of representing and realizing various 3D objects electronically in the computer. Naturally, CAD has and will become a very fundamental skill for designers and architects, like word processing skill for everyone. In the future, I would perceive that, basically, there will still remain two major kinds of CAD systems, the surface modeling system such as Rhinoceros and the parametric feature-based solid modeling systems. Rhinoceros will still be used extensively because it is simple to use and it has cutting edge on providing a set of low cost and easy to manipulate tools for designers and architects for them to realize their conceptual ideas quickly.

I would like to thank Ron KC Cheng for taking the time to answer my questions. A special thanks to Janet Brock for help in arranging this interview. If you have any questions for Ron or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer.

Franco Folini

An Interview with Joel Orr, Chief Visionary of Cyon Research

Joel Orr (blog), is a one of a kind person in the Design and CAD world, a person who uses the word future meaning it and not just to refer to the next financial quarter. Joel calls himself a visionary and loves to talk and write about technology, design, and obviously the future. He is well known in the CAD and DCC community by the less young as one of the founders of CGW (Computer Graphics World) magazine. More recently he co-founded Cyon Reserach Corp. In the process Joel found the time to write a few books (Every Man a Hero, Every Woman a Coach published in 2005, Structure is Destiny: The Dandelion Paradox published in 2004, and The Victorious Engineer.) I believe every once in a while we all should stand up, look at the horizon, and try to see what the future is preparing for us and for the ones that will follow us in our professional world. Joel is the perfect person to help us see through the fog of  daily routine.

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

I love people and I love technology

I love people and I love technology, and I am thrilled by the potential of the latter to empower the former. I see myself as a mediator between technology and people - in particular, engineers and architects. My academic training was in pure math, but I have been involved in computers as a programmer and systems architect since 1969.
Somewhere along the way I stopped programming and began writing and speaking about the power and pitfalls of computer technology. My client list includes many Fortune 500 firms, government agencies, and all the major CAD companies.
I was an Autodesk Distinguished Fellow from 1990 to 1993, and the Bentley Engineering Laureate from 1997 to 2000. I helped found the now-defunct National Computer Graphics Association, and served as its president.
In 1999, I helped found Cyon Research Corporation, a consulting firm that sponsors COFES, the annual Congress on the Future of Engineering Software.

You have witnessed and influenced the evolution of the CAD systems for many years. Which evolution of design software most impressed you, when you think back on your expectations at the beginning?

I believe that simulation is the end of CAD - both its purpose and its terminus

Robert Heinlein's "Door Into Summer" - 1951, I think - describes "Drafting Dan," a keyboard-controlled robot that turned out drawings. Heinlein didn't foresee graphical input, and only a limited form of output. But the first CAD systems, from IBM's DAC to Dr. Patrick J. Hanratty's ADAM, were clearly related to Drafting Dan.
CAD has been a fascinating set of technologies to watch. Its unfolding over time has been a reflection of the engineering process itself, a dialectic between the envisioned ideal and the constraints of technological, social, and individual learning. Tools are envisioned and built - and then the limitations and capabilities of the tools as implemented inspire refinements and new tools. It's an unending process, accelerating with Moore's Law, governed by the ability of people and organizations to absorb novelty.
To me, Ivan Sutherland's "Sketchpad" - the subject of his 1961 MIT PhD - laid the technological foundation for the human/machine interaction we now call CAD. It was a prescient document, a trailblazer, whose influence is still evident 46 years later.
As a fan of engineers who never studied engineering, it took me quite a while to realize that the "design" in "computer-aided design" was just a placeholder: All the initial systems were computer-aided drafting systems. They automated the process of drawing production, not the process of design.
With good reason, to be sure: There was no well-defined discipline of design, so how could it be automated? What exactly would you automate? Drawings were the work-product, the very currency of engineering and architecture; to a great extent, they still are.
Drawings, not design, were the inspiration for 3D modeling. Only today is there beginning to be acceptance of concepts that can lead to computer-aided design, such as digital prototyping and simulation.
In fact, I believe that simulation is the end of CAD - both its purpose and its terminus. CAD has been traversing a path from abstraction to concreteness, where the model has more and more of the attributes of "the real thing."

What major features are still missing in today’s CAD system that could be easily added with existing technologies?

(what is missing is) keeping track of the what and why of engineering decisions that lead to what is ultimately manufactured

What is missing is the necessary tie between the engineering process and what happens within the computer. Any sort of keeping track of the what and why of engineering decisions that lead to what is ultimately manufactured or constructed is absent. That's why reuse of components is rare and limited: We don't know exactly what we did, nor do we know why we did one thing and not another. And any attempt to capture that knowledge is resisted by the very people who stand to gain the most by it. I helped promote a company called KollabNet, who has the only approach I've seen to this profound challenge; it has been widely ignored in the market.
Autodesk, Dassault, Siemens PLM, PTC, and all the other CAD firms have much more to offer customers than customers are willing to buy.
On the other hand, the vendors have foisted systems of mind-numbing complexity and heartbreaking software quality on the engineering professionals who are just trying to do their jobs, and I don't think their feet have been sufficiently held to the fire for their lacunae.
Things are getting better, but I think that some enlightened self-interest on both sides of the vendor-customer divide would go a long way to picking up the pace of improvement.

Is your vision about the future of CAD pessimist like that of Ralph Grabowski, or do you see more technological innovations despite the establishment of 64 bit as a standard platform?

the accelerating power of computers will bring us multiplying breakthroughs

Frankly, I think Ralph is a realist, not a pessimist. I'm more of an optimist, which no amount of disappointment seems to quell... :-) I have faith that the accelerating power of computers, coupled with new ways of thinking about computation - for example, genetic programming and biomimetics - will bring us successive and multiplying breakthroughs in the next few years that are difficult to envision.

Are all the technologies and innovations we have seen in the last 20 years really changing the structure of the design process or “just” allowing the designer to design “more, better, and faster”?

we produce new tools, then learn surprising things about our design processes and intentions as we try to use the tools to do what we thought we wanted to do

As I suggested above, I think there is a dialectic: We produce new tools, then learn surprising things about our design processes and intentions as we try to use the tools to do what we thought we wanted to do. These new thoughts inspire us to produce other new tools, manifesting our new thoughts - and provoking us to successive cycles of innovation.
Damping that process is the human reluctance to explore change; we fear what we might lose more than we hope for what we might gain. So generations of engineers have to retire or die to make room for the next generation. It took 20 years for computer-aided drafting to really catch on, and another 20 years for 3D. But I am hopeful; my grandkids who are engineers grew up with computers at home, and are far more demanding and less fearful than their mentors.
We do turn out new products - cars, airplanes, consumer goods, and more - much faster than ever before. And they are safer, cheaper, and more flexible than ever before. CAD gets much of the credit for these improvements, and it's only the beginning.

Despite all the technological improvements designers still limit as much as possible interaction with other departments. What can be done to enhance the interaction without distracting the designer from their challenging and critical tasks?

I think your observation is spot on, Franco. I think we need to do a better job of understanding organizations and how they hinder our ability to take advantage of all that technology has to offer. (I wrote a book about it, "Structure is Destiny.")

You went from founding a paper magazine such as CGW to becoming a blogger. How has been your experience been so far with your blog and in general with all the new web2.0 communication and collaboration technologies (wikis, blogs, IMs, etc.) ?

I've adopted a personal mission to help more young people choose engineering as a career

Blogging, podcasting, social networking sites, etc. are manifesting the "many-to-many" communications Alvin Toffler spoke about decades ago, along with Marshall McLuhan's "global village." They let all of us - not just "accredited" or "recognized" authorities - express ourselves and reach global audiences, instantly. The well-known challenge is to sift through this avalanche of words, images, and sounds for meaning and relevance. I haven't found the secret - if there is one - to sorting, or to breaking through the cacophony with my messages.
But I'm having a great time.
I've adopted a personal mission to help more young people choose engineering as a career. We need more engineers than we are producing. If you want to help me, check out www.geeking.info. And tell any colleges or high schools you are connected with that I'd like to come and speak to their students. Find me at joel.orr@cyonresearch.com and www.joelorr.com.

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

Franco Folini

An Interview with Giuseppe Bocchi, Engine Designer

Giuseppe Bocchi, Founder and CEO of BRD srl, is a top-notch Italian mechanical engineer with a passion for mechanical engines (internal combustion engines). He has an incredible breadth of experience built working for prestigious companies such as Lamborghini, Ferrari, Ducati and MV Agusta, where as Chief Project and R&D Engineer he designed and brought to world dominance the four cylinder St. 76/50 and St. 76/35 racers led to World Title supremacy by Giacomo Agostini and Phil Read.

I met Giuseppe Bocchi several years ago in Parma (Italy) when he was still using the drawing board for the early stages of the design process.  At that time I was working for the University of Parma and with my students we were looking for some real-world exercises. I asked Giuseppe for the design of an engine part to optimize its shape with the use of software tools. He gave us a 2D handmade technical drawing of a new engine he never had the time to complete. We went back to the lab. The students created a full 3D CAD model of the selected piece. We noticed an unusual group of ribs across the part. At first glance, they looked excessively sized to us, and we asked Giuseppe the reason. His simple answer was: "At this stage of the design process I don't have any data, but the part looks beautiful with those ribs." We went back to the lab and the students ran several tests with a sophisticated FEM/FEA tool trying several 3D models with differently sized ribs. All the results pointed in the same direction: the best possible ribs were the ones chosen by Giuseppe. That day I learned that the greatest designers need FEM/FEA tools only to produce the final technical reports; they intuitively recognize the optimal shape simply as the most beautiful. Giuseppe Bocchi is one of these exceptional designers.

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

I started working for very famous and world renowned companies such as Lamborghini, Ferrari, MV Agusta, and Ducati

I’m the President of BRD, a company active in the field of highly advanced design of hi-tech internal combustion engines. Our primary activity is the development of “turn key” projects (from basic calculations to CAD-CAM & CAE production blueprints) of highly advanced internal combustion engines.
After graduating from the University of Bologna, I started working for very famous and world renowned companies such as Lamborghini Automobili, Ferrari Automobili, Pederzani Automobili Racing Team, and MV Agusta, Ducati.
In 1980 I started my own design and research center: BRD. I still lead in my company as both President and CEO and as highly inspired scientific and technical leader of the design and engineering teams. Through the past 24 years of its activity, BRD has been offered the opportunity to cooperate with some of today’s leading automotive and motorcycling companies. For these clients we have developed projects of engines for both racing and street use. In addition to that, we have been very successfully operating in aerospace engineering, and specifically in the development of kerosene fueled turbo-diesel engines for light and medium aircrafts and drones.
The advanced activity specifically concerning modeling, simulation, and experimental validation of acoustics and thermo-fluidodynamic phenomena in internal combustion engine is fully executed in house thanks to dedicated softwares developed and patented by BRD. BRD also supports a full loop R&D and design activity with its capability of developing, manufacturing and fully testing the related prototypes within its state of the art facilities.
I'm also the author of a book “Motori a quattro tempi” (Four Stroke Engines), sold in many thousands copies, published by Hoepli, the most important scientific publishers in Italy.

You started designing long before the appearance of CAD systems for the PC. Which CAD systems are you currently using and how are you using them?

We currently use Pro/Engineer, Unigraphics, SolidWorks, and AutoCAD. In my experience Pro/Engineer and Unigraphics are the best tools for designing engines. Pro/Engineer is more specific for mechanical engineering of internal combustion engine, but it’s more rigid than the others. It’s widely used in Europe. I believe a very popular CAD system in US is the very powerful and complete Unigraphics. It has several modules and it supports the design of the whole vehicle. Also CATIA has this capability, but it’s more used in the aerospace industry. I consider SolidWorks the easiest, but I found it limited in the management of assemblies and complex surfaces.

As a consultant you have been working with manufacturing companies all over the world. How have your clients’ requests changed over the years?

the tendency today is to have a complete and ready project including the prototype

The complex mechanism of business changes day by day. The tendency today is to have a complete and ready project including the prototype. Some years ago our activity was mainly consultancy and engine design. Today customers, especially those of Europe, want a running prototype and they put in the contracts requests for warranties and penalties.
It is important to assemble and test the prototypes in our facilities, because as the designers of the engine and we know very well the characteristics of the product. So we can easily find the best tuning.
For this reason, we have a workshop and a test bench located near the technical office.

You are very active with emerging manufacturing companies from China. So far how has your experience been working with them?

now BRD is well known all over the world

It started more or less two years ago. The contact happened quickly and spontaneously. Usually Chinese manufacturers send scouters to Europe to study the European companies. Then the chairman comes to visit the chosen ones and at the end they draw up the contract. Chinese people don’t want to be contacted, they prefer to start the contact themselves. In fact, three years ago, we tried to approach some Asian companies with an Internet advertisements campaign, but with no result. Now BRD is well known all over the world.
Chinese people are very detail-oriented, unlike Italians, and with them it is difficult to reach agreements in a short time. They can work without breaks for many hours. They have a different concept of work. Initially communication is difficult; after a while it becomes much easier.

You have a long history of designing internal combustion engines. What are the strengths and the limitations of CAD systems in supporting these designing activities?

we have to buy several CAD systems to satisfy different customers' requests

Of course CAD technology allows designers to save time and money. During the design process, a designer with a CAD system can make a modification easily and quickly. With the old drawing board we had just two dimensions: thanks to CAD today we can work with three dimensions and so immediately have the a full perception of the model. Moreover, during the design process, CAD also allows for the control of the movements of all parts of the engine design: the dimensions, the drafts, the tools paths and the layout in general. It simplifies the designing of the production cycle, from the casting to the final tooling. Usually an interface is available between the CAD system and rapid prototyping and rapid tooling, so the prototyping and production times are short. Another very important capability is the integration between CAD and CAE systems. It’s possible to make simulations to optimize the shape and the structure of some critical parts. For example, through fluidodynamic simulation it is possible to optimize the shape and the geometry of manifold and mufflers; with aerodynamic simulation it’s easier to design a correct shape for the bodies. So the modifications can be made without the construction of the real parts.
In spite of that, we have to buy several kinds of CAD systems, because we have to satisfy different customers' requests: everyone use a particular CAD. To create an efficient designing department is expensive because it’s necessary to buy several licenses (one for each working station), to pay the training courses, and to stay updated with the last release of the software. And this kind of software needs an adequate hardware infrastructure.
On top of that, there are some bugs in the CAD code, so sometimes it can be difficult working with imported geometries.

I know you have been working on what might be revolutionary engine for some time. Can you tell us more about it?

this type of engine (cam engine) is very advantageous from the point of view of the thermodynamic efficiency

I think you are talking about “cam engine” (2 cylinders, 4 cylinders). This type of engine is very advantageous from the point of view of the thermodynamic efficiency. It takes advantage of the exploitation of the burnt gas energy, utilizing appropriate piston motion laws, different from the classical mechanism of the con-rod and crank.
Cam engines are very light, they have little axial dimension, and they are made of few components. For all these reasons and because of their low specific consumption, they are very suitable to the aeronautical applications.
I hope that in a near future this kind of engine will reach the production stage and attract some real customers.
The problem is to find the economical means to carry out the durability tests, to tune the engines under the pollution limits, and to start production.

Italy has an incredible tradition of designing the most powerful and beautiful cars (Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, etc.) and motorbikes (Ducati, Guzzi, Cagiva, Aprilia, etc.). What is the status of the Italian mechanical industry?

fantasy and genius have always been characteristics of Italians

Fantasy and genius have always been characteristics of Italians. I think our realizations will always be unique, especially for high level products such as the ones you mentioned. Italian companies will always survive because their products are not repeatable and undergo continuous improvement. On the other hand, products at lower levels will be easy imitated and companies in this area will be overtaken from Asian markets because of their lower prices.
I foresee, in a near future, a very hard competition in this last field, made even harder as a consequence of the Italians' high production costs. This will be the most important problem for our politicians to resolve.

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

Franco Folini

Update: I forgot to mention that in 1994 I wrote a scientific paper in collaboration with Giuseppe Bocchi. The article was presented at the 27^th International Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation in Aachen, Germany and published for the ISATA proceedings. The title of the article is: Rapid Prototyping and Parametric CAD Systems.

An Interview with George Omura, AutoCAD Writer

George Omura (website) is an architect, illustrator, and animator, but he is mostly known for his books. He is a world-renowned author with more than 500,000 books in print, mostly about AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT. The first book I read about AutoCAD, back in 1991, was written by George. Like myself, legions of AutoCAD users learn how to use the popular Autodesk program from the pages of George's books. It is a great honor and pleasure for me to have the opportunity to ask a few questions to George and hear his qualified opinion about a few topics. Here is the interview.

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

I’ve been writing AutoCAD books for about 20 years now starting with version 2.5 of AutoCAD

First, let me thank you for inviting me to speak with you. Your site looks great.
As you know, I'm the Author of the Mastering AutoCAD series of books published by Sybex, an imprint of Wiley. I also have a book called Introducing AutoCAD which is aimed at the casual AutoCAD user. I’ve been writing AutoCAD books for about 20 years now starting with version 2.5 of AutoCAD. I update my books once a year following the yearly updates that come out of Autodesk.
I’m also the IT manager for ELS Architecture and Urban Design in Berkeley California. My role there is really more like a jack-of-all-trades. I do a lot of the PC troubleshooting and I field a lot of questions about all the software we use, not just AutoCAD. It’s a unique opportunity to see how people use computers in their day to day tasks. My role as an IT manager helps me with my writing efforts because I see the issues users face when they encounter something unfamiliar.

You have been writing books about AutoCAD since 1987. How has AutoCAD changed in the last 20 years?

The first version of AutoCAD that I had written about was a toy compared with the AutoCAD of today

It's pretty amazing. The first version of AutoCAD that I had written about was a toy compared with the AutoCAD of today.  Still, people were doing some serious work with AutoCAD back then. There were definitely some major limitations, mostly due to the lack of power from the PCs at the time. I remember having to start a process, like regenerating a complex drawing, and then wait several minutes for AutoCAD to finish the job. Another bottleneck was the output. To get large prints of your work, you had to use a pen plotter. These devices took forever to generate a single sheet and users were constantly unclogging pens. Moving into the '90s, thing started to really improve. Processor speeds were taking off and the blueprint-reproduction companies were offering faster printing as a service to CAD users. I think that this is when architects really started to take CAD on the PC seriously. Improvements in the way AutoCAD displayed drawings also made larger projects more feasible. The transition to the Windows OS in the later part of the '90s was a major change for AutoCAD and CAD in general. This was a "make or break” transition for Autodesk I think. There are very few programs around today that have their roots in the old PC-DOS and AutoCAD could have been one of those programs that didn't make it. Autodesk had versions of AutoCAD on Xenix, Unix, Mac OS, and Windows. They even had version 14 on both Windows and DOS. Now AutoCAD is no longer the most power-hungry program on the scene and no one really thinks twice about attempting a large project with AutoCAD. Large format laser plotters are capable of cranking out 5 to 10 large format sheets per second. The problems that arise now are more often due to file format issues.

How have your readers changed in the last 20 years?

in the early days, my readers were from a pretty broad range of users from college students to retirees

That’s a little harder to determine since I don’t have that much direct contact with my readers except for the occasional email question. It seems that in the early days, my readers were from a pretty broad range of users from college students to retirees. Now that AutoCAD is a mainstream program, I’d guess that the balance has tipped to the younger users who are leaning AutoCAD as part of their professional training. There are also the readers who just want to know about the latest features in the newest versions of AutoCAD.

What is your training process when you approach a new program or are writing about a new release of AutoCAD?

I’ve always felt that people need real world examples to work with

I’ve always felt that people need real world examples to work with. In Mastering AutoCAD, I was trying to mimic the process that I found helpful when I was learning AutoCAD. I had some projects that I wanted to draw with AutoCAD so I started with the easier items. From there I built up other parts of drawing while learning more about AutoCAD as I went along. Mastering AutoCAD starts out with a simple door comprised of some lines and an arc. The reader eventually ends up with a floor plan with notes. So basically, I look at how I might learn and use a new program for my own work, then try to convert that process into training material.

Based on your experience, what is your approach when you have to explain a complex concept to your readers?

(explain a complex concept) it’s always helpful to connect a concept to a real world situation

Again, it’s always helpful to connect a concept to a real world situation. I try to start by explaining a complex concept in general terms that are related to something most of would encounter in the real world. For example, when working with AutoCAD 3D, you use the UCS (User Coordinate System) quite a bit. But the UCS is an unusual concept to work with, so I ask the reader to think of the UCS as a drawing surface that can be positioned in any orientation in space. You’re still drawing in 2D but the drawing surface is a 3 dimensional object that can be moved around.

Many amateurs ask us for the best tool to create 3D models similar to the ones they see in magazines, ads, and in online galleries. What would be your answer?

with the new modeling tools in AutoCAD 2007 and 2008, 3D modeling is easier than ever

Being an AutoCAD fan, I tend to promote AutoCAD as a 3D modeling tool. Now with the new modeling tools in AutoCAD 2007 and 2008, 3D modeling is easier than ever and you can create some very realistic 3D scenes. The rendering features in AutoCAD are basically the same as ones you’d find in Autodesk Viz. With the new lighting tools and materials in AutoCAD, you have better control over a rendered scene. Or if you prefer to have a more “loose” looking 3D rendering, you can use the Visual Styles in AutoCAD to give your model a “chipboard” model look. These are great tools and I hope more users get into them.

When you started your career as a writer, books were the major source of information for many CAD users. Now users can access tutorials, online training, discussion forums, etc. on the Internet.  What is the role of your books in this new scenario?

people are still seeking out good reference material in the form of books

What surprises me is that along with the expansion of on-line material and user forums, there has also been a huge increase in the number of AutoCAD book titles. This tells me that people are still seeking out good reference material in the form of books. I’d like to think that, in general, readers will continue to use books as a source of knowledge. Having said that, there are some really excellent on-line tutorials out there and they can really help users get up to speed fast. But we aren’t always able to get to the on-line resources we need. Once you have a book, it’s always there and available. With a book, you don’t even have to be at your computer. You may have a question pop into you mind and you can have an answer by referring to a book rather than having to fire up your PC, logging in, and searching the internet. You don’t have to wait for complex pages to open or for video files to load. It’s ironic, but a lot of the time, you can get an answer to your question faster using a book.

What's the name of your latest book and what is it about?

I've got two new books

I've got two new books. They are "Mastering AutoCAD 2008 and AutoCAD LT 2008" and "Introducing AutoCAD 2008", both published by Sybex, an imprint of Wiley. Mastering is the do-it-all book covering nearly every aspect of AutoCAD in detail. It is intended for beginners and intermediate users who need to know AutoCAD inside-out.  I'm especially pleased with the 3D portion of the book since 3D modeling has always been an area that I'm especially fond of, but the rest of the book also is pretty good too, if I say so myself!
"Introducing AutoCAD 2008" is the latest revised version of "Just Enough AutoCAD 2007". My publisher decided that it needed a name change to fit in with their "Introducing" series of books.  A lot of AutoCAD users don't want or need to be power users. They just want to be able to perform some basic tasks in AutoCAD with the minimum amount of training. "Introducing AutoCAD 2008" was written for the user that has to be up and running with AutoCAD quickly but doesn't have to know every detail of the program.

I would like to thank George Omura for sharing his time to do this interview. If you have any questions for George or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer.

Franco Folini

An Interview with Jimmy Bergmark, AutoCAD Guru

Jimmy Bergmark is the owner and principal of JTB World, a Swedish consulting company specializing in AutoCAD programming and customization. Jimmy is well known in the AutoCAD community because of his constant presence and highly qualified advice in several discussion forums and also because of his popular technical blog. Jimmy has been working with AutoCAD since 1989 and is one of the most qualified persons to discuss the evolution of AutoCAD as a platform to support custom applications. I asked him for an interview and Jimmy gladly accepted.

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

a lot of what I do is around AutoCAD as well as other products from Autodesk

I graduated as an Electronic Engineer with focus on electronics and computer science in 1989. Programming was something I started with using a Sinclair ZX81 in the early 80-ies and programming is what I still do. During the time that has passed I have also worked as Building Engineer and CAD Manager. For 9 years I was at an EPC (Engineering, procurement, and construction) company, Pharmadule Emtunga. On my free time I did run JTB World as a side business for several years and a year ago I and my wife decided to run JTB World at full time. My work now is software development and consulting. Since I and my wife do everything from development to sales it can be called a Micro-ISV (independent software vendor) company.
A lot of what I do is around AutoCAD as well as other products from Autodesk like AutoCAD Architecture but it’s not limited to that. Other types of applications I develop are for example an application that centralizes company’s email signatures so they all look the same and JTB FlexReport for network license reports. In essence, when someone or a company comes with a problem/wish/request I do what I can to help to solve that. Sometimes I help with work procedures like how to use existing software’s most effective or it can be software development or integration using languages like AutoLISP, VBA, VB.NET or whatever suits the job best.

What are the most recurring problems you have to solve when CAD end users ask for your help?

I answer very basic questions or it can be more tricky questions that no one else have been able to answer

I get questions by e-mail and I try to visit discussion groups from time to time and sometimes I answer very basic questions or it can be more tricky questions that no one else have been able to answer. CAD end users are often in a quite complex software world and if they don’t have a CAD Manager to go to or someone else to help them they are free to contact me. Sometimes I answer for free and if they want to have me as a resource for more help it is for a fee.
I know from experience that users can sometimes sit for hours with a problem and often I know the answer or can quickly find it and they can focus on their work as drafters or engineers. I would say that a lot of things are the same today compared to when I worked for a company as CAD Manager. Now I have somewhat more freedom though both when it comes to working hours and what type of works I select to do.

You have been working with AutoCAD for many years. Did AutoCAD evolve in the way you expected?

if AutoCAD hadn’t evolving in this good way I don’t think I still used it as much as I do

I have used AutoCAD since 1989 and almost used it continually since then. If AutoCAD hadn’t evolving in this good way I don’t think I still used it as much as I do. I must say that still I really like to work with AutoCAD a lot. In some ways I must say that not much have changed. Already back then AutoLISP was available as a programming language for AutoCAD and we did a lot of work in 3D with building information attached to the objects. Of course a lot has changed both with AutoCAD and Windows platforms.
Something that never seems to improve its performance for the user, at least it feels like that. In the early years there where things like you had to try to avoid to regenerate a drawing and used every trick to work around that as well as memory limitations. But even today there are sometimes problems with the command line not being responsive when characters entered comes in wrong order, when CUI (command user interface) was release most everyone complained on performance.
When I worked as CAD Manager I often run into the need for handling larger 3D models better. We used NavisWorks for navigation within the models and wished that the same good performance was in AutoCAD. Hopefully Autodesk will make use of the technology that NavisWorks has after their acquisition of that company. Most AutoCAD releases have had something for someone but you always expect more to be both fixed and added to each release.

Is there any feature that you really believe is missing from AutoCAD?

it should be possible to dynamically clip a 3D model (with support for all object types) in all directions so you easily can limit what you want to work with

It should be possible to dynamically clip a 3D model (with support for all object types) in all directions so you easily can limit what you want to work with. Along the same line it should be possible to show and hide on object (also when nested in xrefs or blocks) as well as easily set transparency. And when transparency is used you should be able to snap to these objects or not. AutoCAD should also support multiple users to work in the same model file. Even if you can use xrefs it’s not that dynamic workflow as one could wish. Something like a VISRETAIN=2 would be needed to be able to handle nested xrefs in several levels. Another thing is functions like the old Actrix had so you could easily connect things to each other. This would be a great addition to dynamic blocks for example, not to forget 3D support for dynamic blocks. And this list can go on with hundreds of other things.

The AutoCAD world seems to support legions of utilities, lists of tricks, and tips. Do you attribute this to the flexibility of the software or to its intrinsic complexity?

with these (AutoCAD APIs) you can do almost anything

AutoCAD has very mature and flexible APIs. I mostly use AutoLISP, VBA or VB.NET.  With these and others you can do almost anything and therefore there are so many utilities and 3rd party applications. I like this flexibility because if AutoCAD should include everything that everyone wished for it would be a monster. One great proof on how good AutoCAD is as platform is to look at all the verticals Autodesk themselves has that are based on AutoCAD. AutoCAD is really complex as it is and I appreciate that it’s not an easy task to decide what should be included in a new version or not.

You have a popular blog full of great information for all AutoCAD users and developers. How has your experience as a blogger been?

I often find myself returning to my blog to find things

I think it has been great. Several times I have written articles for CAD Magazines and it always feels like you need to get it so perfected. With the blog it is not that kind of pressure. I can use it as my personal scratch book. I often find myself returning to my blog to find things. Still the blog seems to fill a need among others in the online community and that feels good. I have found that I spend somewhat less time in the newsgroups since I started blogging. Instead I try to spend time to make blog posts that not only are links to other blogs (sometimes I do that too). I try to either add something to a discussion, share a solution to a question I got per email or seen in a newsgroup, writing something really unique or in depth about a topic.

If, for example, you have an end user requiring a special feature for AutoCAD, when would you recommend developing an in house solution, and when to go for an external tool?

if what you want to do is involving integration of several systems it might be that you have the best background for the job

It could be either way. One thing I often recommend is to sign up at myfeedback.autodesk.com because that way you can actually be involved in what should be added to future versions of AutoCAD as well as come with suggestions on proposed new features.
If you don’t want to let Autodesk do the work and you have the knowledge and time to do the work in house it can be a good way to go. Consider if your in house resources have spare time between other projects. That might be a good opportunity to do it even though it might cost more than going for an external tool it is a great opportunity to increase the in house knowledge. Think about if what you are about to do can be done with the programming language and API you know or not. Maybe you know AutoLISP very well but for this specific feature managed .NET might be the best choice and instead of learning it this time it can be better to outsource it. I’ve done in house development so many times myself, sometimes just for the fun of it and sometimes because of the complexity. If what you want to do is involving integration of several systems it might be that you have the best background for the job.
But you really need to calculate the time and cost. Make a ROI calculation. It could be that if you don’t do development work full time it might be much cheaper to let a consultant do it or find an existing tool. Sometimes what you, your manager or users wants is too much. If you let the ideas flow too freely you almost every time will end up having to do a unique solution and that might not be the best thing. Try to use your existing tools as much as possible out-of-the-box. If you for example have AutoCAD Architecture consider alternatives like Revit instead of trying to build a new Revit upon AutoCAD Architecture. Try to keep it simple but remember too that a lot can be automated that you might not even think about. Don’t hesitate to send me the requirement, idea or the question and I will try to guide you, give you a quote and help you out.

I would like to thank Jimmy Bergmark for this interview. If you have any questions for Jimmy or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer.

Franco Folini