NOVEDGE blog

Rhino and Autodesk Inventor Are Becoming Good Friends

Rhino 3D is not the minor CAD system many CAD companies were used to think

The Rhino community could not be ignored anymore! Rhino 3D is not the minor CAD system many CAD companies were used to think. Over the years the community of Rhino users has become larger and more influential with several Rhino designers holding key positions inside design and manufacturing companies of all sizes. Ignoring Rhino and his users is not anymore an option, even for a large software manufacturer such as Autodesk.

Autodesk announcement recognizes the key role Rhino is playing in the mechanical, industrial, and architectural design

Indeed, just a couple of days ago Autodesk announced the release of a "beta version" (they like to call it "technology preview") for an Inventor plug-in to read the Rhino (.3dm) file format. Technically speaking this is not a major accomplishment. The Rhino file format is open and fully documented. The software to read 3dm files is provided free of charge on the openNURBS website. The Autodesk announcement recognizes the key role Rhino is playing in the mechanical, industrial, and architectural design. OpenNURBS (.3dm) is now a file format that CAD companies must be supported in order to retain existing customers or to acquire new ones. The new Inventor plug-in "technology preview" can be downloaded from the Novedge website. If you are an Inventor user you should definitely try it.

Autodesk page dedicated to the Rhino importer for Inventor says, "This technology preview gives you more flexibility when creating designs with vendor or customer data by allowing you to directly import Rhino files into Autodesk Inventor. This translator reads Rhino files(*.3dm) bringing solids, surfaces, wires, and points into Autodesk Inventor to be directly utilized while modeling. Being able to import directly from Rhino files eliminates the need to convert the Rhino data to make it usable in your projects."

the next step should be to return Rhino the favor by documenting the Inventor file format

Autodesk is making a step in the right direction by solving a real problem for his Inventor users. The next step should be to return Rhino the favor by documenting the Inventor file format or by providing an easy way to export an Inventor model as Rhino file, as suggested by Evan Yares on a comment to the Ralph Grabowski blog.

Franco Folini

An Interview with Francis Cadin, CEO of Datakit

Francis Cadin is the CEO and founder of Datakit, the French company specialized in CAD data translation. Datakit products come in two different flavors: some translators perform their sensitive tasks embedded under the hood of a software program while others come as plug-ins or standalone applications. For example, if you are opening a SolidWorks file with your Rhino 4.0, you may not know that all the data conversion between the two file formats is handled by a piece of software developed in Lyon, France by Datakit. Nowadays the CAD data translation seems to be less problematic than in the past. While the CAD market consolidation certainly made things easier, most of the credit goes to companies like Datakit and to people like Francis Cadin. I asked him to share his experience and opinions on this topic. Here is the interview.

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

we have a staff of 25, twenty of whom work in R&D and technical support

Datakit is a privately-owned company that I founded in 1994 and that is specialized in CAD data exchange. I set up Datakit because I was convinced that the development of the use of CAx (CAD, CAM, CAE) solutions was going to generate a large volume of CAD data exchange. The company has grown. Now we have a staff of 25, twenty of whom work in R&D and technical support. In 2006, we launched Datakit, Inc. in California and we are currently looking at a project to open an office in China. Our products, plugs-ins, standalone applications, vendor-embedded components, and data correction solutions have been successfully adopted worldwide.

CAD Data translation is not a perfect science. During the process something always gets lost in translation. How do you usually explain this to your customers?

CAD Data translation is not a perfect science

No, CAD Data translation is not a perfect science but you have to acknowledge that most of the limitations are linked to weaknesses in standard formats like IGES and DXF. We based our technology on the modeling paradigms used in the original models and assemblies. Hence our strong attachment to native formats, which alone let users recover complete CAD data structures and maximize the number of entities exchanged. We can make a commitment to being able to read specific items of data. The rest is a question of resources! However, reading native formats is not always easy. Users are savvy to the fact that software architecture always has some surprises in store.

Data translation is quickly moving from being packaged as a standalone application to being embedded inside CAD systems. What are the challenges in making a software module compared to developing an independent application?

Datakit collaborates as an OEM with some fifty vendors

We are focusing on breaking down the entities into the finest grained detail possible and on building structures that enable data to be stored thoroughly and then used as needed by different applications. Data exchange impacts an increasing range of disciplines. This makes it natural and imperative to work with vendors to enable as many end-users as possible to exchange their CAD data. Datakit collaborates as an OEM with some fifty vendors. Supplying these software components accounts for 70% of our revenue. This upstream collaboration delivers benefits to end users in industry who can turn to local dealers in our network for support.

You recently moved with a part of your company from France to Santa Barbara, CA. How is your perception of the US market changing now that you’re looking at it from the “inside”?

It is true that the US market looks different from here. Flying over from Europe, even regularly, is no substitute for day-to-day contact! Seen from across the Atlantic, the potential of the US market is huge, with so many world-famous vendors here. Even more striking though is the dynamism of the market, its ability to keep on creating new products and the positive attitude in the business.

The consolidation of the CAD market has greatly reduced the number of CAD systems. Has this evolution also reduced the need for data translation? How have the end-users’ needs changed in the last few years?

the consolidation (of the CAD market) does not have an immediate effect on data exchange strategy

If you look at just the CAD market, the number of players has thinned a bit, though in my opinion, that doesn’t tell the whole story. Some companies have disappeared but others have emerged. Consolidation does not necessarily have an immediate effect on data exchange strategy. Compatibility issues have not moved on much. On the contrary interoperability issues have increased the need for data exchange and considerably exceeded the scope of CAD. CAD models provide a working basis for more and more disciplines. In technical terms, the substantial growth over the last few years is the switch from IGES surface data to STEP, which does a much better job of handling solids and assembly data.

Datakit “promiscuity” (your software is embedded in competing products from different manufacturers) places you in a privileged position to observe new trends. What is going to be the evolution of current CAD systems?

exchanging 3D models that have dimensioning and tolerancing data is essential

The current trend is of course all about managing FTA (Functional Tolerancing & Annotation) modules from CATIA V5, UG’s PMI (Product Manufacturing Information) and all the other data of this type. Companies must work from these modules to increase productivity. Exchanging 3D models that have dimensioning and tolerancing data (GD&T) is of course essential. Datakit has been proactive in this area for the last 4 years. We have been working with vendors of data inspection solutions for whom the ability to build this information into the 3D model is an additional guarantee of quality. Viewer developers who facilitate access to CAD data are also among our prime targets. Manufacturing departments are also interested and this could lead to 2D paper drawings disappearing completely from many workshops.

If you were a CAD manager and had to choose a file format for the long term archival of your company strategic data, which file format would you choose, and why?

we would recommend (long term archival) of 2D in DXF, then IGES (for 3D). However, given the limits of IGES, we would also add STEP

Ideally, and on the strength of the data we have at the moment, we would recommend three methods. The first for 2D in DXF (V12 for example), then IGES for its robustness and availability across all software brands. However, given the limits of IGES, we would add STEP. It's a neutral format, independent from hardware and CAD systems. It provides a comprehensive and unambiguous description for 3D models. It also supports association of Validation Properties, which makes it possible to check the validity of imported data (either as simplified volumes to view parts and assemblies, or clouds of points for detailed face representations). In fact we agree with the specialists of the LOTAR project who recommend the software and define how it should be used, arguing that it is the only way to process all the data in the CAD model, assemblies and their dimensioning and tolerancing information.

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

Franco Folini

Is the New Acrobat 3D headed for Failure or Success?

I like "CAD Data Visualization," another may prefer DDC (Digital Design Communication), someone else might like the ambitious acronym PDC (Product Design Collaboration), but whatever name you choose, this kind of software program has been around for many years. The central idea is to provide affordable ways to visualize the content of a CAD file for those who don't own the original expensive CAD system. Over time these tools evolved from view-only to view-share-and-communicate.

In January 2006 Adobe released the first version of Acrobat 3D joining the group of software manufacturers offering CAD visualization solutions. Acrobat 3D 1.0 is a special version of Adobe's popular PDF product. Despite suffering from the typical problems of every first release, it indicated Adobe's ambitions for the CAD world. Now, one year later, Adobe is getting ready to lunch a new and improved version of Acrobat 3D. Most of the features in the new release are based on the technology Adobe acquired with TTF (Trade & Technologies France), a French software company specializing in CAD interoperability. For a detailed list of feature improvements for the new version you can check the Adobe pages.

when a company adds a new feature it can't dictate to users when to use it or not

Last Friday Adobe invited me and other bloggers such as Deelip Menezes to an online preview of the new Acrobat 3D version 8. I would like to share my opinion on this new product and the Adobe strategy for the 3D world.

Data Visualization or Data Translation?

While the first version of Acrobat 3D was a visualization-only solution, the new release will offer the option to export a 3D model from PDF to IGES and STEP file formats. According to Adobe, this feature is not intended for a CAD-to-CAD data translation and, according to them, PDF should be used only to move geometry from a CAD system to a post-CAD system, such as CAM, rendering, animation, etc. While theoretically this is not a bad idea, I expect users will ignore Adobe recommendations. When a company adds a new feature to its products, it can't dictate to users when to use it or not. Pretty soon Acrobat users will start to use PDF to move geometric information among CAD systems, and Adobe will find itself pulled into the data translation area. Without a very strong technical background in that field, this is not a nice position to be in!

To PDF or not to PDF?

Over the years PDF has earned a great reputation as a multi-platform, reliable, mostly version-insensitive, compact, and standard format. Leveraging this huge popularity, Adobe has gradually transformed PDF into a sort of container where you can put almost everything: text, images, sound, forms, videos, and 3D models. This seems like a great idea to expand the PDF market, but it can easily backfire and undermine the reputation of PDF.
Let's look for example at the problems that can arise from storing a CAD model in a PDF file. 3D models are not as simple as text or pictures. In fact, in just one release PDF internal representation moved from one to 4 different 3D file formats: (1) the internal tessellated representation, (2) U3D specification 1, (3) U3D specification 2, (4) PRC (the TTF file format). It's a slippery slide: if this proliferation of formats continue, in the near future receiving a PDF would not guarantee simple and easy access at information contained inside the file. If this happen, users will have to learn that what they know about PDF documents doesn't apply to PDF 3D models.

Do you want Geometry or Tessellation?

When you create a 3D PDF this is the critical question asked by the Adobe software.  A tessellation-only PDF is a safe way to share design information and to protect your intellectual property. It's like sharing a picture of your 3D model. On the other hand, when the 3D PDF also includes the geometry, sharing the PDF is equivalent to sharing the original model. Anybody can extract from the PDF file a STEP or IGES copy of the original geometry. As you can imagine, the consequences of this simple decision -- tessellation or geometry -- are enormous. The problem is: does the average user know what a tessellation is?  Does he know all the implications of this choice?  Based on what I've seen, Acrobat 3D user interface is not doing a good job in helping users to understand the meaning of "tessellation" and "geometry" and to appreciate the consequences of the two options.

What is in a PDF?

Because of the structural ambiguity between tessellation and geometry, when you receive, send, or archive a PDF you don't really know what's inside. When we store a PDF file on our hard disk, are we archiving valuable geometric information or just a bunch of small triangles (tessellation) good only to create nice images on our screen? The only way to tell the difference is to open the file and see if the "Export" option is enabled or not. This ambiguity can easily become a CAD manager nightmare!

Do we really need another 3D file format?

When you generate a 3D PDF selecting the option "include-geometry" Acrobat 3D converts your original CAD file to PRC file format and embeds the PRC representation in the PDF file. If you share or exchange geometric information using PDF, you are just using a PRC file nicely wrapped within the familiar PDF file format -- it is still a PRC file. Adobe chose PRC because it's the TTF file format that they own, not for any specific technical reason. Why didn't they embed a fully standard STEP file instead of a PRC? I'm sure the Adobe marketing has a good explanation, but from the end-user point of view, now we have one more 3D file format to deal with. And nobody needs it!

Acrobat Reader Nightmare.

Adobe Acrobat Reader is essential to the Acrobat 3D success. For most of the users Acrobat Reader is just a way to open PDF files they receive by e-mail or download from the Internet. Over the years Acrobat Reader has become a huge, slow, and unstable piece of software. If we don't hear many complaints from end-users it's because this is a viewing-only tool. When it crashes (not a rare event on my computer) the user doesn't lose any data. He/she can restart the program, reopen the PDF document and everything is OK. If Adobe couldn't manage to develop a reliable Acrobat Reader when PDF contains only text and pictures, what will happen when PDF comes with 3D models, in one of the 4 different formats?

After listing all the limitations of Acrobat 3D and Adobe strategy, let me explain why I believe Adobe has a chance to succeed with Acrobat 3D.

Adobe Acrobat 3D is here to stay.

The acquisition of TTF and the investments in the new version of Acrobat 3D are the proof of Adobe's commitment to design data communication. I believe there is a huge opportunity in this market. So far I haven't seen any company with the strategy, resources, and determination to develop and conquer this market. Adobe is a good candidate that I'll be watching.

Acrobat doesn't have competition.

Today Acrobat 3D still a young product. Over time it can grow into a mature, full-featured product. Adobe is looking at a huge opportunity -- even more so because there is no real competitor to challenge Acrobat 3D. Currently, the CAD Data Visualization is a market only partially exploited, controlled by a handful of single-brand solutions and a few small companies. The single brand solutions, like Autodesk DWF and e-drawings, are by definition limited to the products of just one single software manufacturer; they don't have any appeal for other software systems users. The other competitors are mostly small companies. Some of them are offering excellent products but they don't have the strategies or the resources to develop and occupy this huge potential market.

Adobe is like Switzerland.

A CAD data communication solution can be successfully promoted only by a company that doesn't own, and is not related to any of the major CAD systems. This is one of the reasons for the failure of the Autodesk DWF file format. After some adjustments to Acrobat 3D (that will presumably require a couple of releases) Adobe will be in a perfect position to propose itself as a neutral and reliable partner to manage the design communications of all major manufacturers, regardless of which CAD system each company uses or will use in the future.

These are just my opinions, but I would like to hear yours too. Please feel free to leave a comment and share your thoughts with me and all the readers of this blog.

Franco Folini