NOVEDGE blog

John Helm Reviews Vectorworks 2010

I'm proud to host on the Novedge blog a product review of Vectorworks 2010 written by John Helm of Helm & Melacini Architects. John is an architect who splits his professional time between the warm beaches of Southern California and the beautiful mountains of Northern Italy. John does a great job  going through the new features and describing his user experience. If you are interested in or simply curious about Vectorworks and you want to meet other Vectorworks enthusiasts, my personal recommendation is to join the new VectorWorking online community dedicated to everything related to Vectorworks.

Franco Folini

Choosing a CAD Program

My first thought on writing a review of an update to an existing CAD program is that the readers of the review won’t just be those already dedicated to the program and wanting to know if the upgrade is worth the expense and time to learn new features, but they might also be those looking to change programs or even those architects and others just starting out in their use of CAD. So I’ll first address some issues regarding the choice of which program or programs one might use. I’m also limiting most of my comments to the use of a program by an architect because that’s what I am and it’s what I know.

My approach to the use of the computer is that it should be a tool that makes ones work easier and allows one to be more productive and more creative. An Architect should be able to focus his or her attention on the business of being an architect and as not have to spend months or even weeks to learn to use a new tool. I also believe that in an office there should not be a huge separation between those who know how to use the most important tools in the office, for example the CAD program, and those who don’t.

This brings me to what I consider the most important factors in choosing a CAD program. That is that the program should be easy to learn, intuitive, and available to everyone working on any particular project. It should be available and easy enough to use that the principals, who don’t have a lot of time to spend getting competent on a CAD program, as well as the drafters are able to learn it and use it. And in short it brings me to why I selected a program like Vectorworks some 15 years ago. I can’t really comment on other programs which may or may not do the same things as Vectorworks because I only have second hand information on them and only a limited use of the most popular program Autocad. I should also mention that in order to fit the above criteria one should not have to use several programs to accomplish the goal of producing a drawing or drawing set containing 2D, 3D, text and pictures. That increases the time to learn, adds too many layers of complexity and creates inefficiency in the office.

Here is where we get to my choice of Vectorworks (VW). From the standpoint of graphics it can be a one stop shop, for an architectural office. It’s a design tool, a production tool and a rendering tool that can also be used for most of the graphic layouts an architect might need. The learning curve is short and the way of working with it is from my experience the way architects work.

VW is a complex program and to take advantage of its many features does take some time. But if one is at all competent in using a computer, familiar with Mac or PC graphics programs, word processing, etc. one will find many of the same commands, and procedures. So it presents a familiar face in a way. Starting out just using the basics is simple enough and gives one a feeling of confidence that moving beyond the basics can’t be that hard.

Rendered Site Plans

Design can be done all in 3D and those 3D drawings will be or can be the same drawings that become the 2D drawings making up the production drawing set. Client presentations can be rendered printouts, animations, walk throughs, or even real time views of a 3D model taken on one’s laptop to a client meeting. And if one needs to do a graphic presentation, a competition board for example, pictures, text, 2D and 3D drawings can all composed and printed right in the program.

Create almost anything

In other words, why burden yourself and your office with half a dozen programs when one will do it all. Yes there are other programs that will do some of the individual parts as well or better, but VW can compete with most of them and the results are more than adequate for the majority of what we do as architects.

Complex Models

I’ll talk for a minute about how VW works. Initially we set up a project file entering basic information about floor heights, wall heights, roof etc. Then we set up basic project parameters, dimension style, meters or feet, things like that and then from a drop menu we select the various sheets of drawings needed. That would be for example floor plans, site plans, elevations and so on. We don’t have to do this in any order and they can be changed later. But by doing this the program does a lot of the work of preparing the drawing set for us. We draw on design layers, we put things like electrical outlets, and windows in classes that can be turned on or off as needed. We use the layers as overlays to create various drawings. Drawings are then transferred though viewports to sheets for the final composition of sheets of drawings to be printed. All of this is done in one file which saves a lot of confusion and makes things simpler. If more than one person needs to work on a drawing set, this can be done through the use of references to other drawings called referenced viewports. When drawing a building plan we draw walls, not just lines, that have characteristics such as height, thickness, and finishes, which means that as we draw the 2D plan we are at the same time creating a 3D model. I can go on here but this isn’t an instruction manual it’s just a brief idea of how the program works.

Finally one thing I always hear is, well we had to choose the program our consultants use or that everyone else uses. To this I say who’s in charge here, the architect or the consultants. And do you really want to burden yourself with an inefficient program just because most everyone else is using it. Why not get a step ahead and increase your bottom line with greater efficiency. And of course you can also convert your VW drawings to a format useable by your consultants so it’s not such a big issue anyway.

Paste up Graphics

Construction docs with plans, elevations and renderings

Note that the renderings and plans show above were all done in our office using various previous versions of VW.

Vectorworks 2010, the Latest Version

Before moving on to the details of the latest version we might discuss the reasons why one would want to upgrade from previous versions. I’ve already recommended VW as a good choice or even the best choice, so if you are not already into CAD the choice is easy; buy the latest version. But if you’ve been using the program for a while then of course there ought to be good reasons to spend the money to upgrade. From a purely economic standpoint I think there are two factors to consider. Will the new version save you time, meaning money, and do you have enough cash flow during the current slow down to justify the extra expense. Only you can answer the later question except that you may justify the expense by considering the time to learn new features and the fact that if work is slow you have the time to do it. For the first factor I will discuss some features that are in the new version that I believe will more than justify the purchase by time saved. It’s interesting to note that some of the most significant time savers are perhaps the least note worthy in terms of technical development or progress.

As an example of what may be a simple change (not being a programmer I admit I don’t know how simple this was technically) is the ability to change the origin, the rotation and scale of a hatch. On a recent plaza project in Italy we had a variety of hatches all at various angles and scales. We also needed to use the hatches in the detail drawings. And the project underwent numerous changes in the pattern layouts. As a result hatches were not associated; every hatch had to be redone for each area and each change which was a several step process requiring significant time. Most of this time will be saved in the new version. But I am disappointed that they haven’t made a way to make hatches three dimensional. This would be very useful since as it is now one must copy the area hatched and then add a texture to make it show up in a 3D rendering.

Once you get used to using the dimension constraint manager it can save time and also potential mistakes. Walls can be moved and their dimensions update automatically. You can also change the dimension and the wall itself moves, while at the same time the other dimensions in a string of dimensions also changes, as does the overall dimension. One overall dimension changed and not forgotten as often happens when doing it manually might be worth the cost of the upgrade by itself. You can also lock a dimension and its associated walls so that it can not be easily changed. This would be very useful for those areas like hallways where minimum dimensions must be maintained. Also one can save time in layout and design when starting a new project. Walls can be placed in their approximate location and easily adjusted later, with adjacent walls updating automatically.

I think another big time saver will be the unified view tool which replaces the old stacked layers tool. If you do a lot of 3D modeling then this is big. Basically a unified view can be a model of the complete project. From this view one can access any layer, and modify objects while in a 3D view. There is no need to constantly switch back and forth from a model view to a design layer to elevations views etc. It can all be done within a single unified view just switching between 3D, plan and elevations views.

In place reference editing can be a time saver but it depends a lot on how one uses the program. It does not allow one to change referenced drawing files it only works on referenced resources. I think this might be a big help in coordinating drawings on a large project and also on say an apartment project one might turn individual apartment plans into symbols which could be referenced from a master file and changed as needed.

There are several other features which when added together will allow additional time savings. In viewport crops one can now see the entire drawing so there is no more guessing about where to put the crop lines. I like the find resource capability, as I seem to spend lots of time finding symbols and other resources that seem to get placed most anywhere. There is a new connect combine tool for multiple objects. The automatic coordination of sheet numbers seems pretty cool. Sheet numbers are coordinated with drawing numbers and updated automatically if changed in one instance.

So my answer to the first question of economics is a pretty strong, it’s worth it. Now what about some of the other changes and new or revised features?

Here I see a lot of good stuff. And I don’t see anything changed for the worse, (a very important feature) but I do find some of the changes or new features somewhat of a work in progress. For example file referencing has been updated. From my testing of this feature, I see that it works pretty well in 2D but in 3D it seems unpredictable. I tried to reference a floor plan onto a site plan in one case in the same file so it could be rotated. It showed up fine in a 2D view but when I switched to a 3D view the referenced floor plan disappeared. Another interesting thing is that when I referenced the same floor plan to the site plan in another file the same thing happened but also curiously when I turned off unified view and set it to active layer only, then changed to an isometric view, the dimension text showed up on the 3D view. That is a good feature but one that is not supposed to happen. I suspect that part of the problems I’ve had here are due to a lack of computing power, graphic card issues or not enough ram to handle larger complex models. I have seen it work fine on a much simpler model than the one I made. I see the new planar graphics feature as a work in progress as well. It would be much more useful if one could also project text and dimension callouts in 3D. But the ability to see a 2D site plan for example with a 3D model placed on it is very useful. The active layer plane and screen plane views will take some getting used to and I’m guessing a bit of swearing. The good news is that items made in one can be changed to the other with one mouse click. This is one place where the new “magic wand” or select similar tool can be very useful. You select the parameters from a list then click on one instance and all similar items are automatically selected. The problem I have had with this is that I could not get it to select dimensions. I had to revert to the old custom selection tool. It may just be that I don’t know how to use it properly or that it’s not intuitive enough – isn’t that a great excuse for not knowing how to do something.

The wall sculpting tool is useful. I was more excited about it before I tried it. But I still like it. I thought one could stretch the sides of a wall to, for example, fit it to some of the old odd shaped walls one finds in remodels. That can be done but one has to build a 3D object and then combine it with the wall rather than change the wall itself. The result is the same. So far the new stair tool seems great. One has many more options as to how the stair will be constructed. But on my first try, making a spiral stair it placed the railing across the upper end of the stair. I haven’t yet figured out how to remove it, but there must be a way. Corner windows are a nice little feature that I have wanted many times. Cutting holes in walls has gotten much easier.

One thing that I think we worry about is how well our old drawing files will convert when opened in the latest version. So far I can see no problem here. I have opened up some fairly complicated version 2008 files without any problems. In fact I was pleased to see some tree symbols updated and looking much more photo like. There also seems to be a decent increase in rendering speed.

Renderworks is one of the most important aspects of the program at least in the way I use it. There have not been a lot of changes but the ones that have been made are important. They have improved texture mapping and one can put one or more textures on top of each other to create labeling, signage and layered material effects.

Finally I think it’s important to address the issue of being able to transfer files to consultants and clients who need them in a format usable by Autocad. So the question is does this upgrade make that easier. The answer is a qualified yes. One can batch export several sheet layers as individual files which when viewed in Autocad present themselves as formatted sheets that I believe could be printed easily. The problem is that all the VW layers are stacked on top of each other so sorting them out for the Autocad drafter could be difficult. The other option is to export VW saved views. This seems to be a practical option if one needs to send say a floor plan to a consultant. The resulting dwg file looks pretty clean.

There are many other changes and additions that can best be reviewed by looking at the list on the VW website. For example working planes are much easier to access, 3D snapping is improved and so it’s easier to select, modify and align objects in 3D.

Overall this is very much a useful and worthwhile upgrade. There are enough time saving features to justify the cost. And the other improvements will just make one’s working life more pleasant. That is of course after one learns to use them and gets over habits and work around’s used in past versions.

If you are considering updating or purchasing Vectorworks I would suggest having a look at the videos on the Vectorworks website, http://www.nemetschek.net/library/index.php Jonathan Pickup’s website http://www.archoncad.co.nz and his videos on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/archoncad and you can have a look at many 3D models I’ve created on my website www.hm-architects.com.

Finally here is a bit of a disclaimer. I have tried to write an honest appraisal, but I will admit to wishing there were more users of the program I use in my practice because that would make it easier to work with consultants and to find employees who are already trained in using it.

If you have any questions please leave a comment below and I will be glad to answer.

John Helm

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

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 Howie Markson, Sr. Director of Marketing of SpaceClaim

Howie Markson is Senior Director of Marketing of SpaceClaim, a new CAD company. SpaceClaim is bringing to the CAD market a new fresh approach that claims to perform similarly to the parametric-feature-based systems, but without the hassles typical of those systems. It's not every day that you see a new company with original ideas trying to shake the CAD world. Despite being a start-up, SpaceClaim enjoys a very important pedigree: among the SpaceClaim founders is Mike Payne, co-founder of PTC and SolidWorks, two of the most innovative companies in the last 20 years. It's time to delve behind the marketing statements and try to understand what is really new in this product and how it could change the way we use CAD systems. Howie has been kind enough to give each of my many questions thoughtful attention. Here is the interview.

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

the company is led by a group of industry veterans including Mike Payne and Danny Dean

SpaceClaim was founded with the vision that the full benefits of working in 3D should be available to everyone involved in product development. The company is led by a group of industry veterans including Mike Payne (CEO), who co-founded both PTC and SolidWorks and Danny Dean (VP of Research and Development), who also co-founded PTC and pioneered parametric, feature-based solid modeling.  SpaceClaim has about 40 employees, and presence in all of the major markets around the world.
When I heard about Mike and Danny building a new company I knew I wanted to be involved! I am responsible for marketing at SpaceClaim. I have a technical background that includes a mechanical engineering degree and many years as a design engineer at a large defense manufacturer.  I also spent 6 years at PTC as an application engineer and product line manager until the mid-90s. At that point I left to lead product marketing at several technology companies.

The recent history of CAD has been characterized by 2 major innovations. The oldest was brought to us by PTC in the ’80s with a full 3D parametric feature-based system. The second one was introduced by SolidWorks in the ‘90s, again with a 3D parametric feature-based system, this time on the Windows platform and with a midrange price. SpaceClaim was founded by people responsible for both technological waves. Does this mean that we should prepare for a new wave of change?

advances can be revolutionary, such as PTC, or it can be evolutionary, such as SolidWorks

As in every industry, change is inevitable. Sometimes it is driven by technology advances.  In the CAD industry, faster hardware performance and software development advances make it possible to improve on previous generations. Advances can be revolutionary, such as PTC introducing features and parameters to the market, or it can be evolutionary, such as SolidWorks offering those capabilities on a Windows platform.
But change is also driven by other factors. While the need for higher product quality, lower costs and faster time to market always exists– there are additional drivers today. The growing reliance on off-shore manufacturing, global supply chains, more complex products that require tighter collaboration, tighter regulation, and increased product liability concerns mean more people across more organizations and locations contribute to developing a product than ever before. These factors increase the need to extend the benefits of working in 3D to more people.
SpaceClaim provides the next generation of design technology to address the needs of the changing manufacturing industry. So you should prepare for a new wave of change.

SpaceClaim has been positioned as a post-design 3D editing tool.  I think there is much more to SpaceClaim than is being promoted. Is there any reason why designers should be deprived of the pleasure and benefits of using an easy to use and yet very effective CAD system?

Actually, SpaceClaim is positioned as both a front end tool for conceptual mechanical design and a downstream tool for working with 3D design models. I wouldn’t characterize it as “post-design” because the design really is not finished until it rolls off the production line. 
In all of these cases, users need a dynamic modeling environment that enables them to work freely with the design, while providing guidance to ensure the results make geometric sense. They also need a good way to communicate their ideas to the design team. These users also have other responsibilities, such as managing a team, running and evaluating the results of analysis or keeping the production line running. So, their 3D tool needs to be one that they feel they can go back to after a few days, and not lose a step.
For an expert CAD operator proficient on a traditional feature-based solid modeling system there is no need to switch if they are productive. But, SpaceClaim is really meant to be one tool in a tool chest, and it is priced accordingly, so designers could also pull it out when they need it for a particular task, such as looking at design alternatives quickly. Anyone can purchase right from our web site, but we’re not targeting designers.

Parametric feature-based technology works perfectly with 3D models up to a certain complexity. Beyond that threshold the parametricity of 3D models becomes unmanageable for the average designer. SpaceClaim seems to be able to push that threshold further. How much further?

Both systems need to ensure that the model updates in a predictable way. For feature-based systems, this is accomplished by adding parameters, dependencies and constraints with every new feature.  As you explain, these become difficult to manage as models get more complex, and I’d say that it’s especially difficult for non-expert users.

there is no need to interrogate the model to understand the relationships or after regeneration, investigate why the results were not as expected

In SpaceClaim’s case, how the model updates is driven by a geometric inference engine working behind the scenes and by the explicit geometry selections that a user makes.  So the user’s direct selections are important to ensure the model updates as expected. To help with selection, SpaceClaim has a number of tools to guide the user, such as remembering past selection groups and searching for similar geometry. This approach supports a much higher threshold because the user interacts directly with the model and sees the results in real-time. There is no need to first interrogate the model to understand the relationships or after regeneration, investigate why the results were not as expected.

Other companies, like think 3, tried long before SpaceClaim to sell CAD on a subscription basis. They didn’t succeed. What makes you believe that now you can succeed?

the (business) model will succeed because customers are more sophisticated today

Our pricing model is actually an annual lease with either a 1 year or 3 year term.  The lease includes the use of the software and subscription services, which includes support, product updates and new versions. The product is downloadable directly form our web site. The model is widely used in other industries. The model will succeed because customers are more sophisticated today. They want to maintain leverage over their software providers, and what better way than to have a choice to renew every year or three years?  It means we need to make sure our clients receive the full benefits of the software and that we provide the highest level of support at all times. We cannot just walk away after the sale (not that we would under any model, of course!). The model also enables customers to easily add new licenses, or not renew others as their needs change. This makes the model very cost effective for clients.

Based on what I’ve seen and read about SpaceClaim, all the “intelligence” required to support the “smart editing” of a 3D model comes from the editing algorithms. Is it correct to say that all of the improvements SpaceClaim may introduce with future releases or that will become feasible thanks to the increased computational power of the PC platform, will benefit all 3D models, regardless of when and how they have been created?

once a 3D model is brought into SpaceClaim it becomes a native model

That’s right. SpaceClaim doesn’t differentiate between models originating on other systems or ones created in SpaceClaim. So once a 3D model is brought into SpaceClaim it becomes a native model. This means it can be edited freely using any of the tools we provide. The user can make changes without regard to a feature tree, fixed constraints or dependencies because they do not exist in SpaceClaim. Consequently, any future benefits added to SpaceClaim will be realized across all models.

Can you name one specific area where you believe SpaceClaim can really make a big difference, and one area where you expect the parametric feature-based systems will remain the best option for a long time?

parametric feature-based systems are especially powerful when the end design and driving parameters are known in advance

It is pretty clear that users needs the right tool for the job, and one tool does not fill all needs.
SpaceClaim is a really powerful tool when the design direction is unknown. This happens not only in the concept stage when the basic shape and assembly structure is not clear but also in the midst of a design process when unanticipated design alternatives need to be evaluated. It is also well suited for anyone to work with a model that may have originated from someone else.
Parametric feature-based systems are especially powerful when the end design and driving parameters are known in advance. In this case a design model can be constructed so that it behaves predictably to any future design changes (e.g. building families of parts and assemblies).

SpaceClaim guesses the user’s intent in order to make any modification to a 3D shape easier. This seems to be done by using one single behavioral model that is applied to all users. In the future, do you plan to add some level of customization, where the system adapts itself to each user’s style and “modus operandi”?

SpaceClaim understands each user’s intent based on context and selection. One example is the Pull tool. If a user selects an edge and pulls, a round gets created. But if the user selects a surface, then geometry is created when the user pulls away from the model or a pocket is created if the user pulls into the model. It is conceivable that customization could occur, but I would not want to predict what future versions hold. It really depends on the direction given to us by our clients.

The time seems to be right for a new technology in CAD. Other companies, such as Kubotek, are exploring approaches similar to SpaceClaim’s approach. How much of your technology do you believe could not be easily matched by your competitors?

The difference between SpaceClaim and all others is that we have been committed from the beginning to develop this new technology and address the needs of those in the extended product development team. We know from experience that it is extremely difficult to bolt on new technology to an existing product and maintain the same level of quality, performance, and usability. While it is possible, but not easy, for others to eventually match our current set of capabilities, we are not standing still and will continue to be a leader in bringing innovative new technology to the mechanical design marketplace.

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

Franco Folini

An Interview with Chris Yessios, CEO of auto.des.sys (formZ)

Chris Yessios is the President and CEO of auto.des.sys, Inc., and Professor Emeritus at The Ohio State University. He holds a PhD in Computer Aided Design from Carnegie-Mellon University and his formal education includes a BArch and a Diploma in Law, both from the Aristotelian University in Greece. He taught and researched at The Ohio State University where he was a Professor of Computer Aided Design and Director of the Graduate Program in Computer Aided Architectural Design.
In 1990, with David Kropp, an ex student of his and now Senior VP of Development, Chris Yessios founded auto·des·sys, Inc., developer of the popular 3D modeling software, form.Z. Last year Chris received the CAD Society Joe Greco Community Award.
I had the opportunity to meet Chris and other auto.des.sys folks at MacWorld in San Francisco. Considering his long experience in 3D modeling, I thought it would be interesting to know more about his company, form.Z, and to have his opinion on the evolution of 3D technologies. Here is the interview.

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

our goal was to bring down to the PC (Mac) and disseminate advanced 3D modeling

I made the decision to concentrate on computer aided design in 1969 when I enrolled to a doctorate program at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh. After graduation, I took an academic job at The Ohio State University, where slowly at first, but patiently we started developing many of the techniques that are taken for granted today. Prototypical 2D drafting and 3D modeling programs were already running on mainframes at the University by the early 80s, while a few commercial turnkey systems were also making their appearance, at a very high cost I should add. Even some early implementations of what has come to be known in the architecture field as BIM (Building Information Modeling) were already available to our students in those days. What was missing was the ability to disseminate their usage, as installations at different universities tended to be rather unique and the professions could not afford to match them.
All this, of course, changed with the availability of the PCs. This is when our company, AutoDesSys, Inc. (standing for Automated Design Systems) was founded by an ex student of mine and myself, with a few more ex students working with us. The year was 1989. Our goal was to bring down to the PC (the Mac to be more exact) and disseminate advanced 3D modeling techniques previously running on mainframes only. About a year later, form.Z was born.

I have a strong impression from interacting with your company that auto.des.sys is like a group of friends working for other friends. I never felt an impression of dealing with a corporation. How did you manage to create such a friendly environment?
This was never planned. It just happened. Thus, I am afraid, I have no recipe to offer.
The initial group of people shared an interest in producing tools that made their lives as designers easier and had worked together before. In the early days we also stayed in close touch with our professional users who were giving us constant feedback. As the company grew in more recent years, we have tried to maintain as much of this spirit as possible, even though I have to admit it is not as easy as it used to be.

Form.Z started as a software for architects, but quickly became popular among a wider set of users. How do you serve the needs of different types of users with just one single product?
It is true that our initial intention was to produce a program geared towards architectural design. We even initially used a different name that reflected this. However, we soon realized that the need for 3D modeling was much broader than architecture and all kinds of different design fields were ready to use more or less the same modeling tools. This is when we switched our emphasis and developed a general purpose modeler.
There are certain modeling operations that may be considered “generic”, meaning that they are useful to everybody, rather than to specific design fields only. The Booleans are probably the best example of such operations. We were apparently successful in providing a fairly complete set of such generic operations that many different fields could be happy with. This being at a time (early 90s) when competing modelers were rather primitive, form.Z had no difficulty gaining in popularity fast. Even today, some of its operations (including the Booleans) remain uniquely capable and robust, which is why its popularity continues, in spite of the availability of more modelers on the market.

You are a Professor Emeritus at Ohio State University where you taught Computer Aided Design until 1995. How has your academic experience impacted the products created by auto.des.sys?

we (are) constantly trying to find better ways of applying the computer to design tasks

What I enjoyed most when I was at the University was the research side of my duties. The ability to explore new ideas and techniques. My area of concentration was such that even my class lectures were mostly based on what we had explored and developed in the lab recently, sometimes as recently as “yesterday.” It is no different in our company. Not only have we drawn a lot from the knowledge we developed in academia, but we also work with a similar attitude, constantly trying to improve and find better ways of applying the computer to design tasks.

New users can now enjoy the freedom of several options when choosing a software system for 3D modeling, rendering, and animation. Which users should choose form.Z and why?
Yes, it is true, there are several 3D modelers available today, which were not there not too long ago. However, it is also true that none of these modelers is exactly the same with one another. On the contrary, a number of modelers are considered complementary to each other and are used in such a fashion. Thus, form.Z is frequently used for the modeling part of a project that is subsequently animated in another application. Needless to note that, with the recent inclusion of more animation tools in form.Z, there will be less of a need to animate with another program.
Who should choose form.Z? Anybody who is inclined to think of objects as being objects and who expects them to behave like objects when they are operated on. This is in contrast to the process based modeling implemented in the programs that are geared mostly towards animation. Also, anybody who wants to explore new forms and designs, or who may wish to start with concepts and carry them all the way to detailed designs, automatic fabrication, and beyond. form.Z seems to possess an uncanny ability of going beyond where other modelers are able to take a user. It can routinely turn a 3D experience into a creative process that produces results far beyond what is possible with conventional means.

Since its appearance, 3D modeling software has continually evolved to become easier to use and more powerful. Apart from this major trend, what will be the next big step?
Intelligent behavior. Over the years we have talked about knowledge based design leading to design automation and intelligent structures, both architectural and at smaller scales. Much of this will be based on the continuously increasing computer powers (speed and storage capacities), which are already at levels unthinkable just a couple of decades ago. We are finally coming to the point when we shall be able to capitalize on all this power.

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

Franco Folini

Frederick W. Taylor and 3D Technology

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

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

3D Requires More Skilled Operators than 2D

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

3D is Not Truly WYSIWYG

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

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

Franco Folini

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

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

years have passed and 2D CAD systems are still around

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

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

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

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

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

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

a poorly modeled 3D model is virtually unmodifiable

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

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

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

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

I welcome your comments on this matter.

Franco Folini

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

Is CFD "Moving to the Left"?

We recently added a user friendly CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) software (CFD-CADalyzer) to our offering that brought back memories of a decade old marketing catch phrase.

I remember when in the 90s the idea that FEM/FEA was "moving to the left" started to go around. It basically meant that the latest generation of FEM/FEA products were easy to use and affordable enough to be run directly by designers, hence moving to the early stages of the design process ("to the left"). Now the concept that designers have access to FEM/FEA reached the mainstream. Alibre offers FEA/FEM tools bundled with its Design Professional version, SolidWorks bundles COSMOSXpress with every version and other CAD vendors offer similar combinations. FEM/FEA has permanently moved to the left.

The advantage of having designers do more analysis is mostly centered on the idea that by verifying their designs with analysis tools before passing them downstream for further development they will weed out the most obvious errors. This will speed up the design loop cycle by reducing the amount of required design changes due to problems found only when performing costly advanced analysis or testing prototypes. One ancillary benefit to this is that, over time, designers develop better intuition and understanding of structural issues further reducing the number of early stage design problems.

So is it CFD’s turn to "move to the left"? I think the answer is a resounding yes. Today’s meshing (FEM) tools for CFD are reasonably user friendly and can certainly be proficiently used by design engineers, and CFD solvers are now capable of providing meaningful results in a decent time frame running on a modern Personal Computer.

This means that designers can access tools that allow them to simulate flow dynamics, heat transfer, cooling and several other conditions before passing their designs downstream. Thanks to this, companies that are first to deploy CFD tools onto their designer’s workstations will reap the benefits of designing better products faster.

Cristiano Sacchi