NOVEDGE blog

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

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 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.