NOVEDGE blog

A SpaceClaim Review by an End User

A member of SpaceClaiming, our online community about new CAD technologies, wrote a very interesting review of SpaceClaim. In a moment when the blogosphere (Matt Lombard, Deelip Menezes, Kenneth Wong, Ralph Grabowski, Paul Hamilton) is busy discussing the benefits and limits of the direct-modeling approach pioneered by SpaceClaim, it is refreshing to hear the opinion of an end user. Martin Kopplow is not a journalist or a blogger. Martin is a German Industrial Designer and has been using SpaceClaim intensively in the last few months. He decided to share his experience with other users on the SpaceClaiming community. With Martin's permission I'm publishing his product review here on the Novedge blog. Thank you Martin!

Franco Folini

SpaceClaim Review by Martin Kopplow

A few days ago, we actually rolled out the first project I did (almost) completely in SpaceClaim. It was a fully functional roadworthy concept car interior. As the dust settles, here is one short review.

I was surprised how much I used SpaceClaim during this project

I was surprised how much I used SpaceClaim during this project, as it was meant to be an addition, more or less a data-turntable to communicate and modify model data.
As this model was pretty large, I never loaded all the components at once. I had sub assemblies of all the parts such as the steering wheel, the instruments, the dashboard, the infotainment and climate control, the center console and so on. I only loaded adjacent parts as reference geometry when needed, else I tried to load as few as possible to keep everything fluid.

I always kept the SpaceClaim model as the master data

There were a few modeling tasks I was not able to do in SpaceClaim, so I exported the questionable parts and did that somewhere else, then re-imported. This happened for things like non radial fillets and complex transitions between parts and faces. I always kept the SpaceClaim model as the master data, though.
I got some basic concept data from styling in which I modeled new parts as development went on. Some features styling that was not able to be done in CATIA could be done in SpaceClaim, for example oddly intersecting faces that were connected by rounds.

SpaceClaim's ability to extend faces was a valuable feature

Handling of files from styling which had to be modified according to engineering requirements worked pretty good. SpaceClaim's ability to extend faces was a valuable feature, when stylings faces were not sufficiently large. The repair tools also helped a lot, when incoming data was not watertight, though with growing complexity towards the end, I had to rebuild a few parts in SC because they were not editable any more after repairing.

Creating overview drawings was a bit tricky because of the size of the model

Creating overview drawings was a bit tricky because of the size of the model. I created a dedicated overview assembly file and only added the relevant parts (that is the visible ones), because on overview drawings you do not see any details anyway.
I just checked: all together would have been 350 to 400MB in size, though any assembly open at any one time was probably no more than maybe 70 to 80MB. I am not talking about reference data of the car body here, as I did not actually work on them, I just stripped them down to the reference faces I needed and loaded them when needed. This project was about the interior and the human interface elements only.

I have been exchanging files with [...] CATIA V5, SolidWorks, Pro/E ICEM, Alias, and FormZ

Making drawings of the individual parts was quite easy. Caution is required when using parts that already have a drawing with them in different assemblies, as it seems that they do not display properly if not opened in the context they were created in. I do not understand this 100%, but there appears to be a problem with the hierarchy of the assembly. Once created and liked to a part, I would expect part drawings to display just the same no matter when or where I open them.
I have been exchanging files with companies, clients and departments that use CATIA V5, SolidWorks, Pro/E ICEM, Alias, and FormZ, as well as the electronic department with their printed circuit board logic and layout software.
Exchanging files has been working much better than before the introduction of SpaceClaim here. I have had almost no difficulties with reading incoming files and only few complaints from contractors with outgoing files being not properly readable. All data could be properly read by the customer.

SpaceClaim does not create these [DXF 3D files] at all

Interesting enough, there are still systems on the production floor that require DXF data input. SpaceClaim provides acceptable 2D DXF export, but there is also 3D DXF, and SpaceClaim does not create these at all. Here I see room for improvement. Recipients of such files are e.g. 3D laser cutting booths, or the architects, who want 3D DXF files to load into their line-wall-and-block based systems, and who have seemingly chosen poor old DXF 12 as their common ground. They cannot deal with the likes of IGES, ACIS, or STEP at all.

Also room for improvement could be found in 3D PDF. If models get more complex and parts intersect, intersecting solids sometimes do not get displayed in the 3D PDF. Else the 3D PDF is a fine tool to have when communicating with customers or asking for subcontractors for quotations.

If SpaceClaim development goes on like that, it is very promising

If PDF export could create a printable drawing in 2D PDF when exporting a drawing sheet, and a 3D PDF Model when exporting a Model, it would be even better. Printing and PDF resolution of shaded parts on paper formats larger than US letter could also need improvement to create more professionally looking drawings.
Despite some criticism, all in all it was still an improvement. If SpaceClaim development goes on like that, it is very promising.

Martin Kopplow

Explore SpaceClaim with a Free Webinar Next Wednesday

SpaceClaim is offering a Free webinar on Wednesday June 10, 2009 between 12:00pm  and 12:30pm EDT (Register Here). The online interactive live demo will explore the features of SpaceClaim targeting Industrial Designers and Product Stylists.
SpaceClaim is a next generation, new approach to CAD systems, and in my opinion it is very important to sign up for this webinar in order to experience its power and flexibility. Only by seeing with your own eyes how quickly and easily a SpaceClaim user can generate new complex shapes can you start to appreciate the difference SpaceClaim can make in your own design process as a standalone application or integrated with the popular Rhino 4.0.

The webinar will explore the features of SpaceClaim targeting Industrial Designers and Product Stylists

This webinar will show us how SpaceClaim Style, the more affordable of the SpaceClaim family of products, can accelerate product concept ideation by providing incredibly fast, flexible tools to create, edit, and validate design concepts.
My recommendation: invest half an hour of your time and join SpaceClaim on June 10, 2009 at 12pm EDT. You will not regret it! To see for yourself what other users are saying about SpaceClaim, join the SpaceClaiming online user community.

Franco Folini

Rhino and the New SpaceClaim Style: The Perfect Couple

Sometimes, when a combination has the right ingredients, great performers are paired with other great performers, and the result is outstanding. The whole becomes greater then the sum of its parts.

The newly released SpaceClaim Style makes such a powerful combination when paired with Rhino. Rhino and SpaceClaim Style are not only excellent on their own; they are perfectly compatible and complement each other ideally. These are the key fundamental elements of a power couple. Let’s analyze them in more detail.

Compatible – not only can Rhino and SpaceClaim Style read and write .3dm files without any data loss, but they are both direct modeling systems. This means that they are compatible at the semantic level, not just at the (required) data level. This is different from parametric systems that are still highly incompatible. Geometry data can be transferred reliably but all the parametric modeling history is lost and different systems use different operators to generate the same geometry (the semantic dichotomy). Rhino and SpaceClaim on the other hand have moved the design intelligence into the software and away from the data - making it thankfully very easy for the user to manipulate the same data with different systems.

Complementary – while being impressive products on their own Rhino and SpaceClaim tend to excel at different types of modeling. Rhino is best at free form modeling and SpaceClaim is best at solid modeling of parts and assemblies. Once used in combination the two systems can tackle more challenging design tasks because the user can chose the best system for the problem at hand and seamlessly switch between the two. For example, SpaceClaim offers a free Rhino plug-in that provides a button within Rhino allowing for easy import and export of Rhino data with SpaceClaim.

Industrial designers looking for a strong solid and assembly modeling tool will find SpaceClaim Style perfectly suited for their needs and will not find themselves entangled in the complexity of parametric systems. Mechanical designers looking for high quality Class A surface modeling will find Rhino a seamless addition to SpaceClaim’s capabilities.

If you are a user of either Rhino or SpaceClaim I believe you owe it to yourself to try this combination. And if you are using neither one, well, I think you should try them both to see for yourself what they can do for you.

Cristiano Sacchi

Interview with Chris Randles, SpaceClaim CEO

Direct-modeling is the new trend in CAD. No doubt about it! Some call it Synchronous Technology, some Interactive Solid Modeling, and some direct-editing. All of these approaches differ, but all are trying to overcome the limitations of existing parametric systems. If we were to identify one original source that started this trend, we would certainly have to recognize that SpaceClaim was the first company to openly and successfully claim that the parametric era is over. This new idea has spread like wildfire -- proving that it was the right concept at the right time. A design system is much more than just a good idea; it takes time to transform one idea into something that can be successfully added to the existing design and deliver real benefits. I believe SpaceClaim is approaching this pivotal point. It's time to look at it -- not any more as a "great idea" -- but as a "great system." Who better than Chris Randles, the new SpaceClaim CEO, to help me check if my impressions are correct?

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

Until recently, I was Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Borealis Ventures, looking at and advising emerging companies – including SpaceClaim. My goal was to join and lead an early stage company and SpaceClaim was the right opportunity for me. Prior to Borealis, I led the management buyout of Mathsoft and served as the company’s Chairman, President and CEO until Mathsoft’s acquisition by Parametric Technology. Earlier I was the Senior Vice President and GM of the Engineering and Education Division of Mathsoft.

I am in the process of meeting with our customers and partners to hear their feedback

As President and CEO of SpaceClaim I am in the process of meeting with our customers and partners to hear their feedback and to help focus our efforts on the market segments with the greatest potential. SpaceClaim has a world-class development team with a rich heritage in 3D design, led by Danny Dean and our technology is very good. We also have a first-class investment team, including Kodiak Venture Partners, Borealis Ventures and North Bridge Venture Partners, all of whom have significant experience in engineering and technical software. Rich D’Amore of North Bridge Venture Partners, for example, was an early investor in companies like SolidWorks, Revit and Mathsoft.

The launch of SpaceClaim induced a sudden and unexpected shift in the perception of CAD technologies. The parametric approach, until then considered as the most advanced, is now perceived as obsolete and too complex. While other manufacturers have been quick to adapt to the new trend favoring direct-modeling, SpaceClaim has not yet been able to fully capitalize on the trend it has created. What’s your opinion on that?

We don’t compete directly with 3D parametric CAD products. In our early days, the perception was built that we were going to go head-to-head with these vendors, but that is not the case.
We are targeting users that today don’t use 3D tools, such as conceptual designers, CAE and manufacturing engineers, because those tools are hard to use, overly rigid for their purposes and very expensive. We agree the trend in the market for 3D solid modeling is toward non-parametric solutions and PTC’s acquisition of CoCreate is an example that validates that view. We feel we are at the center of this trend.

we are targeting users that today don’t use 3D tools, such as conceptual designers, CAE and manufacturing engineers

We have a product that defines the category: it was built from the ground up for direct modeling, it has a modern easy-to-use interface and, above all, it contains smart capabilities to help our target audience create, edit and share 3D designs. We are making steady progress: we are moving our customers from investigation, to pilot and successful deployment of SpaceClaim software.
Right now our focus is on customer satisfaction. We’ve established some important partnerships, with companies such as ANSYS, ALGOR, Robert McNeel & Associates and Bunkspeed and will continue to assess other opportunities.

In the past the role of SpaceClaim in the design and manufacturing process has been described in different and not always consistent ways. Who are your target customers and why should they use SpaceClaim?

You are right about lack of consistency and we are changing that. SpaceClaim is a young company: it’s only in its second year in the market, so it’s inevitable that it will get distracted as it grows. That said, we have great products and great product development capability, the 3D market is changing and the industry is definitely ready for a step change. It is up to us to stay focused, deliver on the promise of the product and to execute our strategy well.
Our market is among designers and engineers, who are not today’s typical CAD system experts.

in many cases expensive and complex parametric tools are over-deployed, when less costly solutions could be much more effective

As mentioned, we are targeting conceptual designers, CAE and manufacturing engineers – many of these users do not have 3D CAD tools that they use every day. Additionally, in many cases expensive and complex parametric tools are over-deployed, when less costly, solutions could be much more effective. The value we bring to our customers are a faster time-to-market, ease of use, precise accuracy and about 1/5th the cost of CAD tools. These expansion markets (like CAE) are growing much faster than the core 3D CAD market, so that is where we see the most opportunity. It has the potential to mark a paradigm shift in the industry, just like the invention of 3D parametric CAD was a paradigm shift back in the 1980s.

The CAD market is changing very slowly with the transition from one system to the next happening in geological times. What is going to be the SpaceClaim strategy to rapidly attract new users?

Well, again, we are not targeting displacement of 3D CAD seats in their core market. We feel we are in the sweet spot targeting the evolution of non-parametric solutions to meet currently under-served 3D design and productivity engineering requirements. This market is just evolving and is starting to demonstrate real innovation – SpaceClaim is at the forefront of that movement.

we will attract new users by demonstrating [...] that we have a good solution

The way we will attract new users is by demonstrating to the market that we have a good solution. We are making great progress with many brand name customers across different industries, such as in consumer products, automotive, and medical devices. As we gain traction, the traditional method of marketing in engineering industries – word of mouth – will add momentum to our own efforts.

Many CAD companies built their fortune opening their system to third party plug-ins. Will SpaceClaim be more oriented to provide an open platform available to any developer or concentrate on promoting a few selected integrations?

We have already opened our APIs to third party developers, and there continues to be a lot of interest there. This is an important step for SpaceClaim as it builds its industry ecosystem.

we are going to be selective about these arrangements [with third parties]

We anticipate that third parties may also license our application and technology. We are going to be selective about these arrangements as we move forward.

You have important previous experience with products in the same price range as SpaceClaim. How should marketing and sales be different in the SpaceClaim price range compared for example to the SolidWorks price range?

We are pursuing different channels of distribution depending on geography, including direct sales, VARs and resellers, including Rhino resellers.

back in February we announced a partnership with Novedge to distribute SpaceClaim over the Internet

As you know, we announced a partnership back in February with Novedge to distribute SpaceClaim over the Internet. For a young company, with break-through new technology, we also understand that direct involvement in marketing and promotion are critical to reaching, and understanding, the market.

When the last major new CAD system entered the market (SolidWorks 1995) the specialized press was probably the most critical item in the market strategy. Today the situation is much more complex with press, bloggers, and online communities all playing an important role in shaping end user opinions. How do you plan to benefit from these diverse ways of communicated with customers?

We already are in contact with this broad community and understand the value they bring to keeping customers apprised and knowledgeable. We actively respond to blogs as relevant to offer our point of view – in fact one of the co-founders of SpaceClaim, Blake Courter, is active in the blogging community.

As CEO I plan to regularly meet with these key influencers [bloggers, online community leaders]

As CEO I plan to regularly meet with these key influencers as part of our mission to get across the company’s story – and make sure that people understand that we are new and different, and not really even a threat to the current 3D CAD market. We see the potential to expand the use of 3D, and to bring benefits of faster creation, revision and (overall) time-to-market for our customers. We are part of a major shift in the market and we have the pedigree to do well.

I would like to thank Chris Randles for taking the time to answer my questions. A special thanks also to Leslie Minasian for her valuable support in putting together this interview. If you have any questions for Chris or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer. SpaceClaim is available through the Novedge website.

Franco Folini

An Interview with Roberto Ciarloni, think3 CTO

Current CAD systems are all based on only a few core geometric engines. Among those software engines, the ones that integrate solid modeling with free-form surfaces can be counted on one hand. One of those few engines is made by Think3, an Italian company that has been trying for several years to enter the US market with an interesting and powerful CAD solution.  The key person behind think3 software is Roberto Ciarloni, Chief Technology Officer. I've known Roberto for a long time and I'm glad to have the opportunity to interview him for the Novedge blog. Here are my questions and Roberto's insightful responses.

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

In my 24 year career I have participated to the birth and evolution of three-dimensional CAD systems. I have contributed to the architecture and development of several CAD products in a very demanding market. Some of these products are still used by thousands of companies around the world. I have started with B-Spline surfaces, migrated to NURBS, and then to Boundary-Representation solid modeling. I have led teams of developers in locations around the world, innovating the software development process. I have been professor of computer graphics at the University of Milan where I have tried to systemize the interdisciplinary subjects of CAD and 3D modeling.

some of these products [I developed] are still used by thousands of companies around the world

Currently I hold the position of Chief Technology Officer in think3 and my job is to explore new directions and new technologies in the 3D CAD world. Think3 is a privately held company that operates in the CAD and PLM business. Think3 provides CAD products (ThinkDesign) in the areas of mechanical and industrial design. It also provides PLM products (ThinkPLM) to help engineering departments in managing their data and their activities. Together with off-the-shelf products think3 offers consultancy in the CAD/PLM domain and helps companies who want to move some design activities off-shore.

Direct Modeling seems to be the new trend in CAD. What is think3's approach to this technology and your long term goals?

Indeed direct modeling is gaining a lot of attention at this time. As you know this approach is as old as the “standard” history-based approach but in the past it has never been able to be competitive. Now times have matured mainly because the traditional Pro/E-like products have become more and more complex to use. The potential of direct editing is great because it allows a much more natural interaction with the model and does not require extensive training to be used.

the potential of direct editing is great because it allows a much more natural interaction with the [3D] model

I have been fond of it for a long time and my team delivered it in ThinkDesign in 2006 under the name ISM (Interactive Solid Modeling). The reaction of our customers has been enthusiastic and we have gotten a lot of pressure to extend and improve it. However I believe that this approach will never replace the history-based approach but rather will complement it. The history graph of a parametric model contains a huge amount of information and design intent and it will never be possible to replace it using things like feature recognition to feed the direct editing approach. In some sense a parametric model is a program to build a family of models and we know that in principle it is impossible to reconstruct a program just by sampling its behavior.
In Think3 we believe that a modern CAD system must allow several modeling strategies. I’ll talk more about that later in the interview.
Our plan on Direct Editing/ISM is to extend its application outside the traditional part modeling where it was born. We are now applying it to design problems in tooling and we are studying its application in assembly design. At the same time we are working hard on the base geometric algorithms to improve its reliability and applicability in complex situations.

Many companies are outsourcing big chunks of their design activities to India and China. What is the impact of these changes on the way CAD systems are used ? How is this kind of outsourcing influencing the evolution of think3 CAD system?

Think3 indeed has a branch of its business dedicated to help companies to outsource design activities to India, where think3 has set up several design centers working on a project basis for European companies.

think3 has set up several design centers working on a project basis for European companies

We feel that this trend is strong and we want to exploit our competence in design services and in outsourcing.
This trend is influencing CAD products (including ours) in two ways: we need systems that are easier to use and more standardized, so that the average engineer will take less time to exploit them, and we need a software that is able to digest low-quality data without a glitch. This sometimes means healing the model but also it means much more powerful and intelligent algorithms. I think that this is definitely one of the challenges for the years to come.

How far can the integration of the two technologies of direct-modeling and parametric-modeling be pushed without turning the CAD system into some sort of Frankenstein?

I have read about this objection and frankly I don’t see it as a big problem. In thinkdesign the ISM functionality can be inserted in the history graph like the other features or it can be used without history. I think that the objection relies on the case of a traditional feature (e.g. a hole) with some relations and parameters that can be “tweaked” by a later ISM modification so losing its semantic. But the same tweak can happen also with traditional features like face draft so where is the difference?

think3 is providing also a third modeling approach that is Global Shape Modeling (GSM)

It must be pointed out that think3 is providing also a third modeling approach that is Global Shape Modeling (GSM). In this powerful approach the user can make editing using shape semantics like bend, twist, or even change from one section to another. This approach is much better suited for complex shapes where the face-dragging metaphor of direct editing is less appropriate. So in think3 we provide the user all the freedom and the potentiality to obtain the shape he/she has in mind.

Looking at the parametric-modeling and direct-modeling technologies, is it possible to identify categories of users or types of organizations that are more likely to benefit from one specific approach rather than from the other?

SpaceClaim has recently tried to divide the field: parametric history-based for designers and direct editing for all the others (e.g. persons in manufacturing or marketing departments). It sounds reasonable but I feel it's a bit too shallow: how to coordinate the changes? (Especially if the departments use different CAD programs as SpaceClaim is pushing). However having systems like ThinkDesign or others able to provide all approaches will tell us how the companies’ organizations will exploit them and so maybe the SpaceClaim classification will prove to be roughly correct.

direct editing seems better in the conceptual stage of design

A classification that comes to my mind is that direct editing seems better in the conceptual stage of design where it can be too hard to build all the parametric relationships and rigidity to discover that the design needs a radical change.

What’s your approach in utilizing user’s feedback into the development process?

The users’ feedback and requests are inserted in our process in many ways. Marketing, Sales, and Customer Care daily filter all the customer base input and update our databases of bugs, requests, and use cases. These data is then processed regularly to influence releases’ content.

we encourage in several ways the contact between developers and customers

However we don’t believe in the approach where developers are just executors of someone else's plan and so we encourage in several ways the contact between developers and customers to increase the developer’s sensitivity in real customer problems and attitude.
Obviously no meaningful product can be done just by collecting customer requests and so we try hard to insert a precise vision and mission in our products. For example one of our visions is to achieve both high-quality modeling precision and ease-of-use, two concepts often in contradiction with each other.

What are the challenges in 3D CAD that you see for the near and medium term?

There are dozens of challenges that are still to be solved in 3D CAD. Among them I will quote reliability, interoperability, collaboration, knowledge capture, and bad data management. However there is still a more basic challenge that awaits a better solution: 3D is still difficult.

there is still a more basic challenge that awaits a better solution: 3D is still difficult

I will describe this problem in a simple way: given a complex 3D object and given a modern 3D CAD system (e.g. Solidworks, ThinkDesign, etc.) what are the commands to use to model it? Consider the same situation with a 2D object and with AutoCAD: even a very poorly trained person will achieve the goal quickly using lines, arcs, trim, extend, etc. I think that this difficulty will never vanish completely due to some intrinsic mismatch between the 3D space and our perception system but we have still a long way to go to improve the situation. As stated above one of the keys of the success of direct editing has been exactly that is going in the right direction. For me the most misleading statement that is often mentioned in relation to this is “we must build a system as easy as clay modeling”. But achieving a definite and precise shape with clay is unbelievably difficult! Ask the modelers who build automotive mockups. So we are back to the challenge to imagine and envision new ways to define 3D objects.

I would like to thank Roberto Ciarloni for taking the time to answer all my questions. If you have any questions for Roberto or for Novedge, please leave a comment below and we will be glad to answer. All think3 products are available in the US through the Novedge website.

Franco Folini

What if PTC never happened?

The launch of new products like SpaceClaim and new technologies like Synchronous Technology by Siemens is bringing some fresh air into the design software world. But is this air really so fresh? Or is it more like the air trapped in the Genie’s bottle that is bursting out after SpaceClaim rubbed it almost twenty years after being trapped in by PTC?

Let’s roll back the clock to the late 80s and review the story. At that time solid modeling was in its infancy, mostly limited to simple bounding surfaces if not polyhedral based modeling (remember CATIA V3?). Commercial kernel modelers were almost non existent with the exception of Romulus (indeed mostly limited to simple bounding surfaces); ACIS and Parasolid were still on their respective drawing boards. And the dominant model creation technique was based on Boolean operators.

Then PTC appeared on the market and within a few years it became the dominant player. Its product was an overnight success and it introduced the world to the concept of parametric solid modeling. The technology was brilliant (and PTC’s sales force was not shy) and all the established competitors were caught like a deer in the headlights. They all scrambled to at least replicate what PTC had. Some survived and some, like ComputerVision, never recovered.

In the process everybody focused on parametric solid modeling and forgot about any technique that interacted with the solids directly without any parametric constraint. Over time the parametric modeling technology evolved into a methodology and became “the way we do things” in solid modeling. And in the mid 90s SolidWorks sealed the direct modeling Genie’s bottle even tighter bringing to the market the first successful parametric solid modeler for Windows.

But maybe parametric modeling does not solve all the issues of solid modeling -- it has never really successfully evolved to handle free form surfaces, handling of models with large numbers of parameters can be very difficult and often simple modifications can be very complicated to carry out because the parameters graph needs to be untangled first. What if PTC never happened and we spent the last 20 years developing direct modeling?

Most likely, if PTC did not do it somebody else would have. We would probably be more or less where we are now. The time was ripe for parametric solid modeling to happen one way or another. But, hypothetically, if PTC did not happen we might have a different modeling paradigm, possibly based on some sort of direct, feature-based modeling as well as parametric modeling too.

In my opinion, the PTC success strongly polarized the design software development in the parametric solid modeling direction and I am glad that SpaceClaim and others are bringing back the direct modeling paradigm. I have the feeling that we are about to see what the last two decades would have looked like if PTC never happened.

Cristiano Sacchi

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