CAD Revolution - PTC PDF

The CAD Revolution...
... and What It Means for You

Published by:

2
The CAD Revolution and What It Means to You
Subscribe or Follow
Underwritten in part by PTC, all concepts and ideas
developed independently, 2010 LC-Insights LLC
Introduction
CAD is a boring, staid and burned out commodity.
With stark clarity, I remember the first time that thought
ran across my mind. It was at an analyst event in the
middle of a product update briefing. The product
manager was in the middle of explaining one of about a
thousand new things in the latest version of this
particular CAD tool. All of them minutely incremental.
None of them groundbreaking. I wish I could say that
kind of briefing was the exception instead of the rule, but
that just wouldnt be true. Basically, CAD is the software
application than innovation forgot. Well, at least for a
while.
Then a couple years ago, the revolution started. Google
offered SketchUp for the masses. SpaceClaim started
suggesting 3D could be used beyond traditional CAD
users. Siemens PLM provided both modeling paradigms
through newly launched Synchronous Technology.
Autodesk started experimenting with new technology in
something called Fusion. And most recently, PTC has
promised to change the world with Creo. Suddenly, CAD
is a hot and vigorous issue worth talking about again.

But somethings a little different this time. Its not the
same old game of leapfrog played out between software
providers. Its not just about getting the latest whiz-bang
features in front of CAD specialists. Its not just about
detailing out engineering drawings. People are talking
about getting sketching and modeling tools in front of
entirely new roles. People are talking about process
change of all things. Its exciting to see and understand
some of the new applications for CAD. But as exciting as
it might be, its a touch confusing and scary too. Why
would someone else use CAD? Whats the advantage? Will
this end up being disruptive? Questions abound.
Thats where this series of eBooks might help. They
provide a straightforward look at how the ongoing
revolution in CAD affects different individual roles and
the resulting implications for their organizations. So sit
back and take it in. Because it may have taken a little
while, but CAD is finally worth our time again.

Chad Jackson is the Founder and
President of Lifecycle Insights, a
research and advisory firm that
studies the issues that matter
most to engineering. Results of
studies are published on
engineering-matters.com. Chad
can be reached via email or (512)
284-8080.

3
Subscribe or Follow
A Powerful Yet Taxing Path...
Before we can understand the impact of the CAD
revolution, its important to understand how the
technology works and its resulting implications. Heres
the quick overview of the feature-history paradigm, the
basis for traditional CAD.
! The building blocks of a 3D model are geometry
features that are parametrically controlled. Some
examples are sketch-based extrusions and
rounds.
! The features are placed into a history based
sequential order. Furthermore, successive features
often use geometry of prior features as references,
generating a network of parent-child like
interdependencies.
! The features can be changed by modifying
parametric dimensions or variables or through
dynamically pushing and pulling geometry.
! Modifications however are limited to the initial
feature definitions used to create the geometry.
Because of the way this technology paradigm works,
there are some implications for users.
! Parametric control and interdependency in the
feature history enables very intelligent reactions to
changes as well as powerful design automation.
Models can morph in an automated way to
represent various product configurations.
! There is an overhead cost to this power though.
Specific knowledge and skills must be gained and
retained to both build as well as manipulate
models based on a feature-history network.
Feature-History Paradigm
Feature-History
Modeling
! Geometric created
through features
! Feature definitions
persisted
! Geometry rebuilt in
history based sequence
Explicit
Modeling
! Geometric created
through operations
! Geometry topology
persisted
Geometry Creation
Geometry Manipulation
Parametric
! Changes made through
explicit modification to
dimensions or variables
Push, Pull or Drag
push/pull/drag
interaction with
geometry, handles, etc.
Feature-Based
! Modifications made
through existing feature
definitions. Changes
propagate to dependent
features.
Selection / Inferenced
! Changes made to
explicitly selected and/or
inferred sets of geometry
Direct Manipulations
! Geometry manipulated
directly with actions

4
Subscribe or Follow
A Path a Little Less... Constrained.
So whats the alternative to feature-history paradigm? Its
a combination of explicit and direct paradigms that has
actually been around for some time. Heres the rundown
of how it works.
! Geometry can be created as features or as
individual operations. Then, instead of
remembering the history based sequential order of
features, the geometric topology definition is
preserved. As a result, there is no network of
interdependencies between features.
! Manipulation of geometry is a two-step process.
First, users select the geometry they want to
change. This can be augmented with geometry
inference; a capability that automatically and
intelligently determines what else should also be
modified. Second, the user primarily uses a
push/pull/drag interaction to manipulate the
geometry. Alternatively, parametric modifications
to geometry can also be made.
Just as before, there are some implications as a result of
using this type of modeling paradigm.
! The knowledge and skill overhead to using this
modeling paradigm is low. There is no network of
interdependent features to manage.
! Without a network of interdependent features,
there is no basis for design automation or
intelligent reaction to change. These models
cannot be morphed in an automated way.

Direct & Explicit Paradigms
Feature-History
Modeling
! Geometric created
through features
! Feature definitions
persisted
! Geometry rebuilt in
history based sequence
Explicit
Modeling
! Geometric created
through operations
! Geometry topology
persisted
Geometry Creation
Parametric
explicit modification to
dimensions or variables
Push, Pull or Drag
push/pull/drag
interaction with
geometry, handles, etc.
Feature-Based
! Modifications made
through existing feature
definitions. Changes
propagate to dependent
features.
Selection / Inferenced
! Changes made to
explicitly selected and/or
inferred sets of geometry
! Geometry manipulated
directly with actions

5
Subscribe or Follow
The Status Quo of Traditional CAD
As modeling technology in the industry matured, initial
thoughts on the use of CAD formalized into consensus.
And over time, consensus settled into a number of
assumptions. Assumptions that practically no one
challenged any longer. Heres the quick list.
! 2D CAD is for laggards. Its not the most
professional thing to say, but it has been the
industry drumbeat for years. The use of 2D CAD
has always been painted as an intermediate step
on the way to 3D CAD. Those who stayed on 2D
have been seen as procrastinating the inevitable.
Over time, a serious stigma developed around 2D.
And the stigma stuck.
! Pick a 3D modeling paradigm and stick with it.
By and large, the feature-history and direct
paradigms have been seen as mutually exclusive.
Organizations often went down one path, never
looking back regardless of the advantages or
accessibility of the other paradigm. But sometimes
it went beyond that, with proponents on both
sides arguing with great passion and fervor. For
many, it became personal.
The New Rules of the CAD Revolution
With a revolution in technology, CAD suddenly gained
some mindshare in the industry again. People started to
ask questions. Did the old assumptions about CAD still
apply? And after revisiting some issues that hadnt been
challenged in years, some new thinking emerged.
! 2D CAD is a legitimate design tool. Now dont
get me wrong here. No one wanted to go back to
manually creating 2D drawings. However, theres
been an admission that designing products is truly
distinct and different than documenting products.
And in that case, designing in 2D is an entirely
legitimate means to capture concepts, develop and
mature designs and make design decisions.
! Use complementary 3D modeling paradigms.
Many in the industry would agree that each
modeling paradigm has strengths and
weaknesses. And interestingly, ones strength
actually complements the others weakness. The
new thinking is to leverage both paradigms,
switching between the two and using the right one
for the right job. Its no longer an either-or
decision. Its both.

6
Subscribe or Follow
Whats it mean for CAD Specialists?
If theres one thing we know about CAD specialists, they
are the top experts in the feature-history paradigm.
Theyve learned how to build and navigate networks of
interdependent features as well as diagnose problems
when they occur. Theyre masters of their trade.
The Partially Fulfilled Promise of Reuse
One of the great original advantages behind the feature-
history modeling paradigm is reuse. The idea has been to
morph an existing model into a new one with changes.
But there are sometimes problems. In unstable models,
small tweaks can start a chain reaction of failures in the
network of interdependent features.
Given time, CAD specialists can readily seek out and
resolve those problems. In some cases however, it can
actually be faster for them to do a complete or partial
rebuild of the model instead. Either way, they end up
spending valuable time fixing or rebuilding models
instead of creating new ones.
Realizing the Reuse Promise
For CAD specialists, the new vision for CAD is all about
flexibility and power. Direct modeling can be used to
modify legacy models and reuse others models without
needing to recreate it or invest lots of time fixing it.
Feature-history modeling can be used to explicitly define
geometry or programmatically automate modeling. The
biggest advantage however is both of these modeling
paradigms can be used in a complementary fashion,
offering the right tools at the right time.
Final Thoughts for CAD Specialists
Theres really no doubt that CAD specialists could fix or
rebuild models so they could morph into new designs.
But is that really a great use of their expert skills and
knowledge? Instead, leveraging complementary modeling
paradigms lets them find the shortest path to the final
goal. In turn, that lets them focus their expert knowledge
and skills more on modeling new parts and products.
Issues with
Traditional CAD
The Change with the
CAD Revolution
Advantage and
Benefit
In feature-history
paradigm, CAD
Specialists must often
fix or recreate models,
instead of reusing
them, due to complex
interdependencies
between features.
Capabilities provided
through direct and
explicit paradigms allow
quick and easy edits to
existing models without
feature manipulations.
Time that CAD
Specialists would have
spent fixing or
recreating models can
be applied to new
development projects
instead.

7
Subscribe or Follow
What it means for CAD Managers
Theres no doubt that being a manager during the
recession was difficult. For a team whose bandwidth is
determined by how many bodies there are in front of
CAD workstations, staff cuts hit hard. With practically
every project undermanned, productivity is paramount.
Unpredictability Undermines Productivity
Some days they love it. Some days they hate it. But whats
always the same is that manipulating models with the
feature-history paradigm is a complicated task. Its
difficult to predict if a team will be able to turn an old
design into a new one or theyll have to recreate it from
scratch. That makes it terribly hard to stay on schedule.
And they dont mind helping out others, but there are
endless lists of requests for help with CAD whether its
an engineer modeling up a new concept, an analyst
prepping a model for simulation or a manufacturing
engineer trying to figure out why his model is failing. And
that can certainly make it difficult to be productive.
Addressing Reuse, Enabling Others Independence
For CAD Managers, a major boon of the CAD revolution is
the elimination of the unpredictability around design
reuse. The direct modeling paradigm offers new tools to
manipulate model geometry without the fear of
catastrophic failures.
But theres more to it for CAD Managers than just
addressing reuse. Part of the promise of the CAD
revolution is enabling many other roles to be productive
with CAD. That means the endless list of request can be
dramatically reduced, if not eliminated.
Final Thoughts for CAD Managers
For CAD Managers, there are two major issues that
undermine productivity: the unpredictability of design
reuse and others requests for CAD assistance. The CAD
revolution addresses both head on. Tools in the direct
modeling paradigm directly address design reuse needs.
The vision behind the CAD revolution places role suitable
tools in the hands of others.
Issues with
Traditional CAD
The Change with the
CAD Revolution
Advantage and
Benefit
With feature-history
paradigm, difficult to
predict extent to which
past designs can be
reused. Also, other roles
constantly need
assistance with
modeling tasks.
Capabilities of Direct and
Explicit paradigms enable
higher rate of reuse,
increasing predictability.
More accessible forms of
CAD enable other roles to
work independently.
Letting CAD Specialists
and other roles use the
right tools for the right
job saves time in the
schedule and makes
workload far more
predictable.

8
Subscribe or Follow
What it means for Product Engineers
Being an engineer today is no easy task. You have to wear
many hats while rushing between your desk, the test lab,
the shop floor and everywhere else. And between it all,
you have to capture your ideas and concepts quickly so
others can take action.
Going Rogue with Concept Design
What is the best way to capture design concepts? It has
always seemed like 3D CAD would be a great fit because
of its ability to quickly explore design iterations. But that
potential has never truly been realized. Engineers are
constantly juggling the lifecycle responsibilities of their
products. And as a result, theyll only ever be an
infrequent user of any application, including CAD. In
turn, they cant dedicate the time necessary to gain the
knowledge and skills to effectively use the feature-
history paradigm. Instead, engineers often go rogue with
faster and simpler to use 2D CAD, even with the stigma.
Productive Concept Design without the Overhead
For engineers, the CAD revolution is all about enabling
them to capture their concepts without making them CAD
experts. Because the barrier to using 2D sketching or
direct modeling is relatively low, engineers dont need
extensive knowledge or skills to capture their concepts.
Furthermore, these modeling methods are also integrated
with the feature-history paradigm, enabling CAD
specialists to use them, instead of recreating them, to
build detailed models. In all, theres no need to go rogue
anymore.
Final Thoughts for Engineers
Traditional CAD has always held great promise for
engineers to capture their concepts. However, engineers
simply cant afford the time to become CAD experts. The
CAD revolution puts 2D and direct modeling tools into
their hands, letting them productively capture concepts
without the knowledge and skill overhead. In short, CAD
has become accessible to the engineer.
Engineers can
independently capture
their concepts in a
deliverable format that
CAD Specialists can
leverage to create
detailed models later in
the design phase.
Issues with
Traditional CAD
The Change with the
CAD Revolution
Advantage and
Benefit
Skill and knowledge
overhead of feature-
history paradigm too
high for engineers, who
are infrequent users.
Often use 2D drafting
tools instead, creating
unusable deliverables.
Direct modeling and 2D
sketching tools enable
engineers to capture
concepts and ideas
quickly without high
skill and knowledge
overhead.

9
Subscribe or Follow
What it means for Analysts
When it comes to model geometry, there couldnt be
anything that is both more critical and less interesting to
analysts. Its the basis of simulation models but to be
honest, they dont care how its created. For them, its
simply a means to an end.
The Challenges of Defeaturing Models
While the CAD model is the basis for simulation models,
analysts often remove some pieces of geometry that are
irrelevant to the simulation. But unfortunately, because of
dependencies between features, removal of a feature can
cause others to fail, rendering the model useless. Of
course, an analyst could gain the skills to use feature-
history based modeling, but with all of the other
knowledge required of a simulation analyst, thats not
exactly the highest priority. As a result, analysts spend
exorbitant amounts of time prepping the model,
recreating the model in simulation tools or rely on time-
constrained CAD specialists to do the job for them.
Direct Modeling Enables Analyst Independence
How does the CAD revolution change things? It turns out
that the direct modeling paradigm not only offers new
ways of modifying geometry, but also offers tools to
quickly and easily remove geometry without triggering
chaotic failures throughout the interdependent network
of features. This means the analyst can perform their
analysis preparations on their own without fixing or
recreating the CAD model.
Final Thoughts for Analysts
Model geometry has always been critical to an analysts
job. Trouble begins when simplification or defeaturing a
model in preparation for simulation triggers feature
failures. As a result, analysts can waste tremendous
amounts of time fixing or recreating the model or waiting
for a CAD specialist to help. The CAD revolution puts
direct modeling tools in the hands of analysts, enabling
them to simplify models without the threat of feature
failures.
Issues with
Traditional CAD
The Change with the
CAD Revolution
Advantage and
Benefit
Simplifying or
defeaturing models
created with the feature-
history paradigm can
cause failures, forcing
Analysts to fix or
recreate them.
The direct modeling
paradigm offers quick
and easy tools to simplify
or defeature models
without risk of model
failures.
Time that Analysts
usually spend fixing or
recreating models can
now be spent setting up
and running more
simulations.

10
Subscribe or Follow
What it means for Manufacturing
Engineers?
Where the engineer designs the product virtually, the
manufacturing engineer must bridge the gap to reality.
That not only includes planning out the production
process but also the design of the necessary jigs, fixtures
and tooling to manufacture the product.
A Lack of Palatable Choices for Tool Design
For the manufacturing engineer, it all starts with the CAD
model that is released from engineering. While that
model is frequently built using the feature-history
paradigm, theres no need for the manufacturing
engineer, an infrequent user, to make tooling design any
more complicated than it already is. So, they have a
choice. They can design tooling using the feature-history
paradigm, forcing them to use a more complex tool.
Alternatively, they can import the design into a
specialized yet simpler-to-use application, thereby
breaking the associativity between the
product model and the tooling model. Both choices were
less than ideal.
Simpler Yet Associative CAD for Tool Design
For manufacturing engineers, the CAD revolution offers
simpler and easier to use applications for tool design that
are integrated with product design. This includes 2D
sketching, capabilities from the direct modeling
paradigm or even specialized tool design functionality to
create the simpler geometry of the jigs and fixtures. As a
result, tool design isnt any more complicated than
necessary and product changes are propagated
associatively.
Final Thoughts for Manufacturing Engineers
In the past, manufacturing engineers had to choose
between using complex applications for simple tool
design and simpler applications that broke associativity.
The CAD revolution lets them avoid the compromise by
providing the right capabilities with associativity.
Advantage and
Benefit
Manufacturing
engineers no longer
need to choose between
modeling simplicity
and design
associativity. They can
have both to save time
and avoid errors.
Issues with
Traditional CAD
The Change with the
CAD Revolution
Jig and fixture
geometry is often
simple and doesnt
need the more complex
capabilities of the
feature-history
paradigm used to
create design models.
Manufacturing
engineers can use simpler
and faster tools like direct
modeling and 2D
sketching for jig and
fixture design yet
maintains associativity
with the design model.

11
Subscribe or Follow
Conclusion: What does it all mean?
In the past few years, there have been some dramatic
shifts in CAD technology and new thinking about how it
can be used. But that alone doesnt necessarily mean you
should change what youre doing. First, you have to
answer a critical question: what does it all mean to the
business? Fundamentally, the answer to that question is
increased productivity in two specific ways.
#1: Enabling CAD Independence across the Team
Under the status quo of traditional CAD, other roles
brought their CAD difficulties to CAD Specialists to fix or
recreate their models. As a result, the organization has
been constrained by the bandwidth of that one role.
Under the new rules of the CAD revolution, each of these
roles possess right-sized CAD technology that enables
them to do their tasks independently, including:
! Engineers capturing design concepts with 2D
sketching and direct modeling.
! Analysts simplifying design models with direct
modeling in preparation for simulation.
! Manufacturing Engineers associatively designing
tooling with 2D sketching and direct modeling.
Ultimately, this independence results in two advantages.
! The elimination of many tasks for CAD Specialists,
freeing them up to focus on new product designs.
! The elimination of delays caused while waiting for
CAD specialists to complete other peoples tasks.
#2: Elimination of Non-Value Add Activities
Under the status quo of traditional CAD, occasional
failures in models built in the feature-history paradigm
instigated a variety of activities that fundamentally do not
add value to product development projects, including:
! Fixing or recreating unstable models resulting
from reusing or modifying existing designs.
! Creating new 3D models from scratch instead of
leveraging 2D conceptual sketches.
! Fixing or recreating models after attempting to
simplify them in preparation for simulation.
Under the new rules of the CAD revolution, leveraging the
right paradigm within a set of complementary and
interoperable modeling technologies can reduce if not
eliminate many of these activities. As a result, more of
the organizations time can be spent on moving the
product development project forward.
Final Thoughts... and a Question
Its been some time since CAD was really worth our time.
After years of incremental improvements and leapfrog
features, the technology advances and new thinking of
the last few years offers some real change. And its not
merely interesting. There are some real implications not
only for the traditional CAD Specialist, but also for
Engineers, Analysts, Manufacturing Engineers and many
others. So after all these years of sleeping on CAD, and
rightfully so, you may just want to ask yourself:
Is it time to start paying attention to CAD again?
To follow the rest of the CAD Revolution eBook series,
visit www.ptc.com or follow to Lifecycle Insights.

Published by:
... and What It Means
for Product Engineers

Subscribe or Follow
The CAD Revolution and What It Means for Product Engineers
2
Introduction
Being an Product Engineer today isnt easy. You run
between your desk, the conference rooms and about a
hundred other places. Every project is understaffed. And
unfortunately, that probably wont change anytime soon.
Years ago, CAD held some real promise for Product
Engineers. The idea was that you could capture concepts
and explore design iterations easily. But who really had
time to learn the intricacies of traditional CAD? Now that
talk is starting up again. The technology seems easier to
use. But should you take the time to check it out?
Ultimately, that question is why I wrote this book. In it,
you'll find some perspectives on the CAD revolution and
what it means for you, the Product Engineer.
NOTE: The Product Engineer role as described here is
responsible for design decisions, product ownership and
is an infrequent CAD user. In some companies, this role
includes the responsibilities of the CAD Specialist. For
more information on what the CAD
Revolution and that role, see the 3rd
eBook in this series.
The Change in Modeling Technologies
Before we dive into the implications of the CAD
Revolution for Product Engineers, it makes sense to set a
baseline about the modeling paradigms themselves.
! Feature-History (Parametric) Paradigm: Model
geometry is generated from parametric features
placed in a sequential order. References between
successive features result in network of
interdependencies.
! Explicit and Direct Paradigms: Model geometry
is build with operations and directly preserved.
Users select geometry and then use a
push/pull/drag interaction to manipulate models.
For more information on differences between these two
paradigms, read the third and fourth pages in the eBook,
the CAD Revolution and What It Means for You.
284-8080.
Feature-History
Modeling
Explicit
Modeling
Geometry Creation
Parametric Push, Pull or Drag
Feature-based
Selection / Inference

Subscribe or Follow
3
Concept Design: Just Make It Work
Every product starts out as an Product Engineers idea.
But the tools that are used to capture that idea can vary
widely.
The Dead End of Concept Design Deliverables
What do Product Engineers use to capture design
concepts? You name it and its probably been used:
napkins, graph paper, whiteboards as well as
schematics, diagrams and sketches. The problem?
Unfortunately, these deliverables often arent in a format
that can be used to create a detailed 3D model. As a
result, that work often starts from scratch.
Developing a 3D model directly would certainly address
the issues. However traditional CAD based on the
feature-history paradigm is too complex. And its not
that Product Engineers arent smart or capable enough.
They just have too many other responsibilities to be an
expert with any software. Theres only 24 hours in a day.
Concept Design Without Compromise
This scenario changes in the CAD Revolution. The idea is
for Product Engineers to have a variety of interoperable
tools available to capture concepts and ideas. It might be
2D sketching tools, 2D layout tools or 3D direct
modeling. The point is to enable Product Engineers to
capture the concept quickly and easily without a lot of
knowledge overhead. CAD Specialists leverage those
deliverables to create a parametrically controlled model.
And ultimately that means Product Engineers can use the
right tools for them and CAD Specialists dont have to
build a model from scratch.
Final Thoughts on Concept Design
For Product Engineers, concept design with traditional
CAD simply wasnt feasible. In the CAD Revolution,
Product Engineers can capture concepts in any one of a
variety of tools and pass it forward to CAD Specialists.
Sketches on napkins, graph
paper or whiteboards
2D drafting or diagramming
software applications
1. Low fidelity representation in
terms of scale and accuracy
2. Exists in hardcopy form,
resulting in recreation of model
1. Concepts exist in a variety of
formats that are not compatible
2. Concepts can not be reused,
forces clean sheet creation of
design model

Subscribe or Follow
4
More Iterations Equals Better Designs?
No design is perfect from the start. It takes lots of
exploration and analysis to find an acceptable design,
much less a perfect one.
The Unfulfilled Promises of Traditional CAD
If there were one place where feature-history modeling
would shine, it would seem to be in exploring design
iterations. By changing parameters, you could explore
big changes, small tweaks and any combination of the
two. The problem of course is the high knowledge
overhead required to fix feature failures that inevitably
crop up. Todays Product Engineers, running from fire
drill to fire drill, simply dont have that time to gain and
retain that knowledge. Instead, they explore design
iterations using brute force methods like graph paper.
And by the time a detailed model is being built, all of the
design decisions have already been made.
The Right Tools for Engineering Exploration
The good news is that the technology changes of the
CAD Revolution changes this story. Product Engineers
can use direct modeling to explore lots of design
options without that high knowledge overhead. In fact,
as designs mature and decisions are finalized, more and
more of the design model can be locked down with
parametric control. Furthermore, detailed models from
suppliers in numerous CAD formats can be edited just as
easily as native designs. And last but not least, the
model can be passed back and forth between the
Product Engineer and the CAD Specialist for
collaboration.
Final Thoughts on Design Iterations
CAD has always held great potential for Product
Engineers to explore design alternatives, but the barriers
of feature-history modeling has always been a little too
high. In the CAD Revolution, Product Engineers can use
direct modeling to realize the more iterations equals
better design promise.

Progression of Design Iterations
v1 Initial
Concept
v1.1 Torque
Arm Variant
v1.2 Linkage
Experiment v1.3 Motor
Iteration
v1.1.1 Torque
Arm Breakout
v1.1.2 Torque
Arm Replacement

Subscribe or Follow
5
The Customer Validation Minefield
How many times has it happened to you? You thought
you were on the same page as your customer. But in the
end, you weren't. And it turns into just another fire drill.
Customer Design Interpretation
Whether its a concept, a change or a final check before
release, there are many advantages to validating designs
with customers. But thats not to say there arent
problems. Product Engineers often use sketches,
whiteboards and drawings to discuss design options and
alternatives with customers throughout development.
Unfortunately, these representations can be ambiguous,
meaning one design detail could be interpreted in two
very different ways. The result? Catching it much later in
development is costly to fix. But, even worse, catching it
after it has been shipped results in a dissatisfied
customer. Either way, for the Product Engineer, its
another fire drill.
Live Design Sessions with Customers
The vision behind the CAD Revolution, however,
promises to make things much more clear. The concept
is for Product Engineers to use 2D and direct modeling
tools for live design sessions right in front of customers.
Direct modeling changes aren't constrained to feature
definitions, allowing Product Engineers to make
sweeping changes without fear of feature failures. And a
3D solid model is far less ambiguous than anything
sketched on paper or a whiteboard. For the company, it
means fewer late stage changes and unhappy customers.
For Product Engineers, it translates to fewer fire drills.
Final Thoughts on Customer Design Validation
Product Engineers have often scrambled with late stage
changes or unhappy customers due to the ambiguous
design representations used for customer validations.
Instead, the CAD Revolution puts easy to use direct
modeling tools to create unambiguous 3D models in the
hands of Product Engineers.
Causes of Design
Validation Ambiguity
Outcomes of Customer
Validation Issues
1. Design representations lack
accuracy or scale
2. 2D views can be
misinterpreted
3. Changes to multiple
views must be made
manually
1. Issues caught downstream
where they incur costs and
cause delays
2. Issues caught at customer,
causing dissatisfaction

Subscribe or Follow
6
Being an Product Engineer today isnt easy. And, by and
large, CAD tools havent been that helpful for Product
Engineers. But in the CAD Revolution, that story seems
to be changing.
Organizational Implications for the Team
Product Engineers get pulled in every direction for fire
drills throughout the development cycle. That means
they cant realistically be users of any complex software,
including traditional CAD. As a result, Product Engineers
have had to turn to scribbled notes, graph paper,
whiteboards and 2D drafting tools. Unfortunately, these
representations cant be readily used by much of anyone
else in the organization.
The CAD Revolution changes the story though. By using
numerous tools as part of an interoperable suite
alongside parametric feature-history CAD, Product
Engineers are conceptualizing, iterating and validating
designs in forms compatible with the rest of the
organization. And that means no one else needs to
recreate those deliverables from scratch. But it also
translates into flexibility, speed and more iteration that
result in better designs.
Personal Implications for the Product Engineer
Product Engineers certainly care about the team, but
there are some personal implications for them too. All
those fire drills arent just inconvenient; they translate
into working late nights and weekends. Traditional CAD
has offered promise in terms of helping Product
Engineers with this problem but the knowledge barriers
have been too high.
In the vision of the CAD Revolution, Product Engineers
can use the right tools for the right job. Direct modeling
technologies help capture concepts, explore options and
validate designs with customers. And most critically its
technology thats truly accessible to Product Engineers.
Final Thoughts
The changes of the CAD Revolution certainly wont make
being an Product Engineer a breeze. But with the
potential to fulfill the original promise of CAD, it may
make being and an Product Engineer just a touch less
painful.

Published by:
... and What It Means for
Simulation Analysts

Subscribe or Follow
The CAD Revolution and What It Means for Simulation Analysts
2
Introduction
Becoming a Simulation Analyst isn't the easiest career
track in the world. In school, you took advanced courses
in engineering physics and studied terribly complex
computational methods. And you've applied it to the real
world by using it in product design. But despite all that
hard work, you're spending more time tinkering with
geometry than performing simulation and analysis. And
thats not exactly the best use of your capabilities.
Recently you've heard of changes in the CAD industry.
There are supposed to be new technologies and
capabilities to make CAD more accessible. Maybe there's
something in it for you too? Could it let you dedicate
more time to your real focus: simulation and analysis?
That's where this book might help. Here you'll find some
perspective on the CAD Revolution and what it means for
you, the Simulation Analyst.
Revolution for Simulation Analysts, it makes sense to set
a baseline about the modeling paradigms themselves.
interdependencies.
! Explicit and Direct Paradigms: Model geometry
is build with operations and directly preserved.
Users select geometry and then use a
push/pull/drag interaction to manipulate models.
284-8080.
Feature-History
Modeling
Explicit
Modeling
Geometry Creation
Feature-based

Subscribe or Follow
3
Preparing Models for Simulation
Before any simulation can be run, the Simulation Analyst
must deal with a longstanding roadblock: preparing
model geometry from many different CAD applications.
A Distraction from Your Focus
The plain reality of simulation is that CAD geometry is
never ready for analysis as-is. Some geometry that has
no effect on the analysis needs to be removed. Other
geometry might need to be simplified and replaced.
Complicating matters is the fact that design models
from any sort of a supply chain will often come from
various different CAD applications.
The problem in all this is that a CAD model built out of
ordered features can be finicky. You start out removing
one feature and suddenly a different one fails. From
there, you have two choices. If you know that particular
CAD application, you can fix it yourself, losing time
potentially spent on other simulations. Alternatively, you
could get in line to have a CAD Specialists, especially
when working with models from multiple CAD
applications, assist you, delaying analysis results.
Neither are palatable choices.
The Shortest Path to Simulation Preparation
As it turns out, there are some far more palatable
choices for the Simulation Analyst in the CAD Revolution.
And the solution relies on multiple technologies, not just
one. To start, capabilities from visualization
technologies, which have long been able to read design
models from various CAD applications, are being used to
address today's multi-CAD reality. That is then coupled
with Direct Modeling technologies will allow users to
remove geometry from models without the fear of
feature failures or having to be concerned about what
model was created in which CAD application. The result
is an application tailored to help Simulation Analysts
independently prepare models for simulation without
distracting them from their core responsibilities: running
simulations.
Final Thoughts on Model Preparation
For Simulation Analysts, the prospect of preparing
models for simulation was an arduous endeavor. But in
the CAD Revolution, visualization and Direct Modeling
technologies are combined to address their specific
needs.
Simplification
The removal of geometric
details that will not affect
the outcome of the
simulation
Abstraction
The replacement of one set of
detailed geometry with a
simulation equivalent set of
geometry and simulation
artifacts

Subscribe or Follow
4
Simulations for
Design Decisions
Simulations for
Final Validation
Simple Analyses to Drive Decisions
Using simulation to drive design decisions can provide
some advantages in product development. But is it really
the best application of the Simulation Analysts
knowledge and skills?
The Distraction of Early and Simple Simulations
The concept behind simulation driven design is to
perform basic analyses, get comparative results and
make design decisions. While simulation analysts have
enabled the effort, are running basic analyses the best
use of their time? After all, thats time they cant
dedicate to complex analyses for verification and
validation. Alternatively, many efforts have been made to
allow Design Engineers to perform this type of upfront
analysis by integrating simulation capabilities into
feature-based parametric CAD. But the resulting
challenge is the high knowledge and skill overhead
required to manage feature interdependencies and
failures when they occur.
Enabling Independent Simulations by Others
In the CAD Revolution, the approach to enabling the
Design Engineer to perform upfront analyses is different.
It's not just about integrating simulation capabilities and
feat-based parametric CAD. It's also about integrating
that with 2D and Direct Modeling capabilities. The result
is a combined set of design and simulation capabilities
that let the Design Engineer use the right tool for the
right job. As they make design changes through feature
dimensions or direct manipulations to 2D or 3D
geometry, the simulation model updates allowing for
quick and basic analyses. That in turn enables the
Simulation Analyst to focus on what they do best:
challenging simulations for verification and validation.
Final Thoughts on Simulation Driven Design
Simulation Analysts can enable simulation driven design,
but their expertise is best used on more complex tasks.
Design Engineers with the right integrated set of
modeling and simulation capabilities can perform them
independently instead.
Results used to compare
two discontinuous options
or alternatives and to
ultimately the basis for
design decisions
Results used for a final
go or no go decision prior
to formal testing and
ultimately design release

Subscribe or Follow
5
Verbal Communication
of Design Suggestions
3D Documentation of
Design Suggestions
Closing the Validation Loop
The job of a Simulation Analyst isnt finished at the end
of an analysis. They also have to provide guidance on
changes how to improve the design.
The Challenge of Suggesting Improvements
Before spending budget and time in the schedule to
build a prototype for the final test prior to design
release, analysts are not only called on to perform
simulations for verification and validation but also to
suggest improvements to the design. They might make
small tweaks or entirely new options the Design Engineer
hadnt considered before. And while verbal
communication can work, design suggestions in the
form of a 3D model are far less ambiguous. But like
preparing models for simulation, modifying a detailed
design model built using feature-based methods can
result in failures. Then the analyst is faced with fixing it
themselves or going to the CAD Specialist and waiting
for help.
Documenting Design Suggestions
Documenting your suggested design changes doesnt
have to lead to a dead end however. In the CAD
Revolution, the Simulation Analyst can use a
combination of parametric feature-based and direct
modeling tools to capture their suggested changes in
the design model itself or in a form that is compatible
with the design model. This removes the ambiguity of
verbal communication while avoiding the time wasting
efforts to fix failed design models or waiting for the
assistance of a CAD Specialist.
Final Thoughts on Closing the Validation Loop
Traditionally, suggested design changes from Simulation
Analysts were ambiguous if given verbally or painfully
time consuming if done through a 3D model. However in
the CAD Revolution, the CAD Specialist has the right set
of tools to document their suggested changes in an
unambiguous fashion that isnt time consuming.
Susceptible to
misinterpretation between
individuals that can
progress downstream as
errors to correct
Unambiguous
documentation that
communicates the exact
suggested design changes

Subscribe or Follow
6
As a Simulation Analyst, youve worked long and hard to
use your knowledge and expertise for your company.
With the CAD Revolution, it looks you can spend more of
your time on simulation than tinkering with geometry.
As a specialized resource with only so much time in a
day, productive Simulation Analysts find ways to work
efficiently. Unfortunately, geometry-based tasks like
prepping models for simulation and capturing design
suggestions are painstakingly time consuming.
Furthermore, basic analyses for simulation driven design
keep you from more advanced simulations.
The CAD Revolution, however, offers some hope.
Interoperable sets of parametric feature-based, direct
and 2D modeling tools allow Simulation Analysts to work
with geometry efficiently. Coupled with simulation
capabilities, they also provide Design Engineers with the
capabilities to perform upfront analyses independently.
All together, this means Simulation Analysts have more
time to dedicate to advanced simulations as opposed to
tinkering with geometry and simple analyses.
Personal Implications for the Simulation Analyst
From a personal perspective, you know as a specialized
resource youre always going to have a full queue of
work lined up before you. But the question is this: what
type of work will it be?
Given you focused on advanced engineering physics and
computational methods, you probably didn't envision a
large chunk of your day-to-day job working with
geometry or running simple analyses. In that context,
the CAD Revolution offers some personal advantages
and benefits too. It lets you get through that geometry
work in as little time and pain as possible. It also lets
you work on truly challenging simulations. Between the
two, Simulation Analysts can fulfill their potential and
concentrate on more satisfying work.
Final Thoughts
The CAD Revolution is certainly more about geometry
than simulation, but that doesnt make it any less
advantageous and beneficial for the Simulation Analyst.

Published by:
... and What It Means
for Manufacturing
Engineers

2
The CAD Revolution and What It Means for Manufacturing Engineers
Subscribe or Follow
Introduction
Theres no doubt: to drive growth in the recovery,
products are important again. And while there are
many challenges developing a new design,
manufacturing engineers are the ones that have to
turn them into reality. You have to make the rubber
meet the road.
For you, CAD isnt the center of the universe. Sure, you
have to design tooling. But you also have to close the
loop on the products manufacturability and generate
toolpaths to drive equipment. Over time youve
cobbled together your own set of software tools to get
the job done. But with all the buzz about CAD today,
you wonder if there might be something in it for you.
Thats where this book comes in. In it, youll find some
insight into whats behind the CAD Revolution and how
it affects you, the manufacturing engineer.
Revolution for manufacturing engineers, it makes sense
to set a baseline about the modeling paradigms
themselves.
interdependencies.
! Explicit and Direct Paradigms: Model geometry is
build with operations and directly preserved. Users
select geometry and then use a push/pull/drag
interaction to manipulate models.

Feature-History
Modeling
Explicit
Modeling
Geometry Creation
Feature-based
engineering-matters.com.
Chad can be reached via email
or (512) 284-8080.

3
Subscribe or Follow
Design for Manufacturability
No matter how brilliant the design, a products form, fit
and function must be tempered with the reality of
manufacturability. Ideally, a manufacturing engineer gets
the chance to provide feedback before it passes through
design release.
A Great Idea with Execution Challenges
The concept of a manufacturing engineer reviewing
and suggesting changes is a longstanding one. And
while its an outstanding idea, closing that loop has
been painful to execute. Using parametric feature-
based CAD to capture what are often simple design
suggestions is asking a lot of manufacturing
engineers: both in terms of CAD knowledge and the
management of feature failures. Using markups to
capture suggested changes requires some
interpretation to translate it back to the original
parametric feature-based CAD model. And that, of
course, opens up the potential for human error.
Using the Right Tool Without the High Price
In the context of the CAD Revolution, manufacturing
engineers arent forced into choosing between two
problematic choices. Instead they can leverage a
number of tools in an interoperable suite. With
interoperable viewing and markup tools, there is little
to no interpretation required as annotations are made
directly to the original design model. Also, direct
modeling tools let the manufacturing engineer
experiment with actual design changes, leaving no
ambiguity. This approach lets the manufacturing
engineering get involved early without being a CAD
specialist or leaving room for error.
Final Thoughts on Design for Manufacturability
Incorporating feedback from manufacturing engineers
has always seemed like a good idea but was often
infeasible. However integrated suites of viewing, markup
and modeling tools enable organizations to address
manufacturability early and accurately.
Effect of Incorporating Feedback
Project Timeline
Ability to incorporate
feedback
Cost to make
change

4
Subscribe or Follow
Designing Manufacturing Tools
Another responsibility of manufacturing engineers is to
design tooling such as jigs, fixtures, molds and dies.
Unfortunately, its not as simple as it seems.
The Many Challenges of Tool Design
The starting point for most tooling design is the product
model, which is frequently designed with parametric
features. Because these models often come from
different CAD applications, minor tweaks and fixes to
geometry are typically required. Then, manufacturing
engineers have been forced to choose between using
parametric features with its ability to automate tasks and
embed intelligence or direct modeling with its quick,
simple and easy approach to design, even if both were
applicable to the design. And last but not least,
manufacturing engineers had to either wait until the
product design was finished, delaying the start of their
task, or find a way to propagate design changes to the
tooling design. In aggregate, these challenges have
added up to schedule delays, wasted time and a lot of
frustration.
The Right Integration of Technologies
In stark contrast to the past, the future of tooling design
is all about modeling flexibility as well as associativity.
Specifically, CAD visualization as well as associative
parametric feature-based and direct modeling has been
integrated into an interoperable suite. CAD visualization
provides the ability to read product models from a variety
of CAD applications seamlessly and cleanly. Integration
between parametric feature-based modeling and direct
modeling let's the manufacturing engineer choose the
right modeling approach for the job or even intermix the
two if needed. And finally associativity within the
integrated suite automatically propagates changes from
the design model to the tooling model. All in all, it means
the manufacturing engineer can concentrate on what is
most important: finishing the tooling design.
Final Thoughts on Tooling Design
In the past, designing tooling required the navigation of
some sizeable challenges. But in the CAD Revolution, the
right set of technologies have been combined and
integrated for the manufacturing engineer.
Challenges to Tooling Design
1. Product models exist in wide variety of CAD formats
requiring clean up once imported or read.
2. Must choose between parametric features or direct modeling
for design of tooling.
3. Changes to product design must be propagated into tool
design, even if done manually.

5
Subscribe or Follow
Developing Machining Deliverables
Of course, theres nothing more real than cutting metal.
And ultimately much of a manufacturing engineers
responsibility is doing just that.
Serious Issues with High Risks
As it turns out, some of the challenges of generating
machining toolpaths are very similar to the ones of
designing tooling. Product models coming from a variety
of different CAD packages require time to clean up.
Changes to the product model should somehow need to
make their way into the machining model. But
furthermore, the manufacturing engineer needs tight
control of machining toolpaths to produce in-tolerance
parts with minimal tool wear while avoiding errors that
could damage machining equipment, an expensive
investment of capital for the company. With traditional
CAD, manufacturing engineers have had to cobble
together several tools to make it all work and suffer their
collective deficiencies as a result.
Integrated Machining Technologies
In the CAD Revolution, manufacturing engineers don't
need to piece together their own solutions. Instead, they
can use integrated sets of associative applications that
work together. Visualization technologies are used to
read native CAD files necessitating practically no clean
up. Also as the product model changes, so does the
machining model, removing any need to manually
propagate changes. Furthermore, finely tuned machining
toolpath generation controls as well as validation tools
have been included to provide confidence that expensive
machining equipment is safe.
Final Thoughts on Developing Machining Deliverables
Traditionally, manufacturing engineers have been forced
to assemble tools to generate machining toolpaths in a
piecemeal fashion. But in the CAD Revolution, they are
provided an associative and finely tuned set of tools that
acts as an integrated set.
Challenges to Creating Machining Deliverables
1. Product and tooling models exist in variety of CAD
formats, requiring rework and clean up.
2. Changes to product design must propagate to machining
model, through the tooling design if necessary.
3. Finely tuned controls and validation capability needed to
verify expensive machining equipment will not be
damaged using machining toolpaths.

6
Subscribe or Follow
In this eBook, we touched on a lot of different ways the
CAD Revolution is relevant to the manufacturing
engineer. However, lets zoom in on exactly what it
means for the organization and for you personally.
The problems facing todays manufacturing engineers are
no secret. Closing the manufacturability feedback loop is
painful. Product models exist in a lots of CAD formats.
Parametric features or direct modeling can be used, but
not both. And product design changes must often be
manually pushed to tooling and machining models.
The good news is that the CAD Revolution offers a lot of
promise. Manufacturing engineers can embed
manufacturability feedback right in the design model,
work with just about any CAD format, intermix modeling
technologies to design tooling and associatively update
tooling and machining models with product changes. In
turn, for the organization, all that translates into staying
on schedule and saving budget by avoiding errors
downstream and making the right decisions early.
Personal Implications for the Manufacturing
Engineers
It's not just all about the company though. In aggregate,
all of these challenges are incredibly frustrating because
of the inability to get involved early, the duplication of
work and difficulty in dealing with product design
changes. But beyond that, they translate into longer
hours and more fire drills than anyone would want. The
changes in this eBook offer real potential for you to
spend more time on less frustrating and more reward
work in a far more reasonable work week.
Final Thoughts
If you work in a particular job long enough, you can
become resigned to that there are no way to solve
longstanding pains and frustrations. But in this case, the
CAD Revolution offers some very real advantages and
benefits to the manufacturing engineer.

CAD Revolution - PTC PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CAD Revolution - PTC PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The CAD Revolution...

... and What It Means for You

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi