Inside Design Visionaries

Steve Samuel on NX 7.5 ST surfacing tools

Steve, in answer to a question:

About NX 7.5 ST surfacing:

The guy who’s up to his ears in alligators may loose sight that his original job was to drain the swamp. In the same way it is easy when solid modeling to get caught up in the capabilities, functions, and features, and forget the goal is to design a truly great product. For over a decade we design engineers have enjoyed ever more capable, parametric CAD tools. Synchronous modeling is a quantum leap. It’s a tool that goes beyond the one size fits all strictly parametric approach. Suddenly you have the power and the freedom of modifying geometry without laboriously considering every single feature that was constructed before, and in many cases by someone else. Over the years I have seen skilled design engineers waste huge amounts of time wrestling to make sometimes minor changes to their parametric models that could have been made in minutes using synchronous modeling techniques. That said, I don’t advocate moving away from parametric modeling, in fact the overwhelming majority of synchronous modeling techniques are indeed driven by parameters too. However, I believe strongly, and based on countless hours of actual design experience, that the correct blend of traditional parametric techniques and synchronous modeling techniques delivers the optimum capability.

I still would like to see more tools that enable you to establish relationships between surfaces in the same way sketch constraints establish relationships between 2-D entities and are solved simultaneously. For example, the parallel surface command should maintain parallelism between surfaces even if you subsequently perform a move face on either of the surfaces. I’d also love to see more sophisticated ways of creating patterns on surfaces. But don’t get me started. I have an entire file cabinet of things that I’d like to see that I know would make the software far more powerful, I just don’t know if they’re possible.

See the discussion here.

Your PLM Supplier Should Really Be Your Business Partner

Something to think about.

From Desktop Engineering, December 3 Issue, by Bill Boswell, Siemens,
"Anyone purchasing business solutions realizes the cost of the investment goes well beyond software licenses. Total cost of ownership also includes installation, maintenance, upgrades, and training. In product lifecycle management (PLM) software, another key consideration is customizing the application to your company’s business environment. This is an issue when the software is first implemented, and it can come into play for each update.
. .  .your PLM vendor has a responsibility to keep these issues in mind, and that ultimately, it is the vendor’s job to help lower the total cost of PLM ownership."
See the rest of the article here.

On a related note, an article entitled, Teamcenter 2007 Delivers Lower Cost of Ownership, by Margaret Furleigh in the PLM World Newsletter, Volume 6, Issue 4.

--by the staff

The Trouble with Advanced Surfacing

CAD systems offer a wide variety of surfaces to meet almost any need that has been consistently communicated to CAD software developers. They do their best to anticipate the needs of design engineers.  However, the communication between those down in the trenches of actual mechanical design and those up on the hill of software design is often confounded. Consequently, the surface types created are not exactly what is needed by mechanical design folks. In addition, CAD systems that have it all are often so complex that only a handful of incredibly experienced designers can use them for all they are worth. Another problem is that when the surface types get named, they are often named according to their mathematical significance, not their “needs-based” significance. For example, if you are an industrial designer needing to model a molding that acts as a bumper around an odd shaped product, it may be better if you looked for a command called “Molding” instead of “Sweep Along a Guide”. The other day I needed to make a surface that emulated a certain situation. If you took a hanger wire and bent it into an odd shaped loop, then dipped it into bubble solution, took it out and gently blew upon it, that is the shape I was after. I was able to achieve the shape but I ended up using a surface called the “N-sided Surface” rather than one called “Bubble on Wire Loop”. Moreover, once I find the surface type that will do the trick, I need to use various options within that surface type that will enable me to finally make the geometry that I want.

A partial solution is to have a book that has an index of incredibly cool applications that you can search through by name and picture. Once you find the application, you then find an example of  how to do it – exactly what commands you will need, the names, the options / settings and a description of the limitations.

If only . . .

--by Steve Samuel

Signs of Bad Design?

A fabulous column by Mike Hudspeth appeared in the March 8, 2007, issue of Machine Design:

Most industrial designers have seen a bad design or two in the course of their careers.  Bad designs are difficult to disguise. They are hard to figure out, do something users don’t expect, or can even end up injuring someone.  However, it’s not always easy to spot a bad design when it’s our own.  Part of the problem: We often can’t see the forest for the trees.  A few telltale signs to watch for include:

• Form without function
• Useless features
• Unidentifiable controls
• Knobs, buttons, or switches that are too far away
• Instruction labels

 See the full article here.

--by the staff

We like it, too.

BoingBoing loves it.  Donald Norman, author of Design of Everyday Things and Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things, loves it.  We love it, too, and have been using it in our offices for a while now.  What is it?  PaperPro Desktop Stapler.

Donald Norman says:

Who would have thought it -- a better stapler.

Secrets of Good CAD Trainers

Training is best when it is custom to the type of geometry that the engineers are going to be using. It’s best when it’s highly efficient and leverages what the users already know. It’s best when it’s fast moving and includes the philosophy behind the process, in addition to the actual button clicks. Great training must be conducted by someone who is a great design engineer in their own right – someone who has worked in the same industry as the students and invites them to bring to class specific geometric challenges that they face. It is also beneficial to have a trainer who has trained engineers in many other industries because there is a strong cross-pollination effect; the geometric solutions and methods created for one industry benefit others.

--by Steve Samuel

The Inevitability of PLM?

We, here at DV, have been saying this all along. Others agree.

Full disclosure, yes, we are a value-added reseller for UGS, but only because we really believe in PLM, and, by extension, Teamcenter.

“A multitude of factors are driving the move to PLM by design and manufacturing companies of all sizes. Whether it's the mounting number of regulatory compliance factors that must be considered, even with short-lifecycle products, or just the need for companies in competitive markets to grow top-line revenue while cutting bottom-line expenses, PLM is emerging as the umbrella technology most suited to widespread management issues.”

From an article on Cadalyst , "PLM Strategies—Get Under the Hood of UGS Teamcenter" by Arnie Williams. See the whole article here.

--by the staff

Something to Think About When Hiring Engineers

Selecting and hiring engineers that are good with CAD is tricky. The resume seems to always list myriad CAD competencies. I have personally interviewed engineering candidates who claimed to be experts on a given CAD package. On the spot, I will open up one of the CAD packages that they list on their resume and give them a hand sketch of something to create. On a few occasions, the candidate will back away and say something about knowing only the previous version. I highly advocate giving engineering candidates this kind of a CAD test during the interview process. You must watch them solve problems, and see their approach. I encourage giving engineering candidates something to design from scratch. Watch them shine or squirm.

--by Steve Samuel

Creativity vs. Computer Aided Design-Part 2

This is Part 2 of Creativity vs. Computer Aided Design.  You can find Part 1 posted on 12/29/06.

The solutions to limiting the negative impact of CAD on creativity are as varied as the problems. First and foremost, a design engineer must be well trained in the use of the chosen CAD system. When the designer is well trained, the various commands and CAD features are second nature; the modeling becomes effortless, in the same way a good musician plays a complex concerto. The notes flow effortlessly from their fingers. Geometric inflexibility is reduced when the user knows the particular CAD program extremely well. Although good CAD training is not always easy, it has a huge return on investment.

Creativity vs. Computer Aided Design-Part 1

This is part 1 in a 2-part series.

The purpose of Computer Aided Design (CAD) is to automate portions of the design process, therefore, making design easy and efficient. When CAD is applied well, these benefits, and more, are achieved. However, if not used correctly, CAD can do the opposite, stifling and complicating the design process to such a great degree that creativity suffers.  This chilling effect can occur in various ways, each of which can be checked by careful consideration of the methods used, the specific CAD tools, and, most of all, the competency of the user.