Page

See the most recent stories from DEVELOP3D

The latest from the DEVELOP3D Blog:

The ‘Analyst problem” & Aberdeen’s New Digital Prototyping tool

Published 24 November 2008

Posted by Al Dean

Article tagged with: autodesk, digital prototyping, analyst strangeness, aberdeen research

I was fascinated by this news release. The Aberdeen Group has launched a online digital prototyping assessment tool, which utilizes the outfit’s “primary research in product innovation, helps companies identify their biggest product development challenges, compares their design practices to industry benchmarks, and quantifies potential time and cost savings by adopting Best-in-Class capabilities.”

An impressive sounding thing. Wait. There’s more. The assessment, which is in the form of a short multi-stage questionnaire is based on the group’s “unique PACE research methodology, steps through the product development process to determine where an individual company excels and helps identify opportunities for improvement.”

When you’ve registered for the assessment, you’re taken through a few questions, some of which are multiple choice, some of which are single choice from a list of options. The end goal is that the system “makes recommendations by comparing responses to prior Aberdeen research that identified design and engineering best practices exhibited by Best-in-Class companies.”

Once done you then receive a summary of how your company compare “to other organizations as well as custom tailored next steps to improve their development process.” I went through the process and while its initially interesting how the questions are structured, what language is used and the end results.

There are the basic questions, such as “How are product concepts developed?” possible responses are:

  • On paper only
  • On paper and then transferred to electronic form (2D or 3D)
  • Completed electronically, as a 2D sketch
  • Completed electronically as a 3D surface model (push and pull surface capabilities

This is pretty standard stuff, although the answers look a little odd. Considering that the only 3D related answer is a surface model, it looks a little incomplete. Where’s the potential for an intelligent 3D model? Question 3 in my survey read “How is the aesthetic look and feel of a product assessed?” with the options being:

  • By building/sculpting a physical prototype at the concept stage
  • By building a physical prototype when the design is complete
  • By reviewing a realistically rendered digital model
  • Aesthetic properties are not important in my industry

Fair enough, but you’re only allowed a single option answer. The use of physical and digital models within the product development process is typically mixed. You don’t just build a physical prototype, or use a rendered model most organizations use both. The same was true of almost every question and possible answer. You can’t give a complete answer or indeed, accurate answer, because you might typically use a mix of methods, for visualization, for simulation, for assessing product performance.

So what’s my problem? It’s nothing specific, but take a look at the URL for the assessment survey http://autodesk.aberdeen.com. That gives it all away. Aberdeen has constructed this survey at the behest and I assume, funding from Autodesk. When you complete it, you get a quick bar chart showing how you perform according to your answers and get emailed a link to a fuller report as well as Aberdeen’s other research report (which are worth reading). There are also links to recommended products from Autodesk. Take from that what you will.

The press release has a quote from Stephen Gold, President of Aberdeen, saying that they are “pleased to provide organizations with guidance to improve their product development process. The Assessment Tool Series offers a unique opportunity for organizations to leverage our benchmark research in a highly personalized way.”

Yes, “A unique opportunity to reuse their benchmark research” (which is pretty highly regarded I might add), but as long as you do using limited answers, limited input and using language that suits perfectly the terminology of the endeavor’s sponsors . I don’t have a problem with this , but I wish analysts would be a little more honest about why they do these things. This has very little to do with their research, more to do with Aberdeen tying up with Autodesk to reuse their research methods to point users to Autodesk’s tools - its a sales tool masquerading as a scientific study. If you look at it from that point of view, then its perfectly acceptable and you can get from the results exactly what you want. But let’s not pretend it’s anything else. Analysts have a strange habit of taking what appears to be common sense, wrapping it up with ‘research’ and feeding it back to you and this does nothing to change that perception.

View comments (1 comment)

Software Trends in ID jobs

Published 21 November 2008

Posted by Al Dean

Article tagged with: solidworks, design, industrial design, alias, pro engineer, software trends

Found this via Core77.com, Jason Morris has been researching the most requested software in Industrial Design jobs and the results are fascinating. What’s first on the list? SolidWorks, Pro/E? nope, illustrator and Photoshop get number 1 and 2 positions. Below that its SolidWorks, then followed by Alias and Pro/Engineer - then Rhino brings up the 6th position. What does this tell you? This was taking from job postings not user experience, but the result tally with what we’ve found over the last few months. Industrial Designers love 2D processes for concept work and always will, despite what the software vendors might think.

The interplay between SolidWorks, Alias and Pro/E is also interesting. Alias won’t cut it on its own for many industrial design-led organisations anymore, so it usually pairs with a more ‘engineering’ led tool, whether that’s SolidWorks or Pro/E. The same could be said of Rhino. SolidWorks might be ahead of the game, but the sample is around 200, so its not a massive difference. But what it really says is that despite all the noise from other vendors, Pro/Engineer is going absolutely nowhere.

Jason’s blog is also worth exploring further. There’s some great stuff on there.

Add comment (0 comments)

Autodesk completes Softimage: Is the CGI industry sown up?

Published 19 November 2008

Posted by Al Dean

Article tagged with: design, autodesk, visualisation, maya, 3dsmax, cgi, softimage

Images courtesy of Virtual-Mechanix - here’s a nice user story about how they use the products here.

While there are many modelling systems active in the CGI industry, there have been three consistent players in the game over the last two decades: 3dsmax, Maya and Softimage (its pronounced soft-ee-marj, betraying its French Canadian roots). When Autodesk acquired Alias a couple of years ago, bringing it in house alongside its 3dsmax product, many foretold that it was game over for Softimage, who have been passed around a fair old amount in the last few years, from Microsoft (in 1994) then to Avid Technology a couple of years later.

This week the acquisition by Autodesk was completed and all of the assets of the company became part of Autodesk’s product offering for ‘Media and Entertainment’ division. Does Autodesk have the CGI industry sown up?

It’s looking that way, with a trio of products that provide it with a huge installed base. What are the companies plans with it? It seems that as its done with 3dsmax and Maya, its looking to maintain the Softimage brand and intends to “sell standalone versions of both the Softimage|XSI and Softimage|Face Robot 3D software products,” with its Softimage|Cat character animation plugin for 3ds max being built into the max product line.

View comments (1 comment)

How to launch a product: Render its ass off

Published 13 November 2008

Posted by Al Dean

Article tagged with: solidworks, design, visualisation, hypershot, effing big wicked looking camera system

I know so little about cameras and cinematography equipment I’m not qualified to even comment about this product’s capabilities, but seeing a product launch, with these kinds of visuals, makes me a very happy man. Apparently Red was founded by Oakley founder Jim Jannard. I’ve also heard, but not yet confirmed that they use SolidWorks and from the look of these visuals, I’d say HyperShot too.

In terms of what you’re looking at, this is a Lego style configurable camera, you buy the sensor (referred to as the Brains), then add on all the accessories you want. As Martyn said to me, “Umm no idea what that camera system does other than look cool and expensive” I couldn’t agree more - but then that’s what good design sometimes, making something so ball achingly cool that you know you want it - without really knowing what it is you’re lusting after.

Oh and this thing is the 3D mount.

View comments (1 comment)

Page 560 of 585 pages « First  <  558 559 560 561 562 >  Last »