Solid Edge with Synchronous Technology

You'll no doubt have read about the launch of Synchronous Technology from Siemens PLM software. What really matters is how it's implemented within the company's products and more specifically how it affects users of Solid Edge. To get to the heart of Synchronous Technology and how it works with Solid Edge we need to look at how Solid Edge has traditionally worked. It's a feature and history-based modelling system meaning each modelling operation is stored within a history tree. When edits are made, the system needs to recalculate each in turn one after the other, to arrive at the final form. Within that, the system also includes parametric design tools, allowing dimensions, constraints and other driven parameters to control the form of entities within each feature and to cross-link between them. Parameters range from dimension and geometric constraints within a feature sketch, to parameters that define feature extents (such as extrude height, cut depth, or the degrees used in a revolve). You can set-up parameters or constraints that link between features and geometry references using, for example, the "extrude to" option, or offset. Then you can also build parameters that are intelligently driven, referencing other dimensions or measurements.

These are the core components of any Solid Edge model - Features, History, Parameters and Constraints. To confuse things further, you also have a few Direct Editing tools. These allow you to make localised modifications to faces (such as move face) without having to edit the base feature that created that face. These are appended to the end of the history tree and should also be considered to be features (with history). So how does Synchronous Technology change this state of affairs?

Siemens PLM has taken the base technology (namely, Parasolid and D-cubed) within Solid Edge and created a layer on top of the core technologies to extend them. This is the essence of Synchronous Technology and it allows you to work in a much more efficient manner than has traditionally been the case with Solid Edge. But how does it do this exactly?

Synchronous Technology is a feature-based, but history free modelling technology. In other words, it allows you to work with features, enhances the current tools by freeing you from the need to recalculate the history after each edit and adds intelligence to your working process. Let's dig a little deeper and look at two specific cases - when modelling from scratch and, perhaps more critically to existing users, how you use Synchronous Technology with your existing data.

Modelling from scratch

Synchronous Technology or ST (as we'll refer to it) allows you to create parts in a very freeform manner. You create a 2D sketch, and then use a set of commands to create the 3D geometry. At present ST is enabled in a select set of operations but the selection of Extrude, Revolve, Hole, Round, Draft, Pattern and Thin Wall (or Shell) is a little deceptive. You need to consider that each enables both the cutting and addition of material in a single feature, and the manner in which you interact and manipulate geometry means that you have much more potential in terms of forms that can be created.

This shows a face being pulled up and a value dialled in, but what's interesting to note is that the system also takes with it faces that are planar to that selected face (these, of course, can be overridden, so the system doesn't get too carried away). Also worth noting is that the system maintains the fillet/blend plus the draft angle that's applied to the outside of the part.

So, you create sketch and the direction in which you drag the arrow defines whether material is added or removed. What enables the freedom is the fact that you are presented with a great deal of feedback about what you're doing. If you grab a face and move it, you can do it by eye or dial in a specific value, same for rotation. References are created on the fly and the UI widget is useful for moving and rotating geometry in 3D space. Also, when you drag and drop faces, the system works with a set of selection assistants that add intelligence to the process. These are called Live Rules and infer relationships such as tangency, parallelism, concentricity, perpendicularity, symmetry (around a define plane), and radii, between the geometry you select and that around it.

How the system works with concentricity and tangency. The user selects the hole, uses the onscreen widget to move it precisely, but because you also have a concentric condition, the whole bracket stretches. The outer edge maintains its concentricity and the tangency of the swing arm is maintained. Of course, if you just wanted to just move the hole, you toggle off concentricity and just drag and drop it.

But while it's interesting to play with geometry to get a model into shape, within the design world you always need to be able to tie up specific dimensions and controlling factors - and this is what makes Synchronous Technology unique, for the time being at least. At any point, you can add dimensions or constraints, which can have specific values. These can be between faces, edges and other geometric features, they can be driven or driving, be linked using parametric equations and can reference each other. The point is that you apply them only when they're needed and they are then maintained. The result is that your interaction with the geometry will respect those constraints and dimensions are maintained and again, all without having to resolve a history tree with each edit. Figure 3 shows a dimension between the centre of a boss and the end of a fixture. As you drag those features, the dimension is maintained, because you've defined it. You work with assemblies in a very similar manner, in that you grab, drag and drop, move and rotate faces in multiple parts and the system will calculate the updates automatically. In addition, references can be made between separate parts, cross-referencing faces where required.

This hows how the system works with multiple selections. By selecting the boss and the end face, you can stretch the part as you need to, rather than having to dive in and edit several features right back to the original extrude that created the pipe. What's absolutely key to note is that at no point are you editing features in a history - you make your edits and the system updates pretty much in real time. 

Working with existing data

Synchronous Technology looks dammed interesting as a modelling technology, but the big question is how does it affect your existing data? Some organisations have been using Solid Edge for over ten years and built up a huge amount of live data, but how can they adopt this new way of working and still maintain that data? The answer is simple: leave it as it is. Solid Edge is now architected to work into two modes. Solid Edge, as standard, with the full range of features and functions that have made it one of the most impressive applications on the market, and then with Synchronous Technology enabled. But you need to be aware of a couple of things.

Firstly, when you open a new part, you have two options. You can either open the part to be built with the traditional feature and history based modelling tools. Or you can use an ST enabled template, which switches on these new tools. More importantly though, what happens if you take an existing part built with a rich history of features that control its design and move it into the Synchronous Technology mode. The answer is thus:

When you open a history-based traditional model as a synchronous part, the system prunes out the history, but retains the information required to maintain the features in a Feature Collection. Siemens is referring to these features as Procedural Features and covering things like chamfers, blends, patterns, and shells. This means you can edit them and the system will maintain the design intent you stored within them. For example, even though a pattern is typically a history-based feature, you can still edit the number of instances within an array or edit the dimensions of a hole using standard hole definition terminology (such as counter sink or counter bore).

This shows a Solid Edge ST part. Dimensions have been placed after the design work has been done, in order to formalise the design intent and lock down dimensions. What's key is that you can also create the same parametric relationships between dimensions to drive design change as you would within a history and parametric modelling system.

It's important to note that you can't really take a part back into the traditional modelling environment once you've included ST-based work. If you do, then the system treats it as a bumb solid (and its also worth noting that you can you can put ST parts in a traditional assembly and they will update as need be. These things are key to working out an adoption strategy. Synchronous Technology is brand new. Yes, many of the components have been around for some time, but this is the first time that you've been able to combine the flexibility of explicit modelling tools such as CoCreate with the parametric- and feature-based tools within Solid Edge and many others. The fact that the system can solve and handle design change with such ease means many things, but the bottom line is this. If you can affect design change within a part or assembly without having to firstly work out the complex history that gets you to the end result and not have to wait to make those changes, then you're looking at a radically more efficient product development process.

In conclusion

Synchronous Technology has set tongues wagging across the 3D design world. If you 'Google' the term you'll find endless amount of blogging about it to varying degrees of accuracy and many have tried to pull it apart. What's been missed to date is that this technology is at a formative stage in development. Yes, you can do a hell of a lot, but you don't get all those other tools that have been a core part of Solid Edge for the last decade and more within the synchronous technology mode.

This is vitally important; within Solid Edge, you now have two choices: To go synchronous or not. When you do this is down to your projects and even on a part-by-part basis. The benefit you have is that if the ST enabled tools can't create what you need, you have the last decade's worth of Solid Edge technology available to do things the traditional way. If you can adopt it and reap the benefits as it makes light work of modelling. But make sure you are aware of the limitations and the impact of moving existing data. The good news is that this technology has huge potential and even at this early stage, it's clear that Siemens has something unique on its hands.

Further Reading

Evan Yares goes to town on Synchronous Technology. Evan is perhaps one of the few people talking about this technology that really understands what the hell is going on under the hood - worthwhile reading.

Read more

Microsoft Touch Screen TouchWall

Seems like Josh over at SolidSmack.com got to it first, but this looks sweet. Its a hacked together rear projection unit with some fancy bits and bobs running on Vista. What's interesting is the multi-touch manner. A lot of the CAD vendors are talking about this as the future - SolidWorks went multi-touch crazy at their press event preceding the last SolidWorks World. I wonder how it could be packaged up - maybe some sort of hand held device like the Wacom's Cintiq maybe. One thing's for sure, we all ain't gonna be standing in front of a wall to get the job done are we?

As a recent convert to the Apple platform and owner of a macbook air, I have to say multi touch is pretty compelling - as this technology develops, its going to be interesting to see how its implemented in CAD systems. Of course, most of my work is done on a big old workstation running windows, but I do my writing on OSX.. but if I do fancy designing something, I now have the early test version of Rhino for the Mac - and that has multi-touch implemented in a very subtle manner.

Read more

Reading Matter: Designing Interaction

I don't really want this to turn into a book review blog, but there have been some amazing publications in the last few years. One of my personal favourites is Designing Interaction by IDEO founder, Bill Moggridge. For anyone involved in design, in product development, its chock full of interview and studies of how designers are adapting to accomodate how users interact with their products, be that by software, hardware - whatever. One of my favourite chapters is an interview with Kenji Hatori, a software engineer at Canon who developed PhotoStitch. It describes the stitch assist mode for cameras and Rikako recounts the process used to design the screen behaviors for the PhotoStitch software, with a clear structure indicated by tabs and actions clarified by animations. The book is supplied with a DVD that's worth sitting a watching (and yup, boring your families with) - a great deal can be learned. You can see a video of the interview here.

If we're to develop truly stunning products, whatever field they are active in, then the whole user experience needs to be address - and its something that CAD vendors should take note of - more so now than every before. The technology we use to develop products seems to be getting easier to handle, but without some form of forethought, some sort of rationalisation, its all for nothing. and again, the question of whether the Microsoft Ribbon UI is the way forward spring to mind. We develop in 3D - should our tools follow the same UI characteristics as Word, Excel and Outlook. Familiarity is the reason that vendors have jumped all over it. the argument being that if you can drive Word or Outlook, you can drive SolidWorks, SpaceClaim, Inventor et al. I'm not convinced.http://www.designinginteractions.com/

Read more

Mike Hudspeth on ID for all

Desktop Engineering is a magazine I've written a lot for over the past few years and its odd that I never actually get to read the paper version. But anyway, I like Mike Hudspeth's comment peice this month, on the relationship between Industrial Design and 3D design tools. Just because you have the tools, doesn't mean you're any good at it - something i couldn't agree with more.

"First, and perhaps most important of the myths, is that anyone can do industrial design. After all, it's just about styling, right? Wrong. Not everyone can design."

"Industrial design is a whole lot more than meets the eye. It takes into account how things work and what the target audience needs — with an eye turned to their expectations. Customer psychology plays a huge part. Industrial design also has to do with responsibility — to one's customers as well as to the environment. Safety issues are very important. And form doesn't always follow function. Sometimes a product cries out for an artistic re-imagining to reinvigorate it and save it from sheer market boredom."

Its not a case of trying to protect a career, or trying to protect a field of specialism, but one of training, of research, and shear bloody talent. Just because you have a set of paints, you're not a good painter. And the same goes, just because you have a 3d design tool that includes surface modelling, G3 curvature continuity, does mean you're an industrial designer.

Nice one Mike.

Read more

Synchronous Technology: part II

I've been plugging through everything I've learned so far about Synchronous Technology, so here it is. The essential difference between Synchronous Technology and other systems out there that many are comparing it with (let's be frank, that's SpaceClaim, CoCreate and to a much less extent, IronCAD), is not so much the ability to interact directly with geometry, but rather the manner in which you add intelligence to your 3D product model.

When we design a product, we have two things in mind. What it looks like, whether in terms of aesthetic quality, but also that it need to fit and provide a certain function, and that's often governed by form - after all, parts need to interact with those around them. But alongside this, you also need to be able to specify how a product is formed. Rough dimensions don't cut it, you need to be able to tie information down, lock it out and ensure that the geometry you create fulfills a need, for function and performance.

In traditional history based systems, the latter part is much easier, as you are defining geometry from a very root level, which captures your design intent - but only just. the fact that you often have to add excessive dimensions and constraints at a feature/sketch level, means that the process is counter intuitive. In other words, history-based modeling is too over burdened.

What it DOES give you is the ability to add a lot of intelligence, so design change can be automated, dimensions and constraints interlinks between sketches, features, parts and sub-assemblies. But the end result is a dataset that's horrendously complex and effecting even a small change can result in a parametric nightmare that take herculean effort to resolve - and in many cases, user remodel from scratch just to avoid it.

Direct Editing applications (such as CoCreate and SpaceClaim), work from the other end, where you play with the geometry and the constraints you apply (be they dynamically input, or more commonly, just a case of drag and drop geometry) are not maintained and stored. So, you can add dimensions if you need to, but they can't be maintained and commonly accessed at a later date.

What Siemens has done is develop an architecture in which you can mix and match both. you can play with geometry to get it into shape, to ensure that the rough state of your model is how you want it. you can make changes very quickly indeed, by using inferred relationships, dynamic detection of 'informal' topology relationships - such as concentricity, parallelism, perpendicularity. this just enables to you edit the geometry and topology very quickly. But the trick is that when time comes to lock down feature size, dimensions, constraints, you can do is, just as you do already BUT, you can maintain them. Dimensions remain consistent, are stored and accessible, features are maintained, in respect to the dimensions, rules, constraints you provide.

But

They are applied after the geometry has been built - and this is key. you design, then you engineer. For me, the most interesting illustration i could find is the one shown here. its a model with parametric dimensions, but one that's fully constrained - but the difference is that the ONLY dimensions, parameters and constraint you create, are the important ones - that, is the crux of the point and key to understanding what Siemens have developed.

Its a complex thought process to figure this out, with over 20 years of parametric, history-based modeling that the majority of us are familiar with and it'll take time to settle and learn more.

NOTE: it's been pointed out that I left Kubotek and its products out of these articles. Apologies to the guys over here.

Read more

Protecting IP with the new breed of 3D design

One thing I've been thinking about of late is the new breed of modeling technology that's clearly coming on stream, which allows you to work with geometry in a very freeform, unrestricted manner. If, you can load a part or assembly, then edit it, without recourse to the construction history, you have the ability to edit a part without having knowledge about how it was constructed. And believe me, I think that's a good thing, when the tools finally get there, it means that we'll be able to concentrate on design and engineering, rather that operation of software.

But...

The benefit of history and features is that you are storing the intelligence in your model, of how you construct the part, how you design it. With the rise of more intelligent features and such, you can store a great deal more information about the design intent, the process you went through to create those forms. In other words, the CAD model, at present, reflection a big portion of your intellectual property.

While its a royal pain in the arse, it also means that if you're working in a supply chain, you can protect your intellectual property to a large extent, because of this complexity. If a design change needs to be made, then the customer has to come back to you and your design team to effect that change, because, they have the knowledge of how it was constructed. and for many organizations, that consultative role is a source of revenue and on-going business.

If this new breed of modeling tool does not rely on that recipe that you store, and anyone can load the part, edit the information it represents, then that revenue might be lost.

Absolutely, I'm absolutely aware that the intellectual property held within a CAD system is the end result of the process, rather than the be-all and end-all of your organization's skills, the fact remains that this is something that more and more organizations are going to have to accept and deal with. How do you protect your data? what tools are available to ensure that your intellectual property is protected. Does is mean that the integration of Digital Right Management tools, such as LivePolicy from Adobe are the way to go, or as Bruce Boes of Siemens PLM Software commented in an interview I conducted recently, "This is something that should be rationalised with the security capabilites within your software, whether that's through your PDM system or through your CAD system"- it all that remains to be seen.

Its an interesting concept and I think something the industry as a whole is going to have to face up to at some point and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the subject.

Read more