HyperMove 1.0
19 March 2009
Process types: Design and Simulate
Bunkspeed re-defined rendering with the release of HyperShot by taking advantage of processor speed and HDR-based lighting to delivery a highly efficient rendering workflow. Can it do the same for animation with HyperMove? Al Dean reports
| Product | HyperMove 1.0 |
|---|---|
| Company name | Bunkspeed |
| Price | from $1,995 |
While HyperShot might not have been the first progressive rendering solution, it was arguably the one that kick-started a radical rethink on rendering, making it less complex and more realistic in terms of output. By combining a new breed of rendering technology that takes advantage of standard multi-core workstations, HDR images to create accurate lighting, and a library of actually usable materials and textures, it changed the game and made more traditional rendering tools look antiquated very quickly. It turns out that Bunkspeed, the developer, isn’t going to settle for transforming the static image rendering market and has set its sights on the animation world, so let’s take a look at what it can do.
The HyperMove interface is pretty stripped back, not to the extent of HyperShot, but it presents users with all the information they need, when they need it, all in context of the current task or selection. There are four basic entity types that can be used to manipulate any scene so let’s deal with those first, then look at how animation is added.
While HyperMove tries to maintain any material or colour assignments, users will typically want to assign their own and choosing from HyperMove’s extensive library can get them there quickly
Importing Geometry
Firstly, there’s geometry (which is the assembly or model in HyperMove parlance) and individual parts. HyperMove includes a range of tools that can bring data into the system. It has direct read tools for working with AliasStudio, SolidWorks, and Pro/Engineer (assuming a license is running on the same workstation), Rhino, SketchUp, Maya, 3ds Max (3ds) as well as standards like IGES, STEP, obj and JT. As with HyperShot, and where possible, the system tries to maintain any material and texture information held within those formats, but the chances are, if you’re reading raw CAD data, you’ll need to work with it.
Users can adapt existing materials and textures to their needs, as well as a decals and multi-layers of materials to achieve the desired look
Materials and textures
When switching into parts mode, the system segregates the parts into groups or materials according to the import process. This allows materials and textures to be added quickly. As with HyperShot, HyperMove is supplied with an extensive library of materials and textures commonly found in engineering and design, covering metals, plastics, rubbers, woods, glass, leathers and many others. While these are good for a quick pass and to get the model into a workable state, it is likely that users will still want to add custom materials. HyperMove provides full control over everything, from colour and texture, right through to tools that control exactly how the material is placed and what it’s applied to. Multi-layered materials and decals are fully supported, so within no time at all, the user can get a very close representation of how he wants that part to appear. The whole process is geared around getting up to speed much more quickly than a general purpose tool (like 3ds Max).
Joints between moving parts are created quickly and efficiently
Once the user has the model looking right, the next step is to apply the animation related properties to that model - this is split into two areas, the first of which makes sense to cover now (the other relates to creating animation with cameras). Interactivity between the different parts within the model is added using joints. Unlike other systems, which often make a meal of this, within HyperMove, it’s simply a case of picking the two parts and the system adds the joint where it finds the most sensible interaction between the two. Of course, the user still has full control over where this joint is placed and how it’s restricted for pivots, hinges and other types of joints. The whole process is very interactive and intuitive.
Scenes
The next stage in the workflow is to start to define the scene in which the animation is going to take place. As with HyperShot, HyperMove uses a combination of the model and an HDR image for creating the accurate lighting conditions in which the model is going to be presented. Using HDRi means that the user selects the image file and adjusts how it’s wrapped around the environment (to minimize distortion when wrapping an image around a near spherical environment).
Motion blur is only available in HyperMove Pro but can add a greater level of realism to animations
While HDR images contain a wealth of information about the scene they were captured from, it’s often the case that lighting will need to be fine-tuned within the scene (as we discussed with the HDR Light Studio review in the February edition of DEVELOP3D). HyperMove provides the usual range of spotlight, directional and omni-directional lights, with full control over how they’re positioned, what they light in the scene and colour, brightness, and fall off.
On the subject of lights, this is a good time to discuss props. These are basic geometries that can be included in the scene to add certain functionality, but might not necessarily appear in the rendered output. One example of when these become really handy is defining a plane and assigning a light to it, so it can act as a light with that shape. This is perfect for simulating bounce cards.
From the point of import, through material assignment and texturing, joint definition and into the hardcore camera and animation controls, the process is deceptively simple.
HDRs gives a good basic start, but a model needs to be matched to a specific scene, then the use of back-plates is also a good idea, as these give a much high quality appearance to render and animation work. HyperMove has complete control over these, how they are positioned, and in terms of brightness, contrast, and tiling, so images can be finished to exact requirements without having to work on it in photoshop after the render work is complete. There’s also a front-plate option, which allows the user to position an image in front of the model (presumably always using the transparency options combined with an alpha map) if required.
The final step in scene set-up is to add cameras to the scene (which provide the basis of animation to a larger extent). Bunkspeed has always been very good at providing in-depth, but usable camera creation tools. Full control is afforded by using standard placement tools to define the view, and how the camera interacts with the model (to follow specific parts). Added extras, such as depth of field and motion blur can then be added (the latter of which is incredibly easy to assign, but only in the Pro version).
Depth of Field is a fantastic tool for both adding realism to the model and render work, but also to focus the viewer’s eyes on the most important areas of the model
Animation tools
Now comes the fun part - creating animations. HyperMove is a keyframe-based animation tool so anyone who has used an animation system before should have a good idea of how things work. Working with specific time steps and selections, the user creates key-points, between which anything in the scene moves and the system interpolates between them. It is here that the user can also animate the model using the joints tools to show product functionality. (N.B. there’s also a physics option - see the box on the Pro version for more details).
Cameras can also be animated to show off the product with more visual interactivity. The basic keyframing tools can be used, but in order to control camera movement more closely, a Camera Path can be created, along which the camera travels in the defined time. For simple turntable or rotational animations, HyperMove can create these automatically and for many, this is perfect for showing off a new product.
Animation is either keyframe-based or, with the Pro variant, physics based simulation can be used to drive animated sequences
Output
In terms of output, there are a number of options, to either create static images or animations directly from HyperMove. In terms of formats all the usual suspects are there such as JPEG, TIFF, EXR, and AVI. Output can be generated either as GPU capture (so you get whatever you see on screen, which is typically controlled by your graphics card) or as a ray trace output, which, for those familiar with Bunkspeed’s products will know, is absolutely superb. Then, if static images are required, data can be sent off to HyperShot and it can be rendered up there, using all those tools (there are some interesting bundles for buying the two in tandem).
In terms of output formats HyperMove supports all the usual suspects for both images and video files. At the click of an icon, data can also be transferred for further render work in HyperShot
Pricing
Based on US pricing (European pricing is bound to differ slightly), HyperMove costs $1,995 as the base level and $3,495 for HyperMove Pro. To then add HyperShot onto that there are a couple of options, with HyperMove and HyperShot HD costing $2,495 and for the all singing, all dancing, HyperMove Pro and HyperShot Pro, you’re looking at $4,995. Floating licenses cost more as is pretty standard.
Conclusion
HyperMove has been long anticipated by the Bunkspeed faithful and it’s interesting to see how the system has been developed. By its very nature, animation is more complex than static image rendering, which has been mastered so well by HyperShot, so this was always going to be a different kettle of fish.
The end result of the development work has resulted in a system that’s very finely tuned for those looking to render products and show off both their aesthetic quality and mechanical or physical functionality. From the point of import, through material assignment and texturing, joint definition and into the hardcore camera and animation controls, the process is deceptively simple. It lets the hardware and software do the hard work and lets the user concentrate on creating the assets they need, whether that’s for customer or management presentation, design review or pre-manufacture marketing materials.
Once the basics have been learnt, it’s very simple to dive in, fine tune and adjust the animation to get the required results. By combining the animation of the model, the lights and the camera, some truly stunning work can be created.
HyperMove Pro
The HyperMove Pro version adds four key areas of functionality for an additional cost. Motion blur can be added to parts to show how the part looks moving at high speed. But the system also offers a physics engine, in which animations can be driven using the physical or kinematic interaction between the model, the scene and any objects (including props). The system will use a physical calculation to work out how the model will move, then add that information to the timeline to allow the user to work with it further. There are two other additional areas of functionality which include formation tools to quickly lay out and animate multiple variants of products and for those looking to work completely in real time, HyperMove Pro includes Bunkspeed Rays which offers real-time Global Illumination and interactive, environment-based shadows, which are all calculated with the GPU
Comments on this article:
CATIA on steroids: pt 2
10 March 2009
Process types: Design, Simulate and Visualise
To find out which graphics card vendor offers the best 3D performance in Catia,AMD and Nvidia agreed to battle it out in a room together. Greg Corke reports
In the November / December 2008 edition of DEVELOP3D, we reported on a hidden technology inside Catia V5R18 which can transform the 3D performance of Dassault Systèmes’ flagship CAD/CAM/CAE application. The technology is called VBOs (Vertex Buffer Objects) and works by moving raw geometry processing away from the CPU (Central Processing Unit) and onto the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) (see box out for more info).
The article was written following a technical meeting with AMD’s professional graphics division, who played a key role in the implementation of VBOs inside Catia. However, soon after the article appeared in DEVELOP3D, AMD’s key graphics technology rival, Nvidia contacted us wanting to know more about the testing procedure used as it didn’t match up with its own internal benchmarks and how it believed its Quadro FX graphics cards stacked up against AMD’s ATI FirePro technology.
Real world testing inside Catia V5R18 using a Lenovo S10 workstation
After a number of discussions with Nvidia and AMD, followed by claims and counter claims, we decided the only fair way to get to the bottom of whose graphics cards work better with Catia was to get both parties in a room together - not so they could go ten rounds with each other (at least we hoped not), but by taking part in a dedicated testing day at one of the UK’s leading Catia resellers, Desktop Engineering.
The test plans
As there was a lot to pack into a single day all parties agreed on a test procedure beforehand. CATbench, the well known Catia benchmark, would be run and, time permitting, Catia’s built-in rotation performance test would also be used.
Both companies’ current entry-level, mid-range and high-end cards would be benchmarked - Nvidia’s Quadro FX 570 (256MB), FX 1700 (512MB) and FX 3700 (512MB), and AMD’s ATI FirePro V3750 (256MB), V5700 (512MB) and V7700 (512MB). Only Catia certified graphics drivers would be used - Nvidia’s 169.55 and AMD’s 8.543.
We had planned to run the benchmarks on two identical Lenovo S10 workstations - one for Nvidia and one for AMD - but these were ‘lost’ in transit by a courier company two days before the event. Lenovo did well to find two replacement machines, but unfortunately the specifications were not identical. As a result, we were left to use a single Lenovo S10 workstation for all testing which involved a lot of swapping in and out of graphics cards and drivers. The specification of the machine was an Intel Core 2 Extreme X9650 (3.0GHz) (Quad Core), 3GB RAM, and Windows XP SP3, Catia V5R18 SP4.
Nvidia Quadro FX 1700 graphics card
CATbench
The CATbench benchmark uses a number of different models ranging in size from an engine block to an entire nuclear submarine assembly. For each model it measures the time taken to perform a set number of pans, zooms and rotations. CATbench runs in three different graphics modes - edges (wireframe), shaded, and shaded plus edges. However, as most Catia users work in shaded plus edges mode, it was agreed that we would focus on these results.
We tested twice for each card and the results were clearly in favour of AMD with the Peugeot 807 and Holland nuclear submarine, two of the largest models in the test, completed three to four times faster than Nvidia’s cards. The difference in the other models wasn’t as big.
As an aside, while for Nvidia’s cards the higher-end boards were faster than the lower end, there was less difference between AMD’s cards, with high-end the V7700 actually going slower than the entry-level V3750 and mid-range V5700 under some models. Unfortunately, this anomaly was not noticed on the day so this couldn’t be investigated.
Rotation performance test
This simple test is built into Catia and enables users to take any model and perform a set number of rotations in any axis. We tested with the Peugeot 807 model from CATbench and, in a quest to find the largest and most complex dataset we could get our hands on to increase the load on the system, a model which combined the Holland nuclear submarine with the two car models in a single assembly.
User experience should always be the acid test when assessing new hardware
Time constraints meant we could only run this test with a Quadro FX 3700 and ATI FirePro V7700 but Nvidia came out a clear winner with two to three times the performance of the ATI card. Despite using the same datasets from the CATbench test the rotation benchmark showed the exact opposite to the CATbench test in which AMD won, which was more than a little puzzling.
Real world testing
With seemingly contradictory results, we decided to resort to real world tests and asked experienced Catia application engineers from Desktop Engineering to get a feel for both the Quadro FX 3700 and ATI FirePro V7700 by performing a series of random pans, zooms and rotates on the large combined assembly. While there is no exact science in this methodology, both application engineers voted in favour of Nvidia. “Both cards performed very well considering the large assembly files we were using, but the Nvidia Quadro FX 3700 seemed more responsive and had no discernable lag when manipulating and browsing the model,” said Charlie Maguire, Technical Consultant, Desktop Engineering.
Conclusions
When going into this head to head we had hoped to get a definitive answer to the question of which graphics cards are best for Catia. The problem is benchmarking is never an exact science. Every user has a different 3D experience, depending on the size, nature and complexity of their datasets. Trying to define that in any benchmark is not a simple task and one not only has to decide which models to use, but also how to use them, ideally mimicking real world manipulation patterns as best as possible. And as if things weren’t complex enough, it is common practice for graphics card developers to optimise their drivers so they perform better in specific benchmarks, while not necessarily improving real world performance.
AMD ATI FirePro V5700 graphics card
Some of the models used in CATbench are sizeable, but are by no means anywhere near as big or complex as those used by many of Dassault’s leading customers in the automotive and aerospace sectors. Unfortunately we didn’t have such models at our disposal. It would also have been interesting to see what would happen when the graphics card frame buffer memory became overloaded, a common problem for those working with giant datasets, but one that can be overcome by investing in a higher-end card with more memory.
From our observations, CATbench does a better job of mimicking real world use, simply because it rotates, pans and zooms concurrently, whereas the rotation test simply rotates a model a set number of times in a specific plane. However, when two benchmarks contradict each other so dramatically, particularly when using the same data, it would be naïve for us to side with one benchmark over the other unless further investigations were carried out.
With all this benchmarking technology at our disposal, it seems crazy that the net result of a long day of testing boiled down to an empirical test of which graphics card felt more responsive when zooming, panning and rotating around a single model. However, one mustn’t forget that user experience is the most important consideration and should always be the acid test when assessing new hardware. Luckily as most Catia users buy workstations and graphics cards in the tens, hundreds or even thousands, it shouldn’t be too hard getting hold of AMD and Nvidia evaluation units to try out with their own datasets. Most of the time benchmarks can help, but never take the numbers as gospel.
www.3ds.com / www.dte.co.uk / www.lenovo.com
www.ati.amd.com / www.nvidia.com
Vertex buffer objects explained
With VBOs, 3D geometry is loaded up, stored and processed on the graphics card. When changes to the geometry are made, data doesn’t have to be moved back and forth over the PCI Express bus, as has traditionally been the case. This helps minimise the instances when the GPU has to wait for the CPU (as it is often tied up with other tasks) and as a result boosts real-time 3D performance.
VBOs can also free up some of the workstation’s core system resources as data that previously resided in the CPU’s memory, now resides on the graphics card’s frame buffer memory. When working with large assemblies this not only gives you a higher ceiling before you run out of system memory and have to page to hard disk, but when using 32-bit Operating Systems, such as Windows XP, users may find they are now able to load up models that they couldn’t load up before simply because they couldn’t address any more memory.
VBOs is an extension inside OpenGL (the 3D graphics library used to drive Catia) and is supported by professional graphics cards that are OpenGL 2.1 (and above) compliant. VBOs also need to be enabled inside Catia (V5R18 or later), because Dassault Systèmes has chosen to turn them off by default. This is done by making the following change in the Environment Variables settings: CAT_VBO_ALLOWED.
The vendors respond
AMD
Performance testing is never easy, especially when you have limited time. Operating Systems, when they first start, have extra processes running which look at file structure, anti-virus updates etc. These all take resources and explain why workstations are slower if you haven’t used them for a while. Of course, once completed the performance returns. This could account for some anomalies on the FirePro V7700 under CATbench as it was the very first card tested on the day.
CATBench is a good test as it not only performs rotations, but zooms and pans as well, which gives users a real example of how the software is used and it is consistent.
First use rotation, as tested by the rotation performance test, is speed that most users experience. By this we mean grip, rotate and then edit. If you grip a model and rotate it backward and forward the card can cache this info supposedly improving frame rate using cache algorithms. That gives transient frame rate performance but it might not necessarily be true user experience. This is different to VBOs where operations can be performed on the data without a full re-fetch of data.
Unfortunately we had to leave before the interactive tests were carried out so we couldn’t comment on their validity. However, we hope that they didn’t fall into the cache algorithm catch area.
Overall, we are pleased that the initial CATbench testing of the ATI FirePro cards performance has been proved again.
NVIDIA
We are glad to see the great results with a venerable driver. It is a testament to Nvidia’s quality and performance that a driver from April 2008 showed excellent performance in the real-world test and in the test by end users. To be recommended by daily Catia users is testament to the hard work the Nvidia Quadro team do to ensure the best efficiency and work flow improvement for customers.
There are many exciting new technologies on the horizon and we are looking forward to another challenge with new platform and graphic introductions in 2009.
Comments on this article:
SpaceClaim 2009
10 March 2009
Process type:
DEVELOP3D’s editor, Al Dean, looks at the latest release of SpaceClaim, the system that brought Direct Modelling back to the fore after decades of anonymity. What has the vendor got in store for its next major release?
| Product | SpaceClaim 2009 |
|---|---|
| Company name | Spaceclaim |
| Price | from £895 |
The world of 3D product development technology appears to be in a state of flux. Over the past two years the movements of many vendors, new and old, have seen a rebirth of interest in a field that many pundits considered to be mature, tired and almost squeezed dry of innovation. If the twenty-year ‘overnight’ success of direct modelling/direct editing has done one thing, it’s made 3D CAD interesting again.
While there are many reasons that this has happened (advances in solid modelling algorithms and CPUs), it got kick started by the new kid on the block, SpaceClaim. Two years ago the company appeared out of nowhere and showed off its eponymous entitled SpaceClaim application. Much has been said about the product, which rather than relying on a construction history, adds intelligence to the model, regardless of the source.
Rather than focussing on what’s new with the 2009 release, I’m going to look at the system as a whole and where it fits into the crowded product development sector.
After a tumultuous two years, things have finally started to settle down in terms of how SpaceClaim is being positioned. It’s not being touted as a competitor to the mainstream product development systems, but rather something a little more leftfield, a product that does things that other typical history/ feature systems can not.
In terms of how this translates into a product, because SpaceClaim doesn’t rely on sketch-driven, feature-based history, it allows users to think much more clearly in 3D dimensions. You sketch a simple shape, pull it into 3D, then edit that geometry, directly, rather formalising your 2D sketch first.
There are a number of tools that allow users to make quite dramatic changes to the form of the 3D model, either by editing it directly in 3D, or by using a temporary section through the model. Instead of all manner of 3D operations, the user has a couple of basics that are used eight times out of ten - Pull and Move. Pull will directly move geometry, points, edges, lines, and features, and maintain tangency and another other ‘inferred’ relationships where required. Move essentially shifts entities. While this is interesting and, compared to some systems, incredibly easy, where SpaceClaim excels is when it comes to editing geometry created in another system.
This shows one of the most interesting ways of working with 3D geometry in SpaceClaim. By working at a sketch or section level, and directly manipulating the geometry, users can maintain clarity of sight on what’s going on and the effects of edits, while maintaining the 3D geometry at the same time. This makes working with certain products, such as this lens, much easier
Data translation
The system has a range of translators that cover pretty much every system on the market today. At the base level it supports ACIS, STEP, IGES, Rhinoceros, CGR (from Catia), DWG, DXF, STL, OBJ, XAML, VRML, and 3D PDF (assuming you have Acrobat 9 Pro Extended). There are several additional data translation modules, one of which adds Pro/Engineer, Inventor, Catia V4, and VDA, another for SolidWorks, NX, and Parasolid, another for JT and, finally one more for Catia V5. The system can also read in the main ECAD file formats and use that data to construct a 3D model of a PCB board from both PDF and EMN files (N.B. this is not included in SpaceClaim Style - more on this later).
Here, a cast component is taken and the features removed for downstream processes, such as CAM or FEA. Machining stock can be very quickly added to the part, which is particularly useful when the machine shop might not have access to the native geometry
Fixing Geometry
These days, while most systems are able to output pretty solid geometry, there are still some that’ll throw out a few clunkers. With the 2009 release, SpaceClaim has a new set of tools collected under the ‘Prepare’ tab, specifically for working with geometry. The first fixes common problems in solid geometry: gaps, missing faces, split edges and inexact edges. The system highlights problem areas and helps step the user through them to create a valid model. Progress is highlighted by a colour and display style change, as well as an icon appearing in the structure panel. Most minor problems can be fixed with this tool, but if there are bigger gaps, which require complex, manual work, then more advanced tools for merging faces, closing tangency, filling gaps are also available.
Preparing downstream data
The other purpose of the ‘Prepare’ tab is to provide tools with which to prepare models for downstream purposes and this is something that SpaceClaim is highly suited to in general. The two examples that spring to mind are CAM and FEA (Finite Element Analysis). FEA, for example, requires a process called abstraction, which strips out all of the extraneous detail to give a much more efficient model to mesh. This means stripping out fillets/chamfers, small features and holes. SpaceClaim has specific tools to remove chamfers and fillets/rounds, faces and to find interference. There are also more manual tools to dive in and work on more problematic areas. The good thing is that the tools are easy to use and don’t particularly rely on the sometimes arcane language of 3D CAD. Want to fill a hole? Click fill. The user doesn’t need to decide how; the system makes all the decisions. Also, on the simulation side of things, the new volume extract tool will make mincemeat of creating fluid flow volumes for CFD runs.
SpaceClaim provides a toolset that can get users out of some of the sticky situations they may find themselves in
Core design
But what about core design work? What can the system do? When looking to tweak geometry, move the odd feature slightly, or to add or remove fillets, simple pull or move operations are sufficient in many cases. However, when things get complex there are also a variety of tools to handle more manual jobs, such as reconstructing geometry from scratch or adding new features. There are also a range of sketching tools that enable users to make pretty dramatic changes to a 3D model and work it into different shapes. This is perhaps one of the best things about SpaceClaim.
With current economic pressures, most smart organisations are looking to change how things are done, and how they can squeeze more from their products. One way to do that is to redesign existing products, using new material selections. For example, whereas once an aluminium casting was used, it’s now been replaced by plastic. This is something that crops up in the medical sector in particular, or indeed any other field that relies on high-cost, low availability products. SpaceClaim is ideal for this type of redesign work. Most products iterate, rather than being built from scratch and using the direct edit tools a product designed for one manufacturing process can easily be adapted to suit another, while ensuring that the form and function requirements are met. The reason this is so easy is by removing the need to edit the history tree, the user can immediately dive in, and push, pull and edit geometry into shape.
SpaceClaim products
There are two versions of the software: SpaceClaim Engineer, which is the all-singing, all dancing version, then SpaceClaim Style, which provides all the 3D modelling tools, but without the ECAD, mechanical detailing, sheetmetal, and model cleanup tools. While the Style version costs £895, the higher-end version costs just £1,995, which is still not a great deal in anyone’s books. There are also a number of product bundles available, such as the link with Rhino or HyperShot, which mean that users can mix and match some best in class tools and create a workable process to take a product from conceptualisation, through the engineering (which SpaceClaim handles) and pop it out the other side.
In a history-based system to dive in and move the two mounting features in this cast component would require editing a sketch and rebuilding that geometry. In SpaceClaim you simply select the geometry and move it. The end result (pictured right) merges nicely with the thin wall of the component
Conclusion
I haven’t got a huge amount of column inches to cover all of what SpaceClaim does and how, but you should get a feeling for the flexibility that’s on offer here.
There’s a huge debate raging in many quarters about how the new breed of direct editing tools stack up against the traditional parametric- and history-based systems. However, to my mind, this seems almost redundant. The fact is that the different approaches suit different workflows and projects and for some organisations it might even mean a mix of the two. The good news is that SpaceClaim is pretty affordable so it can easily be used in parallel with other systems.
I’ve been talking to some users that have acquired SpaceClaim in the last few years and if there’s something that connects them all, it’s the simple fact that the application is very easy to use, and allows them to get their ideas into a digital format in a very short space of time. The system isn’t likely to go head to head with the likes of SolidWorks, Solid Edge and Inventor, even if they are starting to feature similar modelling concepts (Solid Edge is perhaps the closest, but Synchronous Technology is a different kettle of fish entirely). What SpaceClaim can do though is sit alongside these tools and provide a toolset that can get users out of some of the sticky situations they may find themselves in.
It’s an impressive system and, now in its fourth major release, is maturing having solved some of the early teething problems. With this in mind it has all the ingredients to find itself a niche in the 3D design tool market.
SpaceClaim’s user Interface
As you’d expect from a system as new as this, the SpaceClaim user interface is all about Microsoft’s Ribbon. Commands are presented in logical groups and those groups are defined by task, rather than functionality. There’s Design (for geometry creation and editing), Details (for drawing), Display (for display control, layer management etc), Prepare (a new tab for preparing and processing imported geometry), Measure (for review and mark-up) and HyperShot, which contains a single icon that links to Bunkspeed rendering system if you have it installed.
Down the left hand side, you have a number of panels. There’s the usual part browser, which as you’ll probably be aware, is one of the selling points of SpaceClaim in that it does not rely on a construction history. Instead the system adds the intelligence to the model, no matter what the source. You also have layer and selection control and standard display views. The majority of the interface is given over to the model window and considering the very direct and interactive nature of SpaceClaim, this is a huge benefit.
Comments on this article:
Delcam FeatureCAM 2009
06 March 2009
Process types: Manufacture and Prototype
Production Machining is about one thing - speed. Getting your tool-paths created, verified and on to the machine cutting metal is the name of the game. Al Dean reports on a tool from Delcam designed specifically for this purpose
| Product | FeatureCAM 2009 |
|---|---|
| Company name | Delcam |
| Price | On application |
DelcamWhen you look at the world of Computer Aided Manufacture (CAM) and drill down (no pun intended) into who’s doing what and what the different systems offer, you quickly find something of a split. Some applications concentrate on the ability to machine complex geometry and control highly complex machines (such as within the Mould and Die market) while others focus on the world of production machining, where equally complex machine tools (such as increasingly popular Mill/Turn configuration) are used to produce less complex parts, but in typically much larger volumes. It’s in this latter segment that Delcam’s FeatureCAM sits, and sits perfectly.
Delcam acquired the product a couple of years ago, and since then a number of things have happened. Support for 3D data has improved and the general look and feel of the system has been overhauled. In addition, where the system was perhaps best known for coding NC from scratch off the back of very basic 2D geometry (typically sketched by the user), it now has workflows for all manner of data sources and machining operations.
FeatureCAM imports the majority of standard CAD data, and includes several native file importers
Whether carrying out basic 2.5-axis machining, 3-axis, 5-axis or into the realms of Mill/Turn, the key to FeatureCAM is that it is built on a very strong knowledge-based infrastructure. By that, I mean that it does an excellent job of capturing knowledge and data about all those parameters, variables and inputs that influence part programming, such as cutters/tools, operations materials, and feature types. This enables it to make intelligent decisions and automate much of the workload, which it does by relying on feature recognition very heavily. To illustrate this, let’s step through a basic part programming job.
FeatureCAM allows users to work with sketched geometry but a more intelligent way to work is to extract the required data from a CAD system. FeatureCAM supports all of the major translation formats (such as IGES, STEP) as well as a number of native formats. It also includes a range of native data import options, including AutoCAD, Inventor, SolidWorks, Catia (V4 and V5), Solid Edge, Unigraphics/NX, and Pro/Engineer.
Automatic feature recognition looks for pockets, bosses, faces, grooves, chamfers and sidewalls - and uses best practice to apply operations to them
Whichever format is brought in, the workflow is the same. As with all CAM operations, the starting point is to set-up the global parameters for the job. That includes selecting the machine tool, the Z and X axes (so the system can orient it correctly), the origin and the stock material. When working with a turning or mill-turn operation things differ somewhat as these parts are revolved, but the basics remain the same. The geometry is imported (or created from scratch), the global parameters set up, and then automation tools are used to set-up each operation. To do this, FeatureCAM first identifies each feature (in terms of machining feature, rather than geometry) and does this using a proprietary algorithm (AFR, Automatic Feature Recognition), rather than reading the native features from the CAD package. This gives it more flexibility to adapt to machining requirements. The system will identify all the features it can, including Pockets, Bosses, Faces, Grooves, Chamfers and Sidewalls. It also does excellent work with holes, a seemingly simple feature, but one that can get quite complex when entering the realms of multi-stage hole drilling or boring and threading (both of which have seen work in this release).
The speed at which FeatureCAM uses best practices combined with an organisation’s standards to generate machineable forms, is pretty compelling
In the case of Mill/Turn, because of the nature of the beast, features are not quite as immediately recognizable, so here the IFR (Interactive Feature recognition) is used instead. This does much the same job as the AFR, but the user needs to give it a helping hand by selecting geometry profiles, for example.
Toolpaths are generated very quickly, using best practice and company standards - but can also be adapted
Once the geometry features are assigned, the system uses the common set of defaults for each feature type, creates the tool-path and the NC code, and then places each operation in the results window. As mentioned from the outset, speed is key to FeatureCAM. Instead of spending time creating each operation manually (selecting geometry, applying specific cutting conditions and tool-path variables) time is spent upfront prepping the system so it can blast through the process. Then, if a specific operation needs to be adapted, the user can dive in and edit it.
FeatureCAM goes so far as to monitor each feature as it’s added to the results windows so it can re-order it automatically to minimise tool changes/reduce rapid-moves, height etc. Of course, this can be switched off and the operation list can be ordered by hand to achieve the required results.
Machine Simulation allows users to ensure NC code is as perfect as possible, before cutting material
What’s interesting about FeatureCAM is that it manages to compress the CAM programming process greatly using two key methods. Firstly, it delivers usable NC code very quickly, which is facilitated by using intelligence and knowledge. Secondly, it lets the user adapt first pass results to get the required results, in a very short space of time.
Conclusion
FeatureCAM is one of those rare products where everything is immediately clear. Data import is simple and the tools to construct geometry for machining from scratch are also straightforward. The use of technology to identify features within a machinable form is not by any stretch of the imagination, unique, but the speed at which FeatureCAM uses best practices combined with an organisation’s standards to generate machineable forms, is pretty compelling.
What’s also interesting is that while Delcam continues to add greater support for more and more complex machine tool types and configuration and processes, it seems to be doing it without adding complexity, so the system retains its core tenet of ease and speed of use.
To sum up FeatureCAM succinctly, it offers some very nifty tools to get cutting material in the shortest time possible.
Feature
Turn/Mill updates
Mill/Turn machines are rapidly becoming state of the art for many contract machine shops, particularly those looking at less complex, but very high volumes parts. The ability to bar feed material and have multiple heads carrying out simultaneous operations and automated changeover of parts, means that parts can be produced very quickly indeed.
Milling is something that FeatureCAM mastered some time ago, but with each release, Mill/Turn support is improving in both raw operation capability and some of the finer aspects that’ll pay dividends when using the system. A good example of its raw capabilities is the addition of support for Slant Turning added in the 2009 release. This is useful for machining difficult areas which perhaps have different undercuts or depth, and it can do this without changing the tool set-up. The system defines angles of attack and adjusts the cutter slant angle to achieve the desired results.
Meanwhile, usability is enhanced to ease working with multi-turret machining. In previous releases, the multiple turret and synchronization interface was implemented horizontally in the UI. However, this isn’t how NC guys are used to having their data presented (it’s usually two vertical lists of G code inspected side by side). The sync window has been redesigned to allow operations to be organised by turret and by time. This makes manual validation of the code possible, which gives experienced users an element of trust in what would traditionally have been a very manual process.
