Jeff's MCAD Blogging
Jeffrey Rowe has more than 40 years of experience in all aspects of industrial design, mechanical engineering, and manufacturing. On the publishing side, he has written well over 1,000 articles for CAD, CAM, CAE, and other technical publications, as well as consulting in many capacities in the … More »
September 8th, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
Interoperability, collaboration, inspection, quality, standards, proprietary data, neutrality, competition, and innovation – these are words and realities that all manufacturers deal with daily. Over the years there have been myriad attempts to bring this stuff together, all while protecting IP. However, as we know, while the attempts to make this happen have often been valiant, too often they have fallen well short, or worse, failed altogether.
That failure may be on its way to being a thing of the past with the advent of the Quality Information Framework (QIF), an ANSI standard that supports digital thread concepts in engineering applications ranging from product design through manufacturing. Based on the XML standard, it contains a Library of XML Schema ensuring both data integrity and data interoperability in Model Based Enterprise (MBE) implementations.
September 1st, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
For only the fourth time since its inception, earlier this week ANSYS announced a leadership succession plan with a new CEO. James E. Cashman, who has served as ANSYS’ CEO since 2000, will step down as CEO and become Chairman of the Board of Directors effective January 1, 2017. Dr. Ajei S. Gopal, a technology industry veteran who has served as a member of the ANSYS Board since 2011, has been appointed President and CEO effective immediately and will continue to serve on the Board. Dr. Gopal will become CEO on January 1, 2017. Ronald W. Hovsepian, who currently serves as Chairman of the ANSYS Board, will assume the role of Lead Independent Director as part of this transition.
August 25th, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
As part of its ongoing acquisition quest, less than a year ago PTC acquired Vuforia from Qualcomm Connected Experiences for $65 million. What a difference a year has made!
Vuforia is an augmented reality (AR) technology platform, that PTC is betting will enrich its technology portfolio and further foster its strategy to provide technologies that blend the digital and physical worlds. In other words, the next phase of the Internet of Things (IoT).
When it was first reported that Qualcomm was soliciting bids for Vuforia as part of its effort to cut costs and focus on its key mobile business, PTC surprisingly was the ultimate suitor for the company and its technology.
Vuforia is a software platform that democratizes AR development. According to PTC, Vuforia is the most widely used AR platform in the world, powering more than 80% of AR apps in the Apple App Store and Google Play. In fact, more than 30,000 Vuforia-powered applications have been published on the App Store and Google Play – and have led to more than 275 million app installs. Vuforia also supports an active developer ecosystem with more than 250,000 registered developers, and more than 30,000 projects in development.
August 18th, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
For the past several years we all have heard the non-stop hype from a number of different sources that the Internet of Things (IoT) is the thing that will change everything and improve our lives in ways that are still unimaginable to us. That may be true, but relatively little attention is paid to the converse – what are some of the not so great things that could result from IoT? This darker side of IoT, of course, includes security, but how about data handling, infrastructure, privacy, and the inevitable question of who actually owns the data generated from and for IoT. All of these issues are problems now and will only continue to grow unless and until they are adequately addressed.
This week I’ll cover IoT data handling and data infrastructure, both critical if the IoT is to proliferate as many vendors hope and hype.
August 11th, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
For the past few years we all have heard a non-stop proclamation from a number of different sources that the Internet of Things (IoT) is the thing that will change everything and improve our lives in ways that are still unimaginable to us. That may be true, but relatively little attention is paid to the other side of the coin – what are some of the not so great things that could result from IoT? This darker side of IoT, of course, includes security, but how about data handling, infrastructure, privacy, and the inevitability of IoT companies going out of business. All of these issues are problems now and will only continue to escalate unless and until adequately addressed.
Believe me, I’m not alone with these concerns.
This time around I’ll cover IoT privacy and company survival. Next week I’ll cover IoT data handling and infrastructure.
August 4th, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
Almost all of today’s CAD products are pretty capable right out of the box, but I’ve often wanted them to do more to suit my particular needs and workflow. Over the years I’ve created macros and used Visual Basic and AutoLISP for defining, customizing, and automating functions and processes not found in CAD products out of the box. My results varied widely – some were good, some were OK, and some were downright unpredictable and bad.
Several years passed and I didn’t really do too much with CAD programming, so my interest waned. That all changed, though, when cloud-based Onshape’s FeatureScript came along earlier this summer.
FeatureScript is a programming language designed by Onshape for building and working with 3D parametric models. The language is built into Onshape and provides the foundation of Part Studio modeling, including geometric references, parametric tools, and a type system with types built for math in three dimensions.
The standard feature types in Onshape, such as Extrude, Fillet, and Helix are already written as FeatureScript functions. Using FeatureScript, custom feature types extend this same function mechanism to Onshape.
Is FeatureScript the first specific programming language to be released for a CAD product? No, not exactly, but it is unique in many ways and adds to Onshape’s positive differentiation in the crowded CAD marketplace.
Introducing Onshape’s FeatureScript
July 28th, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
All 3D printers need host software to function. That’s a given. Host software sends the commands to a 3D printer that tells the printer how to build an object. Most host software communicates with the printer via a wired USB connection. For almost all 3D printers, a computer running the host software must stay tethered to the 3D printer at all times while it is running. Obviously, this is not always a great situation, hence the advantage of being wireless.
There are basically two ways to perform wireless 3D printing. First, a G-code file can be saved onto an SD card using a computer, then the SD card can be transferred to the 3D printer where the print job is initiated via a controller into a 3D printer.
This arrangement allows wireless 3D printing, but it lacks most the advantages of a truly wireless setup. The 3D printer can still be placed away from a work area, but beyond that, using the SD card transfer method is really no different than transferring data over a cable. The second way to do (truly) wireless 3D printing is by running the host software on a small embedded device, like the Raspberry Pi, that is connected to the 3D printer.
Which Is Better, OctoPrint or AstroPrint?
This is analogous to using a dedicated computer for 3D printing that stays connected to the printer at all times. But, instead of using a computer for this purpose, the host software can be run on something, such as a Raspberry Pi, which is just powerful enough to run the software.
The two most popular host software packages developed for wireless 3D printing are OctoPrint and AstroPrint. AstroPrint is, in fact, based on OctoPrint, and claims to have an optimized codebase for running on embedded computers. The AstroPrint team has made changes and additions to the software, making the two host software offerings quite a bit different in many ways.
While OctoPrint and AstroPrint do share some similarities, they are also different, primarily with regard to their intended users.
July 21st, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
A couple of days ago, the internet of things (IoT) world was rocked with the announcement that the UK’s semiconductor and software design giant, ARM, was being purchased by Japan’s SoftBank in a cash deal for some $32 billion.
In the official acquisition statement, SoftBank says it intends to:
July 14th, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
With all the fanfare that took place a couple years ago with the launch of cloud-based Onshape, we thought we’d weigh in with partner Geometric’s announcement of its STL Workshop.
Onshape is by no means the first cloud-based/mobile CAD application. It was and still is, however, a unique true cloud-based technology and not a desktop/cloud hybrid.
Onshape began with what was one of the best and worst kept secrets in the engineering software arena. Worst, because even early on, it was evident that the technology would be cloud based, even if virtually no details were disclosed. Best, because virtually no details were disclosed, and that just added to the anticipation for the official launch of Onshape.
One of the inherent advantages that Onshape has always had is the fact that it was created from scratch by a team used to creating things from scratch with no legacy baggage to overcome and work around. Of course, the development team has not done everything themselves, because Onshape includes software components from Siemens PLM (Parasolid; ironically the same modeling kernel used by SolidWorks) and D-Cubed. This component licensing has let the Onshape team focus its efforts on what it does best.
Geometric’s STL Workbench for Onshape
July 7th, 2016 by Jeff Rowe
Like them or not, PC benchmarks let you evaluate performance, identify potential bottlenecks, and choose effective system upgrades of both hardware and software. Unfortunately, too many users still think that system performance is simply a matter of CPU frequency or memory capacity, which leads them to think that dropping in a faster CPU or more memory will automatically yield significant performance improvements. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case.
While CPU and memory upgrades can help in some instances, it often makes more sense to upgrade the storage subsystem or the graphics board if you’re looking for perceptible improvement in system responsiveness or performance. For example, if you run a series of benchmarks and identify the components holding your system back, you’ll be able to choose the most effective upgrade for your current system – or at least determine which components make the most sense in a new system suited to your particular needs.