isicad.net is a modest English version of the most popular Russian CAD/PLM web resource isicad.ru published by LedasGroup. In contrast to the Russian version which aims to cover all key news and trends of the world and Russian markets of engineering software, isicad.net briefly reflects what happens at the Russian and CIS markets and from time to time publishes English translations of some original Russian articles related to the CAD/PLM domain.
Below you can see a list of Top 10 most visited articles.
On Sept, 22 at Autodesk Forum in Moscow, Dmitry Ushakov, LEDAS CEO, will deliver an invited talk “Who and Why Needs Direct Modeling?”.
Dmitry was an ideologist and initiator of the LEDAS project on direct modeling, he proposed an original approach to DM, called Variational DM, with emphasis on keeping design intent, see links below. By today, LEDAS has made a considerable progress in industrial implementations of VDM: in the end-user products Driving Dimensions SketchUp and RhinoWorks as well in two projects on incorporation of VDM into widely-known CADs outsourced at LEDAS.
Along with explanation of what is DM, Dmitry will outline eight features of DM and, according to (un)availability of these features, he will present his comparison of DM implementations in SpaceClaim, SPLM, LEDAS, DS, Autodesk, and PTC.
Taking into account his audience, Dmitry will pay some special attention to Inventor Fusion. The article based on Dmitry’s Moscow presentation will very probably be published at least at www.isicad.net.
In addition to the common natural interest to Synchronous Technology, LEDAS-isicad has its reasons.
First, LEDAS develops its own version of direct modeling - both incorporating it into some applications and providing corresponding technology to the CAD vendors who wish to increase competitiveness of the systems they produce. Second, at isicad.ru we regularly test new capabilities of the latest versions of popular CADs and publish (in Russian) our opinions as for example "3D marches en masse with AutoCAD 2011", "New gimmicks in Inventor 2011", "On-line KOMPAS – in the isicad’s pocket", "From idea to result with SolidWorks-2011", and others.
So it's clear that for long we have wanted to practically see what is Solid Edge with synchronous technology. Unfortunately, out attempt to obtain a trial license for this product was not successful: representatives of the office of Siemens PLM Software in Russia refused to grant such license to us, explaining that staff members of the editorial board of isicad.ru also work for LEDAS.
But recently we were happy to read a detailed characteristics of ST-3 in a remarkable series of dozen posts of Deelip Menezes. Information Deelip shared with the readers have been sufficient enough for Dmitry Ushakov to arrive to some conclusions about ST3, which he formulated in his articlepublished in Russian the next day after Deelip's publications and today published in English translation "Synchronous Technology: the Third Attempt".
Dmitry's paper is not just a retelling of ST-3 features: it characterizes fundamental constituents of direct modeling as a general new generation approach, analyzes consequences of combination of procedural and declarative features, formulates a hypothesis about what is really done in ST-3, gives a list of references including comparatively early research publications, and other.
The paper also compares ST-3 with the approach of LEDAS, in particular Dmitry says:
"... The idea (of the LEDAS approach) is that the end-users work directly with geometry – bypassing the intermediate level in the form of features. In particular, our users can manually set any geometric or dimensional constraint betweenany geometric or dimensional constraint between any faces, edges, and vertices of a boundary model. What is even more important that our system can automatically recognize most of geometric constraints (parallelism, perpendicularity, coplanarity, coaxiality, tangency, equal distances and radii) and take them into account performing direct modeling operations".
The LEDAS approach is emphasized in the title of one of the previous Dmitry's publications: "Variational Direct Modeling: How to Keep Design Intent in History-Free CAD, 2008, LEDAS Ltd".
Dmitry concludes his paper with the questions: "Synchronous technology is our future but why it has to come in the same package with an obsolete apparatus of history-based parametric modeling? These two approaches can hardly be combined due to significant conceptual differences, and as result a composed solution is controversial and unnatural for the users. Can it happen that Siemens disappoints its users with an excessive complexity of its combined solution? Would it be better to keep synchronous technology in its pure form – without linking to the traditional approach? We will not get the answers to these questions now, but Siemens solution has paved the way to other vendors who may prefer different strategies for launching s similar apparatus. That remains to be seen. In LEDAS we intend to be actively involved in the process".
PS. Perhaps this article will encourage Siemens to grant isicad/LEDAS a trial license for a new version of Solid Edge.
Several days ago, I presented those who confirmed their participation in COFES-Russia / isicad-2010. Now – about the moderators of the working groups (WG). WG is a round-table which is intended not only to discuss an important topic but also to formulate results of the discussion and present them to the final joint round table combined with a press-conference. See the event’s agenda with the links to the detailed description of WGs.
I hope those who know Oleg Shilovitsky and Deelip Menezes will not be surprised to see them at the Moscow event not only as bloggers but also as moderators and speakers.
Oleg has over ten years successfully been working as the CTO at (ENOVIA) SmarTeam, and I believe that today he uniquely combines a very rich practical experience with corporate independence and striving for profound analysis on what’s next in PLM and around?
Deelip’s company SYCODE makes plug-ins for practically all CADs, so he must know everything. On the other hand, if you look through Deelip’s blog (for example try to search direct modeling) you can see that he thoroughly and meticulously studies the most fresh, trendy and actively developing methods for direct modeling, synchronous technology, ...and all that stuff which we codified in the name of Working Group 2: "Intelligent methods of 3D modeling”. People from at least SpaceClaim and LEDAS who are practically working in this domain will actively participate in WG-2 but Deelip is universally informative and independent...
Elena Konvisar has been in marketing for many years, today she manages this direction in a respectable integrator company NEOLANT, and is well known as an experienced moderator of round tables with participation of many CAD vendors of the Russian market: see for example, "CAD vendors without ties: a full transcript" (in Russian). Elena asked Oleg Shilovitsky to help her: this time Oleg is involved as an active connoisseur and promoter of modern means of work in social networks.
Vladimir Talapov is for a long time productively working with students in Novosibirsk Architectural University.Vladimir has a Ph.D. in mathematics and combines the talents of a practical teacher, uninhibited brilliant orator and polemicist (see for example the article "Modern design industry is a world of greedy predators” – in Russian), as well - a connoisseur and promoter of advanced industrial technologies. The isicad-2010 exhibition presents many projects made by Vladimir’s students.
Topics related to the free platform, open source, etc., not accidentally fell into the hands of Nanosoft: see The upFront.eZine Tour of Russia. Part VI: Nanosoft. Anyone who looks at the "Who's Who" section on the company’s web site, understands that Dmitri Popov is the best candidate for being a moderator: he is from Siberia, he holds a Ph.D., and he is the author of a textbook, he was working for Xerox, he wrote a system of parametric design and he is a fan of summer skiing in the Alps ...
In the hardware working group we plan to consider several new products. Similar to the new software (WG-2), it was decided that discussion will be hold by an independent expert - Vladimir Malukh who, with his broad competence, can play a role of a customer presenting the entire field of engineering software. Vladimir is also known as an experienced moderator of round tables.
Autodesk is one of the apparent leaders in the field of AEC, in particular, in the solutions that extend design to the full cycle of integrated modeling of buildings.Pavel Hanzhenkov is the head of AEC sector at the Russian office of Autodesk with a previous experience in a similar position at Honeywell: his practical expertise has been evidently expressed in the vital topics that Pavel proposes for the discussion at WG-7.
Detailed description of all working groups is available here.
1. In June 2009, the Open Design Alliance (ODA) and LEDASannounced their cooperation to develop constraint support for the DWG 2010 format in DWGdirect™. In that announcement, ODA President, Arnold van der Weide, commented, “… We are excited to give our members the opportunity to integrate DWGdirect and LGS 2D (one of the LEDAS Geometric Solvers) together with minimal member development effort, and we are convinced that this work will benefit existing as well as potential ODA members.”
Now, in March 2010, ODA and LEDAS announced that the intended constraint support for the DWG 2010 has been implemented on the basis of the latest version 3.0 of the LEDAS LGS 2D. Dmitry Ushakov, Director of Product Management of LEDAS will present this result at the second ODA World Conference in Orlando (USA) , May 4-5. By this integration, ODA and LEDAS enable 2000+ companies (members of the Alliance) worldwide to implement parametric drawing functions in their DWG-compatible applications.
The ODA – LEDAS cooperation was initiated just after the first ODA World Conference in Leiden, Holland last year, where Dmitry Ushakov gave a talk entitled “Using LGS Geometric Solver to Create a DRX-module that Supports Geometric and Dimensional Constraints”, which caused significant interest of the conference attendees. This interest was heated by release of – just one month before the conference – AutoCAD 2010, a new generation of popular CAD software that finally supported parametric drawing functions (widely available before in almost all many MCAD software packages). LEDAS presented a module that implements similar functions on top of LGS 2D, a geometric constraint solver developed by LEDAS since 2004 and embedded in several industrial CAD packages. (See Dmitry’s detailed report on the first ODA World Conference).
At the second conference in Orlando Dmitry Ushakov will also present a free demo application that everyone can use to evaluate these parametric design tools. The application allows users to open and visualize parametric drawing files created in AutoCAD 2010, to edit their dimensional and geometric constraints (they are solved immediately after editing), and to save the files in DWG 2010 format enabling further editing these files in AutoCAD 2010. The attendees of the dedicated ODA Technology Exchange workshop will learn how they can embed the parametric drawing technology into their applications for different platforms.
2. In Orlando, Dmitry Ushakov will additionally present the current state of the LEDAS project related to variational direct modeling technology (VDM), which allows CAD users to edit solid models parametrically in history-free environment where design intent is expressed by explicit and implicit geometric constraints and driving dimensions.
VDM goes far beyond traditional direct modeling approach: this technology allows parametric modification of 3D geometric shapes in history-free environment that preserves design intent expressed with explicit and implicit geometric constraints. LEDAS considers VDM as a technology ideologically similar (but different from a technical point of view) to what is being implemented in Siemens PLM Software as synchronous technology. In contrast to synchronous technology (and similar things from other Big Vendors like Autodesk Inventor Fusion and PTC CoCreate), VDM is proposed for licensing to CAD developers. Based on company's resources and objectives, LEDAS is implementing its project in stages, each of which results in releasing an application – a plug-in for a popular market product. Every subsequent plug-in (or its version) accumulates a new portion of the technology, improves (CAD-independent) architecture, attracts potential customers of the LEDAS direct modeling, implements a market-demanded parametrization for the systems that lack this functionality, and of course brings LEDAS an increasing income.
The first plug-in (made for Google SketchUp which enabled LEDAS to implement and debug an initial architecture and a comparatively simple functionality) has been by today downloaded about 20 000 times.
A more serious system was in 2009 implemented for Rhinoceros, see LEDAS Adds Assemblies and Kinematics to Rhino (LEDAS moves McNeel & Associates’ Rhinoceros NURBS modeler closer to the mainstream MCAD with $395 Rhino Assembly 1.0 plug-in for assembling complex mechanisms and simulating kinematics).
A couple of days ago, LEDAS released a new beta version of its RhinoDirect plug-in . Here is a video which demonstrates a full cycle of parametric hammer modeling in Rhinoceros – combining Rhino history with constraints.
Some (or many) people might be surprised by such ambitious projects and plans of LEDAS, a company with 30 employees. This feeling may vary in the range from admiration to mistrust – especially if one could get information about some big outsourcing LEDAS projects that are naturally closed by strict NDAs. Well, in the Web one can even find some publications related to CAD technologies that compare LEDAS with SiemensJ.
No, LEDAS can in no means be compared with Siemens. But LEDAS can reasonably be compared with D-Cubed. D-Cubed is a remarkable UK company (founded in 1989 by an outstanding expert John Owen), which was first to release industrial geometric solvers and for a long time had the market monopoly. In 2004 D-Cubed was acquired by UGS, and in 2007 became wrapped even deeper when Siemens acquired UGS and transformed it into Siemens LM Software.
LEDAS and D-Cubed seem to have comparable academic history and background. See some information about LEDAS competence and history. LEDAS is operating in a world-famous research and university center, thus having inexhaustible opportunities to spoon out very high quality human resources in math and software development. Since the company foundation, these potential is effectively being implemented: today about a half of the LEDAS R&D staff are PhDs with average age around 28.
Of course LEDAS has no budget-like financing (as it happens inside of Very Big Vendors) but on 1st of April, the company is going to celebrate its 11th anniversary independent, flexible, implementing a number of high-competence-required internal and external projects, opened to multiple business contacts, and full of ideas. .
Oleg Shilovitsky wrote in his comment: "I hardly believe Autodesk will go toward PLM route. At least Carl Bass will need to withdraw his "anti-PLM rap" video from youtube first". For a more detailed Oleg’s opinion on the topic see his recent post PLM for Individuals – Integrate or Die?.
I think every person and every company have all rights to name themselves as they like (of course being careful with orange rectangles and so on). But perhaps mature industries and other domains of human activity should somehow follow an example of science – its fundamental resting upon a system of notions and standardized terminology. If PLM, digital prototyping, and other notions are already sufficiently defined then the community can more or less precisely determine whether somebody is inside or outside, moving toward or outward… – independently on a whatever video at youtube…
Following the example of science does not mean that we should artificially and arbitrarily define and freeze notions and terminology before they naturally become stable and mainly accepted: a process of elaboration/improvement/adjustment/refinement of terminology is natural and inevitable for any evolving branch of human knowledge. On the other hand, playing marketing-terminology games is something that can hardly help increasing maturity of industry.
My opinion is that the notions in question are far from the final definition, but they, on the other hand, are already sufficiently defined to enable understanding of whether Autodesk is in (or moving toward) PLM, whether PLM 2.0 still remains PLM, whether DS is fruitfully doing digital prototyping, etc. I think yes is a reasonable answer to all these questions.
Another illustration to the problem of notions is given in Paul Hamilton’s post 2009 - The Year of … Confusion?. This seems even more interesting and more associated with example of science – although of course not so exciting for the mass market.
Paul explains that while introducing Synchronous and Fusion technologies Siemens and Autodesk confused the market by groundless playing with terms of parametric and history-free modeling, direct and parametric workflows, digital model, and others. You may oppose to this by saying why should Siemens care about different terminology system – especially when it comes from a competitor? Nevertheless, I prefer Paul Hamilton’s position: he has proposed a detailed, reasonable and so far unique classification of important hot notions, which is likely useful for the CAD industry in general and it is not harmful for any particular producer of new modeling technologies…
So my opinion is that basic notions and terminology should at least be always respected, referenced, mentioned… which absolutely does not contradict to discussions and critics. .
