Not one of my typical posts. But this has been an important topic to me for as long as I can remember. I remember “checking the box” on my driver’s license renewal form many, many years ago. I don’t think I gave it a ton of thought at the time. But over the years, I am convinced that it is one of the best choices I have ever made.
Not looking to offend or open up a big ethical debate, this is simply a personal opinion. There are 98,207 Americans on the waiting list for various organs as of 8:16pm this evening. Think about how you would feel if a parent, sibling, friend or even worse, a child needed an organ. You would surely hope that there was one available. Others feel the same.
Give it some thought. Consider paying it forward. Honestly, when the time comes, you will not need them anymore.
The trend for lighting designers is to emit as much light as possible for a given input power. Various new applications are evolving everyday. There has obviously been a huge push to make things “greener”. This pushes engineers to optimize their designs and maiximize efficiency. LEDs are the hottest thing right now. No pun intended.
Designers are always trying to cram these light sources into tiny little areas. This causes major issues on how to cool the devices. Most of the time, they do not have the luxury of actively cooling the lights. They have to rely on natural convection and have to be creative on the various types of heat sinks they use. This is a perfect application for Upfront CFD.
In the past, there was tons and tons of trial and error. Hand calcs and best practices only go so far. It is impossible to account for the various shapes and sizes of the heat sinks. It is much faster and cheaper to build your design in CAD, run an analysis, verify that the temps are within spec and then make a change and optimize.
A really cool article was recently published that highlights how Upfront CFD was used to ensure that gigantic lighting displays are cooled properly. The lighting displays are used in stadiums and the Las Vegas strip.
Literally seems like these lighting applications are popping up everywhere. Seems odd that lighting companies wouldn’t have been the first people in line to jump on the Upfront CFD train?!?
The terms “Upfront CFD” and “CAD jock” used to go hand and hand. It wasn’t a requirement to have CAD chops, but it sure helped. The thought was that if you were familiar with CAD, you could easily pick up Upfront CFD.
It seemed to make sense. There were 1000s of engineers out there that were designing a variety of different products, driving CAD everyday and had a need to do a quick flow and thermal simulation. Better yet, they would want to me able to make a change in CAD and see the model update and per from a variety of “what if” scenarios.
But, the more the market matures and the more accepted Upfront CFD has become, the more people want it. Including engineers that simply are not driving CAD everyday. Whether it be that they are in R&D or there are simply other guys on their team that do the CAD side of things. Not a real big deal, they leverage their CAD guys and work hand and hand to make modifications to the CAD. Meanwhile they spend a majority of their time on the Upfront CFD side of things. But this process can be limiting.
Enter SpaceClaim. This was one of the sole purposes of their existence. They are the “go between”. Fully functional modeler that allows you to import CAD models from a variety of locations. You can then modify the geometry and add additional geometry. The thing that makes SpaceClaim awesome is that it’s interface is bone simple. Let’s face it, the whole process is bone simple. You can purchase it online, it’s cheap and no training required.. They have a few videos that you can watch and you are off and running. We now have a direct link to SpaceClaim.
Not a believer? Go check it out for yourself. You can download it for 30days. Check out the video I created above. Shows the process on the geometry side. It is Part 1 of a multi part series of videos I am creating for non-CAD guys who have a need for Upfront CFD.
I was working last night on a few things and my little girl (21mos), came over and grabbed my mouse as she likes the red light underneath. Typically, I just disable it and she will play with it for awhile. But this time she went straight for the mouse pad and began moving her little fingers to position the mouse. Did she know exactly what she was doing, probably not. But she proceeded to explore, hit a few keys and an application opened. She was thrilled. Point is, today’s generation, which is tomorrow’s engineers, are born in an era where computers are the standard. It will only evolve from here. They allow today, what couldn’t even be conceived yesterday.
The challenge for today’s engineer’s is to think outside of the box and use different, more modern methods to design better products. Years and years of man hours have been honed to develop testing procedures and best practices. Now software vendors are coming in and saying there is a better way. “Can’t be! There is no way that the computer can give us the same reliable results. We don’t trust the results”. This is the challenge.
It is up to the software vendor to provide you with the confidence that the tool can reduce the number of prototypes and that it can provide you valuable insight that testing simply cannot. The vendor does this through reputation, years of experience, testing of their own and years of hard work. Ensure that they have put the same amount of care into validating their solution as you have to yours. It’s the same thing.
I think deep down, it is a hard value proposition to deny. Upfront CFD/CAE/FEA, whatever, is here to stay. It simply works. It is obviously, not for everyone. There are some engineering houses that are dealing with problems beyond the scope of upfront analysis. For those, you either hire a specialist or you outsource.. However, if you partner with the right company, there are many ways to approach many different problems.
New, young engineers will not know a time that Upfront analysis, was not the norm. Exciting time for them, actually. They are coming into the market with high expectations. “Of course, I should be able to leverage my CAD model!” “Of course, the mesh is automatic. Why wouldn’t it be?” It is a part of the way they think, they will want to get their hands on the software and try various things because they are not intimidated.
They are used to instant gratification. It is a part of their DNA. They are used to the idea that if you don’t have it, someone will, and I will buy their stuff. It really pushes us in the software world to excel. I love it!! It forces me to fight and do a really good job to make satisfied users. That, to me, is job satisfaction at its finest.
A few articles were published in this month’s Mechanical Engineering Magazine, highlighting the usage of CFD & FEA in universities. Music to my ears. The dilemna seems to be how to incorporate this into an already tight curriculum? Hmm, considering the importance, I think the implementation can be worked out.
When I was in school, there was a big disconnect between the fundamentals of engineering and the engineering software tools. Looking back, I would have benefited way more if they were taught in tandem. I think schools have come along way over the years and this are a bit more in sync, but they can still be improved.
Unfortunately, like many others, I was forced to teach myself (and all the bad habits associated with it) most of the engineering software tools that were available. I was able to operate it and generate images, pretty sure they were right… Figured I’d post a cool spring loaded poppet valve simulation while I was on a tangent.
The author in the ME article makes a great point when she discusses teaching students how to use it to solve engineering problems, not necessarily how to make the picks and the clicks. I think the challenge is that the professors have to be proficient in the tools that are used. This is a tough one. Many of the university professors have extensive experience in R&D and tend to have a “specialty”. Difficult for them to have a wide background on various tools that are being used in the various industries. Let’s be honest, how many of them have any experience in Upfront CAE? If they were exposed to any of the tools, they were most likely traditional, older tools that focused on very sophisticated types of analysis.
Obviously, the tools are changing drastically over the years with a niche for helping engineers design faster, cheaper and better. There is no better community of people that will understand this fundamental concept better than todays engineering students.
Take a deep breath and imagine yourself back in your engineering classes. How much easier would it be if you were able to actually see the fundamentals of Bernoulli’s eqn or fully developed flow vs. not fully developed. How about heat transfer? How much easier would thermal contact resistance have been to understand if you could see a simple contour plot live?
More importantly, think of how it would have driven home the point on how to problem solve? How to take a very real problem, sketch it up parametrically, run an analysis and make a change to see the effects of the various parameters. “Make this dimension larger, it will then make this spot cooler”. No question, the fundamental equations have to be taught and fully understood. But we need to teach tomorrow’s engineers how to implement these equations and put them to good use in today’s world.
I have been using Camtasia software quite a bit recently to create some really cool videos on my laptop. Basically recording a bunch of “how to” videos for customers. For those that aren’t familiar, Camtasia is the big brother to SnagIt. If it’s still not ringing a bell, go check them out. Really cool stuff.
Constantly amazes me how much I am drawn to a really cool, well thought out and snazzy interface. I have been using Camtasia 4 for awhile and for the most part, pretty happy. Like all software took me a little time to figure it out, fell into a routine, all is well. They have some awesome recorded quick tips on how to use it etc. I watch them from time to time, very helpful.
It was new release time and every time I opened Camtasia 4 it would check for updates and give me an offer to upgrade. I robotically clicked “cancel” every time. I received the obligatory email reminding me of the upgrade. Being a software guy, I respect the persistence. They have to make a living. However, I still ignored their offer. Until one day, I was sitting in an airport, I clicked the link to check it out.
Check out the screen shot (using SnagIt) above. First thing I noticed was the familiar “Play” button in the middle of a thumbnail, so I clicked it. The surrounding window went transparent and a video with audio began showing me the “new features”. Looked awesome. Second thing I noticed was that they modernized the GUI a bit, cleaned it up, changed the color scheme. They also added a quick little editing toolbar for me to use. Bottom line, it all looked cool. I understood for the most part some of the new features? I immediately saw the benefit of the editing toolbar. But what caught my attention once again was that it looked cool, easy and FUN to use. I needed to have it. I was going to be more productive with the latest version. At least, that is how I was justifying the upgrade fee.
Point is, I love videos, I don’t want to read your new features. Just show me. Plus if you make it look cool, even better. Put some cool colors in there, I definitely need that. Plus if you add some functionality that I understand simply by looking at it, awesome.
I made the upgrade decision mostly only my reaction to the new look and feel of the tool that was already treating me ok. No ambition to upgrade until I saw it.
It is a fun time to be in the Upfront CFD industry. Things have certainly come along way. It wasn’t too long ago that the CAD companies were campaigning for companies “to make the transition from 2D to 3D”. Everyone was developing really cool transition tools that would help users convert their 2D drawings into 3D parts and assemblies. I am sure this still applies to some, but I think a good percentage of companies have at least considered making the move. The list of improvements in 3D MCAD tools is endless. There has been a step change in ease of use, automation and productivity over the last few years. Even the graphics and displays have improved dramatically. Check out the image (no photo rendering required) below from our friends at SolidWorks.
Advancements have been made across the board in other products as well. A few years ago, many engineering organizations considered structural FEA as a “nice to have”. Now it can be said that many engineering organizations consider FEA to be part of the critical path. This was due to a number of factors. FEA codes are now easier to use, they can leverage native MCAD models and FEA has been integrated into the engineering design process. FEA companies partnered with their customers, listened to what they were saying and adapted to the changing market.
You are now seeing a surge in the adoption of CFD into the engineering design process. CFD has been around for a number of years. It primarily has been used by CFD specialists or farmed out to the vendors. Clearly, there is still a market for this. But CFD should be and can be part of the design process. Check out the image below a guy on our team worked on recently.
It is the responsibility of the vendors to make you successful. This goes above and beyond whether the product is easy to use. It has to do with whether or not the vendor has a plan and reputation to make you successful. Let’s be honest, there are alot of options out there. The decision should go well beyond the cost and ease of use. Here is a quick list of questions, I’d be asking.
How dedicated and experienced is the vendor in solving your particular problem?
Do they have examples, references, success stories?
Do they fully understand your needs?
Do they have an implementation plan?
Do they have a services group? Have you spoken to them prior to your decision?
Will your particular problem be discussed in training or are you stuck with standard non-related examples?
How is support handled? Do they have a Customer Portal or Online Community? Will you be transferred around from specialist to specialist? What does the “escalation” procedure look like?
This is a question that many engineers have faced when evaluating various types of “add on” functionality to their existing MCAD system. Whether it be CAM, FEA, CFD or PDM, there are many options out there.
Depending on the level of sophistication, the answer to the question is not so easy. Let’s take PDM, for example. It makes sense to me that users should be able to check things in and out of the vault, have full revision control etc all within the CAD environment.
How about CAM? The question gets a little more complicated. How much will users be using the CAM software? How complicated are the parts? Will the users be driving the CAM software daily? If you have to think twice about any of these, then it makes sense to consider whether or not the “CAD-embedded” solution has all of the bells and whistles you’ll need.
Now, how about FEA? Let’s take Pro/Mechanica for example. It was one of the original fully embedded FEA programs out there. PTC acquired RASNA and tightened the integration. Mechanica always stuck to its roots. P-method, liner static analysis with steady state thermal capbilities. Nothing more, nothing less (for the most part). So, in this case, if it fits your needs and you are a Pro/e user, makes sense to go the CAD-embedded route.
Let’s look at COSMOS/Works. They have done quite well for themselves by embedding inside SolidWorks. But there was always this option to “upgrade” to the full suite, COSMOS/M. Now that SolidWorks owns the former SRAC, it is probably not as much of an issue as they are focused on the full product within SW. But suppose SW didn’t purchase SRAC. Users risk that there will be a disconnect between the two different development teams. Now in this case, there was a happy ending.
But now, suppose the SRAC folks had an agreement with SolidWorks, Autodesk and UG? Can we count on the fact that they have a close knit relationship with all equally? Do all of their graphics work the same? Is their UI framework flexible enough to be embedded in all of those systems equally? SRAC made a smart decision. They picked one, focused and delivered. In this case, they made a smart pick. Good for them!
There are many companies out there that claim that their solution embeds in all of the CAD tools. Some even claim to have an upward path to their “flagship” offering if your needs grow beyond their embedded capabilities. Yikes! How focused are the vendors on their CAD embedded solution? Is it just a marketing campaign to claim “me too”? These are the questions I would be asking.
Point is, is CAD-embedded all that is cracked up to be? It can appear to have its advantages. But I wouldn’t let it sway my decision. I would put it in the nice to have column.
Consider these points when making the decision whether to go with CAD-embedded.
Is the CAD embedded tool developed and owned by the CAD vendor? If the codes are not developed by the same people, there is bound to be a disconnect.
If you want to run a CFD analysis, for example, does it occupy your CAD license?
How many products does the vendor develop? How much of their focus/$$ comes from the product you are evaluating? Is it their bread and butter?
Don’t be fooled by the carrot of CAD-embedded with promises of an “upgrade” path.
Check out this cooling fan model I have been working on, cool stuff.
Being an interface snob, I have always been jealous of my brother’s Apple/Mac interface. Looks way cooler than everyone else. Same feeling I had back in the day when I was rocking the Atari and my buddy up the street had Intelivision. Being a huge fan of Asteroids, I was psyched to have Atari. But his machine definitely looked cooler.
Anyway, when Vista was announced, I was stoked. Finally, I can now have a cool desktop like my brother’s Mac. But then, oh no, Vista is a giant nightmare. All I really wanted was the “Sidebar” that Vista was rolling out. I then found that Google had one that you could install on winXP, but quickly was disappointed as it is a big clunky thing. My brother’s MAC was still cooler. Sound like I am whining?
But, alas, check out Yahoo! Widgets. I love them. Cool little add ins that you can install that “float” on your desktop. So, I can rearrange them, however I want. I can customize the look and feel. Some have been developed by Yahoo and some by whoever. So, obviously, there is a big risk that they will not work or have limited functionality. But some are really cool and let you change colors etc.
Check out a portion of my desktop above. There are literally scores of different things you can have. I stuck with the basics: clocks for the various time zones I work in, a calendar with a preview of events from Outlook, local weather and an XM radio player.
Each has odd little quirks like, “bleeding” through both Pro/engineer and SolidWorks? If you maximize both CAD systems, the odd behavior goes away. So, as long as I know how to fix it, I am good with it.
When Google burst onto the scene, I felt bad for Yahoo! As you have seen in other posts, I am becoming a loyal fan.
You are currently browsing the The Virtual Engineer blog archives
for January, 2008.
Advancements have been made across the board in other products as well. A few years ago, many engineering organizations considered structural FEA as a “nice to have”. Now it can be said that many engineering organizations consider FEA to be part of the critical path. This was due to a number of factors. FEA codes are now easier to use, they can leverage native MCAD models and FEA has been integrated into the engineering design process. FEA companies partnered with their customers, listened to what they were saying and adapted to the changing market. 
