You're probably right about the use of surface modeling on the D8 GTO, Chuck, but that particular design challenge was really all about simulation and keeping the weight down on the car even when adding additional safety features in the door frame and without degrading any of the performance and muscle the car was known for.
There is a boatload of capabilities being folded into CAD--as Alex notes, from CFD and FEA simulation functionality to upfront design type capabilities like sketching to tools like this one that enable far more realism. In some ways, I agree with your analogy to how Microsoft built out its Office stack, but with CAD tools, it's almost more like vendors are creating an integrated platform in which buyers can pick and choose (and pay for) the functionality that they need. Some base level functionality gets baked into the core product, but a lot of this extra stuff is sold as different editions of the CAD program tuned with functionality for specific roles and priced accordingly. Sort like what the ERP vendors did. Long-winded answer to you're not always paying for extra bells and whistles that you don't need, although I'm sure some CAD users just looking for the basics would argue with that point.
It will be interesting to see how engineers receive this. Even on our website, it's not hard to find comments from engineers who make distinctions between "aesthetic design" and engineering. What would the applications be for design engineers?
I agree, Alex. That's happening in a lot of areas of software. Automation vendors talk about how much functionality is not getting deployed in plants even though it's in the basic package the plant purchased. Ditto with ERP.
There's an incredible amount of functonality being folded into CAD/PLM programs. Yesterday, Beth wrote about CFD and FEA; today's it's surface modeling. I wonder if there's an analogy to Microsoft, where more features than users want or can use are being put into the average program. Which also means some users are paying more than they want or need to.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.