The bigger picture reason for all this, beyond a big market opportunity and beyond more tools to facilitate embedded software design, is systems engineering. As Chuck says, more and more products (not just cars--but they're the poster child for this) are incorporating code. Some have more software code than mechanical parts. That said, engineers can no longer afford to do embedded software design in systems that aren't connected to their other core development tools like MCAD and its related CAE stuff. ANSYS' move is designed to address that need for integrated systems, not siloes, and to foster a broader systems engineering approach to product design, particularly when it comes to simulation.
The embedded market is sorely in need of this. Today, it's said that embedded software development accounts for 70-80% of the development cost of a project. Also, it's said that the costs are $20-$40 per line of code. That means the development cost of an embedded product with a million lines of code could be $20 to $40 million. Given those numbers, anything that streamlines embedded software development is going to be welcome.
I've written about embedded software (and hardware) before, but I'm sure not the expert in this area. I wouldn't be surprised if this combination is a first, yet you'd think it would have happened by now, considering how long IDEs for embedded have been around and how long ago embedded hardware became ubiquitous. Anyway, it sure makes sense!
That appears to be the case, Ann. I know of a lot of CAD vendors buying embedded software platforms (PTC's acquisition of MKS Integrity) and others adding embedded software capabilities and integration of such programs into their suites, but this is the first time I've seen a similar step by a pure CAE vendor. Perhaps I'm missing something so if I am, someone feel free to set me straight.
Beth, it looks like Esterel's SCADE Suite may include an IDE (integrated development environment) for embedded software, is that right? And it also looks like ANSYS wants to combine that with its simulation capabilities. Is this the first such combination?
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
The IEEE Computer Society has named the top 10 trends for 2014. You can expect the convergence of cloud computing and mobile devices, advances in health care data and devices, as well as privacy issues in social media to make the headlines. And 3D printing came out of nowhere to make a big splash.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.