This episode is brought to you by IP.com. Please complete the registration form to watch the full conversation.

The nature of intellectual property is changing. For designers, scientists and engineers, innovation can have widely different meanings, from a novel way to combine carbon atoms into a molecule for the pharmaceutical industry, to a control algorithm for an interplanetary spacecraft. Once, the concepts of novelty and innovation were simply defined in legal terms, and the methods for protecting innovation were clearly defined.

Today, it’s more complicated. Not only is the concept of innovation more nuanced, but the very nature of information is also in play. How much of a human genome is patentable? How much of a copywritten algorithm is defensible? Can artificial intelligence be assigned a patent? The stakes and never been higher, and the difficulties in keeping proprietary information away from competitors, have never been more challenging.

Joining engineering.com on this episode of The Engineering Roundtable are four experts to discuss this complex topic.

Panelists:

Jim Durkin, Managing Director, Product Management, IP.com
Ameet Bhattacharya, CTO, IP.com
Joe Manico, Research Scientist, Kodak Moments
Elle Gahl, President & CEO, Shadow Ridge Analytics

Moderator:

Jim Anderton, Multimedia Content Director, engineering.com

* * * 

To learn more about IP.com and their AI solutions for innovation, contact sales@ip.com or visit https://ip.com.

The post IP is Changing in the Age of AI  appeared first on Engineering.com.

The calibration process of an electronic control unit (ECU) is designed to find optimal values for ECU parameters. This process is an essential element in the development process and has become a critical aspect of overall vehicle performance and behaviors. The main challenges in calibrating complex ECUs are calibration parameters, work-split between entities and model variants for different vehicles. Accordingly, companies require solutions that combine human expertise and easy data handling to manage complex calibration tasks. In this white paper we introduce an efficient toolchain for performing calibration and measurement processes that facilitate adapting vehicle systems to a variety of vehicle models or system variants. Additionally, we explain the required data model in different
parts of the toolchain.

The post Finding optimal values for new vehicle ECU parameters appeared first on Engineering.com.

Architecture analysis, whether it is a powertrain architecture or a cooling system architecture, ensures that the system architectures are aligned with desired requirements and that all the possibilities are thoroughly explored. It is an essential aspect of Model-Based Systems Engineering, (MBSE), an approach where all requirements are captured and converted into a model showing the relationship between function and requirements.

In this article, an architecture analysis technique is explored utilizing generative engineering within the realm of MBSE. A case study of cooling architecture analysis for electric vehicles (EVs) is showcased demonstrating
the practical application of these techniques.

Download today to learn how to quantify millions of architectures virtually.

The post How to use generative engineering in EV architecture exploration appeared first on Engineering.com.

Celebrity Cruises is currently building the Celebrity Xcel, through shipbuilder Chantiers de l’Atlantique in Saint-Nazaire, France. The facility is the largest assembly dock in Europe, with 3,800 employees and another 6,200 contractors on site at any given time.

The Xcel is the fifth vessel in what Celebrity calls the Edge Class, its latest iteration of luxury ships. I toured the shipyard and chatted with executives including Captain Manolis Alevropoulos, VP of marine operations, Stavros Zannikos, chief engineer; Eric Perennou, senior project manager of Edge Class; Henri Doyer, SVP of projects and engineering; and Ivan Klaric, project manager for the Xcel.

Shipbuilding is a complicated process for sure. Even within the Classes, the individual ships do vary somewhat, as the company receives feedback on everything from the crew to the engineering team to the passengers once the ships are put into service. That influences future ships in the Class.

It was fascinating to learn from them how the most improvements on a ship generally happen between the second and third ship of a Class. While all the ships are quite similar, adjustments to both behind-the-scenes areas and public spaces do evolve. By the time the first ship goes into service, the design (or even construction) of the second one is already in progress. So, it’s the third ship that really receives the most tweaks in the design and construction phases.

“The most important changes we see are between ships two and three,” said Doyer. “Really, we start to master and have very good knowledge of the inside of the project already on ship number two. You have the low-hanging fruit that you catch on the second one — but the numerous little, tiny things that, as a whole, can make us better are with ship three. Mainly, this is building efficiency, meaning shortening construction times and also cutting our costs. The more upfront we build and assemble, the less difficult the logistics are. The more modular we are, the more efficient we are in building.”

And modularity is a key, as I discovered. In Saint-Nazaire, up to six ships can be built at a time, although they’re all in different stages. For the Xcel, the design process is a long and staggered journey:

• Basic design: October 2022 to April 2023
• Detailed design: April 2023 to October 2023
• Industrialization: August 2023 to April 2024
• Panels and blocks construction: October 2023 to April 2024
• Ship assembly and outfitting: May 2024 to January 2025
• Cabins prefab and loading: June 2024 to April 2025
• Outfitting and commissioning: February 2025 to October 2025

The actual construction work starts on dry land, as the first steel is cut, and these large pieces of the hull are welded together into what are called blocks. Eventually, different blocks are loaded into the drydock, a large berth that can be flooded with water later in the construction process. Putting the ship together is like working with enormous Lego pieces. There are more than 40 blocks that comprise the ship; these are built individually on land and eventually moved into place with enormous cranes. Then, they’re connected and welded together, and work inside continues until the next piece is finished.

One of the most interesting things about the shipbuilding process that I discovered was this: On one hand, it’s very much the opposite of a manufacturing assembly line. You’re building one ship that’s unique in many ways, even if it has past siblings from the same Class. Restaurants and public areas and even overall sizes can vary from ship to ship. On the other hand, the construction of the crew and passenger cabins is very much a traditional assembly line process. You need hundreds of specific types and sizes of cabins, so the work here is very repetitive and predictable. Cabins are built as 80% finished products that are eventually hoisted onto the ship’s superstructure and “plugged in” once installed. Once installed, the cabins only take about 40 hours to complete.

I visited days before the critical “float out” of the Xcel — the point where the drydock is flooded with water to float the ship for the first time. At this point, all crew cabins had been installed, as well as 20% of the passenger cabins. Once floating, the ship is pushed by tugboats out into the Loire River and through another channel to a different area of the shipyard, where the rest of construction happens. This frees up the drydock for the assembly of the next ship.

Going virtual

I was allowed into Chantiers de l’Atlantique’s virtual engine room area, where early in the design process, engineers can move around in a 3D simulation of the engine room to coordinate piping, cabling, equipment, and componentry.  Here, Smart Mind is used as the CAD program. But the team then uses Unity (a cross-platform game engine, usually used in gaming applications) to take the Smart drawings/renderings and view them through the virtual reality goggles.

I tried out the system, and it was intuitive to use and quite simple to move around and get your bearings. With some of these systems, it’s easy to experience disorientation or motion sickness, but I had no problems getting acclimated quickly, and it was comfortable to use.

The team explained that the Celebrity Edge, the debut ship in the Edge Class, was one of the first ships to be designed by 3D software.

For the cabin design, which also happens on site, Solid Edge is used, Perennou said.

“Solid Edge is useful when you have plenty of parts to specify, as per the cabins,” he said. “It was chosen for this reason and because it was easy to interface. Also, for the production, it was helpful. There are many areas where we don’t build [the subsystems] ourselves, so here we don’t need detailed bills of materials. And Solid Edge allows us to have easier access to the volumes of a space, as well as the settings, the lighting, and so on.”

Green on board

We were able to go on board the Xcel and take a tour, which was a bit mind-blowing. Seeing the intricate infrastructure, the miles of cabling and wires, not to mention the complex HVAC and engine control systems, was impressive. Workers everywhere were busy, especially along what’s called “I-95,” a sort of super-highway access corridor that runs nearly the length of the ship. We saw the engine room, public areas, one of the installed passenger suites, and even the bridge.

Celebrity’s parent company, Royal Caribbean Group, has a sustainability program called Destination Net Zero, which it describes as a comprehensive decarbonization strategy that includes pledging to achieve net zero emissions by the year 2050. This includes the delivery of a net zero cruise ship by 2035.

Xcel takes a step in that direction, with Royal Caribbean Group’s first tri-fuel capable engine system, which includes the ability for the ship to run on methane. Two of the ship’s engines, produced by Finnish manufacturer Wärtsilä, are converted Wärtsilä 46F engines; they can also run on two conventional fuel types. When running on methanol, the ship’s emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter are significantly reduced, according to Wärtsilä.

“Wärtsilä has invested heavily into researching viable future carbon-neutral fuels for the marine industry, and methanol has emerged as one of the most promising candidates. This will be the second methanol-fueled engine conversion that we have undertaken and the first with the Wärtsilä 46F engine. We share a commitment to decarbonize shipping, and the transparent partnership between our three companies for this new build project represents an important milestone along the path to achieving this goal,” said Håkan Agnevall, president and CEO of Wärtsilä.

The ship’s total powerplant is comprised of the two converted 8-cylinder Wärtsilä 46F engines that are capable of operating on methanol, as well as two 12-cylinder Wärtsilä 46F engines and one Wärtsilä 32 engine. 

“As we innovate our ship design and offerings, we’re also focused on equally evolving the fuel and technology landscape that powers them,” said Jason Liberty, president and CEO of Royal Caribbean Group. “By incorporating tri-fueled engines, we are ensuring that as alternative, low-carbon-based solutions become more viable, our ships will be ready to adapt and drive the industry forward to a more sustainable and net zero emissions future.”

Celebrity Xcel’s next milestone is its commissioning, scheduled to take place early this fall. The ship is expected to be delivered to Celebrity in October and will sail its first season out of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. to Caribbean destinations before moving to Barcelona and the Mediterranean in 2026.

And this symphony of design and engineering is about to continue. Just after my tour, the company announced that it has contracted with Chantiers de l’Atlantique to build a sixth, yet-to-be-named Edge Class ship in Saint-Nazaire with a delivery date of 2028.

The post Design software helping to build the largest cruise ships appeared first on Engineering.com.

But we can’t. Despite the advantages of MBD, we’ve hit obstacle after obstacle in our experiments with the technology. Each one, I believe, is solvable. To really get MBD to take off, here are the hurdles blocking manufacturers—and how I think we can collectively get around them.

How MBD works, and why we wish we could switch

MBD is all about annotating and detailing your designs directly in 3D. All the manufacturing details that would normally be found on the 2D drawing—geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T), material specifications, surface finishes, bills of materials, assembly and manufacturing instructions, and other notes—are instead tied to the 3D model, which becomes a single source of truth. No drawings required.

MBD has a proven track record of improving communication and reducing errors. Understanding a 3D model comes naturally to most—if you can pan, zoom and rotate, every detail is right where you’d expect. 2D drawings provide the same info, but reading (not to mention creating) drawings is a learned skill that takes time and practice.

For these reasons, many manufacturing-focused CAD systems (such as Autodesk Inventor, which we use at our company) have started to implement MBD and 3D annotation features.

MBD sure seems excellent. So why are we not using it?

Problem 1: Resistance to change

The first MBD obstacle is a classic: resistance to change. Established workflows and ingrained habits mean fighting change.

The veteran staff prefer 2D drawings. Why? You can get everything you need immediately. No panning, zooming, rotating or changing views. Everything is out in front of you. And although we are paperless in the shop, you can still print a drawing when needed. It is something tangible.

Now this issue alone is no reason to shun new processes or tools. It can be overcome by selling the vision.

But what if the benefits are not that easy to see? We found that many stakeholders, like shop supervisors, don’t fully understand the benefits nor see the value of using MBD to replace 2D drawings. This can happen for any technology where the benefits are not equally apparent to all impacted. With insufficient backing, MBD adoption is challenging.

The solution is selling the vision and clearly communicating the “why.” At our company—and I’m sure we’re not alone—employee turnover is higher and we have less veterans compared to past years. Those coming out of school do not have the same skills in reading or creating 2D drawings. Moving to MBD means improved quality by making less mistakes.

Selling the vision starts with the supervisors but carries onto the shop floor. We need to ask for feedback, especially from the veterans, so they have input and feel ownership of the new process.

Problem 2: Non-existent standardization

Creating 2D drawings is an art, and the people who do it are good at it. We have long-established standards for creating 2D drawings, complemented by industry best practices, such as how to space dimensions and where to place them. This means that our 2D drawings are consistent. The shop floor knows what to expect.

To implement MBD, we need to ensure the same level of consistency and quality. Establishing standards for annotating the 3D model is therefore crucial—but challenging.

The key standards organizations (like ASME and ISO) have standards for MBD and detailing in 3D, but they’re not nearly as extensive as the 2D equivalents.

As MBD standards evolve and mature, CAD vendors need to update their tools accordingly. When detailing 2D drawings there are many workflows that lead to consistency. For example, when placing a dimension, it snaps a set distance away from the object and also a set distance away from other dimensions. This is exactly the sort of feature that CAD vendors need to implement for MBD. We need it to be easy to be consistent.

Problem 3: MBD is a time investment

Any process switch requires training. Our engineers, designers and drafters must learn how and when to use MBD. At first, engineers will be less efficient at producing MBD than in creating 2D drawings. It’s a time-consuming and frustrating changeover.

By changing to MBD, we’d be forced to make other changes as well. We use Autodesk Vault for data management, and we already have a system for version control and managing change. However, we have built our processes for distributing information to the shop using 2D drawings. Switching to 3D viewing is not significant, but it does mean deploying new software and training for the end users.

Our 2D drawings are typical manufacturing drawings. We show revisions with revision tags and change summaries in a revision table. Those on the shop floor, especially the machinists, like the revision details, as they can identify what has changed and focus only on what differs from the previous revision.

With 3D annotations—at least in Inventor—there is no way of replicating revision tables and tags. In our current setup, the shop floor has access to the Vault 2D drawing, but not to the change order. We would need to remedy this, but that entails another process change that will seem less convenient even though those affected are getting more information.

There is no easy fix for this problem. Implementing a new process like MBD is going to be an investment in time and money. In our case, we already have the technology but will need to invest time in configuring the system and training all involved.

A pilot is a good place to start. Complete a project running MBD alongside the 2D drawings. Then run another project just using MBD. You’ll learn a lot about best practices and can use the experience to develop a training plan. Then train, train, and do more training—but do it efficiently. Develop a plan. Follow the plan. And do not be afraid to adapt the plan when all does not go to plan. Training builds trust and confidence, and both lower resistance to change.

And don’t forget to take feedback along the way. People like to feel involved in change and in the decision-making process.

Problem 4: Software limitations

When rolling out something new, you want it to look as much like the old as possible. However, not all detailing and annotations can be easily replicated with 3D annotations. Some get close, but require workarounds. The workarounds are inefficient and do not always look like their traditional 2D equivalent.

For example, in Inventor, there is no way to call out a chamfer in 3D. The workaround is to add a leader and manually add the dimensions using model parameters. The end result looks like a 2D chamfer note, but it takes way more time.

So, should we switch to a different method of calling out chamfers for the sake of efficiency, or should we use the workaround to ensure consistency with the 2D drawings? Questions like these can pileup and increase resistance to change.

Step one in tackling this problem is to pressure CAD vendors to improve the product. Between beta testing programs, community forums, resellers, and technical support, there are many avenues to express your concerns and provide feedback. You might be a single voice, but you’re likely not the only one with a given problem.

Next is to look for help on how to deal with limitations. Look to the community and involve your CAD reseller, many of whom have on-staff expertise. You’ll have to incorporate those limitations into your best practices. In our case, we must decide what is acceptable and what requires workarounds to resemble the 2D equivalent.

Problem 5: Supplier compatibility

Ensuring smooth and reliable data exchange between our company and its suppliers can be challenging. Not all our suppliers can handle 3D models or interpret MBD data.

For example, the vendors that cut plate for us need DXFs. DXFs are 2D drawings. So, should we not implement MBD for the plate and continue with 2D drawings?

If we were to implement MBD, we would use MBD for the components we build and assemble, and continue to create 2D drawings for subcontracted operations. It’s not ideal, but it would only affect engineering. Our production team would get the benefits of MBD, and our vendors would continue receiving data with which they can work.

We could then explore current software capabilities to generate DXFs from the 3D model, and if needed we could customize the application to produce the desired results.

Problem 6: What about the old drawings?

We have a significant investment in 2D: Thousands of drawings spanning more than forty years, engineering-approved and ready for shop consumption. If we switch to 3D, what do we do with the existing 2D? Do we maintain two systems? Or do we start a massive investment in switching all existing drawings to MBD?

This is eerily similar to when we switched from designing in 2D with AutoCAD to designing in 3D with Inventor. If only MDB had been an option back then!

The solution, as with switching to 3D CAD, is to leave the existing drawings. We would detail everything new using MBD. During a revision, an effort-vs-reward analysis would decide if we should update the existing 2D drawing or if the change is extensive enough to justify moving the design to MBD.

For selected equipment we could consider offloading the conversion to a third party—someone experienced in MBD who could convert the 2D drawings more efficiently (i.e., cheaper).

Is MBD right for you?

It’s important to assess your organization’s needs carefully before making a process change. MBD implementation is no different.

Our 2D legacy and vendor requirements make it challenging for us to justify the costs of transitioning to MBD. The effort must at least equal the reward; right now, it does not. However, we recognize the potential benefits of MBD and will continue to monitor software advancements and industry changes—perhaps in the future the cost and reward calculus will change.

The post 6 reasons we still can’t switch to MBD—and the ways forward appeared first on Engineering.com.

Let’s start with some breaking news: Today PTC announced CAM Studio for Onshape, a new computer-aided manufacturing environment for the cloud CAD platform. A beta of CAM Studio is available now for Onshape Professional and Enterprise subscribers.

CAM Studio supports 2.5 and basic 3-axis machining for common manufacturing strategies and machines, according to Onshape. Just as with CAD data, Onshape will provide versioning, branching and merging functions for CAM strategies.

There will also be a premium version, CAM Studio Advanced, that will support advanced 3-axis, 3+2 axis, 4-axis, and 5-axis machining strategies, as well as advanced mill and turning machines. CAM Studio Advanced will not be included with any Onshape subscription and will instead be available as a separate purchase, though Onshape has yet to announce its price or release date.

PTC describes CAM Studio as “one of the most requested features in Onshape’s history,” and it really does feel like the last puzzle piece for the platform. What began with browser-based CAD has steadily expanded its scope to PDM, simulation, PCB design, rendering, and now CAM—rounding off Onshape into an end-to-end design platform.

Stay tuned for details as we learn more about CAM Studio, and let me know your thoughts and questions about the release at malba@wtwhmedia.com.

Motif raises $46 million for next-gen BIM software

Engineering software startup Motif announced that it’s raised $46 million towards its goal of revolutionizing building design. Motif believes that building design software is outdated, overdue for an overhaul. They want to revitalize it with modern techniques like cloud computing and machine learning.

Not only is Motif flush with funds, it’s helmed by an experienced leadership team. That includes CEO Amar Hanspal, former co-CEO and chief product officer at Autodesk, and CTO Brian Matthews, former VP of platform engineering at… Autodesk. What do you know, Autodesk is also on the résumés of Motif’s VP of product Matt Jezyk and Motif’s VP of design Lira Nikolovska, who both worked on Autodesk’s industry-dominating BIM platform, Revit.

In a blog post about Motif’s vision, Hanspal laments a “lack of innovation” in BIM software due to “complacency among incumbent vendors with near-monopolistic control.” He doesn’t go so far as to name names, so there’s really no way to know who he’s talking about. Yet I can’t help but feel that, like a magic eye puzzle, the answer is hiding in plain sight.

Altair Enlighten Award open for submissions

The Altair Enlighten Award, which honors sustainable and lightweight design in the automotive industry, is officially open for 2025 submissions. Now in its 13^th year, the annual award is presented in association with the Center for Automotive Research (CAR).

There are seven award categories this year: sustainable product, sustainable process, sustainable computing, responsible AI, module lightweighting, enabling technology, and future of lightweighting. The deadline to apply is June 16, 2025. Altair and CAR will present the awards on September 16, 2025 in Detroit, Michigan.

Think you got the light stuff? Apply here.

The Engineer’s Guide to Digital Transformation

This newsletter may be about software, but let’s not forget that there are real people using that software. Or real AI agents, programmed by real people, or maybe programmed by different AI agents, but someone probably had to program those. Point is, there are people somewhere, and if you’re a person too, you may enjoy The Engineer’s Guide to Digital Transformation.

This 77-page e-book is all about the human element of digital transformation. Written by Peter Carr, author and instructor of the University of Waterloo Watspeed Digital Transformation Certificate Program, it’s chock-full of accessible advice for planning, executing and leading digital change at any organization. Because digital transformation isn’t as simple as downloading some shiny software and bracing for metamorphosis. It needs to be a measured, collaborative strategy that spans your whole organization, humans and all.

This e-book has been a long time in the making, and I’m thrilled it’s finally available for you to read (or for your AI agent to ingest and summarize). Best of all, it’s free—and if you can’t afford that, we’ll send you two copies on the house. Here’s one to get you started.

One last link

To tariff or not to tariff? That is the question. If you’re watching the maybe trade war possibly unfold, perhaps you’d enjoy 13 KPIs to track the impact of 25% tariffs on your manufacturing company by my definite colleague Michael Ouellette.

Got news, tips, comments, or complaints? Send them my way: malba@wtwhmedia.com.

The post Onshape launches CAM Studio, the last piece of the cloud CAD puzzle appeared first on Engineering.com.

This gap between potential and realization highlights the need for an informed perspective on MBSE. By understanding the barriers to success, identifying best practices and fostering collaboration, automotive stakeholders can overcome challenges and unlock the full potential of MBSE. Embracing these perspectives enables organizations to navigate the complexities of implementation more effectively, driving sustainable growth and competitive advantage in a dynamic industry.

Download today to learn how to Embrace MBSE to drive sustainable success.

The post Simulating success with MBSE appeared first on Engineering.com.

First up today is an update on Nemetschek Group’s AI Assistant, a chatbot that will launch in Allplan and Graphisoft Archicad before eventually coming to Nemetschek’s entire portfolio. If you missed that story last week, you can catch up on the details here.

We’ve now learned when users can expect to see the AI Assistant in action, and unfortunately, they’ll have to wait. A representative of Nemetschek Group told me that the chatbot will come to the web version of Allplan in Q1 of this year, but it won’t hit the desktop version until it previews there in October. In Archicad, the AI Assistant will enter beta in Q2 and tech preview in Q3, with a commercial release slated for October 2, 2025.

Even then, not all users will benefit. I was told the AI Assistant will only be available to users with a “Premium Subscription,” though I couldn’t verify which specific plans that describes (neither Allplan nor Archicad has a “Premium” tier available at time of writing).

As I commented last week, it’s hard to get excited about an AI chatbot in 2025. The fact that only the highest-paying users will have access to Nemetschek’s AI Assistant, and many of them will have to wait nearly a year for the privilege, is downright deflating.

Autodesk launches Fusion Sketch AutoConstrain

Pumping a little air back into the AI bouncy castle is Autodesk, which has now released a promised AI feature for Fusion called Sketch AutoConstrain. First announced at Autodesk University last October, AutoConstrain uses AI to determine likely dimensions and constraints and apply them to sketches.

When I first heard about it, my big question about AutoConstrain was: why? I’m so used to defining my own sketches that I figured all this feature could do was get in the way. But after seeing a demo of it earlier this month, I’m starting to come around.

Autodesk’s Jeremy Stadtmueller and Bryce Heventhal gave me a tour of AutoConstrain and some compelling reasons why it can benefit beginner and expert Fusion users alike. You can read more about that demo in AI takes on sketching and drawings in Autodesk Fusion. It also includes a look at Automated Drawings, another recent Fusion feature that puts AI to work.

I’m intrigued, but the users always get the final verdict. Please let me know about your experience with Fusion Sketch AutoConstrain or Automated Drawings at malba@wtwhmedia.com.

Siemens updates Simcenter for auto and aero

The latest update to Siemens Simcenter added some useful features for engineers in the aerospace and automotive industries. For the former, the simulation software now includes integrated aerostructure analysis, automatically creating free-body diagrams and running margin of safety (MoS) calculations.

For automotive engineers, Simcenter now offers the ability to design and simulate axial flux motors in a single workflow that includes Simcenter E-Machine Design and Simcenter 3D. The simulation platform also introduced new tools to optimize gearbox noise, harshness and vibration (NVH) performance, plus enhancements to virtual sensing and additive manufacturing simulations.

3D printing spare parts

For those of you interested in 3D printing, my colleague Ian Wright recently reported on a promising application for the automotive industry. He writes:

“One of the underappreciated applications for 3D printing technology is on-demand production of spare parts, particularly in the automotive industry. While we may never see automakers churning out fleets of 3D printed cars, using additive manufacturing (AM) to ameliorate supply chain issues is growing in popularity.

Case in point, 3D Systems and Daimler Truck | Daimler Buses are now collaborating along with Oqton and Wibu-Systems on enabling the commercial vehicle manufacturer’s certified AM partners to 3D print spare parts. These include underhood and cabin interior applications, along with pins, covers and inserts. According to 3D Systems, this capability will reduce delivery times for spare parts by up to 75%.”

Read the full article here: 3D Systems and Daimler collaborate on remote spare part printing.

One last link

I’ll leave you today with a lively conversation about technology and its growing impact on society. The Social Responsibility of the Technologist is an interview between Peter Carr, digital transformation expert and Engineering.com contributor, and his guest Bruce Schneier, public interest technologist and fellow and lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School.

“I don’t know. Nobody knows. I don’t think we can even hypothesize at this point,” Schneier said, but you’ll have to watch the video to find out what he was talking about (spoiler: it’s Trump).

If that doesn’t slake your philosophical appetite, follow it up with Peter’s 2024 op-ed on why engineers must take responsibility for the widespread impacts of technological change: For good or ill, engineers will decide where Industry 4.0 will take us.

Got news, tips, comments, or complaints? Send them my way: malba@wtwhmedia.com.

The post Fusion AutoConstrain is now live—and it might actually be useful appeared first on Engineering.com.

All these features are now live. Autodesk Assistant is, for the moment, a product support chatbot rather than the interactive helper described at AU. But Autodesk has delivered on AutoConstrain and updated Automated Drawings with new AI functionality, and we got to see them in action.

Engineering.com got a demo of these two new AI tools from Jeremy Stadtmueller, director of product management for Autodesk Fusion, and Bryce Heventhal, senior manager of technical marketing at Autodesk.

Here’s what we learned about Sketch AutoConstrain and Automated Drawings and what else is on the horizon for Autodesk Fusion.

A look at Fusion’s Sketch AutoConstrain

Sketch AutoConstrain—officially known as AutoConstrain in Fusion Automated Sketching—is an AI tool that analyzes sketch geometry to suggest dimensions and constraints. For example, AutoConstrain will add a perpendicular constraint to two lines drawn at right angles. Or a tangent constraint to a line touching an arc. Or a colinear constraint to the midpoints of two circles drawn side by side. And so on.

It’s as easy as hitting the AutoConstrain button in the Fusion sketch menu. The tool generates a list of ways your sketch could be partially or fully defined. You can review the options to pick the one that best matches your intent—or generate more options until you find one that works. Fusion will automatically apply the dimensions and constraints. You can edit all of them manually and continue to use AutoConstrain to update your sketch as often as you like.

The current version of AutoConstrain will not change your sketch geometry. Soon, however, it could have the ability to make slight tweaks, like rounding a dimension from 0.998 to 1. That functionality could exist today, Stadtmueller said, but “people get real nervous when tools change what they’ve drawn.” Autodesk wants users to feel comfortable with AutoConstrain, and that means taking it slow.

Our first question during the demo was, bluntly: Is this a gimmick? The answer was no. For one thing, Heventhal suggests that AutoConstrain will prove helpful for new Fusion users.

“One of the biggest major frustrations in learning CAD is the sketch,” he said. “Fully defining your sketch is… where most people screw up.”

With AutoConstrain, beginner Fusion users could avoid the frustrating errors of over- or underdefined sketches (and their colleagues could avoid the pain of having to fix their rookie mistakes).

What about experienced CAD modelers? These users may imagine AutoConstrain as a kind of 3D Clippy, a tool that aims to be helpful but just gets in the way.

Heventhal, an experienced CAD user, attests otherwise. Even he was skeptical of AutoConstrain at first, but with some slight adjustments to his workflow he realized the AI tool could do most of the work he once did manually to define sketches. Now he’s hooked.

“This is probably my most used [new] tool,” Heventhal said. “I’ll just throw out a couple dimensions, hit AutoConstrain and then go from there.”

It’s still early days for AutoConstrain. Stadtmueller said that right now, the AI is about as good as the best heuristic-based auto-dimensioning tools on the market. But the key difference is that AutoConstrain is always learning, aggregating data from across the Fusion userbase.

“It’s going to get better and better and better,” Stadtmueller said.

Automated Drawings is smartening up

Automated Drawings has been in Fusion since January 2024, and Stadtmueller said the tool “has seen huge adoption over the year it’s been out.”

Fusion Automated Drawings takes a 3D model and generates 2D drawings of the full assembly and each of its parts. That core functionality is based on user templates and heuristics, though Autodesk has now incorporated some AI-based features and plans to add more. The tool now includes an AI model that scans your geometry to classify standard fasteners and exclude them from the drawings.

Running in the cloud, the Automated Drawings process takes only a few minutes, according to Heventhal. In the demo he showed Engineering.com, the tool took seven minutes to generate 53 drawings.

The drawings aren’t perfect. You’ll likely need to edit them up to your aesthetic standards. But yet more automation can help: For any drawing, you can invoke the Auto Dimension tool. Like Sketch AutoConstrain, Auto Dimension will generate a list of ways to arrange the dimensions for your drawing. You can pick the one you like best and manually adjust it from there.

Even if it did nothing else, Automated Drawings saves users the time of manually creating pages for each part of their assembly. That time adds up, especially when you have lots of parts. And with the dimensions placed as well, users have only to refine their drawings rather than create them from scratch.

“The goal of this is to create these prints really quickly,” Stadtmueller said. He conservatively estimated that Automated Drawings can do 60% of the work of creating drawings, and that’s just a start. “Someday I think we’ll get to 100%,” he said.

Like AutoConstrain, Automated Drawings—at least the AI-based parts of it—will learn as users interact with it. That’s already happening with the fastener classifier. Autodesk also plans to use AI to learn how to place dimensions more elegantly, and in accordance with personal or company preferences. The more data these AI models get, the better they’ll be.

But both of the features we saw—Sketch AutoConstrain and Automated Drawings—are just the beginning of Autodesk’s plans for AI.

Autodesk’s North Star vision for AI

AI tools like AutoConstrain and Automated Drawings aim to make CAD more efficient. But even if they succeed, they’re still tacked on to a system that was built in another era.

As Stadtmueller put it: “Why do I care what a sketch engine needs to be stable?”

CAD, Stadtmueller said, is way too hard to use. While it’s important to help today’s users with time-saving tools like Sketch AutoConstrain and Automated Drawings, there’s a grander AI project at play. Stadtmueller called it Autodesk’s North Star vision for AI, a long-term goal to “change the paradigm on how design and manufacturing is done.”

What that paradigm change will look like, exactly, remains to be seen (who can say what AI will look like next year, or even next month?). But it may come quicker than you think. Stadtmueller suggested that Autodesk’s North Star vision for AI may come to fruition in a term that doesn’t feel all that long: just five to ten years. In the meantime, Stadtmueller said, we can expect Autodesk to deliver plenty of helpful AI features for the current design paradigm.

The post AI takes on sketching and drawings in Autodesk Fusion appeared first on Engineering.com.

Today’s top story is Nemetschek Group’s new AI Assistant, a chatbot which will debut in both Allplan and Graphisoft Archicad.

In Archicad, the AI Assistant will be able to interact with BIM models in limited ways. For example, you could ask the chatbot to render your model in some particular style (such as with a wooden façade), and it will return an image generated with Nemetschek’s “AI Visualizer” powered by Stable Diffusion. You could also ask the AI Assistant to reveal some specific elements of your model, such as “the wall section at the East entry,” and it will bring up the proper view.

In Allplan, the assistant connects to the internet to help users find industry knowledge such as the minimum width of emergency exits in London.

You can see a brief demo of these capabilities in this video from Nemetschek:

This is the first manifestation of Nemetschek’s plan to launch an “artificial intelligence layer” across its portfolio this year, a plan which wasn’t so much a roadmap as a signpost declaring that Nemetschek has, in fact, heard of AI and does, in fact, plan to do something with it.

Well, this is something. The AI Assistant could prove to be a nifty feature for users of Allplan and Archicad, but by now chatbots are basically the “Hello World” of AI applications—the first step everyone takes when trying to figure out a new language. The real question is how far Nemetschek can go from here.

CAD in point: Acquisitions and updates

Here are some quick hits for your news radar:

• Software reseller GoEngineer announced that it’s acquired Canadian reseller CAD MicroSolutions, effective as of January 3, 2025. CAD MicroSolutions customers will retain access to their current software licenses and annual maintenance plans, and can call the same support line as before, according to an FAQ posted by GoEngineer.
• Jetcam released an update for CAD Viewer, its free software for viewing 2D CAD files. The update adds folder and file count display, window position and size memory, and other quality of life improvements.
• Hexagon has acquired CAD Service, an Italian developer of visualization tools. Effective January 21, 2025, CAD Service will join Hexagon’s Asset Lifecycle Intelligence division.
• Datakit announced version 2025.1 of its data exchange software, which includes enhanced support for 2D and 3D B-Rep geometry alongside other updates.

One last link

You have to love it when CAD marketers get catty. Piggybacking on the popularity of Peter Brinkhuis’ blog post 37 things that confuse me about 3DEXPERIENCE, Onshape posted a blog of their own: 37 Ways Onshape Simplifies What 3DEXPERIENCE Overcomplicates.

Got news, tips, comments, or complaints? Send them my way: malba@wtwhmedia.com.

The post Nemetschek Group’s new AI Assistant is a start—but a small one appeared first on Engineering.com.