-
The Gear Box is the official blog of Jay Tedeschi, the MSD Sr. Solutions Evangelist. Jay will discuss a wide array of topics, including software interoperability, applicability, and hardware/software developments.
-
From concept...
May 2, 2008 06:26 PMby Jay TedeschiFrom concept to finished product in 3:03… A better or faster example of Digital Prototyping I don’t think I have ever seen…
The video, posted today on YouTube by Technogeekgal it is most definitely worth a look.0 Comment | Add CommentIn The Gear Box > Images, All
-
You can go home again...
April 25, 2008 06:36 AMby Jay TedeschiIf Inventor 2009’s new view manipulation controls prove anything it is that you can go home again… in fact, you are going to have to. Gone is the “Iso View” from the Right Click menu…
Previous versions of Inventor allowed the user to use the “glass box” to set any of the 8 possible Isometric view projections of the model as the “Iso View”. This could then be restored at any time via either the F6 key or the Right Click/Iso View menu selection. Inventor 2009 allows users to store ANY view as what we now call the “Home View”. Quite simply this is achieved via the little “Home” icon positioned to the upper left of the “View Cube”, which itself is a new addition to 2009.If the user hovers above the Home icon, and right clicks, a specific view control menu appears, and among these commands is an option to set the current view as “Home”.
There are additional options available which allow the user to set a fixed distance or have the view always fit to the screen.0 Comment | Add CommentIn The Gear Box >
-
Without a trace...
April 17, 2008 02:37 PMby Jay TedeschiOne of the most significant changes from an ease of use standpoint in Dynamic Simulation has to do with the workflow required to add traces to simulation output. Inventor Simulation Suite 2009 moves the trace tool itself to the Output Grapher, and now allows users to create additional traces without re-running the simulation. Dynamic Simulation data is now cached after a DS run, and new traces can be added by simply specifying the point or points on the model the user wishes to track data from.
There is no longer any need to re-run the simulation, which has the potential to save the user a significant amount of time.
0 Comment | Add CommentIn The Gear Box > Tips, Inventor 2008
-
The object of your inquiry...
April 4, 2008 09:58 PMby Jay TedeschiIs easier to find than you may think. I know that for many of you this may be your first exposure to AliasStudio. Although it is fairly new to our suite of manufacturing tools, it has been the premier industrial design tool in industry for many years. It gives its users the ability to conceptually sketch, paint, model, render and analyze product designs. One of my goals for this year is to help you get acquainted with it, and de-mystify it as much as possible. So, with that said, let’s jump in the water… maybe not the deep end, but not the shallow one either.AliasStudio utilizes layer structure to allow it’s users to store and group data of any type based on the users preferences. Talk to 10 different users and you will probably get 10 different opinions on how best to utilize layers, but suffice it to say, that for any user facing the task of working with a model that he or she has not touched in a while, or data from some other user, the discovery of specific entities may be a bit daunting.
In the image above, I have selected a set of surfaces from my model. Note that I have access to all of the entities which are near or under the cursor, the dialog box allows me to browse, with interactive highlighting, all of the possible selections. Having picked the item of interest I now want to find more information about it. Is it part of a group? What layer is it on? The Object Lister in AliasStudio can be used much like the browser in the Inventor products, and will allow me to discover the information I am interested in. From the Windows pull down menu I can access the “Object Lister”.
The Object Lister can be set to “Show” or organize data in this window based on layer structure or object association. If I select the up/down arrows to the right of the “Search & Pick” window, the Lister display will scroll automatically to the highlighted model entity selected earliler, expanding the object hierarchy as necessary to do so.
Well, that’s it for today’s AliasStudio introductory session. I hope it was helpful. See you next week! By the way, if any of you find this useful, leave me some feedback and let me know… it would be nice to hear from you.0 Comment | Add CommentIn The Gear Box > Tips
-
Off on a tangent... Part 2
March 28, 2008 03:47 PMby Jay TedeschiOnce we have created all four boundary patches, we need only stitch the 5 surfaces into a quilt which will get us setup for our next step which is to evaluate the curvature of the model. For this we will use the Zebra Analysis tool… I know that for most of you, this is something that you probably saw once in a demonstration, or maybe you were looking for the Draft Analysis tool and hit this one by mistake… either way, that was about it. Well, it is for working on parts such these that this tool was implemented.
The quickest way to get started is to select the “Quilt” that I created in the previous step and then Apply or OK.
What results is a display which highlights any surface irregularities in an exaggerated manner by projecting parallel “stripes” onto the selected surface. Industrial Design tools such as AliasStudio use this as one of their default diagnostic shading modes. The reason for this is simple… the human eye is very good at detecting extremely minute imperfections or discontinuities in surface smoothness. This tool highlights those areas for you, which allows you to correct for any unplanned surface characteristics prior to going to manufacturing.
In the first example below, I set the boundary patch blend conditions to “Free” which if you recall gives us a G0 condition at the edge where the patch and the rest of the surface join. As you can see, the “Zebra Stripes” do not align, which indicates that there is a lack of tangency and curvature between these surfaces.
When the boundary patch conditions are set for “Tangency” you can see from the image below that the resultant Zebra Analysis shows the edges of the stripes lining up, which confirms that we do in fact have tangency, or a G1 condition. If the curvature continuity requirement were greater, say for something like Class A surfaces which is defined as G2 and higher, we would have to have used a different workflow as the boundary patch only allows us to define G0 or G1. The fact that there are still slight “jogs” on the stripes at the intersection of the patch and the parent surface are an indicator of this… on a set of G2 surfaces, there would be a completely smooth transition between the two.
Now that we have our smooth offset surface, we can start to define one of our conformal buttons. In the assembly, if I set the edit target to the outer button housing and execute the Copy Object command I can create an associative copy of the offset surface from the upper housing in my button housing file. There are quite a few options when using Copy Object but in the interest of simplicity I will select Body as opposed to Face, as this will let me select the Quilt instead of the individual surfaces. I will also make sure that the Output is set to give me an associative surface.
The result as you can see from the image of my browser below is an adaptive surface.
This surface can now be used with the Split command to give me the conformal “cut” we are looking for.
The split gives us curvature which exactly matches that of the controller housing and as you can see in the image below is exactly what we were trying to accomplish.
2 Comments | Add CommentIn The Gear Box > Tips, Inventor 2008
-
Off on a tangent... Part 1
March 21, 2008 08:02 PMby Jay TedeschiI want you to think for a moment of the obstacles that need to be overcome when creating conformal objects of any type for consumer electronic products. In the case presented here we have buttons on a game controller that must match the contours of the controller housing, however must also be raised slightly above the housing surface for easy actuation.
To achieve this we will use an offset surface from the controller housing itself, however there is a problem with this approach as the resultant surface has holes which match those areas in the housing surface where the button cutouts and blends are.
We need to patch these holes, but need these new surfaces to have the same curvature as the housing itself. So, how do we get a clean, contoured surface, which can be used to give us the conformal cut we are looking for, and that will be associative to any modifications to the housing itself? The boundary patch will give us the results we need, but we will have to set the proper conditions to get the desired results. Take a look at the image below.
The only input that is needed from the user is to select an edge boundary which defines a closed area. As you can see, the edge need not be planar, and in this example I have selected the most extreme hole to patch from a standpoint of curvature. Once selected, if I rotate the model you will see that in the default “Free Condition” the contour of the boundary patch does not match that of offset surface. This is due to the fact that the continuity of the patch in the “Free Condition” is G0, which quite simply means the the curves or in this case surfaces touch at the join point. Obviously, as you can see from the image, this is “slightly less” [grin] than what we probably had in mind when we were thinking of conformity.
“Tangent Condition” will give us a boundary patch with a continuity of G1, which is as the name implies is tangent, or more specifically will result in a set of curves or surfaces which both touch and share a common tangent direction at the join points. As you can see above, changing to a “Tangent Condition” gives us a much better result, and most likely more in line with what we were looking for in the first place.0 Comment | Add CommentIn The Gear Box > Tips, Inventor 2008
-
Thinking Globally...
March 14, 2008 04:16 PMby Jay TedeschiThe next time you are thinking about using Excel for dispensing global parameters throughout your assembly I would like you to consider the following proposal… use a derived part instead. Yep, a derived part. Many of you have probably noticed that when you create a derived part, there is a folder in the Derived Part dialog box which is labeled “Parameters”. Those of you who did, and who investigated further are probably already using this workflow… if this is you, kudos, you can stop reading now. If not, then continue on…Take a look at the image below. There are several interesting topics that could be covered with this example, e.g., skeletal modeling, component position, sketch properties, however we are going to focus on using derived parts for pushing global parameters throughout the assembly. Take a look at the User Parameters in the dialog box shown in the image. There are two parameters in particular, which we want to share amongst several of the parts which make up this F1 rear wing assembly, BRKT_RECESS and WIDTH_INSIDE. To facilitate this we need only enable parameter export by checking the radio button as shown in the image. Once this is done, these parameters will be accessible to any part file which uses this .ipt file as a base component.
Upon opening the rear wing assembly, and creating a new part for the upper airfoil section we exit the base sketch and start the Derived Component command. You will be prompted to select a part for the Base Component, and if we select the part that we just flagged with the two exported User Parameters then what we see when we expand the Parameters/User Parameters folders in the Derived Part browser should look very similar to what I am showing below.
These two parameters are now available for use and will function exactly like any other user parameter. At this point let’s select the Extrude command and pick the magenta section in the image above. We will select Distance for our Extents, a midplane direction and as our termination we will choose “List Parameters” as shown below…
From the following dialog box we select the user parameter WIDTH_INSIDE…
The result is a component with its length driven by a global parameter, which is controlled in a single .ipt file along with the sketch elements needed to create all of the components which are similar to this one, e.g., all of the interior wing airfoils. This is extremely powerful, as all of these parts can be updated by simply editing the source .ipt file and then issuing a global update at the assembly. It is more importantly a clean alternative to using Excel, and can significantly cut down on the number of files required to be linked to achieve similar results.0 Comment | Add CommentIn The Gear Box > Inventor 2008, Tips
-
Be heard...
March 5, 2008 01:41 PMby Jay TedeschiBe heard... before it’s too late. Here's your chance to help make Inventor the product you want it to be. There are only a few days left to make your contribution to the official AUGI Inventor Wish List. Simply follow this link... (http://www.augi.com/inventor/ballot.asp ) to the ballot page, select one of the feature categories and then vote for the improvements you feel are most needed.
Remember, you must be logged it to vote, so if you are not an AUGI member, you will have to register first. It only takes a minute or two, it’s free, they won’t bombard your inbox with emails, and best of all you can stay up to date with the largest Inventor community in existence.0 Comment | Add CommentIn The Gear Box > All, Links, Inventor 2008
-
Good Design...
February 25, 2008 09:33 AMby Jay Tedeschi…never goes out of style. More on that later. I paid a visit to the Peoples Republic of China a few weeks ago… my first time there and I really enjoyed myself. It was not at all what I expected. I was in Shanghai for an Inventor Users Meeting that can only be classified as a total success. There were almost two hundred users who first saw Dr. Andrew Anagnost, Vice President of Autodesk delivered the keynote “The Move from 3D Design to Digital Prototyping”. After that participants were divided into 10 groups for the technical workshops. They were seated according to their interest in product features, sharing their tips and suggestions, discussing topics on Inventor.
Chen Boxiong, Chen Yawei and Ma Maolin who are all Inventor instructors, Liu Zhiguo who is the professor of industrial design at Tsinghua University and myself delivered keynote speeches on design association, release and use of standard-part libraries, assembly techniques and strategy, rendering & color matching, and large assembly techniques and dynamics simulation. After the workshops were complete, vendors who sponsored the event from HP, nVidia and others spoke to the group to bring them up to date with regards to advances in hardware, and then it was on to the design contest, where designers from ServaSJS, 3H (Shanghai) Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Weihai Packaging Machinery Plant distinguished themselves from the other participants and demonstrated their expertise with Inventor.
Now, back to the theme of this entry… good design. I have long been a fan of the work of Poul Henningsen, a name I am quite sure is unknown to most if not all of you. Mr. Henningsen was born September 9th, 1894 in Denmark. He grew up in the era of gas lamps, and was quite simply not happy with the quality of light that the electric lights which replaced them cast. He spent years working on the problem, and his solution to that problem was based on the analysis of the effects and functions of the lampshade.
Henningsen committed himself to eliminate or, at least, diminish the problem of glare, and the result was the classic PH 4/3 Lamp.
He utilized logarithmic curvature in multiple shades which produced a lamp in which the bulb was not visible, and the light was directed downward so that each individual ray of light was reflected no more than once. He also varied the color of the shade elements and experimented with different types of glass materials to alter the tone and intensity of the light. His goal was “to imitate the warm glow of the petroleum lamps” he grew up with. Poul Henningsen’s success in accomplishing this goal is not debatable, and is evidenced by the fact that many of his designs are still in production today including the PH 4/3 shown above as well as the PH5 and some of his larger designs such as the snowball and the most famous, the “Artichoke”.
Now, some of you are most likely wondering how I got from a report of our User Community meeting in Shanghai to a discussion of Poul Henningsen’s work. Well, as I pointed out, I have been a longtime admirer not only of Mr. Henningsens work, but also of his philosophy and approach with regards to his designs. Unfortunately, I had never actually seen an example of his work, with the exception of the occasional sighting in a movie or book. So imagine my surprise upon entering my hotel in downtown Shanghai, the Vista Holiday Inn, to see not one, not two but three PH Artichoke’s hanging in the center of the lobby.
I was stunned, and quite literally spent the next few days pointing them out to anyone who showed the slightest interest and was willing to listen to me wax philosophic on the subject of good design, and the timelessness of these designs. The PH Lamp is perfectly exemplifies the mantra that good design never goes out of style. These lamps are contemporary today, and were considered to be ahead of their time when they were first produced. The last century is full of designers and designs like this, visionaries whose creations are quite literally timeless. I hope to bring some of them to your attention in the coming weeks/months. Until then, have a great week and I will talk to you soon.
2 Comments | Add CommentIn The Gear Box > All
-
We Want You...
February 8, 2008 06:15 PMby Jay TedeschiWe Want You... to help us make Simulation better.
As you may or may not know, Autodesk acquired PlassoTech in August 2007 in order to enhance the simulation and optimization capabilities in Inventor. Our goal is to make it easier than ever to simulate, optimize and validate a complete digital prototype.
In the pursuit of that goal, we are looking to gather some insights from you about the design challenges, tools and industry. Please take this short (6 questions, ~5 min) survey to help us create the most capable and easy to use tools for Digital Prototyping. It's quick, it's painless, and besides, it's just plain fun to visit a site named "SurveyMonkey" [grin]
