Onshape and simulation

pete_yodis

Pete Yodis said:

@DriesV I am also looking forward to simulation being done well on a cloud platform.  I want to be able to offload simulations and have solutions return far faster than previously available on my local PC.  This would allow more what if scenarios in design and to more quickly iterate to a better solution.  Right now I am limited to how little time I have to run enough scenarios to where you say - "It's good enough, because that's all the time I have."  This part seems so obvious that it is a little surprising that simulation isn't more readily available in this format yet.  I have seen SimScale.  They seem to be one of the few that is doing this now, but in time I would think everyone would have to offer this.  200 Euro per month per account seems to be too high in my opinion, but maybe not.  I would think Onshape would handle this type of more specialized area through their API.

I think what makes a lot of sense is for Analysis to lead design as much as possible.  These guys seem to have the makings of something interesting (http://www.solidthinking.com/ProductOverview.aspx?item=Inspire Overview&category=Products)... If the analysis could be done quickly, then It could more lead the geometry decisions rather than lag it.  In the current set of tools you have to imagine/conceive the geometry first - then analyze.  You end up only analyzing what you conceived of - even if its part of an iterative process where you conceive, analyze, revise the concept, analyze, etc...  If you could give loose endpoints and parameters, then the analysis could yield the most efficient load paths and create geometry only where needed.  This might lead to some radical geometry that we would not initially conceive of and shapes that maybe only 3D printing could produce - but I think this is where we are going.  I'm sure we'll find that designs will then more replicate nature as nature is intricately more efficient than what we have been able to conceive of from scratch.

Some people are calling this "generative design"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72DZqunUpKQ&index=4&list=PLRiWZFltuYPGO8bUJr1D3Uf-w6W2kcSC_

http://www.deskeng.com/virtual_desktop/?p=9625

http://lineshapespace.com/how-generative-design-marries-nature-with-technology-to-bring-objects-to-life/

fastwayjim

Ya, we're definitely seeing a more "biological influence" in designs lately, and I like it! Additive manufacturing makes those designs commercially viable as well. May the world be full of cat pelvises!

In regards to the term"generative design" I think that may be a bit of marketing's influence, as it has been traditionally called shape optimization or topology optimization, and there's been some solutions on the market for some time now.

Boy, is there anything that Autodesk doesn't have their foot in right now? "Jack of all trades, master of... "

kevin_quigley

SolidThinking Inspire was something we were asked to consider being a test site for a year or two back. The problem was, and is, the system is aimed at the designer, the creator of the shape. It is a topology optimisation system built on a mainstream FEA code. The difficulty was it is expensive. Something like £5000 here, when bundled woth Evolve, then around a £1000 a year subs.

We were, I suppose the target market. I tested it, and it was good, but the data from it is rudimentary...think a coarse dumb organic solid. It is intended to give you a starting point for a design, taking into consideration the anticipated loads. Basically, so you can design the part knowing it "should" be strong enough and should be optimised for weight. All very good.

but here is the issue. Most part designs the average product designers do are defined by other criteria besides loading and weight. For example, we do a lot of modular canopy systems design work. In that, the structures have to be analysed to certain building standards. But most of the time, the calcs might dictate a 60mm diameter steel tube, we specify 114 tube. The design must consider things like user perception. What 'looks' strong? Speccing a tube twice the diameter makes little difference to cost or margins for these applications.

in moulded products, many of the requirements are to avoid breakage. Inspire is a strictly linear static solution, so your average high deflection, non linear solution will tell you nothing. Even when it does, you are restricted by your application and manufacturing process. The optimisation solution might say a sexy 3d lattice is best but how do you make it? Even if you can make it how do you model the form? Even if you can model it (invariably using things like TSplines) is a 1.5mm section really advisable from a durability point of view?

the other issue with this approach is that we might use it or need it on maybe 3 out of 100 projects a year. It is simply not a tool most designers need on a daily basis. 

To be fair SolidThinking now realise that. Their biggest market for this is in existing customers using the parent group's various FEA solutions. 

It all comes down to access to tools. If you keep the tools expensive and difficult to use they are always going to be niche specialist tools. But if you open them up and make them accessible to all...so the user doesn't have to consider cost of use..they will get used. Not on every project, but on some.

currently the only company and product with this type of access all areas for general wide ranging tools is Autodesk and Fusion 360. Priced at $100 a month. My hope for Onshape is that they too will take this approach. But...