This article is a little bit different, as I will be focusing on one of my own projects that has recently been made public and has generated some press interest: a 3D-printed drone.

3D-printed drones are not new. However, printing a drone with the electronics embedded inside, using a high-temperature thermoplastic (ULTEM 9085), is a first.

And naturally, my CAD software of choice was SOLIDWORKS. So in this article, I will be talking about how I utilized various features of this software to realize our product, starting from the predesign phase through to simulation and renders and finally in generating the STL files for 3D printing.

A common theme in my articles is how CAD software can save time and increase productivity, and this was apparent from the very start of this project.

Project Background

The project was born out of a class project at my university and a collaboration with Stratasys Asia. Stratasys was interested to see if we could print a drone that was ready to fly out of the printer, and my class project required some preliminary designs for academic credit. So I decided to merge the two projects and kill two birds with one stone. The class project resulted in a basic flight hardware list, as well as a preliminary design. That design changed significantly as the project moved from paper into reality, as you will see later in the article.

Design #1.Idealized render of the concept.

Size Matters

Commercial drones come in a number of sizes, with the most common being in the 200- to 400-mm class. This dimension measures the diagonal length from rotor to rotor. The 3D printer that I used at the Stratasys office here in Singapore was the Fortus 450mc. The 450 here is the dimension of the print bed length. So with the maximum print dimension being 450mm, we opted for a 400-mm class drone, because bigger drones can lift a larger payload and can have a longer flight time.

So, with the class of drone decided, we next wanted to determine which size of propeller we should use. As a rule of thumb, bigger propellers can move more air and generate more lift. So we wanted as large a diameter propeller as possible for the 400-mm class, while leaving enough clearance so the props don’t smash into each other. At first, I started this task the old-fashioned way (with pencil and paper). After a couple of iterations and a bit of wasted paper, it dawned on me that this would be a lot easier if I just switched my laptop on and sketched it out in SOLIDWORKS. It has the advantage of point-and-click dimensioning, so there is absolutely no need to use a ruler.

Sketching the diagonal of 400mm and then sketching the prop outlines allowed us to determine the maximum prop diameter. In this case a prop of 282.84mm (11.15 in) diameter would cause a collision.

So with the maximum propeller diameter found, we looked online to find a suitable propeller that would fit our envelope, allowing an extra bit of clearance for good luck. We opted for the Graupner eProp, with a 254-mm (10-in) diameter. Plugging those values into the basic sketch yielded a propeller tip clearance of exactly 28.84mm. Good enough. And doing this most basic of tasks in the CAD software was much more efficient in terms of both time saved and accuracy of measurement.

Prototype Designs

With the basic geometric constraints being set, it was time to get creative and start some modeling.

But before we go into detail about the design process, I should highlight the constraints that dictated the final shape of the design.

The requirement to have the drone fly out of the printer meant that it should undergo as little post-processing as possible. This meant that we should use zero internal support structure, be it soluble or breakaway. Not only is it inadvisable to submerge electronic components inside a warm bath (to dissolve soluble supports) but given the compact cavity inside the drone, it would have been time consuming (if not impossible) to remove breakaway structures without damaging the electronics inside. So, we opted to have zero internal supports. This introduced some interesting issues.

Rather than having removable supports, we had to design the structure so that it was self-supporting, and this meant that any overhangs needed to be at a 45-degree angle. However, having everything at 45 degrees results in a rather angular, boxy-looking drone. If we wanted to maintain a curved and organic product, we would need to keep the 45 degrees internally, while covering the exterior angles with curved surfaces. In other words, we would need to cover the whole thing in layers of deadweight in order to keep it looking pretty. Deadweight is the enemy of aerospace product design.

After measuring the electronic components and incorporating them into the basic design, our optimized drone would have looked like this:

Design #2.Incorporating flight controller, propeller diameter and battery cavity.

However, after taking into account the 45-degree angle rule, the final design ended up looking like the image below. Fans of comedy sci-fi series Red Dwarf may notice similarities with the show’s Star Bug spacecraft. Others may see more than a passing resemblance to the body of a frozen chicken.

Design #3.A Star Bug or a frozen chicken? You decide.

After entering the ULTEM 9085 material properties into SOLIDWORKS, it was easy to do a mass analysis of the CAD model. The mass of plastic would come in at around 520g. That is very heavy for a quadcopter frame. Thankfully, the Stratasys Insight software allowed us to employ some honeycomb filling into the deadweight areas, reducing that mass by a few grams.

Assembly Design

After getting the basic shape and dimension correct, it was time to design some housings for the modified electronic components. This was to allow the electronics to fit flush within the drone body and to allow us to print directly over a flat surface. Also, the housings had a secondary benefit of protecting the components from the heat of the freshly extruded plastic.

Three housings were preprinted in ULTEM 9085 material. The first was a flat plate to allow us to print a battery cavity, the second was a flight controller adapter, and the third was for the radio receiver. Due to the sensitivity of the receiver to temperature, this part was embedded last, reducing the time needed to remain in the printer chamber.

Three separate housings to protect the electronics (left) and their location in the drone (right).

When embedding hardware in a print job, it is important to leave a little clearance to allow for any shrinkage. We left 0.5mm per side, and that seemed to work just fine. Creating the adapter housing slots within the main body was easily achieved. First I located the center of mass with the SOLIDWORKS mass analysis tool, and using that as my datum, I positioned the flight controller and receiver housing within the main body.

With all the design work and electronic modification complete, it was time to print the drone. The SLDPRT files were all saved as individual files and then exported via SOLIDWORKS as STL files, ready for printing.

Actual Print

We began the print and made the first pause after 5 hours and 11 minutes, at which time the battery plate was installed. Printing was resumed, encasing the plate and creating a cavity internally.

Aborted test print showing installation of second adapter housing and flight electronics.

After 9 hours and 10 minutes, the printer was paused again, allowing us to embed the flight controller in the housing, the speed controllers and the custom wiring harness. Printing was again resumed.

The final pause was at 13 hours and 20 minutes, allowing the receiver to be connected to the flight controller and the receiver to be slotted into its position. The printer was resumed for a final time and the entire job was finished after 14 hours in total.

After removing the drone from the printer chamber and allowing it to cool sufficiently for handling, the final touches were added. The motors and props were connected, the battery was added, and we powered the drone up to check that everything had survived. We were happy to see that it had and that everything was powering up as it was supposed to. So we stripped the motors off and sent it to a third party for painting. The blue finish that you can see in the final picture is the result of that painting process.

Final Product

The final printed and painted drone—ready to fly.

After receiving the drone back from the paint shop, it was time for a proper flight test outdoors.

All was functioning as it should be, with the drone being capable of some 20 minutes of flight time off a single charge.

It was fairly sluggish to respond to vertical changes, but this was to be expected, as it was a little overweight. This is something to work on in the future. All in all though, the project was a success, and we are looking forward to improving the design in future.

Tips and Tricks

If you are considering embedding hardware to a 3D print, be it mechanical or electrical, then we would recommend a few guidelines to help you achieve your goals. There are as follows:

• Allow clearance for parts to be embedded (around 0.5mm per side).
• Ensure hardware surfaces to be printed over are clean and free from obstruction (flat).
• If necessary, print adapters to ensure a good fit and flat surface.
• A coating of acrylic paint applied to the hardware can assist with layer adhesion on the top.
• Designing clips into the body can help retain the hardware while printing is continued on top.
• If using a heated chamber, the most sensitive electronics should be embedded at the top of the item to be printed, reducing the time exposed to high temperature.
• Under no circumstances should you print over a battery pack—install the battery after the print.

Additionally, if you would like to read the Stratasys guidelines on embedding static mechanical items, please read this.

It used to be that CAD-capable hardware was stationery—the workstation plugged into the wall. However, as computers get more capable, IT departments and business owners/operators are increasingly asking what trade offs there are with mobile computing—if any. While a true mobile, or “full-figure,” workstation, featuring a 17-inch screen and brimming with RAM, storage and ports is a known desktop workstation killer, how do the latest ultramobile computers, ranging from tablets to super-thin and -light laptops, compare? With this article, we will attempt to see how close to real portability the new generation of mobile devices has come for the CAD user.

We will examine several different form factors of computers, using a representative computer in each form factor.

1. Tablet device—Apple iPad Pro 12.9 inch
2. Tablet/keyboard system—Microsoft Surface Pro 3 and 4
3. Lean mobile workstation—HP EliteBook Folio G1
4. For comparison, a “full-figure” mobile workstation—BOXX GoBOXX 17 MXL

Tradition

Traditionally, CAD workstations have been big black boxes that sit on a desk or floor, able to warm your feet during cold months or your coffee. They would vacuum up dust bunnies, dirt and shop residue into the filter, vents and fans. These devices were loaded with RAM, one to two hard drives, a professional grade graphics card powering two or more monitors, a slew of USB ports for all the connected devices and the fastest CPU we could afford. If that wasn’t enough, some users over-clocked and water-cooled their CPUs. A massive power supply was required. We would spare no costs to get the high-quality components, shunning the “consumer” grade.

Some users went as far as to create custom workstations, building the fastest, hottest, power-hungry workstation. We understood that time was money. We were far too important to have to wait for computers to calculate.

Freed from the Office

With the traditional workstation, we were bound to the office. Some with a cooperative IT department, or for those who took matters into their own hands, a VPN access let us use our workstation from home, but that was the extent of portability.

However, these days, real portability is in high demand. Our connections are being made wirelessly. We are more accustomed to tools that allow us to do whatever we need to do in the coverage of a radio tower. Computers have shrunk down to pocket size, and are more likely to be called “devices.” CPU and GPU power has increased. Input devices disappear as we interface with our devices using touch. The cloud brings a new level in portability as we can shift the hard work of CPU and GPU to a bank of servers in the cloud.

Engineers are being freed from the office.

Mobile versus Portable?

What type of computer—or device—can be used for CAD and engineering? What types of devices are cost effective? With the traditional view of CAD workstations undergoing a change, now including much smaller, portable devices, let’s take some time and go over how these changes may affect your next investment in a mobile CAD workstation.

We will first define mobile as the ability to move from place to place. That definition doesn’t mean that the movement should be simple and easy—just that it needs to be movable. Mobile doesn’t provide a good enough definition. I’d like to recommend that we use the term “portable.” Portable, per Merriam-Webster, is the capability “of being carried or moved about.” A portable CAD workstation, by this definition, is one you can pick up and carry with you onboard a flight.

Requirements

Here’s my quick list of requirements for a portable CAD workstation. The device must:

1. Be portable
2. Have a screen for viewing
3. Have an input device for navigation and precise input
4. Be able to support external monitors

Software Requirements

We can take a quick look at some of the software requirements. These may be different than you are expecting, but keep in mind that software is being delivered to the end user differently these days.

In today’s CAD market, you will find that most of the main software players are providing customers with several ways to access and license their products. Companies like Onshape, a relative newcomer to the CAD market, has developed a complete CAD-in-the-cloud solution that uses a subscription-based licensing and has all data stored in the cloud. Autodesk, as of earlier this year, has moved to a subscription-only model (for new purchases). It too, offers a CAD-in-the-cloud option with Fusion360. PTC, Siemens PLM and Dassault Systèmes are now offering subscriptions along with perpetual licensing, giving customers an option as to how they want to purchase their software.

All CAD vendors are now offering, or have in beta, some form of “CAD in the cloud” and local software installation (perpetual licensing).

Siemens PLM offers a variation on the theme with a “roaming” profile for its Solid Edge product. This roaming profile allows your CAD license to be used across many different devices and have your personal settings follow you from device to device using a cloud-based profile.

Define Terms

With these different options, hardware requirements can range from a $300 tablet for CAD in the cloud to upwards of $4,500 for a “full-figure” standalone portable workstation. But let us first narrow down our choices.

While one might wonder if the many different tablet devices running on Android, Linux, etc. would be useful for CAD, they are, by and large, devices on which to consume content rather than create it. Very little authoring or creation is done on these devices.

Notice the use of “standalone.”Here we are talking about a single device doing all the CAD, GPU and simulation processes on a single device.

Now let the fun begin.

Tablet Device Representative: Apple iPad Pro

The Apple iPadPro 12.9-inch model by itself does meet our minimum requirements for a portable CAD workstation—but just barely.Despite the commercial success of the iPad, it is foremost a consumer’s device. The iPad Pro 12.9-inch model fares a little better when configured with a stylus and keyboard. Still, its primary use is to consume and run lightweight applications. It is not a true creator tool like the Surface line of products.

iPad Pro 12.9 inch shown with optional pen and keyboard. (Image courtesy of The Verge.)

This device has the following specs:

• Screen size: 12.9-inch touch screen, with 2732x2048 resolution
• Weight: 1.57 lbs(713g)
• Storage: 256GB solid-state drive
• Architecture: A9X chip with 64‑bit architecture Embedded M9 coprocessor
• RAM: Apple doesn’t advertise RAM in its devices—IFixIt.com reports 4GB DDR4 in teardown
• OS: iOS X
• Battery: Built‐in 38.5‐watt‐hour rechargeable lithium‐polymer battery
• Ports: USB 3.1/Thunderbolt 3 Microsoft Surface Pro 3
• Price, with stylus and keyboard: $1,267

Tablet/Keyboard System Representative 1: Microsoft Surface Pro 3

The Microsoft Surface Pro 3 was replaced by the Surface Pro 4 about a year ago, but stock remains with a few resellers. Bargain hunters will delight in getting last year’s model at big discounts while taking only a small hit in performance. Microsoft did little to improve specifications with the Surface Pro 4.

• Screen size: 12-inch touch screen, with 2160 x 1440 resolution
• Weight: 1.76 lbs (800g)
• Storage: 256GB solid-state drive with microSD card for expansion
• Architecture: Intel Core-i5-4300U Processor (1.9Ghz up to 2.90GHz) and Intel HD Graphics 4400
• RAM: 8GB
• OS: Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
• Battery: Built-in 38-watt-hour rechargeable lithium-polymer battery
• Ports: Full-size USB 3.0, microSD card reader, 3.5-mm audio jack, Mini DisplayPort
• Price as configured, with mouse and keyboard: $1,164

Tablet/Keyboard System Representative 2: Microsoft Surface Pro 4

Hardware options for CAD have been noticeably downsized since Microsoft starting delivering its Surface products.

• Screen size: 12.9-inch touch screen, with 2736 x 1824 resolution
• Weight: 1.73 lbs (786g)
• Storage: 256GB solid-state drive with microSD card for expansion
• Architecture: Intel Core-i5-6300U Processor (2.4Ghz up to 3.00GHz) and Intel HD Graphics 520
• RAM: 8GB
• OS: Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
• Battery: Built-in 38-watt-hour rechargeable lithium-polymer battery
• Ports: Full-size USB 3.0, microSD card reader, 3.5-mm audio jack, Mini DisplayPort
• Price as configured, with mouse and keyboard: $1,599

Lean Mobile Workstation Representative: HP EliteBook Folio G1

The next device is the HP EliteBook Folio G1.

• Screen size: 12.5 inch, with 1920x1080 resolution and full HD

• Weight: 2.14lbs(971g)
• Storage: 128GB solid-state drive
• Architecture: Intel Core M5-6Y54 (1.1Ghz up to 2.70GHz) and Intel HD Graphics 515
• RAM: 8GB with options for 4,8 or 16GB
• OS: Windows 10 Professional 64-bit
• Battery: Built‐in 38‐watt‐hour rechargeable lithium‐polymer battery
• Ports: (2) USB 3.1/Thunderbolt 3 and 3.5-mm audio jack
• Price as configured: $1,219

Full-Figure Mobile Workstation Representative: BOXX GoBOXX17 MXL

• Screen size: 17.3-inch, full-HD LED, with 1920 x 1080 resolution

• Weight: 8.6 lbs(3,901g)
• Storage: 512GB M.2solid-state drive with PCIe
• Architecture: Intel Core-i7-6700 (4.0Ghz) Quad-Core processor and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M 4GB
• RAM: 32GB DDR4-2133
• Battery: 82-watt-hour smart lithium-ion
• OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
• Ports: Full-size USB 3.0 eSATA, (3) USB 3.0, (1) USB 3.1/Thunderbolt 3, (1) HDMI, (2) DisplayPorts, 6-1 card reader, (4) 3.5-mm audio jacks, gigabit Ethernet LAN
• Price as configured: $3,942

Hardware Assessment

This section will look at hardware-related components of the various form factors.

Service and Upgrade

This area looks at how easy the devices are to service, upgrade and access components. You will see right away that new devices are thin and very compact. They are generally sealed devices, and the internal components can be glued to the shell. The GoBOXX was the only device to be deemed easily serviceable. But that is to be expected of a traditional laptop. The Folio was a little worse. With Surface Pros and the iPad, the access is mostly denied due to a sealed touchscreen and glued-down components. These devices are not repairable except through a professional. The iPad is a little better than the Surface Pros because it utilizes more fastening hardware than glue.

Configurations

How configurable are these devices in terms of choosing different CPUs, RAM and hard drive options? The tablets and Folio are the least configurable. Once again, the form of the device dictates what you can put inside it. The GoBOXX wins hands down because it allows you to pick and choose hardware components. The Surface Pros are in the middle of the pack.

CPU

The tablets all have similar CPUs. CAD users might be surprised that CAD programs still run, for the most part, using a single core. Because of this, the number of cores only benefits specific types of tasks like rendering and simulation. For general CAD use, a single core with a high clock speed is beneficial. These devices all run a lower powered CPU to extend battery life and to keep the heat down. Lower power also means slower clock speeds. This is the reason the GoBOXX, sporting the i7-6700 CPU,wins. Unlike the BOXX desktop workstation, the GoBOXX runs at its rated clock speeds rather than being overclocked, which is still faster than the same processor in other vendors’ mobile workstations, which get “throttled down” to lessen the heat produced.

GPU

GPUs and CPUs are combined in many of the devices. Most of the devices utilize the CPU to do the graphics processing. This is required because of the space limitations and cooling requirements of the GPUs. To be honest, we were surprised how well tablet devices handled the rigors of CAD graphics. In this category, we see a leveling of the scores for the majority of the devices. The GoBOXX does manage to pull ahead because of its GPU, however.

Device Connectivity

Any measure of device connectivity should include both physical ports for connecting peripherals and Bluetooth connectivity. The iPad does the worst in this category as it has a single USB 3.1/Thunderbolt 3 port and Bluetooth connectivity. The issue with this device is that you cannot utilize the port if you are charging it. They are the same port. All devices must be connected using Bluetooth. Adding more peripherals will require an adapter, which just adds to cost and requires extra storage.

The Folio doesn’t fare much better, having a total of two USB 3.1 ports. But, like the iPad, you will more than likely need to purchase adapters.

The Surface Pros proved much better for connecting peripherals compared to the iPad and Folio. The Surface Pro devices include a USB 3.0, MiniDisplayPort and MicroSD card slot. This pairing of ports allows for multiple monitor outputs via the MiniDisplayPort, with use of most devices via the USB 3.0 and, more importantly, the microSD card slot for expanding disk space.

The GoBOXX, being a full-sized device, sweeps the series with three USB 3.0 ports, one USB 3.1, one HDMI video output, two DisplayPort outputs and a 6-1 card reader. I’ll also add that all the devices include a 3.5-mm audio jack. But the GoBOXX has dedicated jacks for headset, microphone and S/PDIF digital output.

Display Outputs

The portable CAD device will generally have a small screen, and in the design world, screen space is king. Here we have some issues. The iPad Pro will connect with an Apple TV or use an adapter out of its single Thunderbolt (USB 3.1) port. You better work fast if you plan on using your iPad with an external monitor because it quickly drains your battery. You can buy a Apple TV to mirror your screen.

The Folio, like the iPad Pro, is limited and will require an adapter to connect to an external monitor.

The Surface Pro devices utilize the double signals of the MiniDisplayPort and connect to other DisplayPort monitors. The right configuration of monitors allows you to connect two monitors by a daisy chain method and extend your display across three screens (your laptop screen and two monitors).

Finally, the GoBOXX offers up two DisplayPorts and HDMI output from it’s NVIDIA Quadro M3000M graphics card. It also has a 17-inch display. However, being users of touchscreen devices ourselves, we did find ourselves touching the screen a lot.

Size

The iPad Pro, Folio and Surface Pro devices are equal across the board. These devices are lightweight based on their designs. As would be expected, with a 17-inch screen and all of its features, capabilities (will cover next) and individual components, the GoBOXX is large enough to get you a few snickers and chuckles at the coffee shop.

Weight

This score is one of the more critical requirements for a portable device. Once again, the iPad Pro, Folio and Surface Pros are equal. By comparison, the GoBOXX is a beast. The screen size is driving the size and weight of this device. It weighs in at 8.25 lbs with a battery and 10.65 lbs with the power brick.

CAD and CAE Functionality Assessment

CAD and CAE functionality is driven directly by the CPU and availability of RAM. CAD in the cloud reduces the demand on local CPU.

2D CAD

All devices were able to manage 2D CAD. Most of the CAD vendors have provided 2D CAD tools across the different devices and operating systems.

3D Visualization

Most CAD visualization software allows the user to define whether they want the software to utilize CPU or GPU for visualization effects. The iPad Pro and Foliodid the worst. The Surface Pro devices are hitting, once again, mid-range. Software original equipment manufacturers have been working directly with Microsoft to optimize their software with the Surface product lines.

3D CAD (Local)

The ability to handle 3D CAD is of great value to many engineers. Running 3D CAD locally means the ability to run CAD on the device itself—without requiring an Internet connection to the cloud. Here, RAM, CPU and GPU reign supreme. The machine with the highest quantity of RAM and the fastest CPU will win. But we will see something else is also a factor.

The iPad Pro scores the lowest when running 3D CAD. This is due largely to the OS. There are few CAD programs that run on the iPad. iPads run on a phone OS and not a “traditional” OS, leaving most options as 2D-based CAD apps.

With dedicated graphics and a whopping 32GB of RAM, the GoBOXX wins, yet again.

3D CAD (Cloud)

Here, the iPad Pro gets a reprieve. Due to the ability to run CAD in the cloud with Onshape and the ability to run CAD in a browser using the Frame environment, you can run Solid Edge and SOLIDWORKS on the iPad Pro. Here, the quality of your Internet is most important. All devices were equal but the iPad Pro suffered for the lack of a mouse. CAD functionality requires precise control to navigate menus, pop-ups, etc. Onshape has done a decent job in providing the user with a “swipe” experience, but other CAD software still requires more than touch input. Apple does provide its Pencil at extra cost for the iPad Pro. The Surface Pro devices have the pen. The Folio provides a touchpad. The iPad Pro is alone in not being able to connect a mouse. Yes, the iOS is hurting the iPad Pro, again.

Ethernet

The other main hindrance we found was the inability to hook the iPad Pro up to a local area network. You would require, yes, another adapter, and when using the adapter, you lose access to power.

The Folio and Surface Pros also will require adapters to connect to local networks, but unlike the iPad Pro, you have multiple ports to choose from.

The GoBOXX has a dedicated Ethernet port.

Rendering

Rendering is CPU and GPU intense, utilizing multi-threading (multiple cores). RAM is another significant requirement. The Surface Pros render using the integrated GPU but can get overheated, leading to a “throttled-down” CPU, which can cause rendering to take longer to complete. Because of its dedicated graphics card and its 32GB of RAM, the GoBOXX is the choice for those doing serious rendering.

FEA

Finite element analysis (FEA) is also a CPU-intense function. The most RAM and highest performing CPU will score the highest. This is also a function that the cloud-based tools are starting to leverage. The GoBOXX did the best, with the Surface Pro 4 next.

Large Assembly

Size of assemblies is limited by RAM and how well the tools embedded in your CAD software leverage RAM utilization. Large assembly management and 3D visualization go hand in hand.

Here we used an assembly that contained over 400 unique components, with a full component count of over 1,400. Yes, nuts, bolts and washers count and add up quickly.

Most devices handled this well, although rotation did lag on the Surface Pro 3.

Conclusion

Has any manufacturer captured all the requirements of CAD in a truly portable workstation? I’d say we’re only about 60 percent there.

If you’re a one-man engineering shop that requires FEA, simulation and rendering along with the general CAD, then you still have to go with a full-figure mobile workstation like the GoBOXX17 MXL. Its performance won’t fail to please the most demanding engineer. Along with the ability to swap out hardware components, the GoBOXX even offers the ability to customize the color of the backlighting on the keyboard. This device’s 17-inch display can make do when you have to set up with just one screen. The only thing you need to add is a good mouse.

Author's setup with Surface Pro 3 and two large monitors running Solid Edge.

Microsoft’s Surface Pros are decent devices that will meet the needs of all but the most demanding CAD. Opt for more memory (8GB or 16GB of RAM). The devices’ ability to run multiple monitors using the MiniDisplayPort and connecting to a LAN with a USB to Ethernet will make it work as well as, if not better than, the workstation you will replace.

The laptop form factor exemplified by HP’s Folio may be more suited for traditional business use than CAD. The lack of USB ports will make it hard to set up in a CAD user environment.

While the iPad Pro rules in terms of portability, its lack of mouse input and single USB connector limits its prolonged CAD use. Also, since iOS has not been ported to by many CAD vendors, using CAD on it will be confined to browser-based CAD products (like Onshape and Fusion360).

Your Laptop is Your Desktop; Your Office is Wherever

CAD work doesn't need to look like this anymore thanks to advances in hardware and the cloud. (Image courtesy of Wikipedia.)

Today’s laptops are more affordable and powerful than ever. If you go to any of the top hardware companies—whether it be Dell, HP, BOXX, you name it—you’ll be able to find a mobile workstation that includes an i7 or Xeon processor, 32 GB or 64 GB of RAM, a 512GB SSD and an NVIDIA Quadro GPU in the ballpark of $2,400–$5,000+.

The most interesting thing about modern mobile workstations is that their price points have started to intersect with their desktop counterparts. While it true that desktop workstations are capable of being loaded with more powerful hardware, mobile workstations can more than hold their own when it comes to CAD. Simulation, though, might be another matter.

So, what’s the biggest reason for switching to a mobile workstation? Well, given their form factor and relatively lighter weight, mobile CAD workstations allow designers to be, well, more mobile. Instead of bringing a client into an office for a project review, a design team can meet the client and do on-site design reviews that may lead to deeper product development insight.

Calling Down the Cloud

While powerful laptops are one way to take your CAD workflow on the road, the cloud also offers another option for CAD techs on the go. Whether you opt to use Amazon Web Services, Frame or any other cloud computing service, the option to lighten your laptop load is becoming increasingly more compelling.

The cloud can be a powerful asset for designers on the go. (Image courtesy of Jisc.)

Sure, some may argue that cloud- or browser-based CAD tools don’t offer the features that a full-blown Windows-based CAD application can provide—and they’re right. However, cloud-based CAD doesn’t have to be a hobbled CAD operation. In fact, with today’s cloud solutions, virtual machines (VMs) can be spun up at any time and full Windows-based CAD applications can be used just as they would from a workstation or bulky CAD-centric laptop.

But what does that kind of power cost? Not surprisingly, very little. With the proliferation of GPUs and the continually falling prices of computing power, VMs can be called up for pennies an hour. Let’s take a look at two examples.

First we’ll start with Fra.me (Frame).

According to Frame, its top-tier “Plus” plan has a monthly fee of $27.99/month. With that money, you get 1,000 credits, your own cloud computer, access to worldwide data centers, a 1-GB symmetric connection to ensure latency issues aren’t holding your work hostage and the option to buy additional credits at $0.015 each.

Frame VM configuration come in four basic packages: the Air (both 4-GB and 8-GB configurations) and Pro (16-GB and 64-GB configurations). For most designers, the 8-GB model should suffice for most modeling work and a switch to a 16-GB VM can be made when simulation or rendering is needed. In a heavy simulation setting, a 64-GB machine can be called down to crunch large animation renderings or multi-physics simulations.

“With Frame, I can get rid of my boat anchor of a laptop and literally take a weight off my shoulders,” said Milt Venetos, founder of Wyatt Enterprises, in a quote given to Frame. “Now I can use SOLIDWORKS anywhere, even at the beach.”

While Frame is a popular start-up option for cloud-based CAD internet, leviathan Amazon also offers a solution of streaming Windows-based application from its servers. Called AppStream, the Amazon app takes full advantage of the enormous resources at the company’s disposal.

“For example, if one user streams a session for 45 minutes and 30 seconds and another user streams a session for 120 minutes and 20 seconds, the total amount billed will be for 165 minutes and 50 seconds, which is equivalent to 2.764 hours.” Says Amazon. “If the application was streamed from US-East, then at $0.830/hr, these two sessions will incur a charge of $2.29.”

But the long and the short of this mobile CAD alternative is that with the ability to leverage VMs that are as powerful as a workstation, why would anyone bother carrying around a bulky machine? Why not use a netbook (roughly $500) or a Macbook (around $1,299) or even a tablet? They’re much easier to carry around and for the most part, they’re cheaper than their “mobile-workstation” cousins.

The Future of Mobile CAD and VR

Will VR be a part of mobile CAD's future? (Image courtesy of Microsoft.)

So mobility, power and the ability to expand your computational resources are driving today’s vision of mobile CAD, but what’s in store for CAD in the future?

Well, the one aspect of 3D modeling that’s always been a drag has been the fact that CAD happens on a 2D screen. Sure, CAD is more than functional in 2D, but being able to design in a virtual environment, or at least one that’s augmented, could lead to a whole new language for doing CAD work.

Image yourself creating complex surfaces today. The process is tedious and often times requires multiple sketches and 3D profiles that have to be just right or they won’t make. Now, imagine tossing that workflow to the wayside and replacing it with a gesture-based control system that would allow surfaces to be made with the wave of hand.

For augmented- and virtual-reality (AR/VR) CAD interfaces to be possible, mobile devices are going to have to get a bit more robust. Today, VR-ready laptops aren’t flying off the shelves, but they are being touted by manufacturers. If the history of hardware development continues at its current pace, however, hardware such as mobile workstations might soon be replaced by devices like the Microsoft Hololens as the primary tool for product designers.

The Potential Pitfalls of Mobile CAD

One of the biggest and most obvious pitfalls that comes with mobile CAD is the need to re-learn how to interact with a piece of software. For those who are stuck to a mouse, the learning curve for using a pencil and touchscreen might be a bit steep. There is, of course, the option to get a wireless mouse, but how well do those things work in those barely comfortable seats in the airport lounge? Awkward and uncomfortable doesn’t begin to describe the UI sensation.

Beyond adapting to new tools, mobile CAD users will have to be very careful of falling down the slippery slope of overworking.

Back in the day, once you left the office, the workstation stayed behind and your free time became your own. Now that CAD can be run from your tablet or laptop, your projects can follow you whenever and wherever you are. I do understand that some projects are enrapturing and others just have to get done on a tight deadline, but in most cases, work should be left at work. Taking time away from CAD can spur on more ideas, make it possible to find better design solutions and more importantly, enjoy a life outside of your machine.

My partner, Josh Altergott, and I began developing a testing tool and methodology focused around typical-use scenarios of SOLIDWORKS. With an application program interface (API) developed in conjunction with our sister company, InFlow, we were able to structure our testing methodology to isolate singular, particular aspects of the software's environment and test them individually.

What we were then able to do is measure the impact of small changes in specific aspects of a modeling environment and determine what changes have the most significant impact. Because we have continually improved the tools, methodology and process over the last several years, we are confident in our results.

This article will discuss the most critical aspects of a modeling environment from a hardware configuration perspective.

RAM

Our conversations with customers regarding hardware configuration always begin with RAM. RAM can kill your productivity if you don’t have enough but also can be an expensive over investment if you purchase more than you need.

(All images and graphs courtesy of the author.)

All SOLIDWORKS models have their own threshold for required RAM. The trick is to determine how much RAM your models need. There are several ways of doing this, but the easiest is to load your most demanding model and begin working with it. Open the Windows task manager and monitor the total amount of RAM being used while working. Determine the amount of RAM you would want to have in reserve. I personally look for 20 percent or so. Then buy a practical amount of RAM to support the need. The main thing to remember is that overbuying RAM only hurts the wallet on the front end. Poor productivity hits your wallet for the life of the workstation.

Number of Cores

In the past, we had to help folks understand that multiple cores or processors were essential for the effective use of the software. Now we have to make sure that folks don’t overbuy.

SOLIDWORKS can use two cores for certain aspects of the software. Quad-core processors are preferred to accommodate the software's needs as well as the needs of the operating system and other applications. It‘s also important to note that for SOLIDWORKS, anything more than four cores is practically useless. The software just leaves the extra capacity on the shelf.

Our research has shown this dynamic very clearly. The data below shows the result of running the exact same benchmark or the same workstation where the only difference from run to run is the number of cores. This list states 1) the number of cores used to run the test, 2) the time to complete the test and 3) the percentage difference to run the test compared with the two-core baseline.

•   1 core—7:35:41 :: 286 percent slower
•   2 cores—1:58:07
•   3 cores—1:41:47 :: 13.8 percent faster
•   4 cores—1:41:08 :: 14.4 percent faster
•   6 cores—1:40:40 :: 14.8 percent faster

With our baseline being a workstation with two cores (in bold above), it is easy to see that dropping to a single-core machine would be a productivity nightmare. However, jumping to three cores can generate a significant increase in performance. Given that you can’t get a three-core processor, a four-core processor is the practical choice. Also, it’s important to realize that going beyond four cores yields no significant increase in performance.

There are some situations where more than four cores can be very beneficial. Simulation and photo-rendering both take advantage of multicore processing much more effectively than core SOLIDWORKS.

Relative to Simulation and Flow Simulation, the productivity increase tapers off after six cores, meaning that eight or more cores doesn’t buy you anything worth the investment.

However, when looking at PhotoView 360, not only is multicore much more helpful, but hyper-threading can make a significant difference as well, improving performance up to 17 percent in our tests.

• 4 – 6 cores—17 percent faster
• 4 – 8 cores—51 percent faster
• 4 – 16 cores—74 percent faster

It is necessary to note as well that Visualize, which we have not yet tested, not only takes advantage of multicore very effectively, but also utilizes GPU, thrusting the graphics card into greater prominence than ever before within the SOLIDWORKS community.

Processor Speed

We have done significant testing targeted at processor speed to determine how fast the processor needs to be and to determine if there is a point of diminishing return as processor speed increases. To help in this effort, we ran our benchmark with assemblies ranging between 95 and 21,000 total components (35 and 2,440 unique components). We tested processor speeds from 2 to 4.7GHz and showed very clearly that we could realize a roughly 7.5 percent to 9 percent increase in speed to complete our benchmark for every increase of 0.5 GHz of processor speed.

An interesting aspect of this experiment is that there was no discernible difference based on the assembly size. No matter what the assembly size was, the benchmark always completed with a percentage increase within the range noted above. No matter how big or small your models are, they can perform faster with a faster processor. Also, we saw no diminishing returns as we increased the processor speed, meaning that a faster processor will always improve performance. This, as discussed above, is not the case for RAM or the number of processor cores.

Hard Drive

Hard drives have undergone a significant transition in recent years. Where, in the past we used to talk to users about higher performance drives based on RPMs and potentially RAID arrays, we now just recommend solid-state hard drives. There is really no reason to do anything else. Our testing over the years has consistently shown a 12 percent to 18 percent performance improvement on our benchmarks when switching from a 7200-rpm standard hard drive to a solid-state drive. This coupled with the fact that solid-state drives have dropped so significantly in price makes the decision practically automatic.

There are situations where users store a lot of data on their local workstation hard drive. In these cases, a single solid-state hard drive large enough to store the data may be cost prohibitive. We recommend a second standard high-capacity hard drive for storage while maintaining a solid-state drive for the operating system, the software and a working directory for files currently being used.

Graphics Cards

Graphics are an important aspect of the modeling environment relative to both stability and performance. Graphics cards that are either unsupported or using drivers that are unsupported can cause a great deal of grief due to crashing, hanging and bizarre visual anomalies. SOLIDWORKS requires OpenGL-capable graphics.

Regardless of how you may feel about the requirement, it does limit the available selection of graphics cards to AMD FirePro and FireGL, NVIDIA Quadro and GRID and the Intel HD and IRIS Pro lines. The cost of straying from these options or experimenting with gaming cards can be significant. The gaming cards are very powerful when targeted at their core purpose—playing games. When using gaming cards for SOLIDWORKS, a user will lose functionality and crash more frequently.

The performance aspect of a graphics card is interesting. Measuring graphics performance is different than measuring calculative performance. With graphics, we are interested in “feel” and “response” as a user experiences it. For example, when a user rotates a model from point “A” to point “B” on the screen, it will get to the final position in the same amount of time regardless. To measure graphics performance, we are interested in how smoothly it made that transition, how detailed the image was as it made that transition and how it “felt” to the user as it made that transition. Essentially, we are interested in how many frames the card can display per second while we manipulate amodel on screen through such transitions.

What we have found in our testing has been enlightening. Stepping up through the different levels of graphics cards did result in higher performance in frames per second. However, this improvement in performance almost always occurred in a range beyond the monitor’s ability to display the difference as well as beyond the human eye’s ability to perceive the difference if a person had the opportunity to attempt a comparison.

Most monitors display at roughly 60Hz.So, realistically, anything over 60 fps is going to be overkill. Where we did see a difference in the performance of graphics cards was with models that were set to very high image qualities.

This graph also shows us that graphics performance as measured in frames per second drops rapidly between 0 and 2,000 components. However, in tests with our models, we have to cross 3,000 components before we drop below the capabilities of the typical monitor.

At this point, we need to leverage options such as “Level of detail” to lighten the graphics load and maintain comfortable “feel” and “response” by sacrificing model detail in transitions.

Summary

As a result of all of our research and testing, we are much more confident in our hardware recommendations, and making those recommendations has become much simpler.

In the case of general SOLIDWORKS use (and assuming that there are no other significant drains on the workstation while modeling), we recommend the following:

• The fastest quad-core processor you can get (overclocking i7 processors can take it to another level)
• Solid-state hard drives (operating system, SOLIDWORKS, working directory)
• Separate standard high-capacity hard drive for local storage, if necessary
• NVIDIA Quadro K2200 graphics card (don’t over-buy the graphics card)
• Ample RAM for the models being utilized

The most important thing to remember is that workstation performance is an investment that can yield tremendous benefits over time. In our experience with customers, we have seen countless examples where buying the right hardware for the situation saved tremendous amounts of money in productivity increases and also resulted in much happier designers and engineers.

About the Author

Adrian Fanjoy currently serves as vice president, technical services for Computer Aided Technology, LLC. His responsibilities include management of the SOLIDWORKS and additive manufacturing technical teams. For the past 10 years, he has specialized in SOLIDWORKS performance improvement from a hardware and configuration perspective.

After all, electronics need to fit into these small devices and these small devices need to protect our electronics.With new Internet of Things (IoT) products emerging all the time, more and more mechanical designs will be driven by electronic constraints and vice versa.

Anatomy of an IoT product doesn’t leave a lot of space for the electronics. (All images courtesy of Dassault Systèmes SOLIDWORKS.)

As a result, “the software we use to design these products, mechanical CAD [MCAD] and electronic CAD [ECAD], need to drive what is happening in the real world,” said Louis Feinstein, product manager at Dassault Systèmes SOLIDWORKS. “Geometry, spacing and tolerancing all have tight constraints in IoT. Blending the MCAD and ECAD makes it easier to design for these constraints.”

The transfer of data between ECAD and MCAD users is nothing new. Various tools use industry standards to translate data from one format to another. However, this data transfer becomes complicated when users have to deal with multiple software products, versioning and metadata issues.

To address these issues, Dassault Systèmes and Altium have teamed up to create the SOLIDWORKS PCB (SW PCB) and SOLIDWORKS PCB Connector powered by Altium. Unlike other MCAD/ECAD communications tools, this new product aims to have one data file. To achieve this, the program employs Altium’s ECAD technology but is branded and operates as if it is part of the SOLIDWORKS system of software.

“We see this product as an ECAD for the design of smart connected devices,” said Aram Mirkazemi, CEO of Altium. “The way these products come together forms a platform for work that would accommodate things that were not possible in the past because of the fences between the MCAD and ECAD worlds.”

What a Unified MCAD/ECAD System Looks Like

Side-by-side comparison of SW PCB and a converter.

With these tools, users will be able to design their circuit boards with traditional techniques, such as ECAD schematic, routing and layout tools.Feinstein and his team hope SW PCB and the SW PCB Connector will revolutionize MCAD/ECAD integration. He explained that the former is a standalone product aimed at the ECAD market while the latter gives core Altium users the same functionality.

However, whereas these tools are traditionally in separate platforms, SW PCB will make them available in one single environment and user interface (UI). In addition, the software also offers electrical engineers the ability to see their SW PCB designs in a 3D environment. Finally, MCAD and ECAD users will be able to access a shared library of supplier components during their design.

“It will have all the power for the power users,” assured Feinstein. “But the UI changes will make the learning faster as you won’t need to jump between tools. It will all be in one space. The tool also uses minimalistic icons so it’s easy to pick up.”

Summary of SW PCB functionality.

How Users Can Better Merge Their MCAD and ECAD ExperienceSW PCB uses a UI similar to SOLIDWORKS 2016, a release that saw significant UI changes designed to simplify workflows. But given the reaction of the SOLIDWORKS community to the 2016 user interface, SW PCB may want to allow the user to select a “classic” SOLIDWORKS interface in a future release.

How Users Can Better Merge Their MCAD and ECAD Experience

Layout view of ECAD data.

To access the ECAD drawings in SOLIDWORKS, SW PCB users need to push their changes to the mechanical engineer through an imbedded instant messaging service. SOLIDWORKS users can access this service through an included plug-in.“We are not relying on a translator, which allows us to get tighter coupling of the information into one unified data file,” said Feinstein. “We are moving native data between the SOLIDWORKS collaborative server, but it is working in a database. It’s not translated data; it’s the data. And the MCAD and ECAD engineer can access that file at the same time.”

The mechanical engineer has the option to accept or decline the changes. If accepted, the changes are automatically updated into MCAD drawings. If declined, the ECAD drawings are sent back to the electrical engineer.

Once the mechanical engineer is finished with their work, they can send their changes to the electrical engineer through the same messaging process to ensure proper collaboration.

“Traditionally, you would have to do this all with translation type files [IDF, IDx etc.] and generate the final files through a translator,” explained Feinstein. “You don’t need a translator here. So you don’t have to do any extra work.”

Traditionally, users have relied on Windows File Explorer and subdirectories, third-party software or a more primitive “throw-it-over-the-wall” data exchange between electrical and mechanical design teams.  While admitting that the SW PCB product data manager may be a little clunky, Feinstein sees a future with SW PCB data management that approaches the highly-integrated and automated data management systems like the ones MCAD users enjoy.

What Are the Benefits of Merging ECAD and MCAD?

3D view of ECAD data.

“Once you bring ECAD into the ecosystem, we can bring in all the inner layers, materials and geometry downstream,” said Feinstein. “This allows you to do any type of simulation with higher fidelity and accuracy—from thermal to electronic cooling flow and structural simulations.”Since the ECAD and MCAD data is all available in one SOLIDWORKS-compatible file (not Parasolid, but a file format specially created for SW PCB), engineers will be able to bring that data into the SOLIDWORKS system of products.

Feinstein explained that this merger between MCAD and ECAD can open the door to various simulation options that are traditionally hard to produce with ECAD alone. “Electronics simulations typically are done with a 2.5D field solver: methods and moments sliced into integrals,” he said. However, since the ECAD models are now in a SOLIDWORKS-compatible format, the door to native 3D electronics simulations is now open for a higher fidelity model.

The benefits don’t end at simulation. Engineers will be able to use the model-based definition (MBD), tolerancing and inspection tools available from within their MCAD/ECAD model. “Often these tools are associated with MCAD, but now we are blurring the lines between MCAD and ECAD,” said Feinstein.

The Future of SOLIDWORKS’ ECAD Portfolio

Upon its release, “SOLIDWORKS Powered by Altium” will replace Altium’s PCBWorks. CircuitWorks, on the other hand, will still be maintained due to its popularity in the industry. In fact, Feinstein hinted that SW PCB capabilities may be passed on to CircuitWorks whenever possible.

The cost of SW PCB is still to be published. We expect its price to be set at around $5,900, matching the price of SOLIDWORKS Electrical Schematic Professional.

Are you excited for this new program? How often will you be using the 3D ECAD functions? Comment below.

About the Author

Shawn Wasserman (@ShawnWasserman) is the Internet of Things (IoT) and Simulation Editor at ENGINEERING.com. He is passionate about ensuring engineers make the right decisions when using computer-aided engineering (CAE) software and IoT development tools. Shawn has a Masters in Bio-Engineering from the University of Guelph and a BASc in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo.

From humble beginnings, Genesis DNA's first attempt to make a DNA synthesizer cost about a $100 in parts.

Most engineers have some experience tinkering with something in a garage or around the house. Sometimes those little projects turn into something much bigger. For Jeff Clayton and his friend David Glass, that side project was a pick-and-place machine for building DNA that started in Clayton’s apartment in Cambridge, Mass. The idea led to a company, Genesis DNA, which received venture capital and moved into an accelerator in San Francisco. I recently had the chance to sit down with Clayton, now the CEO of Genesis, to talk about his experience.

“David had this awful interaction with a [DNA] supplier,” Clayton plainly stated when I asked how they got on the project. Within a few months, they hit on an idea for how to assemble their own using microscopic magnetic beads. “They are about three microns in diameter.”

Jeff Clayton, CEO of Genesis DNA.

David Glass, co-founder of Genesis DNA.

If you were the average hobbyist, building a micromanipulator to move those beads would be out of the question. In order to build the DNA, you must first create a microfluidic device that contains locations for every conceivable 10 base-pair group of DNA (a string of DNA 10 units long). These locations are used as building blocks. Once the coordinates of each chain are known, the bead must be moved in a specific sequence to each pair, growing the DNA attached to it at each location. All of this must be done under the view of a magnifier to ensure that tiny beads were moving and behaving properly.

“We built one in my apartment with parts that cost about $100,” said Clayton. “The beads were the most expensive part.”

When I asked how all of this was possible, I heard a tale of improvisation. “We bought a hobby microscope for about $20 to which we added a webcam and spent $50 at an online electronics reseller for a box of things,” says the soft-spoken engineer, as if this was all in a days work.

“Coding is free,” he added with a touch of humor—as if writing code to control electromagnets and push the beads around is a normal skill for an engineer.

Nevertheless, the apartment setup worked.

“We’re good at a number of things, but we’re not experts at a lot of these things,” said Clayton. “These days, I want to be working on microfluidics systems, but I find myself talking to potential customers or pitching the business more often.”

An upgraded system uses a better microscope and was designed with SOLIDWORKS and FreeCAD.

The company is designed to solve many classic engineering problems that arise in building new genes. “Something we heard from engineers at Novozymes [a world-leading biotech company and potential huge client of Genesis DNA] was: it’s not cost, it’s not speed, it’s not how robust your design process is,” explained Clayton. “If you say you’re going to get it on this day, that’s exactly when it should arrive.”

It is important to understand the huge leaps that can be made if DNA can be reliably built. As sequencing costs of DNA have fallen, the industry has turned to understanding what each sequence does in order to reverse engineer organisms. Custom strings can be attached to viruses and used to inject a new piece of DNA directly into a cell and “reprogram” it—this is typically referred to as gene therapy.

However, to test out what genes do what, you have to be able to analyze them and try things out. These researchers are well paid, and their experiments require a lot of timing coordination. That’s why Clayton is so focused on building a device that allows for reliably. Clayton has a handful of customers waiting for Genesis DNA to validate their process and start shipping. “Our goal is one week from order to delivery, but we’re also promising to solve the accuracy of the delivery date.”

Understanding the complexity of the pick-and-place device may require an undergraduate course in chemistry. Building it requires more. Clayton holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Princeton University as well as a master’s degree in materials science and engineering from MIT. When asked to describe what skills he requires from team members, he stated, “Biochem and biophysics for the interactions of the base pairs (of DNA), chemistry and bioengineering for DNA-based technologies as well as microfabrication and materials science for the pick-and-place machine—we’re also hobbyist electronics people.” Although Clayton’s team is small (only four people), the number of advanced degrees among the group is sizeable. There are MBAs and master’s degrees from MIT, PhDs from Stanford and undergraduate degrees from Princeton.

Apartment Is Getting Smaller

Although they may be able to do this all from their apartments, the group has grown into a more formal organization thanks to their recent funding. That leap has allowed them to upgrade their system, which requires the use of some more sophisticated tools. They now design products in SOLIDWORKS and FreeCAD and have used EAGLE and KiCad for PCB design. Soon, they’ll be adding four developers to the team to upgrade their code as well.

I asked Clayton when exactly the entrepreneurial bug bit him. “If you told me when I started my master’s degree that three years later I would be running a biotech company, I would have said you were crazy.”

While studying at MIT, though, he took an Entrepreneurship 101 class at the Sloan School of Management. “I learned two things there,” said Clayton. “First, every instance of entrepreneurship is different—there is no one lesson. And second, it’s not this big scary beast. It’s sitting down and doing the time, doing the work and not being intimidated.” This approach to business is what makes many engineers succeed in startups.

Clayton also pointed to one other class, “How to Make Almost Anything,” at MIT’s famous Media Lab that helped him on his journey. Each week, Clayton was exposed to a new hands-on tool: Week 1. CNC machining. Week 2. 3D printing. And then Python coding, protocols, etc. It culminated in one grand project where you must build something using a few tools. When I asked Clayton what he built, he rather sheepishly stated, “a fake iPad.” When I probed him as to what “fake” meant, he admitted that what he really built was a touch-screen–enabled tablet, powered by a Raspberry Pi, complete with an enclosure.

This desire to keep doing traditional engineering work has not gone away amidst accounting spreadsheets and pitch decks. Initially, I had to reschedule our interview because Clayton was taking courses at TechShop, the membership-based fabrication shop.

Now the project is no longer something based out of his apartment. Since receiving funding, Clayton and the team have upgraded most of the system and are previewing it at their accelerator demo day in early February.

About the Author

Chris McAndrew (@CbMcAndrew) is a product development and marketing executive with nearly a decade of experience bringing concepts from the idea stage to market release in a variety of industries. He is a trained mechanical engineer, with a B.S. from Tulane University, and he is completing an MBA program at UCLA Anderson School of Business (’16).

Model-based definition, or MBD, lets you place the dimensions and notes right on the 3D model.

Tradition is not always bad, but if it gets in the way of truth, it’s time to reconsider. Traditional drafting practices have us creating 2D views of 3D models. On these 2D views, tradition would have us place all dimensions. But if you think of the 3D model as the source, the single truth, then 2D views of it are only interpretations. One mistake, or misinterpretation, and we have a problem.

So why did we ever start putting dimensions on 2D views in the first place? We had no choice when we only had paper. Everything had to get flattened into 2D views so it could be put on paper. But now, just about all our designs are in 3D.

Is it time to reconsider tradition and put the dimensions right on the 3D model itself?

What’s Behind the Buzzwords?

First, let’s get the acronyms out of the way. MBD stands for model-based definition. MBD is very similar to, or a synonym for, PIM, or product information modeling. GD&T is geometric dimensioning and tolerancing. It’s a different way of dimensioning parts in either 2D or 3D. It dimensions features and geometry instead of lines. There are other definitions of it, but I won’t get into that now.

MBD

MBD is the practice of placing either traditional or GD&T dimensions on the 3D model itself during the design process. The engineer or designer can place these dimensions on the model for a variety of uses.

Following is a brief overview of why MBD would be used.

• Go paperless!

By putting all of the dimensions on the model itself, there is arguably no need for 2D representations of the design. No drafting department, no plotters, no interpretations of 2D views—so no ambiguity. Consider that a 2D representation is an interpretation of the model. Any time you add an interpretation, you are opening the door for quality-assurance problems.

This image demonstrates how GD&T is placed on the model. All of the saved views that can be exported to a variety of mobile-capable formats, including eDrawings, PDFs, and 3D PDFs, appear below the model.

• Saving on paper often easily justifies the cost of electronic equipment out on the shop floor. Especially since the cost of electronic “glass” at each station has dropped so dramatically over the past few years. Stations can be as low as $100.
• Revision control is greatly simplified. When a shop worker looks up a drawing, or component instructions, he or she and manufacturing are completely assured
• that they have the correct revision and that it is controlled by whatever product data management (PDM) system the company is using. There is little or no chance of a stray previous revision drawing out on the shop floor that would cause a large costly error. MBD supports this documentation that is intended for interactive consumption much quicker than traditional 2D representations.
• Component instructions can be much more feature-rich. Tools such as SOLIDWORKS Composer and other CAD animation programs can provide much more interactive and better-communicated instructions to the end user.
• The labor involved in maintaining a paper-centric environment is a substantially overlooked cost of manufacturing. Maintaining packets and failing to maintain packets can be very expensive.

• Tolerance analysis, here we come!
  • Tolerance analysis is the practice of fully understanding all of the critical dimensions and their tolerances. To fully understand those dimensions, the designer needs to roll up every dimension into the highest assembly. This can be a very time-consuming operation if done by hand or even on spreadsheets. MBD, specifically SOLIDWORKS MBD (greatly improved in its newest release) and TolAnalyst, allows for that process to be automated and for the results to be shown graphically while designing in CAD. This allows designers to quickly ensure that all of the dimensions and tolerances make a functional design.
• Don’t go paperless! But still use MBD!
  • By having the designer designate the critical dimensions, weld callouts and notes in the model prior to passing the design on to the drafter, there is a large reduction in back-and-forth between the designer and the drafter. The drafter can have all of the information they need as soon as it is ready. This creates a more efficient drafting process and allows a designer to focus on more design work. This alone can be a huge benefit to a company that must innovate and release products quickly—and who isn’t trying to do that?

So, there are the benefits of MBD. A file still needs to be created for consumption by the end users. I can’t just give the shop floor my CAD files. That would require near-workstation-class machines for

every user. Luckily, SOLIDWORKS MBD has some great options for this.

PDFs and 3D PDFs

• MBD information is translated over to communicate to the end user.
• After creating my model, I can export multiple 2D PDFs for each view, or a consolidated version of all of those views.
• I can also export 3D PDFs, which include a full 3D representation of the model with all of the dimensions that I choose. SOLIDWORKS MBD 2016 supports multiple sheets, multiple viewports and multiple tables in 3D PDF publishing.
• I can also do both. The 3D PDF can contain all of the views that I require, and the model itself.
• SOLIDWORKS MBD has a very thorough set of capabilities for PDFs. It arguably has the largest set of options for PDFs.
• These PDFs can have markup and measurement tools in them to support reference information and change processes.
• Both 2D and 3D PDFs can be viewed on nearly any type of device (iOS, Android, Windows), making it the most flexible and lightweight format.

An example of a finalized PDF file.

eDrawings

• MBD information is translated over to communicate to the end user.
• eDrawings is a SOLIDWORKS-specific file format that can be published from SOLIDWORKS. It contains a more feature-rich toolset that includes more advanced BOMs, section views and markup and model manipulation tools.
• eDrawings is also supported by all three major operating systems as an app.
• eDrawings supports augmented reality, which means that if I print out a QR code and lay it on a table, I can use the camera on the device with eDrawings and eDrawings will superimpose a 3D model in the camera view. I can rotate the camera around and see all sides of it to scale. I can also manually rotate and scale the model as I choose.
• eDrawings also supports a more advance configuration control of models from SOLIDWORKS.

Last but not least, SOLIDWORKS Composer

• MBD-generated files can be linked into SOLIDWORKS Composer files for fully-comprehensive final documentation for the end user.
• SOLIDWORKS Composer can give interactive step-by-step instructions of the assembly or fabrication of the design.
• This can be saved as an HTML file to be used in most browsers.

A Composer file can be played back on a player, which can have limitations with operating systems. See your CAD vendor for details.

Great! Now you can see that there are many options to help you start saving your company money and start making your design process simpler while giving you more time to get new designs done.

The varied capabilities of SOLIDWORKS MBD in their relative packages.

Setting up and changing a company’s culture and process to support this relatively new technology is no easy task. I suggest you call or e-mail a SOLIDWORKS vendor to better understand how to take advantage of this technology for your company, and have them help you set it up. I believe that this technology can and will solve many of the problems that plague small- and large-size companies. With proper guidance and support, I believe that every company can solve these problems in a relatively small amount of time. You will be able to innovate faster with better quality and less waste than your competitor. And isn’t that what manufacturing is mostly about?

About the Author

Ryan Reid is a CAD administrator, PLM enthusiast, designer, GD&T specialist, lead, lean philosophy supporter, Microsoft Office expert, 3D printing hobbyist and manufacturing-focused professional with 17 years of combined experience in those areas. Reid has accomplishments in all aspects of manufacturing engineering, from cradle to grave plastics/mold to structural, systems, process and change management design.

So, What’s Driving This Change in Contract Manufacturing?

One of the biggest barriers preventing access to manufacturing has been the overhead cost required to assess how a part can be manufactured. Today, a number of companies in the United States have taken it upon themselves to develop online technology that can quickly evaluate 3D geometry, provide near instantaneous quotes and also deliver manufacturability assessments for almost any part. Moreover, these same companies have also equipped themselves with the machines necessary to rapidly fulfill orders using both additive and subtractive manufacturing methods.

In the past, if a design firm needed a short-run manufacturing contract, they were often sidelined by larger players looking to make thousands if not millions of parts. What was more demoralizing was the fact that even if they could get a manufacture to consider their project, it was often too expensive to pursue their plans under a mass-manufacturing paradigm.

But today, this next generation of contract manufacturers has provided an infrastructure for anyone, regardless of how complex or how few parts they need, to enter into the world of advanced manufacturing.

So, who are these manufacturing movers and shakers? Let’s look at a couple of industry leaders.

With Proto Labs, Manufacturing Reemerges in the Midwest

Minnesota’s Proto Labs (an evolution of Protomold) was founded in 1999. At the time, the company’s founder Larry Lukis was frustrated with the high costs and long lead times that came packaged with the injection molding practices of the day.

Finding that system simply untenable, Lukis, a self-described computer nerd, had the idea that manufacturing could be made cheaper and more accessible if the process of diagnosing how a part should be manufactured could be automated by software.

Fast forward some 15 years, and Proto Labs has grown to a manufacturing powerhouse that supports both plastic and metal additive manufacturing, machining and, of course, injection molding. Most importantly, Proto Labs has stayed true to its original idea of making all aspects of manufacturing cheaper and easier to access through automation.

But how’s that work?

To begin the Proto Labs journey, users are asked to define whether they’d like a part made using additive manufacturing, machining or injection molding. Once a manufacturing solution has been selected, users need to create a Proto Labs account. After an account’s been established, users are directed to their dashboard, where they can select if they’d like to build a project in plastic or metal. With a category of materials selected, users can select the exact type of metal or plastic that meets their project’s design requirements. If the right material has not been selected, Proto Labs will also connect clients with in-house design engineers that can help users make the right material decision.

With material selection out of the way, it’s time to upload 3D geometry. With a simple click, files can be added to a user’s dashboard and sent out for a quote. If the geometry in a 3D file can’t be manufactured true to form, Proto Labs’ algorithms will identify problematic regions and return those results to the client. However, if all is well with a project’s geometry, then it’s time to hit submit and let Proto Labs’ technology do its work.

Figure 1 A CAM Gear in milled in 4140 by Proto Labs. Check out that amazing finish.

Now, while that may seem like a bunch of steps to take before getting a quote, it actually only takes a matter of minutes. Most amazingly, within a few short hours, a quote for your part shows up in your email, and if you accept it, it’s likely that your project will find its way to a production machine in a matter of hours. So, depending on your shipping choice, you could have your part in hand in as little as 24 hours.

How can I know this?

Well, Proto Labs allowed me to take their service for a spin. After uploading my part—a tiny 18-mm gear for a scale model of a Howell V-Twin engine I was given a very reasonable quote ($237.73) and decided to send it off for production. Within 36 hours, I had a perfectly finished gear, milled in 4140 steel in hand.

Obviously, I was impressed. Not only was my gear true to its model’s geometry, it was produced rapidly and for the right cost and used state-of-the-art technology to both process and manufacture my project.

Xometry Blends the Best of the Web with Advanced Manufacturing

Newer to the scene, but by no means behind, is Maryland’s Xometry. Founded in 2013, Xometry also leverages automation to democratize advanced manufacturing. Stocked with PhDs and a team with years of experience developing industry-leading Web platforms, Xometry prides itself on the simplicity of its user interface. What’s more, Xometry also boasts powerful technology that makes part quoting and manufacturability diagnosis quick and, in some cases, instantaneous.

When I tried out Xometry’s service, I found it incredibly easy to use. The process for quoting and ordering a part couldn’t be any simpler.

To begin with, the Xometry experience requires that a user account be established. Once your credentials are straightened away, users are presented with an interface where files can be uploaded one, or several, at a time. With all required files uploaded to Xometry’s service, users must select between CNC or several different flavors of additive manufacturing. Once a manufacturing method has been chosen, a material must be selected as well as a finish, if desired. With all of those facts entered into Xometry’s system, a user only needs to apply those attributes to a part and then hit “Request Quote.” If possible, Xometry’s algorithms will give an immediate quote for additive manufacturing; however, for CNC operations, a quote will take a few hours.

Figure 2 Primary and Secondary Cam Gears printed in 17-4 Stainless by Xometry

For my purposes, I chose to print two separate gears for the same Howell V-Twin. One of the gears was identical to the example machined by Proto Labs, and the other was another gear that fit within the same engine. After following the five-minute process that I described above, by selecting to print the gears in 17-4 stainless steel, sans

finishing, I was presented with a quote immediately (both parts were $267.12 in total). With a simple click, I was whisked to a payment-processing platform and my order was away. Within a few days, I received my gears in the mail. Again, Xometry’s printed model was identical to the original 3D models—another short-run, contract manufacturing success.

What’s the Take Away?

In the end, whether you’re choosing Proto Labs, Xometry or another contract manufacturing firm, the bottom line remains the same, contract manufacturing has made the business of prototyping, short-run production or even mass manufacturing a realistic option for designers on any budget.

What’s most spectacular about both of these new manufacturing platforms is that they’re incredibly simple to use and their order turnaround times are without comparison. If you’re an engineer looking to get parts made for live design reviews or for short-run engineering applications, both Proto Labs and Xometry should be your first stops.

Simply put, innovation just got easier, with the barriers to manufacturing now surmounted by Proto Labs and Xometry. What’s to stop engineers from developing incredible products?

-----------

For more information on these two services, please visit their websites.

• Proto Labs
• Xometry

About the Author

Kyle Maxey is a mechanical designer and writer from Austin, TX. He earned a degree in Film at Bard College and has since studied Mechanical and Architectural drafting at Austin Community College. As a designer Kyle has had vast experience with CAD software and rapid prototyping. One day he dreams of becoming a toy designer.

Microsoft Surface Pro 4

Design firms are slowly moving toward mobile design tools, although this transition is not as fast as the transitions in other manufacturing industries. While computing power is no longer an issue with mobile devices, the ability to view and design on a small screen will always hinder detailed design tasks. However, the improvements that are being made continue to entice design firms as well as professionals and encourage them to transition to these devices.

Large-enterprise design departments may never convert their desktop or tower workstations fully to mobile workstations. Many designers and engineers who work with large assemblies and massive amounts of data, constantly rendering or running simulations, will cling to their machines. However, improvements in CPU and graphics performance have led several designers to consider high-performance laptops or mobile workstations, inspiring many—especially those who need to work in more than one location—to abandon their desk-bound computers.

More and more power is coming in yet smaller and lighter devices. Even the latest, thinnest laptop, such as the Lenovo ThinkPad X1, can look like a monster compared to the company’s recently introduced tablet/keyboard combo, the Yoga P40. The power and portability of some of these new devices are leading many engineers to question the need for super power in a box that stays in one place or their laptop — which suddenly looks large and feels heavy. Maybe a super tablet or convertible would be good enough most of the time?

In this article, we examine a few of the very mobile computers that are available now — or will be soon.

How Mobile Is Mobile?

While the “mobile” label can be applied to any computer that can be deemed portable (up to and including 20-pound behemoths with 19-inch screens and power supplies as big as bricks) let us look at what is truly mobile and functional enough for engineering. For this article, mobile means devices you can pick up and carry over to show a coworker something — without breaking your back.

Power and mobility such as this is offered by some of the new, larger tablets and a fast-growing class of mobile hardware, such as the tablet/keyboard combination or “convertibles,” currently being led by the Microsoft Surface Pro 4.

Android Tablet

Can a Tablet Be Your Only Computer?

The transition to tablets for engineering and designing can be impeded by the size of the tablet screen. For example, the iPad Air 2 with a 9.7-inch (diagonal) screen may be fine for viewing and mark-up, but you couldn’t work on it all day. Tablets are getting bigger, however. The iPad Pro has just burst onto the scene with a 12.9-inch screen. The Panasonic FZ-Y1 tablet is the biggest of all in this article with a 20-inch screen and could be conceivably be looked at all day—though for most full-time CAD and CAE use, a single screen would be considered a graphical downgrade. A tablet should at least include a docking device to which larger or multiple screens could be added. Still, we will include them here for all the following advantages:

• Rough sketching – Freely sketching to communicate with a customer or to start a design idea such as a product shape, color, etc. or sketching floor plans in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry.
• Annotations and mark-up – Annotating an existing design to make changes to the detailed design later or to add material or function-based notes on a machined part.
• Calculation – Calculating wall thickness of parts, drilling location from edges or wall thickness, measuring perimeter, area, etc.
• Collaboration – Collaborating and communicating within teams or offsite with suppliers and on the manufacturing floor to relay design changes quickly.
• Re-use and overlaying – Design firms of all sizes also report that they are able to replace and reuse components from a library of parts into assemblies during design meetings. Overlaying features in assembly to check with new or existing parts in assembly has also has proven productive for many designers.

You Can Touch This

Mobile tablet features such as touch and a pen or stylus come in handy to navigate through the design. Over time, these features have been introduced on laptops that may or may not have a detachable tablet attached to a keyboard.

Where Are the Apps?

Most CAD vendors have released viewers, sketching and light design-editing applications on the popular iOS (iPad/iPhone), Android and Windows platforms. CAD vendors have to work with the limitations imposed by the hardware performance and software of Apple’s iPad that restricts the free release of productive features. On the other hand, the Android platform caters more toward a phone-based operating system. It may surprise engineers to learn that the iOS platform ranks highest in the number of light design applications released. The Android applications are currently only at 70 percent of the number of iOS applications.

Most heavy-duty engineering applications, such CAD and CAE, are still based on Microsoft Windows.

The Tablet/Keyboard Combo

Recognizing the portability and popularity of the tablet, a number of companies has sought to add to those features that engineers found lacking. Chief among them were a real keyboard, a mouse (or at least a touchpad), bigger or multiple screens and graphics horsepower—these would be necessary before engineers could totally ditch their deskbound workstations.

The Microsoft Surface Pro 4 has opened the door for CAD vendors to improve features and replicate workstation functions and a laptop-like experience on a powerful, affordable tablet/keyboard combination. Now in its third design iteration, many reviewers are saying that it is finally worthy of being considered a laptop and even a desktop replacement—though that might take a bit of accessorizing. Its specially designed keyboard includes a touchpad. A docking accessory lets you add big monitors and a mouse. Graphics performance for large assemblies still needs to be tested before it can be branded a workstation killer, but Microsoft seems to be the closest to doing so.

Such success from a company known almost entirely as a software vendor has not escaped the notice of hardware companies that seem intent in not letting Microsoft steal the show.

What’s Available in Truly Mobile Devices for Engineering Use

The following table provides an overview of the available options of computers that enable mobility for serious designers. The list does not cover smartphones with their small screens, or laptops and mobile workstations, as all of them are meant to be used while stationary.

The vendors in this list may offer cheaper or more expensive options, other than what is included here. This list does not provide a comparison of different CAD mobile devices. It aims provide an overview of various devices that have been tested or certified by design professionals for mobility as well as ability to perform detailed design functions.

Vendor and Product	Features/Specs	Cost
Apple iPad Pro	12.9-in. retina display; runs iOs; A9X, third generation 64-bit; 6.9 mm thin; 1.57 lbs.; optional keypad and "Apple Pencil"; Apple does not offer a mouse or trackpad or docking station for multiple or large monitors	Starts at $799 to $1,079 for cellular and 128GB memory; keyboard is $169
HP Spectre x360	Windows-based; 13.3-in. screen; 1920 x 1080 resolution; 12.79 in. x 8.6 in. x 0.63 in. (32.4 cm x 21.8 cm x 1.6 cm); 3.26 lbs. (1.47 kg); 15.9 mm thick; 12.5 hours of battery life	Starts at $899
Lenovo ThinkPad P40 Yoga (new)	Windows-based; 2560 x 1440 WQHD+ (3200 x 1800); 3.9 lbs.; 19 mm thick; up to 9 hours of battery life	$1,399
Google Pixel C (not yet available)	Android; 10.2-in. screen; 2560 x 1800 resolution	$499 (32GB); $599 (64GB); $149 for keyboard
Dell XPS 12	Windows OS; 12.5-in. screen; up to 3840 x 2160 resolution; starts at 1.75 lbs.; 16 mm to 25 mm thick; docking station for mouse, large monitor (available 2016)	Starts at $999
Microsoft Surface Book	Windows OS; suitable for 3D modeling; up to 16GB memory - i5/i7; NVIDIA GeForce graphics (GPU); Detachable screen to use like a clipboard; rotate and reattach the screen to use the full hardware	Starts at $1,499
Panasonic FZ-Y1 Performance Model	Windows OS; 20-in. 4K display; supports OpenGL to handle 3D modeling applications; specifically targets 3D and CAD engineers; Intel Core vPro processor; AMD FirePro M5100 graphics; 12.5 mm thick	€5,200
Microsoft Surface Pro 4	Windows OS; 3D modeling with i7 models; 12.3-in. screen; 2736 x 1824 resolution; smaller in size than Surface Book; m3 Intel HD graphics 515; i5 Intel HD graphics 520; i7 Intel Iris graphics; 1.69 lbs.	Starts at $1,599 for i7 models; $129.99 for keyboard; $59.99 for pen
FUJITSU LIFEBOOK T936	Windows OS; 13.3-in. screen; up to 2560 x 1440 resolution; pen stylus and 4G LTE; Intel Core i7-6600U processor (2.6 GHz up to 3.4 GHz, 4 MB); 3.5 lbs.; 19.3 mm thick; up to 11 hours of battery life	Prices not available

About the Author
Sanjeev Pal is an analyst and software architect with his firm, Neovion Group. He has more than 20 years of experience in the field of product development (CAD/CAM/CAE-PLM) and enterprise technologies. Previously, he worked as a research manager with IDC, in services and R&D at Dassault Systèmes and as a design professional at Timex watches.