Functional Design According to Autodesk

SAN FRANCISCO (Autodesk Press Event) - Users need to be freed from having to create geometry, say Autodesk's functional design evangelists. We should be able to specify what a system is supposed to do -- its function, in other words -- and the software should create the geometry.

Autodesk showed 3 examples of functional design. First was a shaft, then a belted drive systems and last, a space frame. In each case, Inventor created geometry based on functional needs. For example, in the case of the belted assembly, an extra pulley was added after the user specified that it was needed. The belt was automatically lengthened. Pretty fast. Quite painless.

But what if your company does not make shafts, or belted assemblies or space frames?

Apparently, Autodesk is tackling this one step at a time with Inventor modules and will in time create more Inventor modules for specific types of design.

Comments

[James]

We have Both Proe and Catia v5. Catia has something called functional Molded Part which we use. Came out at release 12 i think. It does a much better job of handling parent child relationships than proe.
I use intent surfs and edges whennever possible, but there are many cases where it will not select intent edges or surfaces.
Both systems are very capable, but as a proe user from rev 6 i think that the new catia stuff is a bit more flexible.

[Steve]

Maybe Cadinsider can post a design challenge

[Darrell]

Sounds like we need a Proe vs Catia benchmark.

[Gar Smyth]

Regarding the demo I posted, the demo shows a pretty close approximation of what Joe P said that the CATIA AE claimed to be an example of functional design - "started with a rectangle, put draft on all sides, rounded all corners, offset original sketch to create a second level, added draft added rounds. Then we editted the first sketch and changed it from a rectangle to a hexagon. Nothing failed in Catia, everything after feature 1 failed in proe."
The demo proved that Pro/E could in fact handle this situation - functional design or whatever - quite easily.

[Bill G]

Nice try on the proe video, but functional modeling is more than rounds and draft.
most users dont even know how to use intent edges and surfaces
what about models created before intent edges

[Kevin Schneider]

Yes. It pulls this from the content library, and can be customized. In addition the edits to pully size also default to standard sizes. An engineer can also lock the belt length and adjust parameters to see how slop, and position of any tensioners might be effected.

[Brad Hacker]

Pro/E has had this functionality for years. It's called the Behavioral Modeling Extension (BMX). It's incredibly powerful and can automatically update geometry based on functional requirements.

[Gar Smyth]

Without seeing the CATIA model, it's hard to comment but Pro/E has been able to do this for years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf-GCdG-Rg0
Functional Design? Next Generation CAD? No thanks - I think PTC'll just keep our "old school" Russian programmers and our "old kernel" (that everyone else wants to copy these days). BTW - we call this capability "intent references" and we have been able to do it for about 5 years.

[Joe P]

I saw functional design with Catia v5. It really exposed the problems with the old kernals, parent child relationships, etc
During the demo the engineer replaced the sketch used as the first feature in a feature tree that consisted of 30 other features after it. Rounds drafts etc
the original sketch was 6 sketch entities, the new sketch was 12 sketch entities sharp corners etc.
Nothing failed after he exited the sketch, new rounds were created, new draft was created.
Sure it was a demo, but i asked hime to create something from scratch as i did it in proe along side.
We started with a rectangle, put draft on all sides, rounded all corners, offset original sketch to create a second level, added draft added rounds.
Then we editted the forst sketch and changed it from a rectangle to a hexagon. Nothing failed in Catia, everything after feature 1 failed in proe. Tried this in solidworks lots of failed stuff there too.
My point is that we need change in mechanical CAD looks like catia is onto something. See for yourself, challenge them to what i did

[Mike R]

A lot of critical comments especially from an electrical engineer. Companies need to change it up. You guys were probably critical of PTC in the 80's. We need the next generation of Mechanical CAD. We dont need anymore systems that create protrusions and cuts.
We need better ways to capture knowledge, rules , design practices and then apply them.

We need systems that dont require scripting languages to do automation.

Maybe functional Design will allow us to do this maybe not