Cadalyst - May 2008 - (Page 24)

viewpoint unlike the performance benefit of increased clock speed that comes essentially for free, multicore advantages can be realized only if the software is designed accordingly (figure 2). This is the same situation for dual-processor PCs, and it is compounded if those CPUs are multicore. Consequently, software developers must rethink the way they develop, test, and market CAD applications. You might recall the much-heralded hyperthreading technology. The operating system would report two CPUs when there was physically only one. This technology was largely untapped by the CAD market for the same reasons that multicore remains untapped. However, to be fair, one needs to ask this: What, practically speaking, can be computed in parallel that would make a positive effect on the way we work? I am quite certain that if a calculation could be computed in parallel, it would provide a tangible performance benefit. This is especially true in the CAD space, where complex calculations are performed with virtually every action taken. Imagine what is possible when you suddenly have brainlike computational power and the ability to concurrently solve tasks or operations with no loss of response in your CAD application. It’s not just the mathematical acceleration that can be gained — it’s also the effect on the process you follow when you work. For example, would it be useful to have the ability to continue working while the complex shelling command for a plastic injection–molded component is performed at the same time? What type of work could be done while waiting? Presumably, you wouldn’t do anything that was dependent on the outcome of the shelling operation! Similarly, would it be useful to dynamically compute the energy efficiency of a new building as it is being designed, or would it just be a set of numbers that changed with every new wall and window without offering any practical benefit to the design? Would it be useful if CAD software dynamically checked compliance against government regulations as it was being used? Those are the types of challenges that must be considered when contemplating the possibility of even greater productivity. It’s not about a feature that saves you hours of work. It’s about how the discipline might be affected by the advantages offered in future advances of computing performance. At worst, the industry could be at risk of succumbing to a Q&A with Simon Floyd Cadalyst Editor-in-Chief Amy Stankiewicz asks Simon Floyd some questions about hardware trends and CAD productivity. AS. You suggest today’s CAD users think about what they will need in the future to drive work performance and positive change in their disciplines. How will this help users guide CAD vendors down the right development paths? SF. There is a trend within the industry to empower individuals to perform tasks across related disciplines within a single environment, to provide holistic insight that will increase the quality of the outcome. However, this is generally a serial process, even if it’s performed in a cyclical fashion. Consequently, it’s easier to find applications for pure performance gains realized by parallel processing of a single task. What we need to investigate are work practices and processes that can be performed simultaneously, where it makes sense for the domain. I would therefore recommend challenging CAD vendors to understand the benefit you will receive from computed outcomes that are performed simultaneously without restricting interactivity and responsiveness. For example, it might make sense for software to guide you as you work, rather than waiting for a particular milestone to provide a rules-driven answer. This requires on-the-fly calculations that support predictive analyses for what you are likely to do next while considering the precedents you have established. This type of feedback could be highly useful in deciding how to approach design in the same way that envisioning the potential implications of a chess move can influence the ability to win. AS. How should users analyze the way they work? What steps can they take to determine how increased computing performance might affect their jobs on a day-to-day basis? SF. Concentrate on how work practices can be improved regardless of today’s computing capabilities. Consider day-to-day frustrations and imagine how they could be overcome regardless of existing technologies. This will free you to think creatively about solutions without placing boundaries on your thinking, leading to process-centric versus technology-centric ideas. This is important because it’s the practice of how work can change that is most 24 important to articulate (rather than how today’s practices can simply be accelerated). Concentrate on what is not immediately obvious and known. Finally, understand the effect of performance gains on a grander scale — a specific project or initiative, in which improvements can have an even greater significance. Discover and define what could be accomplished that will positively affect a strategic initiative such as quality, environmental compliance, or weight reduction. AS. How will this new performance frontier affect the CAD industry as we know it today? Do you believe that a new class of software will emerge to replace CAD? SF. What I see is a trend toward derivative applications that are more a hybrid of CAD than a replacement, ones that are designed specifically to enable role-based use and productivity for all types of domain expertise. Currently, CAD struggles to find its way out of the engineering department or an architect’s office, yet the information that is created is incredibly rich and valuable. Typically, when this information is shared with non-CAD users, it’s diluted in some fashion to suit the destination application and is usually only metadata in Text format. I believe that the application that will emerge will allow all types of users across domains to rapidly explore and evaluate CAD information in the context of their own work. This type of application, powered by the next generation of performance, would be capable of interacting with all types of data generated in a project using highly visual 3D methods. Imagine how a procurement officer could evaluate the effect of a competitive component replacement by entering a new mean-time-between-failure value and then visualizing the breakdown impact when the part fails. This type of analysis considers macro ramification of the change. The application would simply inherit the intelligence within the CAD data itself and apply new data to the given simulation. Although the data itself may not exist within CAD at all, its inclusion could be pivotal to the results once factored into an analysis or simulation. www.cadalyst.com cadalyst May 2008 http://www.cadalyst.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Cadalyst - May 2008

Cadalyst - May 2008 Contents Editor's Window Cad Central A Solid Job in AutoCAD Today’s Power — Quad-Core Workstations Performance — Tomorrow’s Possibilities Reverse Engineering an Antique Italian Treasure Trends in Reverse Engineering NextEngine 3D Scanner — Reverse-Engineering Tool Setting CAD Standards Fight for Your Hardware Rights The Jack and Jill of Ergonomics Technology for Civil Infrastructure Cad Cartoon Issue Indexes Shortcuts and Solutions

Cadalyst - May 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.