Wondering what the demographic is here.
Are you a Designer? Engineer? Business-owner? Pro Maker? 3D artist? Student? ....some type of hybrid?
As for me, I majored in MechE and definitely love technology. But I feel both my interests and way of thinking both more in line with the way designers work. I think there's a lot of overlap in these disciplines. Engineers, makers, designers, entrepreneurs - I identify with all of them. We all love problem solving. And so I guess if I had to label myself, it'd be "problem-solver."
Fusion 360 Social & Community Manager
I very much agree with your "Overlap" opinion.
I have an undergraduate in color design with a focus on graphic object and interactive design. And for my masters I studied jewelry design and digital animation. In my work I pull from each discipline when ideas, concepts, research methods, creativity, or modeling workflows can be applied.
I am very happy to see AutoDesk focusing on T-Splines. I encountered many mature designers who think this is not usable for product design because nobody (they know of course) uses it.
I very much love to learn new technology and methodologies and that curisity and experimentation in workflows is also what I teach my students in my design classes.
This is actually interesting to see that now the software platform for engineers and desigers grows together being one language instead of two.
Engineer then technical designer.
I started as a manufacturing engineer optimizing high-speed SMT production lines. After getting sucked into business process improvement, I returned to the uni for a masters in mechanical design theory, with a committee equally weighted between engineering and the fine arts.
I now perform and teach “technical design” — e.g., everything from dynamics & statics, to heuristics-based design, to digital prototyping.
Over the years I’ve always wanted some software to merge the Industrial Design parts of technical design (where you sketch from the shoulder and move your head around a lot) to the Engineering (body locked up and the brain struggling with parameters).
I’m optimistic about 360.
Out of curiosity
is there a need or reason for the way how Inventor or SolidWorks work?
Ashlar Cobalt offers a similar workflow with creating sketches and then using those for the surface - solid creation.
You cannot compare Ashlar to Rhino in any way because Rhino is seriously only a simple surface modeler without any construction history at all or other dyamic driven elements like sketch constraints etc.
. . . I've often wondered myself -- I've used SW (in particular) for years, and been confused from the start by the underlying logic.
I would guess that SW grew out of some strange mixture of what went before (back in the bad old days when I was still fiddling around with a commodore 64) and what Engineering (and Microsoft) wanted in the mid-90's.
Inventor is better, with a much more obvious method-to-the-madness, but still follows the same history-based approach to controlling parameters. I've grown used to this, and now like the reassurance that it gives me.
Once said though — I think there are many better ways to track design decisions without a “history button”. For example, I always tell students no never erase their manual sketching construction — it shows their decision making and adds a huge amount of richness to their work . . .
I very much agree. Actually because of the lack of CH in Rhino, I show the students a process to plan their project and save model stages, breaking it down to sketch creation, surface creation, object detailing(features).
It is a good way to make them aware of the importance of considering such methodologies.
Other engineers/designers mentioned actually the same to me as well, that they have the feeling that the profile/sketch 2D approach reminds them about the CNC technology.
I am very curious about how Fusion360 will implement the 3D sketch function as that for me would be curial to have to consider this application.
But I am also only a designer not engineer. So I am not sure of for example SW must have the design rebuild with SW surfacing tools for example to do then the simulation or evaluations (stress test etc.) with its engineering or if imported surface models will be sufficient.
Quite often I hear the story that the designers Rhino model always has to be rebuild fully in SW.
The client I work with mainly uses Rhino and does everything with it and actually has no need for SW - but it is a small studio not a large company like lets say Bissle or Black n Decker.
I studied Product Design, so I really loved it when you came out with something called Product Design Suite!
My job title is Design Engineer but I'm never really sure where the designing ends and the engineering begins, and ends.....I have to take ideas from concept to production tooling so I assume that covers most of both.
Then again to try and be more impressive I might say I'm a Product Designer, or even an Industrial Designer, or to be more scientific an Engineer...or just a Designer....
"errrr.... I make stuff?!"
Mark I feel ya, too many interests here on my side as well.
But shouldnt a designer also be parcially an engineer or at least know somewhat some of the technical requirements?
In an ideal world we should study both engineering and product design inside one degree (maybe 6 years then).
Hybrids have the weak parts but I think they are also great bridge builders.
Hear, hear! I definitely think the two disciplines should be more integrated. I understand the need for specialization, I just don't understand why design/creativity/empathy are seen as "opposites" of technology/optimization/engineering. Where did that view come from?
Glad to hear there's other people riding the middle of that "spectrum."
Fusion 360 Social & Community Manager
That is a very good question Kat.
Maybe because out of misunderstanding, competition, fear, or also lack of education?!
I remember many just giving me a funny look when I talked about polygon modeling.
It is like a peer mentality. I use Microsoft Windows because everybody else does it.
No I do not question the establishment and no I do not look outside the box to see if
there might be something else useful.
There are those who like to explore what a software could do and those who want to
know the do the right thing.
True, my character animation background is kinda odd in the field for product design.
But when it comes to posing figures, testing ergonomics, or also using bend techniques
from character animations, they work much faster and better then the stiff tools CAD systems
And few of my students who were open to that saw the greater flexibility to this.
Some see CAD as a means to build the model for manufacturing. I teach the students to see
CAD simply as sketching in 3D and this is still a part of the design thinking process where
you explore, compare, and decide.
Aftewards once decissions are made you can then still go and build the model in the appropiate
But at last things change now. Grasshopper got quite popular for experiments designers.
And with T-Splines now in a much bigger package and with a bigger name gets more reputation.
Some of my former students actually also told me about encounters with engineers that found
the creative freedom of T-Splines fantastic because they saw the potential compared to their Pro-E.
Maybe because the designer software and engineer software were so different in what they can
model, people started to judge each other.
Engineers cannot design - Designers make stuff that does not work.