Design and Manufacturing solutions through Digital Prototyping and Interoperability

Tag Archives: design

Solid Edge Cloud Licensing and Storage

Siemens PLM decided to move Sold Edge a bit further into the cloud with some good options integrated into ST9. Integrated Solid Edge cloud licensing and flexible storage options should prove to be a welcomed addition to Solid Edge’s proven performance.

Cloud Licensing

Sold Edge cloud licensing and storage is available for version ST9, and is optional. This option allows users to check out their ST9 license, and use it on whichever machine they are working on. Home or office – you can work anywhere you need to with a single license.

Siemens Solid Edge ST9 Cloud Licensing

The License Manager handles the Cloud license option. Users may switch to cloud-licensing by using the “I need to visit the Siemens Licensing website option”, and follow the cloud licensing links. Some restrictions I picked up on include:

  • Users must call Siemens customer support to revert their cloud licenses back to node-locked licenses.
  • Solid Edge requires and internet connection to check out the license and start. Once it’s running the internet is no longer required.
  • Group licensing is required to be consistent. You cannot mix and match node-locked and cloud based licenses.

Cloud Storage and Management

Solid Edge ST9 will now store it’s data on any platform you like, including locally, vault solutions, and even the cloud. Siemens PLM understands that companies are using a wide array of storage solutions. ST9 was released with this in mind. Solid Edge can be set to incorporate various cloud solutions, including Dropbox, OneDrive, etc. Come to think of it, Kenesto Drive might also be a good fit.

I wanted to get some feedback on cloud storage functionality. Bill McClure, VP of Strategic Initiatives at Siemens PLM, was kind enough to tell me about his experiences. I asked the Solid Edge team how multiple users worked in this environment. McClure said that a form of lock files were now being incorporated, and that Solid Edge would recognize when the files were opened by another user. When asked about performance, he said that he was happy with the Solid Edge cloud pairing, using a Dropbox subscription. McClure noted that Dropbox has been stable and reliable (I have always said cloud syncing should “just work, like Dropbox”). He went on to describe the Dropbox bit-level detection and replacement algorithm [Dropbox calls this a “binary diff”]. It senses where the files have changed, and only replace the modified sections, not the entire files. This is apparently how Dropbox updates so quickly.


Siemens PLM has spent a great deal of effort trying too keep their customers happy. Licensing in the past has followed the company’s large, and somewhat rigid structure. However, the company is clearly trying to be more flexible about these issues. There is something for everyone:

Perpetual licensing – The company continues to respect their very-loyal Solid Edge user community by maintaining this option

Rentals and annual subscription – Some like a bit more flexibility and the most updated software

cloud / floating network / node-locked options

I think the cloud-license option is a great step in the right direction. I will probably do this myself.  Some of my associates remain unsure about using the option when the internet is unavailable, and then not being able to start Solid Edge. As the Solid Edge team points out, cloud licensing will not fit everyone’s situation. There are numerous options, and no one option is perfect.

I’ll be following up on the new data management features integrated into ST9. I hope that incorporating these into the cloud storage scenarios will produce a versatile fit for numerous companies. New integrated data management, along with Solid Edge’s particular strengths, have the capacity to fill the needs of a well-rounded CAD product, in a larger part of the CAD market.

Fusion 360 | The Effects of Combine Order

I noticed something about the order I use to join solids in Fusion 360. Until recently, I didn’t consider the effects of Combine Order; It does matter. This is what happened and what I learned.

Combine Order

I had initially exported two solid bodies and four fluid bodies from Fusion 360 to a STEP file. This was imported into Autodesk CFD without a hitch. I realized that changes needed to be made, and returned to Fusion 360. I altered the design, exported again, and started a new study in CFD. This time things were not so good. Instead of two solid components, I had approximately 550. There was no way I wanted to troubleshoot the mesh with that kind of overlapping complexity. I tried a few Fusion 360 alterations, but nothing mattered until I adjusted the combine order of operations.

What doesn’t work

You can create one singe solid body from many, by using the Combine tool. This works well as you would expect. One option within the tool, create a new component, will create a new component comprised of the newly joined/combined bodies, as a single body. All seems well in Fusion 360. However when exported to a STEP file, the model remains as numerous separate pieces (as if you imported a block into AutoCAD, and then exploded it). Not what I wanted.

What does work

Combine Tool in Fusion 360    Combine Tool in Fusion 360

I  recommend combining the bodies first, then separately create the new component. In the image above notice that the “New Component” option is not selected.

Create New Component in Fusion 360    Create New Component in Fusion 360

Afterward, Adding the joined, single-body into the component will produce a single body in the STEP file.

NOTE: if you add an additional body into the component after one has been added, either by dragging or using the combine tool, you may get multiple bodies in the exported STEP file.

Fusion 360 Combine before Component    Fusion 360 Component After Combine 

Notice the history bar at the bottom of each image, and the components at the bottom of the Browser Tree at the left side. In the first operation, the components are combined into the single hub body (highlighted). In the second operation, that single-body is added to a new component on-the-fly, called HPC Rotor. Inside that component is only the single hub body. This will come out in the STEP file properly.

The key is to join all bodies in one step as a single body in the history list. Then add that single-body to the component later. If you realize later that you need to add more bodies, back-up the history list and include the bodies in the single combine operation first. While these symptoms might sound suspiciously like saving your tool bodies, or having multiple bodies evident in your components, this is not the case in this situation. Only one body was evident in each component, viewed in Fusion 360.

Fusion 360: Compressor Mock-up Easy or not?

I have reached the point in my overall turbofan design where I can do some preliminary Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling. For this I need a good CAD model that I can beat up a little. I had always wanted to see if Fusion 360 would be able to handle a compressor model, and so I decided to give it a whirl. This way I could get the fluid body I needed, test Fusion 360, and evaluate the design direction prior to settling in on a specific CAD modeler. In this article I will not focus on the CFD, but on the experience I had using Fusion 360.

Is the Fusion 360 modeler a platform worthy of marketing to engineers?

Is the modeling space robust enough for serious design?

Sketching – does it suck? (Some of you are laughing at the directness of this question, I am. However, that is what you really want to know, right?)

Parametrics – Are they user friendly?

and so on…

Fusion 360 Modeling


Sketching in Fusion 360

Sketching was surprisingly good

I found sketching to be rather straight forward. The usual array of curves, lines, arcs, and so forth were available from the sketching panel. What is surprising is the smoothness that the system handles projections. I know we’re not talking rocket science here, but it was quite nice. The ability to turn on and off bodies, sketches, and constructions at their header while remaining in sketch mode is also much appreciated. Make your projections, turn off the features, and continue with a clean slate. Scott points out that Fusion 360 will handle most constrained projections automatically.

Recovering from lost references was smooth

Then next item was recovering from lost references. I should preface this by saying that I never once lost a projection in Fusion 360 by re-ordering the features. I am speaking about redefining sketch planes, and losing references during that process; a procedure that most CAD users will not move to lightly. Fusion 360 lost sight of the references, but maintained the remaining constraints. It permitted cleanup easily. In my case I use 3 constraints per stage to tie the sketch in place. After the sketch plane re-definition, I simply turned on my limiting construction planes, added the 2 projections, and then 3 constraints. The model snapped into place without any other adjustments or coaxing.

Copying sketch profiles – Why didn’t I think of it sooner?

I must say that after manually redrawing the same features in 16 sketches, you’d think I would have figured it out. You can copy sketch profiles from sketch to sketch, and all the constraints transpose in-tact! In the image below I simply copied constrained profiles from one sketch, and pasted into another. Then 3 constraints added to tie it to the relevant projections, and the sketch was in place; all the parameters were preset. It took days to model first 8 stages; it took half an hour to model the last 3.

So what about the parameters and dimension adjustments?

Parameter Organization

Parameters in Fusion 360 are awesome, and I mean it. Each parameter is organized by name: name of body, name of sketch, name of construction plane, etc. All of my control parameters are added as User Parameters. When I copy a sketch, Fusion 360 automatically groups the dimensional constraints together in the parameters under the new sketch name.

Parameter Organization in Fusion 360

Adjusting these parameters was simple: go to the new sketch section and select the User Parameters as needed. They are so easy to discern under this type of organization.

Parameter Auto-complete, I love you!

One of my favorite Parameter features is the auto-complete type lookup. When you pick over an existing parameter, or begin typing one, the system opens a pull-down with all possible relevant parameters. I was able to find a parameter that needed to be indexed, pick it, pull down to the new parameter, and go on the the next change; Soooooooooo nice.


Parameter Lookup in Fusion 360

Sketching was irritating

Huh, what happened to surprisingly good? Well, there were some issues. The only ones that are really worth mentioning in this edition were: inferred constraints and order of constraints.

Inferred Constraints

Sketching had all the constraints you’d hope to have. Horizontal and vertical were unfortunately in the same function, but not a deal killer. That said, the first issue that came up repeatedly was Fusion 360’s inferred constraints. Inferred constraints are important, and a powerful tool, but I tend to think of these like automatic osnaps in AutoCAD: always in the way. In Autodesk Inventor, these don’t really seem to be too much problem. However Fusion 360 is hell bent on snapping a constraint to any damn thing you pass or seem to pass. Obviously you can work around it with care, but it shanked me quite  a few times. I need to learn how to shut these off.

…Scott has informed me that the control key will toggle these. I meant I want them off-off.

Order of constraints needs some love

Order of constraints is one of those things that you look at the cost of the software and decide how bad the problem is. When I say order of constraints, I’m speaking about the order that you create geometric and dimensional constraints in the sketch. In Inventor, we try to get as many relevant geometric constraints down first, then add the dimensional scalars. If Fusion 360… probably not. There is a delicate balance that must be observed. If you apply too many geometric constraints first, when the dimensional changes are to be applied, often Fusion 360 will report that the sketch is over-constrained. If you go back and remove some constraints here and there to relax things, add the dimensions, Fusion 360 will often then allow the old geometric constraints.

Moreover, the more you constrain the sketch, the more edgy manual, drag type manipulations become. It’s almost like a resolution problem. Modelers with a better resolution don’t react so sharply when you drag a model with only one or two degrees of freedom (DOF). In Fusion 360 I’d want that single DOF to be quite linear, and well focused. I started to think in terms of constraints, and applying angular constraints carefully while the model was still very relaxed.

Modeling in Fusion 360

I didn’t go too deep into modeling. I lofted between profiles, performed revolutions, trimmed bodies, and so forth. In general, modeling was well mannered.

Filleting between bodies

You cannot fillet at intersections of separate bodies until they are joined. OK, I get that. However, the ease of filleting that used to be in Fusion R3 (if you have to ask, you probably don’t need to know) doesn’t seem to be there. A different model kernel is in use most likely, but still sucks a bit. You have to really watch the geometries when applying intricate fillets.

Moving features about in the history

I have to say that moving objects about in history was pretty smooth. In other modelers, when I move thing about, I cringe waiting for the rebuild, and hoping nothing will fall apart. The speed at which it remodeled and the ease of moving things was quite nice. Not being able to see the names during the move sucks, but I am still impressed.

Revolving  a surface – not suckin now that I know how to do it!!

I couldn’t determine how to model a parametrically controlled, updatable, revolved surface. You can perform a revolve of an open profile in the pushy-squishy modelling section, but none of that updates in history. Scott has informed me that it’s in the Patch area, and sure enough, it works. Just remember that the pushy-squishy (“Form”) version more obvious in the Model area will not update with your parameters.


This was but a small list of what Fusion 360 can do. As you can see from the images in this article, Fusion 360 can perform moderately complex geometry, and in most cases control it all parametrically. If you paid 10 large for it, you got robbed. If you paid the going rate for the subscription, I think you got a sweet deal.

Is the Fusion 360 modeler a platform worthy of marketing to engineers?

It all depends on what you are designing. I can’t say until I get further into the product, but for now I will say that it’s powerful for the price, and I’m hopeful of it’s continued maturity.

Is the modeling space robust enough for intricate design?

This kind of relates to the last question, but consider to this mock-up. I’m controlling the bend, aspect, twist, and taper angles of every blade set in every stage, independently. Not a task for a cheesy modeler.

Sketching – does it suck?

I answered that with specifics in the section above. That said, in general, it’s a pretty good sketching environment.

Parametrics – Are they user friendly?

Oh no doubt about it, they are nice.

Would I consider engineering with Fusion 360 full time as my modeler of choice?

If I had little money and was starting out – for the price I paid, hell yes. However I would be quite cautious of what I was designing. I will likely continue to model my preliminary engine structures in Fusion 360, as well as preparing my CFD models.  When it comes time to commit to a very expensive, very dangerous design, a more powerful platform will likely be in order.

I have seen Fusion 360 growing far beyond where I thought it would go. It’s tied into A360, easy to collaborate in, and packed with so many great features far beyond simple modeling. I think the rendering engine is nice, and with Simulation and CAM in the package, it’s already hard to resist; for the money, it’s unbeatable. I’m keenly interested how it will evolve in the next two years. I’ll follow up with more observation as I add more to this design.

HP Compressor in Autodesk Fusion 360


Solid Edge Variables Spreadsheet Link

After I recently and erroneously mentioned the Solid Edge Variables to Spreadsheet Link along with ST8’s new features, I decided this would be a good time to learn how to do this myself, and find out just how well it works.

Solid Edge Variables Spreadsheet Link Process

  1. Open a spreadsheet, select a cell, and use the Copy command to copy the cell to the Clipboard.
  2. Open the Solid Edge Variables table
  3. Pick the variable value cell that you want to link.
  4. Pick Paste Link from the context menu.

The link will be applied, and the values adjusted, immediately. Refer to the following images.

Solid Edge Variables to Spreadsheet Link Copy

Basic Station offset spreadsheet: Pick, right-click, and copy.


Solid Edge Variables to Spreadsheet Link Paste

Solid Edge Variables table: Pick the cell, right-click, Paste Link.


Solid Edge Variables to Spreadsheet Link Cell Update

Solid Edge Variables Table again: note the link automatically populates in the Formula column.


Solid Edge Variables Spreadsheet Link Update

Spreadsheet update: as soon as the cell updates in the spreadsheet, Solid Edge responds accordingly.



Ok, that was freakin cool. I doubt that Siemens PLM could have made that easier, or more straight-forward. I like the instant update, and not having to save the spreadsheet first.

Massive task for Solid Edge Variables to Spreadsheet Link

Now all I have to do is stitch all this into Solid Edge.

Check out more Solid Edge CAD topics at D&M and the Solid Edge Blog.

The more things change, the more they stay the same?

Just before I went on vacation Jonathan Landeros (Inventor Tales) posted a great article about old technology vs. new technology – how new doesn’t always mean better. It should really be about picking the right tool for the job. On my vacation the family and I went away for 7-days to Prince Albert National Park (Waskesui) and I left my computer(s) at home. I still had my phone, so I wasn’t completely disconnected, but with no laptop at my disposal it left me lots of time to think and contemplate things.

What I ended up thinking the most about was my day job and the current technology at use. What I mean from this is that we are not adopting new technology and processes, we’re not even evaluating or considering most of them. Why is that? and is this ok? I also though about the current “rut” that I was starting to feel, from a technology standpoint. Which is odd as I never have considered myself bleeding edge, but I’ve always felt that I’ve had a good handle of what was going on….. but now? I’m starting to feel left behind.


So what “new” technologies am I thinking about? The Cloud [social, mobile, analytic, big data], Robotics / AI / Drones, Electric Power, 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing, New Materials, IoT (Internet of Things), Easier more integrated access to CAD / CAM / FEA / Visualization, and the the blurring of lines between BOM / PDM / PLM / ERP / MRP / CRM / add acronym here. There is also generative design and many other unbelievable things happening.

There is also the change in how business is being done… crowd sourcing, crowd design, open source new-shoring, …. and the blurring of what’s public and what’s private. What does Intellectual Property (IP) really even mean anymore?

Change happens, and hopefully when it happens its a good thing. At my day job what really changed things for us was the acquisition of an electrical vehicle manufacturer. This has made us look at how we do things differently, and how we can approve. The status quo is no longer the status quo, which is good as one never wants to become stagnant. The new mine being built in the province has mandated 80% electric use for machinery and equipment, with a clear goal to exceed this. What an opportunity for us!

As you can see I was thinking about a lot! But also note that not everything is new, some items have been around for years but are just now becoming mainstream.


I’m going to embark on a series of posts exploring each of these trends and the new technology. I am far from the expert which I think makes it great as there will be plenty of opportunity for feedback. What has worked? What are you looking at? How are you approaching it? I want to explore how to approach the new technology from an individual personal and professional aspect as well as why companies may or may not look at the new tech.

For this series we’ll use an example company “ACME Mining Equipment”, that I’ve made up, but I don’t think is that dissimilar to a lot of small to medium companies. Here’s their profile:

ACME Mining Equipment is a  company that primarily manufactures, repairs, and services underground mining equipment. The company started as a custom machine / fab shop over 35-years ago. They have one facility and around 150 employees. They have a very small, but very loyal customer base, many whom we’ve done business with for over 35-years. ACME (or AME) is classified as a small, engineered-to-order, manufacturer (at least as far as ERP companies classify things) as they customize just about everything that goes out the door to meet their customers requirements. The customization is what separates ACME from their bigger competition that just pushes “boxes” out the door.

  • ACME is an Autodesk shop – through-and-through – they use Inventor, AutoCAD Electrical, AutoCAD Mechanical, Vault Professional, Simulation Mechanical, and even have a few seats of PLM 360 floating about.
  • They make things from purchased items and steel (laser / plasma cut profiles & standard structural shapes). Welded or bolted together
  • Although they have some CNC capabilities, most of the programming is done by hand on their NC machines (for various reasons – I’ll explain more later)
  • Communication with the customer is done mainly via the phone and email. Outside of quotes, sales order confirmations, and manuals very little other types of documentation are exchanged.

Keep watching the site!

All imagery from GRATISOGRAPHY

Sheet Metal: Looking for Better Airframe Design

I have been perplexed by Sheet Metal solutions available in CAD software for, well, as long as I have been involved in the design side of things. I spent considerable amounts of time creating these structures in airframe applications and to be quite frank, I have seen little in the grand scheme of enabling sheet metal efficiency in airframe design. Why? Because airframe designers are all using Siemens NX and Dassault CATIA.

Extruded Piano Hinge Airframe

The problem is that the rest of the industry just seemed to stop short. If you are designing steel electrical boxes, you are set. Just about every vendor out there has you covered. Automotive applications, which are generally steel, are well covered by some vendors, excepting a few situations. Airframe on the other hand is largely aluminum (rapidly being overtaken by composites), and the semi-monocoque application creates some real challenges:

  • Aluminum in airframe design is quite unforgiving – it cracks while being stretched and it cracks in flight due to cyclic loading and vibration
  • The sheets are thin and in many applications, require countersunk rivets
  • Sheets have to overlap each other in certain areas then suddenly not

Sheet Metal Bad Corner Treatment Cracked

We deal with these limitations with some manipulations that are not employed in mainstream sheet metal design. Dimples and joggles are two that come to mind. We treat corner radii differently. Another example is that parts on the aircraft are rarely built from sheets that are measured in gauges. Sheet aluminum for aircraft are shipped and spec’d in thousandths of an inch: 0.040”, 0.050” 0.063”, etc.

Thin Sheet Metal Dimpled Nutplate

General design software does not provide much in these areas. There are little in the way of rivets, rivet sizing, or fastener dimples. Moreover no standardized solid and blind rivet libraries exist with grip sizing. I have never seen gang channel in any vendor’s software, although I did put some together for Inventor.  Joggles for the sake of lapping sheets I have only seen in one vendor’s application.

CherryMax Blind Rivets Countersunk CherryMax Blind Rivet Grip Gauge

We develop workarounds to help us get the most accurate looking parts, within the limitation of important design constraints. These workarounds rarely update well after changes, and a large part of it involve specific workflows handled by flat pattern detailing and notes applied in drawing specifications and leaders.


Software Vendors

My intent here was not to point out specific vendor applications. Each vendor does certain things extremely well, and this is why we stick with this one or another, taking the good, and working around the bad.

Some examples of automation we need is:

  • Applying a Hole Feature, select Blind Rivet, whereafter identifying the sheets that will be joined, the application stores the appropriate grip for the selected rivet in the hole. When it is time to apply fasteners in the assembly, the intelligence to fill the pattern appropriately is already there.
  • Corner Treatments and setbacks that ACTUALLY WORK, even in the simplest situations.

I started investigating software updates this year, and to my surprise found nice sheet metal enhancements in almost every platform I reviewed. I have not found a solution to many of these simple problems, but I’d like to take some time in the next few weeks looking at some of the improvements that do benefit airframe design, and explain these here for everyone’s benefit.


I’d really like to get some comments here from people in the industry. Things you need, want, software that has really helped, and equally important, why. It would help us to dig in the right places, ask the right questions, and tell vendors exactly what is needed by people that use the software.

Sheet Metal

Join the Community