How 3d programs have influenced product design?

Design Discussions general design discussion
1

I am writing an final essay(thesis) in my school (BA product design) about how 3d modeling or 3d programs have changed the way products are designed. how they influence form…like many people seem to think that they can see easily if a product has been designed mostly or all in a computer program. i want to try to find out what those products have in common…and how the product design process has changed over the last 20 years due to computer influence are all questions i want to discuss in my essay…
i want to ask you guys if you have an opinion on this subject and if you could advice me on some books or sources or people i could interview to build me paper on?

and please feel free to email me if you got some info not suited for the forum!
olio@internet.is
any advice is greatly appreciated!!!
thanks

2

CAD programs have influenced:

part, assembly and drawing all in parametric relation and external refs editable > no need for doing things over.

all sketches, constraints, tolerances, etc are readilly accessible with a click of the mouse > no need for extra documentation or aux views.

prototyping > cnc is now the most powerful tool to develop a precise prototype and it runs on 3d data.

super fast mechanical analysis > cutting a lot of time on ECOs

animation for moving mechanisms > troubleshooting made easy.

data management > excel data sheets are easily made and transfered.

automation > a lot of it can be predefined using CAD to understand the process. for instance creating sheet metal parts from raw material. injection molding from part to mold to part again. so if you have number of these you need to automate the process for least time, material, and energy.

3

3D modeling tools and variety of softwares covering different aspect of industrial design has immensely being reflected in day to day products we encounter. If we closely watch the flow of design of vintage cars to cars uptill late 70s, were either curvatious but bulky or addressed cubism. But contemporary cars on other hand have well defined body flow and transitions of one element in another is one of the unique features bought out of 3d modeling tools.

Todays cutting edge technology has on one hand facilitated feature of imaginations with sketching on one hand, and on the other side has endorsed the techincal aspects of the free hand sketches making design a more comprehesive and fun process. These tools have also brought in facilities of reducing time and errors within the design process.

Organic shapes is not just the feature of products today but many products which are still geomatric have aquired features of having strong corelation and treatment of various defined shapes to be featured in style and elegance. This can be counted upon the 3d tools.

If you analyse this features more closely and create a panaromic display of pictures of products (essentialy of one family) over the years the changes will automatically endorse the influence of these tools on design and will make your study more concrete.

Best wishes
Kamal

4

hi i just finshed my dissation whhich was on the same subject matter. Look at Bill Buxton he used to work for alias.

check this link out it has really good videos
http://www.billbuxton.com/buxtonAliasVideos.html

5

for a while i could tell you the program used. certain apps had workflow paths that made object creation easy. fast. but included compromises.

CAD opened door for mediocrity in industrial design imo. starting mostly in the late 80’s/early 90’s when “affordable” CAD started entering product in a big way. not talking engineering. talking ID.

software limitations gave people excuse for fugly shapes. narrow-vision solutions fit the tool. good ideas dumped bc too hard to CAD. plenty of that. and all the extruded profile crap necessary to clog the community latrine. just look at how many objects still have “simple” rounds. they’re easy. easier than sculptural blends. getting better. but we could still use a cosmic plunger imo.

glad i started off working the boards.

6

CAD tends to give us geometric forms with lots of extruded shapes, boolean operations and constant rounds and fillets. Not a whole lot different that in the days when draftsman picked them based on the tool-bit size of the milling machine that would produce the part or the tooling.

CAID tends to give us forms with lots of lofted surfaces, projected cuts, exposed “rails” and freeform rounds.

A major flaw of CAID is it’s lack of perceived scale–particularly since many designers will design on the fly without ever outputting a scale drawing or rapid prototype during development. I saw a demo at an IDSA conference where a designer was showing off some Alias tricks, and once he was done showing a shoe model, he started working out a car model. I was struck how similar the two forms were in both scale (ie. the size of the monitor) but also in form and construction technique.

Another flaw of CAID is that it tends to rush a final solution when used as an ideation tool. One, by producing photoreal renderings right away that leaves little to the imagination. This frequently results in critiques that are less productive, since the client is less likely to see opportunities for change, (or is afraid to because they look so finished and expensive.) Two by trading time that could be spent in ideation with time spent building the model, defining the shaders and rendering. Once built, the designer is less likely to make radical changes because it may mean starting from scratch with the model.

All that said, I’m a still a huge fan of CAID; you just need to be cognizent of it’s strengths and weaknesses.

7

Over the years the design process has become more structured and faster in pace. The design process was surely affected negatively because in the case of skechwork the time required for the initial concepts to be put down on paper, is much shorter than using a CAD program to do the same. The hand, offers the designer the time to process concepts thoroughly and investigate a greater number of possibilities at an early stage. However not all people can communicate thought by using their hand OR are limited to what they can depict by sketching. This process I believe is valuable to both the designer but also other people to understand thought flow.

I believe the direct way one can develop concepts by means of CAD software, hinders imagination and the exploration of possibilities. Computer Aided Design is ment to aid and not to take over.

Thank you.

8

Unquestionable advantages in terms of time-to-market for most mfg firms but, as always, “more and faster” also meant far more sameness between products, versus the situation 15 - 20 years ago.

Software limitations, to this day, mean that in order to expedite the process many designers stick with the easier, less buggy functions as a quick way out of complex form problems, making for a lot of mediocrity in terms of what lands on the shelves.

Too bad comfort has replaced imagination and the absolute freedom of thought only the human hand can translate best.

Overall, I’d give CAID software (not production readying software) a failing grade and get students to sketch and draw well and fast. Ideas should not be limited by someone else’s tools.

9

lol.

some people think that sketching on paper is something separate from designing in CAD. no it’s not. you have to first master sketching before you move on to CAD. you still have to sketch in CAD!! the program doesn’t provide you sketching skills. it can only help you do a spline with minimum effort.

a lot accuse me, for instance of not being able to sketch and that’s why i keep talking about CAD (which is very childish and retarded) . that’s not true either. i have sketched for years and still do sometimes before designing something, but showing off your sketching is kinda weird in my opinion when you can generate your idea in CAD. it’s good when you’re in school to show your professor that you can sketch different ideas for an assigned project or someone at work to try different styles or ideas or colors or whatever you want for certain projects but finally it comes to designing it.

they also fail to realise that when you get to real world you have to deal with other parameters like competition, cost, and time. sure you can sketch all you want in your spare time but if your company relies on a designer that doesn’t understand CAD that company is in bad shape according to modern standards.

i know i’m gonna get a lot of criticisism for saying this because they would argue, right now, at this very moment there’re design directors in companies that have never even used a computer (well, maybe for email). but that’s gonna change. if you think that the future in design depends on those who just know how to sketch you’re very mistaken.

10

I see where this is going. I understand what ufo is saying. The truth I believe somewhere in the middle. Both skills are essential in order to achive speed and clarity. Sometimes, one is needed more than the other. It is often that a specific project is quite straightforward. Other times it needs more exploration. It all depends on the sought outcome. Lets all see the grey view instead of the black or white.

No criticism ufo. We all come from different directions and have our views. Either way we are all trying our best. I think you do, too. I would suggest that all designers should master both skills and understand where each one applies, to what degree and what they can be used for. That way, each professional reaches balance in the way they prefer to work.

Fair enough? :slight_smile:

11

sure.

12

do you guys remember any examples of a product that is surely computer drawn and andother product that has most likely be handmade or you know what i mean???
perhaps a car model perhaps 1989 model of a car never went through a computer program but year later you can clearly see it??

i am mostly interested in surface design/aesthetics…

your answers has been great so far…

13

“some people think that sketching on paper is something seperate from designing in CAD. no it’s not.”

i disagree. sketching in one medium usually has by-products unique to that medium. i even use different drawing tools to amplify difference within medium. jump from pen to charcoal to marker to pencil… each forces me to change approach. unique results force me to see different things. true of “sketching” in clay. or foam. or any other 3D medium. eg foam is reductive only. clay is both additive and reductive. the process can/will affect the outcome. perception. and also the potential solution.

sure you can sketch on computer. both 2D and 3D. but process is different. results are different. thought processes are necessarily affected differently. and that’s the biggest reason for mastering many techniques.

14

i wasn’t talking about the medium. i was talking about the skill. don’t try to be a rascal.

15

“i wasn’t talking about the medium. i was talking about the skill.”

have time. lets get to what your saying.

“some people think that sketching on paper is something separate from designing in CAD. no it’s not. you have to first master sketching before you move on to CAD. you still have to sketch in CAD!! the program doesn’t provide you sketching skills. it can only help you do a spline with minimum effort.”

you treat sketching on paper separate. “master…before you move on”. separate things. stages. might be using “sketch” to mean Thinking. thought-process. i would then agree. paper or clay or virtual, Thinking is similar. but then its not a stage. how you Think about how you use a medium is not multi-step process where you learn to draw on paper then move to CAD. there is no Master this before you Move on to that. it’s understanding that each medium affects thinking to give you different ideas.

assuming you meant it as Thinking (“talking about the skill”) this doesnt make sense to me then:

"a lot accuse me, for instance of not being able to sketch and that’s why i keep talking about CAD (which is very childish and retarded) . that’s not true either. i have sketched for years and still do sometimes before designing something, but showing off your sketching is kinda weird in my opinion when you can generate your idea in CAD. it’s good when you’re in school to show your professor that you can sketch different ideas for an assigned project or someone at work to try different styles or ideas or colors or whatever you want for certain projects but finally it comes to designing it.

“showing off sketching… when you can generate idea in CAD” doesnt go w concept of paper sketching as unique way to generate ideas. you make it sound like idea is separate. in your head. so then medium is only expression of whats in your head. documentation. that isn’t what i’m saying. and doesnt go with the whole idea of “sketching” as Thinking.

“they also fail to realise that when you get to real world you have to deal with other parameters like competition, cost, and time. sure you can sketch all you want in your spare time but if your company relies on a designer that doesn’t understand CAD that company is in bad shape according to modern standards.”

again you seem to treat anything other than CAD as wasteful. i assume bc you believe idea forms only in the mind. medium is only documentation. thats not what i believe and why i posted what i did. imo a company relies on designers for ideas. not documentation. Design is not documentation imo.

“i know i’m gonna get a lot of criticisism for saying this because they would argue, right now, at this very moment there’re design directors in companies that have never even used a computer (well, maybe for email). but that’s gonna change. if you think that the future in design depends on those who just know how to sketch you’re very mistaken.”

here you use “sketch” as in drawing. outside of CAD. so again what are you saying? if i (we) are confused its bc you dont make yourself clear.

16

they are separate when it comes to learning but after you have learned how to sketch they aren’t. just like driving and racing. two separate things initially. it’s separate from racing but when racing you’re infact driving are you not?


well for someone who finds racing requires thinking rather than skill i have to say it requires both but having racing skills doesn’t mean you’re not thinking.

if you draw something on paper it adds nothing to your concept. it’s an illusion to think that if you drive or race a car then you can feel the map or circuit you’re driving on. the map is already there. just as a line in a sketch is already there. you’re just realizing it. it’s not documentation, it’s antimatter. unless you deny existance of such a thing as antimatter. you’re an engineer are you not? it’s expected of you to think more deeply about physics of things as they relate to temporal and nontemporal entities.

i’m all for ideas. i have said that many times before that if you have no ideas you can never design anything worthwhile. you got the wrong impression.

yeah outside everything in general. i think most people think sketching is way too important. how could daily driving improve your racing skills? unless you don’t know how to drive at all.

17

GUYS…GUYS…!! Why do brilliant minds like yours fall in the trap of word games. We are not in court! Keep thinking positively. Olio’s question was specific.

Olio, you have a point there. When it comes to the surface, not aesthetics. When you refer to aesthetics you must be meaning the general styling of the product which of course includes the surface. If I were you I would keep focusing on the larger picture. Not all products can be sketched by hand or modelled on the pc. I start to believe that you have a certain range of consumer products in mind that look great when modelled or sketched.

Regarding the surface, I dont believe that either sketching or CAD help communicate or decide uppon the surface properties. In order to communicate surface properties, I would probably make a good appearance model and incorporate the tactile qualities that may be needed.

I wish you could be more specific about what you mean by “surface/aesthetics”. Help us help u.

18

“they are separate when it comes to learning but after you have learned how to sketch they aren’t. just like driving and racing. two separate things initially. it’s separate from racing but when racing you’re infact driving are you not?”

how you using “sketch”? sounds like your claiming Sketching is to CAD as Driving is to Racing. one step before the other. well if you predict demise of “2D sketching” in the future, then wont that cause a conflict w your other comments? here’s your other comment from Sketching Forum:

i don’t think you should worry about it {2D drawing}. industrial design is moving fast toward 3d and 2d will be a thing of the past. those firms or schools who promote traditional idea of “2d sketching required” will eventually realize that they have to break the mold and try new concepts in visualization and presentation.

i don’t think you should worry about drawing.

in your argument, how will anyone learn to “race” if they never learn to “drive”?

“if you draw something on paper it adds nothing to your concept.”

i disagree entirely. this is where we part ways. (and please dont dilute the topic w antimatter, physics and other stuff. it gives the appearance of trying to feed an ego.)

19

“Why do brilliant minds like yours”

i think i’ve been insulted.

20

ha ha :smiley: its true ! Most of designers out there dont feel strong enough about what they believe. A few of them don’t even have an opinion. Its great to see things pointed out and opinions explained. Not enforced though. I think we should listen more (or read) and avoid empathy.

As I said,… lets be positive!!!