Jump to content
Product Design Forums

Treasurebox
Sign in to follow this  
Guest csven

"future Of Design" Video

Recommended Posts

Just imagine this, your customer is in China and your in the US. would you rather make a model of the product and ship it across the world to show him, or just send him a file over the internet and let him download it and see it? And the great thing with something like this is that it's 3D so it's just like having the physical object, almost...

 

Also cost, this would have a lot of money in the long run, no need to ship prototypes around that you don't even know they like, and it would save energy, materials, and a lot of time.

 

Sorry but VR is nothing like having a physical product! I've used VR systems for years at customers, from 3D glasses to full on haptic devices and they don't compare to picking up a product feeling it, opening it up, feeling the way it opens and closes, feeling the subtle textures on the surface, or the flexibility of different parts. VR comes into its own when you are dealing with large scale projects - like aircraft or buildings or power plants - and that is where the current market is focussed - for very good reason.

 

Customers can already download 3D parts rotate them from all angles and view them, dissect them, measure them but that requires knowledge of the system to be used to do this. Sitting here as designers who may be 3D CAD literate it is easy to assume everybody can do this - they cannot. Do not underestimate how hard this can be for some people.

 

3D objects however have none of these issues. You hold it in your hand, you feel it, lift it etc.

 

Besides, if I have a customer in China, I would get a prototype made in China and shipped directly to them, and I would get another made here in the UK. We've been doing this for years. When the Dimension RP machines were first launched they promoted the concept of the 3D fax. Send the file off to all your locations and print it out locally.

 

Watch out for this as 3D printers become mass market items. Send a 3D PDF and print it out in 3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grant Howarth

I'm sure i'm not the first to post this on these forums, but some time ago there was a lot of commotion over Sony's research into brain manipulation with ultrasound. This would allow the brain to "experience" games, movies and so on internally:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18624944.600

 

almost a real life matrix. Imagine walking down the street, you suddenly get a fantastic idea... have a seat, stick on some headgear and produce some sketches without having to move a finger. Sometimes, what we produce or create is often a watered down version of what we imagine, due to translation problems between the brain and the body and the restrictions posed by the methods we use to communicate ideas (e.g. cad)... this method would allow that to be negated. I think this video is perhaps the technology that will fill the void between current methods and simply plugging your brain into some digital studio. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Buff

That's gotta be some good stuff you smokin' there Grant ;-)

 

I can see what your saying about "Matrix Design" not having interpretation problems, but I think the software needed to translate brain electrical impuses into meaningful 3D data for manufacturing will still proove to be the week link in the chain.

 

I can see that desingers would still need to venture out on to a steep learning curve in order to "Brian Train" and think like a virtual CAD jockey.. bit like Firefox (showing my age there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now there was a classy film :) I went to the cinema to see that - yes really.

 

It was on the TV last year and I actually sat and watched it. Excellent example of how state of the art changes in 20 years B) The Firefox looked like a badly built Airfix kit compared to todays CGI - but it didn't seem like that at the time (I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Grant Howarth

hehe :)

Sorry, been reading too many Michio Kaku books B)

We're already seeing prosthetics that work from electrical pulses when attatched to the body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
Yes I accept your points but reading through your previous posts I can see that you have a similar opinion regarding the terminology of design - that being the traditional style centric "ID" approach and a more unified holistic approach. In this respect I consider true design to be that - considering the whole as opposed to the package. Not that there is anything wrong with just the package - I've done enough of that over the years to know that it pays the bills! I just, on a personal basis, hate being branded as a skin man by customers who associate ID with the looks only, when, in actual fact what "true" ID is about is so much more than that, and involves integration of all the functions in a product.
And what makes you think this video is limited to surface aesthetics? Based on the section views (at 2:15 in the video) and the engineering-looking graphs (at 2:18 in the video), the woman shown is perhaps the project engineer to whom the designer sends the 3D model. The guy after her could be anyone; perhaps the design manager or maybe the marketing manager. I basically discount the "virtual grab" since a ) I don't see a feedback glove, and b ) it could as easily be a 3D print of the handle being tested as a virtual part.

 

But getting onto the specifics relating to that video, I'm afraid I have been subject to so many sales pitches by Dassault over the years that I get a bit thick skinned over all this gee whiz stuff. I am not adverse to new technology either - my problem is I use too much technology sometimes! What I get tired of is seeing the same old marketing BS dragged out and tarted up for the YouTube Blog age that 10 years ago was a mailshot on CD, or an expensive day out. There is nothing inherently new in any of that video.
There's nothing inherently new about traveling to Mars either, but we're a lot closer now than we were when Burrough's dreamed up John Carter almost a hundred years ago. And as I've already said, I see this kind of technology as having an impact in 10-12 years. Understanding that and also being fully aware of all the marketing BS, I can still keep an open mind and refrain from stating certainties; an overly negative emotional reaction only clouds reality.

 

I have customers in the defence industry and automotive industries and they have dabbled with haptic VR devices with big screens and I grant you, these things are hugely impressive, but I have to say I am not convinced they enhance the actual design process.
Again, tools don't make people better designers, and I'd venture that the way in which they enhance the design process is going to vary depending on quite a lot of factors. Your not being convinced does not equate to their definitive failure.

 

They certainly enhance the "internal" selling process and communication to marketing and board level, so in that sense they are justifiable.
An odd comment coming from you. Is not "selling process and communication to marketing" what you just claimed it could not do; that a physical model was necessary for all marketing people? I realize these are different things, but they both involve a similar level of engagement with and understanding of a virtual object. Why would the marketing and board people buy off on something they do not comprehend and for which they have no use?

 

By the way, one of the few bright spots I've read about in the current economic malaise is ... the soaring profits in sales of virtual goods for some companies. I'd venture it's not a bunch of designers fueling that market. Consequently someone else out there sees value in and is significantly engaged with non-physical products. Go figure.

 

Sure costs have come down dramatically, but the problem is not necessarily one of cost anyway. I run a tiny design business yet we are better equipped than some customers I have with £25m turnovers.
Then why make it a point?

 

I agree with your point about it being designers who will have these things, but then that is probably not what Dassault wants to hear. The prime market for Dassault is large enterprise, so having a collective of designers is of no interest to them - they want this stuff on every desk from CEO down to the shopfloor.
I'm not necessarily using designers in the limited ID sense. Engineers are designers. As stated, some marketing people start off as designers. I know a couple of salespeople who started off as IDers, too. And people on the shop floor - especially the one's using 3D software to generate the tooling paths - fall into this group, afaic. I'd venture Dassault would be plenty happy to have all those people using their software.

 

The other huge issue - which I'm sure every professional designer here has come across - is that no matter what we produce, we rely on our customer's skills at interpreting the results. When you are presenting results digitally, that requires the customer has the skills to use whatever is given to them.
This makes no sense to me. Who calls a customer (e.g. Target, Wal*Mart, aso) and tells them to download a 3D model and buy a 250,000 units? Who shows up at a customer's office and only shows a final 3D model spinning on their laptop unless they already know the buyer is sufficiently sophisticated and experienced enough to grok the simulation (and some can) instead of having a physical model? I don't know anyone doing that. Nor is it relevant, afaic, since I'd venture Dassault isn't looking to sell design software to retailers.

 

What I mean is, in the "good old days", pre CAD, we would work all night on wonderful markered up visuals mounted onto expensive Pantone gradient backgrounds, with maybe a painted up foam model or test rig as support, then travel to the other end of the country to present the work.

 

These days, it tends to be a document that the customer can print out at their end (colour lasers now being the norm), backed up by things like E drawings or 3D PDF, or occasionally a web conference. If a prototype is needed, these can be shipped to the customer direct from the RP bureau, or from here after they have been tweaked.

Well, the difference between the mounted renders and the printed documents is very little; mounting stuff is intern work. And if your customer is a manufacturer instead of a retailer, web conferences are more common, but until the recent fuel spike, most people were still flying out to meet retail customers face-to-face.

 

I would love to be able to run web conference sessions to present to every customer a work in progress but every project requires an element of presentation material. The newer tools we have now - like Hypershot, or 3D printing, make this a lot easier but it still needs to be allocated in the development process.
Nothing in the video is suggesting that "presentation material" simply goes away. I'd venture you're over-reacting and reading something into this that isn't there.

 

So any comments I make about this technology are based upon years of dealing with a) sales pitches from software companies and :) trying to minimise my presentation prep time and maximise my design time. If I truly believed that this stuff would allow me to halt design and immediately share the data to customers I would be first in the queue to buy it. But I don't believe it will.Not yet anyway.
"Not yet anyway"??? That's not the same definitive-sounding stuff from your last comment.

 

(continued because the forum software limits blocks of quoted text...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
You see, as a service designer we are , at the end of the day, salespeople. Our customers ask us to come up with a solution. If we spend 10 days on something and come back to them with a VR presentation and no tangible results (by this I mean - physical deliverables - printed reports, visuals, prototypes) they question the value of the input.

 

For internal design teams this is maybe not such an issue (but even here it requires that the company structure buys into this method of presentation - we all know how the corporate types love churning out reports!).

Your experience is not mine. In fact, my customers (none of whom are retailers) almost entirely receive non-physical deliverables, especially since I typically work at the front end of most projects. I send them large 2D concept images which they can print and mount internally; I send them 3D CAD files which they use to cut foams or steel. None of them question the value of my input because I never solicited them; all my clients have come to me.

 

For what it's worth, my current project is somewhat unique in the length of time the client wishes to spend on it. As a consequence, my weekly hours on the project will be limited (entirely new for me). I'm considering an experiment: using simulation software (Cobalt, OpenSim, or similar) as part of the process. It won't cost them anything and hopefully they'll be sufficiently curious that I can convince them to load some software to try things out. We'll see.

 

I don't have the answers. I have no idea what the future is for this kind of thing. Sitting here in 2009 I think back to what we used to think back when I was at the RCA in 1987, and then we were talking about much the same kind of stuff as we are now - VR, haptic devices, big touch screens, 3D printers. The one thing nobody saw was the one thing that has made a huge difference to our ability to communicate - the explosion of the internet. Who is to say that another 20 years down the line we will look at these Dassault videos and think - those guys got it so wrong! How could they not see the iSEE3D eye implants coming!
Which is why I think it important to be aware of what Dassault is actually doing in this video. They're not selling this system; they don't have it. They don't sell Minority Report interfaces; they're a software company. So what is the purpose of this video?

 

I suspect getting people excited about the potentials is the purpose. Sparking people's imaginations is the purpose. They're not saying physical presentation materials are going away. No. I think they're getting people geared up for this:

 

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">
name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thats the joy of design csven, everyone is different. I think I said that I see all this stuff from the perspective of 20 years doing product engineering and design for a primarily SME market where people are fussy and like to see tangible results, and where the IT skills are maybe not that developed.

 

I have no doubt that in 10 years the situation will be different, as I also have no doubt that in 10 years when we are on CATIA v7 and PLM 3 or 4 that the interface will be different again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
And thats the joy of design csven, everyone is different. I think I said that I see all this stuff from the perspective of 20 years doing product engineering and design for a primarily SME market where people are fussy and like to see tangible results, and where the IT skills are maybe not that developed.

 

I have no doubt that in 10 years the situation will be different, as I also have no doubt that in 10 years when we are on CATIA v7 and PLM 3 or 4 that the interface will be different again.

I'm not sure your perspective is all that different from mine. Rather, I suspect we share more similar than dissimilar views. The primary difference would appear to be that I hesitate to make absolute statements. As a designer I find myself hesitant to ever use definitives; they back me into an uncomfortable corner. I like to keep my options open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Buff
It's interesting how much controversy something like this breeds.

 

 

Crikey, it's breading now... I know this IT stuff was dangerous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:) it's not controversial. This is discussion and long may it continue. When everybody agrees with everybody else that is the time to get worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
It's interesting how much controversy something like this breeds.
Don't misunderstand: I fully understand from where KQD is coming. I'd say he's 99% dead on. But as a designer I'll cling to that 1%. After all, it's usually all an IDer is given in the business sphere.

 

So if I'm prodding a bit, it's more in the "Even though you have every good reason, don't give up yet" vein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest csven
http://vimeo.com/3365942

Far better IMO.

I've been seeing lots of people post this link, especially SLers, but how many are aware it's by one of the guys that did "

", one of the first big internet videos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.