{"title":"在不同的产品环境中对中档CAD工具进行基准测试:建议和结果","authors":"R. Bauernschub, D. E. King","doi":"10.1109/ITHERM.2000.866826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Processing power increases of recent years, coupled with decreasing costs of both hardware and software, have combined to dramatically improve product designers' access to CAD tools. Operations that were once only possible on expensive Unix-based workstations can now be performed on less expensive Windows-based personal computers. A new category of CAD tools (commonly described as \"mid-range\" tools) has emerged to exploit these trends. This paper outlines the process used to develop a custom benchmark test used to evaluate three mid-range CAD tools: Solid Edge v.6, Solid Works 98+, and Mechanical Desktop v.3. Specific objectives of the exercise were to compare the mid-range tools against the current Unix-based CAD tool in order to: (i) ascertain if significant \"ease-of-use\" could be realized, and (ii) determine what capabilities would be lost (if these tools replaced the current tool) or gained (if they were used to augment the current tool). Topics addressed include: identifying tool requirements, conducting initial screening, developing evaluation tests, specifying both objective and subjective scoring systems, performing the tests, and presenting the results to users and executive management. The effects of a diverse product line on the benchmarking activity are noted. Development of special requirements due to data transfer to and from other CAD and CAE tools is outlined.","PeriodicalId":201262,"journal":{"name":"ITHERM 2000. The Seventh Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (Cat. No.00CH37069)","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benchmarking mid-range CAD tools in a diverse product environment: recommendations and results\",\"authors\":\"R. Bauernschub, D. E. King\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ITHERM.2000.866826\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Processing power increases of recent years, coupled with decreasing costs of both hardware and software, have combined to dramatically improve product designers' access to CAD tools. Operations that were once only possible on expensive Unix-based workstations can now be performed on less expensive Windows-based personal computers. A new category of CAD tools (commonly described as \\\"mid-range\\\" tools) has emerged to exploit these trends. This paper outlines the process used to develop a custom benchmark test used to evaluate three mid-range CAD tools: Solid Edge v.6, Solid Works 98+, and Mechanical Desktop v.3. Specific objectives of the exercise were to compare the mid-range tools against the current Unix-based CAD tool in order to: (i) ascertain if significant \\\"ease-of-use\\\" could be realized, and (ii) determine what capabilities would be lost (if these tools replaced the current tool) or gained (if they were used to augment the current tool). Topics addressed include: identifying tool requirements, conducting initial screening, developing evaluation tests, specifying both objective and subjective scoring systems, performing the tests, and presenting the results to users and executive management. The effects of a diverse product line on the benchmarking activity are noted. Development of special requirements due to data transfer to and from other CAD and CAE tools is outlined.\",\"PeriodicalId\":201262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ITHERM 2000. The Seventh Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (Cat. No.00CH37069)\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ITHERM 2000. The Seventh Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (Cat. No.00CH37069)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHERM.2000.866826\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ITHERM 2000. The Seventh Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (Cat. No.00CH37069)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHERM.2000.866826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
近年来处理能力的提高,加上硬件和软件成本的降低,极大地改善了产品设计师对CAD工具的访问。曾经只能在昂贵的基于unix的工作站上进行的操作现在可以在更便宜的基于windows的个人计算机上执行。利用这些趋势出现了一类新的CAD工具(通常被描述为“中档”工具)。本文概述了用于开发用于评估三个中档CAD工具的定制基准测试的过程:Solid Edge v.6, Solid Works 98+和Mechanical Desktop v.3。这项工作的具体目标是将中等工具与当前基于unix的CAD工具进行比较,以便:(i)确定是否可以实现显著的“易用性”,以及(ii)确定将失去哪些功能(如果这些工具取代当前工具)或获得哪些功能(如果它们用于增强当前工具)。讨论的主题包括:确定工具需求,进行初始筛选,开发评估测试,指定客观和主观评分系统,执行测试,并将结果呈现给用户和执行管理。注意到不同产品线对基准测试活动的影响。概述了由于与其他CAD和CAE工具之间的数据传输而产生的特殊要求的开发。
Benchmarking mid-range CAD tools in a diverse product environment: recommendations and results
Processing power increases of recent years, coupled with decreasing costs of both hardware and software, have combined to dramatically improve product designers' access to CAD tools. Operations that were once only possible on expensive Unix-based workstations can now be performed on less expensive Windows-based personal computers. A new category of CAD tools (commonly described as "mid-range" tools) has emerged to exploit these trends. This paper outlines the process used to develop a custom benchmark test used to evaluate three mid-range CAD tools: Solid Edge v.6, Solid Works 98+, and Mechanical Desktop v.3. Specific objectives of the exercise were to compare the mid-range tools against the current Unix-based CAD tool in order to: (i) ascertain if significant "ease-of-use" could be realized, and (ii) determine what capabilities would be lost (if these tools replaced the current tool) or gained (if they were used to augment the current tool). Topics addressed include: identifying tool requirements, conducting initial screening, developing evaluation tests, specifying both objective and subjective scoring systems, performing the tests, and presenting the results to users and executive management. The effects of a diverse product line on the benchmarking activity are noted. Development of special requirements due to data transfer to and from other CAD and CAE tools is outlined.