Market analyst CIMdata (www.cimdata.com) publishes its CAM market analysis annually (https://is.gd/daqugu), but this year was the first time that the company remarked on cloud-based technology. Report author Jeanne Naysmith made a thought-provoking comment, saying: “It will be interesting to watch the adoption rate of cloud-based CAM, an issue raised by many leading CAM solution providers during our annual survey.” Machinery was intrigued, as we know of only one such package, Autodesk’s Fusion 360 offering that includes HSMWorks as a cloud-based CAM package (video: https://is.gd/kepuqu – but Fusion 360 offers a complete design and manufacturing workflow in addition to this single capability).
Naysmith qualifies his statement to be perfectly clear. He is not talking about cloud-enabled CAM, where traditional CAM systems take data from the cloud to support NC programming; specifically tooling data. MachiningCloud is one such (see www.machinery.co.uk/64727), another is Tools United (see www.machinery.co.uk/146338).
On cloud-based CAM, there are no other leaders apart from Autodesk offering this, but those not doing so did mention this topic during the collection of data for the annual survey, says Stan Przybylinski, vice president of research at CIMdata. But Autodesk’s value-added resellers (VARs) are not pushing Fusion 360 too hard, focusing on the company’s traditional products. It is ramping up its inside sales force to support broader adoption, but many early customers are individual ‘makers’ or small design teams, he adds.
PROCESSING POWER POTENTIAL
But Przybylinski believes that CAM is a good application for the cloud, particularly in terms of giving access to high performance computing (HPC), and Naysmith picks this up later. That said, the existing Autodesk CAM application, HSMWorks, is aimed at less demanding geometries and not complex parts that might demand HPC, he offers. But in line with other cloud-hosted applications, benefits for users include software versions always up to date, no need for an IT infrastructure and so a general cost reduction.
As to benefits for CAM suppliers, with the larger ones also offering other engineering software, he says that many have built up a portfolio of software packages, mainly through acquisition, so they have multiple development streams and a wide range of versions to support. “There is some promise in the cloud offering them the ability to collapse some of this complexity over time,” says Przybylinski.
So, benefits on each side there are, but for users there are barriers to cloud take-up. The term given to this is “stickiness”, the unwillingness of users to move from their current solution to something new. Says Przybylinski: “This is particularly true for CAM. Once companies get it working right, they are loath to change anything.”
So who, if anybody, are the likely users? Smaller firms with simpler products and processes, plus start-ups, is the answer to that, but there is little traction in the CAD market, which does drive CAM, he observes, adding: “There will have to be more movement in the other segments to get companies interested [in cloud-based CAM].”
But does cloud-based CAM bring with it any wider benefits to either supplier or user? Przybylinski again: “I think that, over time, the lines between CAD, CAM and computer-aided engineering (CAE) are going to continue to blur. We are already seeing CAE embedded in CAD ‘warning’ designers when their creations may fail at meeting certain requirements, like stiffness, durability, etc. The same could be done with machinability.” Indeed, that is the path that Autodesk is treading in general (see p19), creating intelligent links between the various software processes.
In concurring with Przybylinski, Naysmith drills down further. First he breaks down the CAM system market, highlighting that nearly 50% of the revenues generated by CAM suppliers are drawn from toolmaking companies making made-to-order tooling – so parts that make parts, taking in plastics injection tooling, press tooling and cutting tools. And these companies don’t just create toolpaths, they also design tools using CAD. His point is that CAM isn’t an isolated process for them. But he sees three areas that are impacted differently by cloud-based computing: design; toolpath definition; and toolpath processing.
DESIGN IS MORE INTERACTIVE
Tool design is a more interactive process than is toolpath definition, so, of cloud-based design via a browser, Naysmith says: “Personally, I can’t see how that computing engine, using that kind of technology, can be acceptable to somebody who is using a desktop. I don’t see them switching, unless the cloud solutions include a client-server system where there is some local computing that can manage the interactivity and still have most of the computing done in the cloud. But architecturally, it is going to be difficult to beat the desktop computer for made-to-order tooling design.”
So for such companies, which is nearly half the CAM market, he says: “That limits how much of the CAM solution can be put into the cloud. So cloud computing is acceptable in the second and third elements I describe, but not in design.”
Naysmith offers another way of looking at the factors that influence take-up of cloud-based CAM. “Machine shops in general have spent an awful lot of money on machine tools that do not make a return unless they can create CAM programs for them. And again, there are two halves here: companies that create a program and run it for months, and toolmaking companies that make very few, even one part. Either way, if the CAM system is not available 24/7, it could interrupt their business model. So the mentality of a shop owner or operations manager would have them shy away from a cloud-based solution.” Such potential for service unavailability might see a supplier shut out of tendering to a customer, he adds, and that is a far bigger concern than the benefits that could be gained by moving to the cloud. And it is sometimes the case that OEMs require their suppliers to have certain software packages, which limits independent choice.
But there is also inertia on the supply side. Much CAM software is sold through VARs, Naysmith highlights, adding: “Users of the software are less concerned about how they get it and more focused on who the reseller is, in terms of being able to support them. But with cloud-based solutions, resellers are often cut out of the process; their capability to support customers is supported by the margin they make on the software. That’s a big issue, but I have never heard anybody talk about this. So a VAR would have to charge more for support services and CAM buyers don’t like unbundled pricing.”
A final point is that the trend is towards more sophisticated CAM solutions, not less, he observes: “Looking at cloud-based solutions in general, not just CAM, they lag behind desktop ones in functionality. And with this increasing sophistication, that gap will get wider. And even the start-ups that might use a cloud-based system will need to progress and improve. They will need to improve CAM processes, where the desktop has superior capabilities.”
Summing up, Naysmith says: “There are some great things that can be done by the cloud solution, but it’s going to take a lot longer than people think. Where I do see promise is in the made-to-order-tool CAM market that has complex cutter paths. These can take significant computing times, so cloud-computing could be the solution to that problem.”
