Is Virtualization Viable for Vault?

Autodesk Vault and Virtualization
By Darren Hartenstine
1-19-2012

In nearly every discussion with IT professionals, we are being asked if Autodesk Vault runs (or is supported) in a Virtual Environment.

The Short answers is Yes - with a slight SQL disclaimer.

Here’s a page I found from the support team at Autodesk on this topic. It describes the limitation with a particular feature available with SQL called Snapshots . It seems that Microsoft is providing the disclaimer, not Autodesk.

http://crackingthevault.typepad.com/crackingthevault/2011/04/autodesk-vault-and-vmware.html

Now, let’s talk about our experiences (MasterGraphics and DataWorks).

Is this supported - yes. Have we installed this in a production environment - yes? If you want to run your Autodesk Vault within a Virtual Server, go for it. Understand this; if you have any kind of database glitches, errors, system crashes, or something catastrophic - and Autodesk needs to get involved - the first reply will be this:

Can you replicate the issue on an actual piece of hardware and not a virtual environment?

From a support stand-point, if you removed the virtual environment from the equation; it becomes easier to diagnose and potentially fix the issue. However, if the issue remains, then you have provided enough proof to Autodesk to take the next steps - sending and evaluating your Vault Backup. And honestly, I can’t recall any clients that are using a Virtual Server that have needed to escalate issues to this level.

So, you can do it…now, what can you expect from performance and stability?

Before I go on, I have to state some obvious assumptions about Virtualization. If you have 10 Virtual Guests running on an old Pentium 4 Server with 1 GB of RAM - this is not the best scenario. We assume that your Virtual Environment is setup properly and your Host Server has enough resources to support another Virtual Guest.

My personal experience is that there is a threshold of users and data that will cause performance issues within a virtual environment. If you have more than 15 users (+/- 5) and less then 30K (+/-20K) CAD files stored in your Vault, then I would not be pursuing a Virtual Server setup. You will be creating a performance bottleneck and the end user experience will be poor and potentially unstable.

For those smaller user environments, Virtualization seems to be a perfect fit for supporting the Vault Server. We do hear of issues here and there, but the overall performance and user experience seems to be favorable.

Some basics settings with Virtualization are RAM and Processors. At a bare minimum, I would give the VM as much RAM as you can spare - like 4-8GB. SQL likes RAM and it will help with performance of the Server.

Processors - again, give the Virtual Server as much as you can spare on your Host Server. Vault is not just one application, and the more resources you can provide, the faster the experience will be for your users. I would recommend 2 Cores with 2 Processors - for a total of 4 Processors. You can always adjust the settings during the life of the VM.

If at all possible, do not let the CAD Files, or Filestore as it is called within the Vault Admin console, live within the Virtual Server environment. Attach a drive to the Virtual Server from a SAN or NAS device. This will drastically increase performance for your environment.

DataWorksMGI Lab - Yep, we have a lab containing a Vault Server living in the Microsoft Cloud. Besides letting our clients have all the fun, we have been testing Virtual Environments and utilizing the Microsoft Azure Server Cloud environment. Our intent is to beat this technology up as much as we can, since we feel it is definitely the next-step after Virtualization becomes mainstream (which it basically has).

I have tested both VMWare and Micrsoft’s HyperV and both seem to be equal in their setup and configuration. As to their performance versus each other, I can’t (at this moment) give any feedback as to which we prefer.

I plan to write more blogs on our tests and results coming out of the Lab on this topic, so come back for more.

Posted in Building / AEC, Civil, General, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Using Simulation in 2D

Eric Schubert
Application Engineer
MasterGraphics Inc.

When most people think about simulation tools, the first thoughts typically jump straight into 3D models and fancy analyses. However, that doesn’t need to be the case for every scenario. In many cases, a much-simpler 2-dimensional simulation can be run to feel things out before jumping headlong into a full simulation of a part of assembly. Below, we’ll take a brief look at some of the things we can do with 2D simulations. And hopefully you’ll be able to see how even these simple cases can speed up your initial design stage and save both time and money.

First, let’s talk about some limitations of 2D in simulation. The largest drawback to 2D is that it doesn’t describe anything with a sense of depth. So, when we run a 2D simulation, we need to understand the assumption that the cross-section we’re viewing has to represent something constant. If your cross-section changes as you move through the part, these types of simulations may not provide any really meaningful results for you. However, Autodesk Simulation products can still use these simulations for items that may be round, using axisymmetrical constraints or information.

So, what types of simulations can be done in 2d? Well, we can certainly do simple static stress analyses. But we can also perform dynamic simulations, which solve for motion, large/permanent deformation of components, and heat transfer. Each of these analyses can assist with your choice of materials and basic cross-sectional design of components. Even friction can be taken into account with these types of analyses.

Click the link below for a simple example that demonstrates how simulation can assist with checking a seal on an o-ring. As the flange pushes the o-ring into the groove, we can see how the o-ring compresses against the sides of the groove to seal it.

O-Ring Compression in a Groove

Posted in General | No Comments »

Keys to a Successful BIM Implementation: News from the Frontline – Who Needs Training?!

by Dave Webster, BIM/CAD Specialist for the AECOO Industry

Now I want to take a moment to talk to you all about the importance of training. I am going to take my consulting hat off for a moment and simply talk to you as a fellow architect. For many generations, our industry has not understood the value of properly training our staff because we are too concerned about the “Bottom Line”. “We simply don’t have the time or the money to train our staff and incur all the downtime”. OK…let’s think about this a bit. I think we can all agree that our investment into software is one of our biggest expenses in the process of design and documentation. Why would we not consider taking the time to learn how to absolutely maximize the software to its fullest potential! This has a larger effect on your bottom line!

Look at it this way…a good colleague of mine introduced a great analogy on this for me…picture this…you come home one day and find a formula 1 car sitting in your driveway!

How cool is that!! Your neighbors are all staring at you now! You take a long stroll around this machine to admire its power and then wiggle your way into the cockpit, struggle to figure out the seatbelts and grab the keys. Hopefully at some point, someone hands you a helmet as well! You might even put this baby into first gear and take it slowly around the block. But some of us, (myself included), won’t even figure out how to get it out of the driveway! “What’s the motto here Dave? Where in the world are you going here?”…you ask. Simply this; you have been given a very powerful vehicle for design and documentation and it might be fairly easy for you to get it started and use some of the fundamental tools…but we have not even talked about getting into a race yet! You can’t! You can’t enter a formula one race without the proper training in driving this vehicle let alone some practice before you get on the road with the rest of the pros!

I can’t encourage you enough to take the time to hire a trusted partner to train your staff in Revit and give your team ample practice laps before you put them on that high profile project that has design complexity and a pretty demanding project schedule. When we all dove into AutoCAD, it was pretty much dumped on our laps and we figured out what we needed to know on our own. This was possible because it was built on our familiar standards of drafting and we could understand the correlation of the two processes. Revit is not about drafting; it is about information modeling. It is not a process we are used to. It is not simply 3D CAD. We need to understand the theory and intent of information modeling in order to get the most out of our software investment and leverage the power of BIM. Don’t make the mistake of reducing Revit to simply another drafting and visualization tool!

The software applications we use for building information modeling require a much more thorough understanding and proficiency in the tools; I hope the analogy helped you understand this. Now that I have hopefully convinced you to consider training; here are a few tips for you…

First: identify a typical and simple Pilot Project as the first project for Revit.
Target your training 2 weeks before the project. Figure about 30 hours for fundamentals training.
Be sure the pilot project has a reasonable schedule.
Find an Authorized Training Center (ATC) for hands-on, instructor led classes.
Find an ATC who can customize the content, delivery and location of your training to best meet your schedule and business needs.
Look for process teachers not software instructors. Seek out industry experts who can truly help you get competitive.
Look for trainers who can apply the tools and training to your active projects and continue to support you on billable projects.
Be sure that your partner in training can also provide ongoing support through advanced technology connections.
Did I mention we do all of this here at MasterGraphics?…
Remember: the shorter your path to proficiency; the less frustration and sooner arrival at profit.
Bottom Line: Take the time to train!

So…who needs training? If you ask me…Everyone! Simply to get started on the right foot and then ongoing training to evolve, stay ahead of your competition and maximize your services and improve your profitability! Only then will you be ready for the races!

Happy New Year to you all!

Posted in Building / AEC, General | No Comments »

Keys to a Successful BIM Implementation: News from the Frontline - Considerations before the Transition

by Dave Webster, BIM/CAD Specialist for the AECOO Industry

Based on our past two discussions we’ve had, I hope by now you can see clearly that transitioning to BIM is far more than another software upgrade. The transition to BIM needs to be a business decision made by all major stakeholders of a firm; from COO to CAD operator. There are many factors to consider when determining how BIM fits your business plan or how your business plan needs to change to accommodate a building information modeling process.

So many times I have seen firms that have been wowed by a Revit Demo and get a spark of inspiration to get out there and “get some BIM”! Revit is not simply a new CAD replacement tool; it takes careful planning. I had the privilege of working with a firm that purchased and rolled out Revit without an implementation plan. After several years into the venture they realized something was fundamentally wrong and they were losing money on projects. The steps to recovery involved meeting with the firm’s directors, interviewing each of the users for Revit skills, CAD skills and attitude towards change. We studied their present process and gathered information regarding their optimal process. We took a dive into the CAD standards to help them see beyond these trusted methods in order to begin to consider possibilities with BIM. We then helped to establish a game plan specifically for this firm at this point I time for the optimal BIM adoption. It involved custom training, consulting and ongoing guidance to the team. Eventually, even their most resistant CAD user became a Revit champion!

A proper implementation plan looks something like this…

Situation Analysis – fully consider your present process and situation; both pros and cons.

Implementation Strategy – Align your business goals, project schedules and staff allotment.

Process Assessment – Identify what you would like to accomplish with a new process.

Implementation Plan – with the help of someone who has been through this…document your plan with established milestones and goals.

Software Deployment – Be sure to consider present state of hardware and potential hardware upgrade needs. Use these upgrades as incentive points for staff!

Training Delivery – Training is a must for a successful BIM adoption. Again, with the help of a trusted advisor, establish the best means of training delivery so as to provide a cohesive training delivery while minimizing disruption to your project schedules.

Maintenance – the tools for BIM are under constant change. Be sure to partner with someone to keep you posted on all the best tools that would be beneficial to your particular process

So in summary…be sure to consider the three main components for a successful BIM adoption; people, process and technology. A Revit implementation should provide a clean slate from which to revitalize your present CAD standards and process; be sure to find a trusted advisor who can help you understand the potential and make the best educated decisions on how best to move forward. Oh…and be sure to leverage the users who are excited and will embrace this change; train and support them first; the rest will eventually follow…or fall by the wayside!

Posted in Building / AEC | No Comments »

Autodesk’s FEA Verification for Inventor Simulation

Eric Schubert
Application Engineer
MasterGraphics Inc.

I recently had someone ask about information regarding Autodesk’s Inventor Simulation package, and, in particular, for documentation showing that the results obtained from this system were accurate enough for real-world use. Before I just give out the link, I want to mention a couple of things about this topic. (If you want to skip straight to the link, it’s at the end of the post.)

First, how an I ensure that my models are going to provide accurate results? Using an appropriate mesh size and element type are a great start to any simulation. But another way to get good results is by using the most-appropriate types of constraints to simulate how the model would be mounted, welded, or bolted down in a real-life scenario. If necessary, certain higher-end programs (like Autodesk Simulation Mechanical) can even involve sliding components that take into account friction, variable loading conditions, and even different coordinate systems (like cylindrical or spherical X, Y, and Z components) to provide the correct loading for your models. Make sure you enable gravity, if desired. And make sure you double-check everything before solving!

Second, how accurate is “accurate enough”? You don’t need to have a super-tiny mesh size to get accuracy. Once you get down to a certain size, there’s little advantage to going any smaller, and huge disadvantages to going smaller: solve time and adequate rendering power. A small mesh size means longer solve time. If you’ve tested the model for results comparisons, and your simulation gets you within 5% of your expected results, is that good enough? You need to ask yourself this question. It’s best to start with larger mesh and work smaller, than to start tiny and find out it’s going to take three days to solve, cancel, remesh, and start solving again.

So, in short, how accurate your results are will depend largely on how you’ve set up your simulation. But, using judgment and common sense, you can avoid time-wasting mistakes and get pretty darned close on the first try.

So, here’s the link to Autodesk’s whitepaper comparing some simple scenarios in both accepted real-world values and Inventor Simulation’s results. I hope it provides some great information to satisfy any curiosity as to exactly how accurate simulations can really be.

Autodesk’s FEA Verification Whitepaper

Enjoy!

Posted in General | No Comments »

Civil 3D 2012 Service Pack 1

by Russ Nicloy, Civil Applications Engineer

Heads up! the Civil 3D Service Pack 1 has been released. As always, I highly recommend reading the readme file to see exactly what you’re getting.

Posted in Civil | No Comments »

Meshing… Meshing… 1..2..3..

By Eric Schubert, Manufacturing Application Engineer

My last post mentioned going into the topic of meshing when it comes to simulation. So, here we go… a bit about how to mesh parts to prepare for running a stress analysis.

Meshing is a huge topic in and of itself, when it comes to simulation products. So this post may be a bit general or vague on some areas. But, hopefully, I’ll cover all of the major points about meshing.

When you work up a new simulation, prep work makes all the difference. And the most-prominent piece of this work is creating a good mesh for your part or assembly. The image at the top of my blog shows a part that has been meshed. The idea of a mesh is to approximate the shape of a part by breaking it down into small blocks, called elements. In the image above, most of these elements are simple cube shapes. But elements can be cubes, tetrahedra, wedges, thin rectangular blocks, or a combination of these.

But meshing requires a fine balance between accuracy and simulation time. On one hand, the smaller we make the mesh size, the more accurate our model will be represented. Curved surfaces or edges will be closer to reality, because the more small flat facets we put around a curved face, the smoother it begins to look. (Again, we’re only approximating shapes using elements.) And stresses will transfer more smoothly through the parts. But if you make the mesh really small to get nice, smooth faces and edges, you create a LOT more elements. Each element uses equations to calculate how stress moves from element to element (or, more correctly, node to node… nodes are the points where corners of elements come together… the intersections of the lines of the mesh, if you will). Each element that neighbors other elements, requires several equations to be solved. So it stands to reason that an increase in elements will cause a very serious increase in equations to solve. But let’s take this one step further…

Let’s say you have a cube… you cut that cube in a 2×2x2 mesh, meaning you now have 8 elements. If we even go to a 3×3x3 mesh, we now have 27 elements. Each time you decrease the mesh size, you create an exponential increase in the number of elements, and also equations to solve.

So, simply taking an overall average mesh size of 1-inch, and making it 1/2-inch, will figuratively make the number of elements we have to solve for explode. And our solve time goes up dramatically. It’s common for simulations to take hours to solve. But something as simple as decreashing the mesh size could take that time and make it days! So, we need to keep in mind the balance of accuracy versus time to solve. At some point, decreasing mesh size will only very-slightly increase accuracy (say, by an additional 0.01%). If my answer is 100psi of stress or 101psi of stress, does it really matter that much? If the answer is no, there’s no reason we need that additional accuracy.

Here are a few examples of mesh sizes: one that’s too large to be accurate, one that’s a good size, and one that’s too tiny to be beneficial.

Too large to be accurate:

Too small to be beneficial to accuracy or solve time:

Just about right:

Both Autodesk Inventor and Autodesk Simulation products have what’s called a “convergence” utility. The way that it works is it takes your simulation and runs it twice, once at the normal mesh size and one at a slightly-reduced mesh size, and compares the two results. If the difference in results is small (you set what “small” means), the program will stop there. If the difference is too large (say, over a 10% difference in the results), the mesh size steps down again and the simulation runs once more. Again, it compares results from the last two runs to check for difference in stress. It continues this process until the results “converge” toward a specific value, or until it runs out of the number of tries that it is allowed to run before giving up. (Any more than around 4-6 mesh reductions and it probably won’t converge anyway. Plus, this means it would need to solve repeatedly for each time it reduces mesh size, significantly increasing solve times.) If the stresses do converge on a value, it means our mesh size is small enough to be reasonably accurate. So, it’s best to start with a larger mesh size than you’d think is appropriate and work smaller from there. If you start with a tiny mesh size, you may just be wasting time waiting for the program to solve.

To finish, a good mesh size for general stress analysis would be one where you have at least 2-3 layers of elements through the thickness of the material. Again, start a little bigger, if you think you’ll end up with too many elements. You can always test a second run with a smaller mesh size, or use the convergence utility to see how accurate your results are. Otherwise, you could be waiting for hours or days for results that aren’t even useful anyway. And every FEA package should have a way to refine the mesh in specific areas to increase accuracy only where you need it most.

Hopefully the idea of mesh size makes a bit more sense now. Particularly the idea of how to set a mesh size appropriate for a simulation.

Posted in Manufacturing | No Comments »

MasterGraphics Specialists to Present at Upcoming Autodesk University

Three technical specialists from MasterGraphics have been invited to present at Autodesk University, the nation’s largest gathering of software design professionals in the design, engineering and entertainment industries, November 29 through December 1 in Las Vegas.

“Our technical experts are among the most talented in the country,” said Michael Wilkes, MasterGraphics president. “Not only do they possess a keen understanding of the latest industry solutions, but they are dedicated to educating themselves and others on practical applications of those solutions. Autodesk University is an ideal venue for them to continue this commitment.”

The presenters include:

Dan Banach, 3D Mechanical CAD Consultant

Dan Banach is a nationally recognized author and educator in the Mechanical CAD field and co-author of 15 books on Autodesk Inventor software. Banach is also an Autodesk Inventor 2012 Certified Professional and Autodesk Certified Instructor. He has presented at every Autodesk University since 1997 and this year will be leading a hands-on lab titled Inventor Publisher: Some Assembly Required.

Louisa Holland, E.I.T., LEED AP, Application Engineer - Civil Industry

Holland is an accredited professional of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) as well as an AutoCAD Civil 3D Certified Professional. She has been training customers on CAD-based products since 1997, and this will be her 2^nd year presenting at Autodesk University with a session titled AutoCAD Civil 3D 2012 for Beginners.

Russell Nicloy, E.I.T., LEED AP, Application Engineer - Civil Industry

Nicloy is an AutoCAD Civil 3D Certified Professional with more than ten years of experience in the civil design industry and eight years of experience in consulting and instruction. This will be his 1^styear presenting at Autodesk University with a session titled Importing the Most Useful Data Into Survey in AutoCAD Civil 3D

About MasterGraphics Inc.

MasterGraphics is an Autodesk Gold Partner for the manufacturing, architecture and education communities and is headquartered in Madison, Wis., with offices in Milwaukee, Appleton, Chicago and Minneapolis. Serving as a trusted advisor to its clients, MasterGraphics helps to streamline the design process and utilization of CAD data through an integrated mix of software, hardware, professional services and digital imaging and distribution offerings. For more information, please visit www.mastergraphics.com.

Autodesk, Autodesk Inventor, AutoCAD and Civil 3D are registered trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., in the USA and/or other countries.

Posted in Building / AEC, Civil, General, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Volumes Dashboard Extension

by Russ Nicloy, Civil Applications Engineer

Whenever I’m involved in a discussion about the volume calculations in Civil 3D we have to break the conversation into three different methods. Then there’s the inevitable question about printing a nice looking report. Sure, there are ways to do it, but they are a little…indirect. Last week the Volumes Dashboard Extension was posted on the Autodesk Subscription site. This extension basically takes the volume calculation functions and puts them into a unified tool. Put another way, “dashboard” is a very appropriate term for it!

The Dashboard appears in the Toolbox tab of the Toolspace. By right-clicking on the tool it provides a panorama window that looks similar to the volume calculator that we’ve had in previous releases. But there’s more. You can create a volume surface from here. Then, assign a boundary for a bounded volume calc. this trees the bounded area(s) below the volume surface entry. Nice and neat, keeping all of your data in relation to each other. The color swatch that used to be the litmus test for cut OR fill now provides that data in relative amounts.

You can then create external, for-printing, reports, or data tables for inclusion in the drawing. Both have easy to read styles, and are a good ending point for the data you are representing.

By the way, you’re on subscription, right? There are a lot of reasons for being on subscription, but these extension packages are one of my favorites. Talk to your reseller to find out the full scoop on subscription.

Posted in Civil | No Comments »

Survey Database US Survey Feet as Default

By Russ Nicloy, Civil Applications Engineer

I realize this post isn’t going to affect everyone out there. Some Civil 3D users are perfectly happy with the survey database settings defaulting to International feet. But, there are a lot of users who are just tired of having to change it from International Feet to US Survey Feet every time they start a new survey database. It doesn’t take a lot of time, but it’s the little persistent things that can drive a user crazy. Plus, if someone forgets it can be difficult to spot the problem until deep into a project!

To make any setting a default for your future new survey databases follow these steps. First, open any survey database, either new, or one you’ve worked with already. Right-click on the name of the database and choose Edit Survey Database Settings. Make sure the Distance field is set appropriately. Actually, make sure all of the settings are appropriate for defaults since this will remember them all.

Second, at the top of this survey database settings dialog there are two little buttons that show little blue arrows and survey equipment. The one to the left is click Here to Export These Settings to a File. The other one is import, so you have a 50/50 shot of guessing if you don’t wait for the icon tooltip to pop up. This button will open a dialog of where you can save the “Survey Database Settings.sdb_set” file that will be needed later. This should be in your survey database settings area.

Third, go back to the Toolspace, Survey tab and click the Survey User Settings button (top of the toolspace to the left).

Near the top will be a Survey Database Defaults area, and one of the fields will be Survey Database Settings. Click the empty drop down menu and you should see your newly created Survey Database Settings file. Click OK and this should pull these settings as the defaults on your next survey database.

Posted in Civil | No Comments »

Archives

Is Virtualization Viable for Vault?

Using Simulation in 2D

Keys to a Successful BIM Implementation: News from the Frontline – Who Needs Training?!

Keys to a Successful BIM Implementation: News from the Frontline - Considerations before the Transition

Autodesk’s FEA Verification for Inventor Simulation

Civil 3D 2012 Service Pack 1

Meshing… Meshing… 1..2..3..

MasterGraphics Specialists to Present at Upcoming Autodesk University

Volumes Dashboard Extension

Survey Database US Survey Feet as Default

Recent Posts

Recent Comments