Autodesk

A drawing might contain elements that were defined once but are no longer used. Common examples of this include:

Blocks that are defined but not inserted anywhere.
Layers that do not contain any objects.
Named components that are no longer used.

These unused (or unreferenced) definitions use disk space and can significantly increase the size of your drawing. The AutoCAD software provides you with Purge tools to remove these items. The various Purge tools are available in the Manage tab>Cleanup panel, as shown below.

Purge Tool

The (Purge) tool opens the Purge dialog box, where you can select the category of the item that you want to purge (such as Blocks, Layers, etc.). You can also expand the list for any category and select individual items to purge. The Preview area of the dialog box displays the image of the item to be purged.

Options:

If the Confirm each item to be purged option is selected, you are prompted to verify each item before it is purged.

To completely purge all of the unreferenced elements in the drawing, select the Purge nested items option. For example, this enables you to purge any unreferenced layers that are part of (or nested in) an unreferenced block definition.

The Purge Unnamed Objects area provides you with the options of purging Zero-length geometry and Empty text objects separately.

Selecting the Find Non-Purgeable Items tab in the dialog box displays a list of items that are in use and cannot be purged. Select an item to display the information about why it cannot be purged. Detailed information, such as the number of items on each layer and their effect on the size of the file, is also provided. You can also click the Select Objects button to zoom in to the specific non-purgeable object.

Overkill Tool

Another cleanup tool that is available in AutoCAD 2022 is the:
(Overkill ) tool. Use this tool to remove duplicate and overlapping geometric objects, such as lines, arcs, and polylines. Examples of the changes made by the Overkill command include:

–Deleting duplicate line or arc segments.
–Deleting arcs that overlap portions of circles.
–Combining partially overlapping lines drawn at the same angle.
–Deleting zero-length and overlapping polylines.

I hope that you will find the above Purge tools handy for cleaning up your drawings. I have provided a fully detailed section along with a hands-on practice in the Working with Blocks chapter in the AutoCAD 2022 Fundamentals learning guide.

Renu Muthoo, Learning Content Developer, ASCENT
Renu has worked with Autodesk products for the past 20 years with a main focus on design visualization software. Renu holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering and started her career as an Instructional Designer/Author where she co-authored a number of Autodesk 3ds Max and AutoCAD books, some of which were translated into other languages for a wide audience reach. In her next role as a Technical Specialist at a 3D visualization company, Renu used 3ds Max in real-world scenarios on a daily basis. There, she developed customized 3D web planner solutions to create specialized 3D models with photorealistic texturing and lighting to produce high quality renderings.

Voice and haptic feedback could ease CAD complexity speed design but is slow-to-market due to that very CAD complexity.

By Jean Thilmany, Senior Editor

“Computer, draw me a circle.”

You won’t be saying that to your computer-aided design system anytime soon. Even as Alexa and other speech-recognition systems have become ubiquitous over the past decade, voice-controlled CAD remains elusive.

Developers say design software that responds to verbal commands could cut the learning curve, make it easier to work with a system, and slash design time.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that voice-controlled CAD isn’t here. CAD is vastly more complex than the speech recognition tools we use today. Asking Alexa to turn up the thermostat or dictating a text message is very different than verbally controlling geometries, parts, and mechanical forces on a screen.

When will voice-controlled CAD be commonly available? It’s difficult to know.

Yet CAD systems that “hear” and follow commands could allow design teams to zoom in on the specifics of a CAD model and to make changes during a meeting. Designers could quickly add, remove, or update information in design databases and could quickly make routine requests, like opening a screen or drawing a circle. Down the line, they may be able to do away with keyboard and mouse and to design a model via voice command.

The concept of voice-controlled CAD is not new, but getting there is difficult.

In 2009, researchers at the University of Hong Kong proposed a method for voice-controlled CAD. A decade later, scientists at Purdue University and at two Spanish universities set out a method for using voice to capture design intent and annotation. Throughout the years, other systems have been proposed but they remain expensive to realize and implement.

Meanwhile, designers still rely on their keyboard and mouse.

Is voice practical?

An AutoCAD LT user echoed this frustration, asking in mid-2020 in the software’s community forum why voice-command wasn’t a feature on the CAD program.

“Voice command could result in titanic time savings. Consider the chains of actions that could be bypassed by a single voice command,” the user wrote. “Just stating a sketch sometimes requires moving your cursor to change from the manufacturing environment to design.

Why not just double mouse click and say ‘concentric circle’ or whatever your first sketch move is to be?”

Answers varied, several suggesting the user learn keyboard shortcuts and write macros to speed drafting time. Some point out the time spent voicing the words “concentric circle” could quickly be spent hitting a key for a macro to make the circle.

Others suggested training already available commercial voice-recognition technology to open the macros.

“Voice commands regarding drafting are just not practical,” one community member responded. “The only way I see voice commands being used is ‘Alexa, make a PDF and send this drawing to Gavin with subject: project voice.’”

Moving beyond today’s speech recognition systems isn’t yet practical, but would be necessary for CAD’s complexity, says Natalie Hutchins, an engineer and writer at IndiaCAD, which provides outsourcing services.

Hutchins created a table that compared the features of the voice-recognition programs from Nuance, Microsoft, and Google. None of the three could interpret spoken words in the correct context with complete accuracy, she found.

Not too long ago—though a lifetime ago by technology standards, so about 30 years—the mouse and the graphical display were huge engineering design breakthroughs. CAD came along at the same time as computer graphics programs. Both technologies allowed shapes to be depicted on the computer screen that had been dominated until then by blinking letters and numbers.

For the first time, engineers could depict images in on-screen and make quick changes to the dimensions and shapes when needed.

CAD advancements have continued apace. Three-dimensional CAD became commonplace. Analysis software is now tied too CAD so engineers can immediately analyze their designs and make changes where needed.

Ironically, continued CAD updates keep the systems from being compatible with voice technology.

Today’s designers often browse among hundreds of CAD icons and menu scripts and switch between various command panels in order to do a modeling task, write the University of Hong Kong researchers. Ascribing voice commands to each or these actions is impossible and would make the designer’s life harder, not easier.

The researchers’ paper, “Natural Voice-Enabled CAD: Modeling Via Natural Discourse” appeared in the January 2009 edition of the journal Computer-Aided Design and Applications. Sukui Xue was lead author; the paper was his mechanical engineering postdoctoral thesis.

While voice-driven CAD commands would be of “tremendous benefit,” the technical challenge of creating and implementing the technology means it likely won’t be available in the near future, Hutchins says.

Speaking in CAD talk

That hasn’t held CAD companies back from trying.

The CADmaker think3 met with some success with a 2000 software update that included a speech-enabled graphical user interface, which allowed the user to issue commands without scrolling through icons and pull-down menu trees. This reduced the clutter of dialog boxes, saved time, and increased productivity, according to the company’s marketing materials of the time.

Voice input provides designers with a third option, along with the mouse and the keyboard, for entering commands or numerical inputs. The software was able to recognize several hundred voice commands, including basics like draw, zoom, redraw, fit view, and line. The software also recognized numerical values.

The feature used Microsoft’s Speech Application Programming Interface version 5.0, an interface for third-party application developers, according to think3.

But as it added functionality to the new release, think3 had to steer a careful path between complex CAD and ease-of-use, since the company cites simplicity as a major selling point, the University of Hong Kong researchers say.

The California CADmaker closed its doors in 2011, though the move had nothing to do with its system’s voice-recognition capabilities.

In 2005, Enact Technologies introduced Speak4CAD, compatible with AutoCAD software. During beta-testing, the software doubled CAD productivity, as measured by comparing manual drawings to those created by spoken drawing commands and dimensions, said Bruce Swan at the time. He was Enact Technology senior partner at the time.

The technology was specifically written for AutoCAD commands to make it faster than standard speech-recognition software that must search for terms, Enact wrote in its marketing materials at the time. The user would dictate commands and numbers as they move the mouse, to eliminate the use of the keyboard.

Enact Technologies is no longer around. It’s not clear whether the business folded or was purchased by another company.

The think3 and Speak4CAD systems relied on predefined, targeted words and phrases, which allowed users to use relatively complicated expressions such as “view from left” and “add a circle,” Xue writes.
“However, this method still restricts the user’s expressive style by all of pre-defined rules,” he and his teammates write in the paper. Users must also remember all the fixed words and expressions.

“This impedes the freedom that might have been brought by speech, because too many restrictions have been added to the users’ expressions,” the researchers say.

They put forward a verb-based semantic search approach that would extract useful information from voice-issued sentence commands. Users would say: “draw me a circle that has a radius of 2.5 inches.” Rather than “circle; radius; 2.5 inches.”

“Natural voice-enabled CAD frees CAD users from the buttons and menu by allowing natural discourse as the input. Natural discourse is also less restricted than the previous voice-based systems,” the researchers state in their paper.

Despite these merits, their system has limitations, they acknowledge. Because it doesn’t eliminate the mouse, those with paralysis or other types of disabilities can’t use it. Also, it should recognize more natural phrasing and should be able to be used without training, the researchers say.

Their proposed system isn’t yet included within commercially available CAD software.

Annotation while speaking

In the face of technical limitations of using voice for design, some researchers are looking at voice-driven 3-D annotation to aid collaborative design, as voice-annotation may be easier to develop and implement than voice-driven design.

Annotation enables the exchange of design intent and rationale with other users directly through the 3-D model, says a research team of mechanical and construction engineering professors from Purdue University in Lafayette, In., and from Jaume I University and the Valencia Polytechnic University in Spain.

Their paper, “A voice-based annotation system for computer-aided design” appeared in the April 2021 edition of the Journal of Computational Design and Engineering.

Much of the information generated during the product design process is unstructured, writes Raquel Plumed, lead author and mechanical engineering professor at Jaume I University. That is, much of the design information is exchanged verbally and isn’t captured within the CAD system.

This information takes the form of facts, suggestions, informal conversations, discussions, and opinions.

Such information—communicated during informal conversations or even formal meetings—can be critically important for data integration, collaboration, process efficiency, productivity, and error reduction, she and her colleagues write.

“But the knowledge is often not captured or archived for future use because the process is time consuming, inefficient, and not cost efficient,” they say.

The researchers give the example of design rationale, which aims to capture information about the reasoning, motivation, and justification for design decisions and to describe their relation to other decisions.

Much of this might take place during a quiet conversation between two engineers. But it’s time-consuming to write down and store verbal conversations and then to find them again.

“Furthermore, engineers and designers often used vague expressions in their verbalizations of a problem or a design approach, particularly during the early stages of the design process, which makes it difficult to establish semantics in CAD models,” they say.

They put forward a voice-based software to annotate 3-D models directly within CAD software.
Their method automatically captures audio signals and transcribes them to a 3-D note, which is attached to the geometry in the right spot and is available to other product information and business processes across the enterprise, such as a product management system.

These researchers join others in describing how CAD systems could best incorporate voice commands. Still, voice-activated CAD remains out of reach, likely due to cost and complexity.

Or, as one user put it in the AutoCAD LT forum: “Unless commercial CAD systems adopt voice technology, we won’t be seeing it anytime soon.”

AutoDesk
www.autodesk.com

Generative designs don’t have to be 3D printed. Other manufacturing methods enter the fray.

by Jean Thilmany, Senior Editor

There are those that say generative design ensures the best product design possible. Engineers enter the specifications a product needs to meet, and the tool responds by creating a number of potential designs that fit the bill. It even recommends potential materials to be used.

Now, the resulting designs can be manufactured in a number of ways.

Increasingly, CAD software makers, such as Autodesk, are building manufacturing preferences into their topology optimization and generative design tools, meaning generative design can take into account a particular manufacturing method. The engineer enters the manufacturing method as one of the design constraints. The resulting generatively created designs depict products that can be made according to that method and that meet other desired specifications, says Kim Losey, Autodesk’s head of marketing for Fusion 360.

Two years ago, Autodesk released generative design to subscribers of its Fusion 360 Ultimate product development software. Autodesk moved to marry generative design with manufacturing methods when it announced late last year that PowerMill, PowerShape, and PowerInspect would become part of the company’s Fusion 360 solution.

Now, Autodesk says, CAD and CAM reside on the same Fusion 360 platform.

The inclusion of CAM brings manufacturing considerations to the front of the generative engineering process, saving engineers and manufacturers time and money.

The generative technique is a completely different approach to design. The design concept allows engineers to define design parameters: such as material, size, weight, strength, and cost constraints–before they begin to design. Then, using artificial-intelligence-based algorithms, the software presents an array of design options that meet the predetermined criteria, Losey says.

By calling upon advanced software and computing power the generative system runs through many possibilities, each meeting the engineers’ design specifications. It presents the best designs to engineers, allowing them to pick the optimal design. Engineers are involved at the beginning and at the end of the design process. If they don’t feel any of the returned designs meet their standards, they can tinker with inputs and cue the generative-design system to start again.

The computer-generated (“generative”) designs might be unorthodox, new, and unexpected, with geometries that wouldn’t naturally occur to the designer. No matter how different, if the design is shown to work, it can be created by additive manufacturing, also called 3D printing, Losey says.

In the past, the design software often created shapes that could be produced only by 3D printing because the resulting organic, nature-like forms that were commonly created did not lend themselves well to processes such as machining, casting or fabrication, she adds.

But that led many people to assume the designs could be produced only through additive-manufacturing techniques.

Now, the scope of generative-design automation is expanding to include traditional manufacturing processes, such as milling, die casting, and even water milling.

Today, you can input traditional manufacturing constraints into Autodesk Fusion 360 and use its generative-design functionality to produce optimal design solutions that can be manufactured according to one of several predetermined methods, she adds.

Autodesk’s generative design software, part of its Fusion 360 platform, includes capabilities to sort through the design possibilities reflected by particular manufacturability considerations. This enables engineers to compare how easily, quickly and cost-effectively components can be produced via different manufacturing methods, Losey says.

By applying constraints that sort design possibilities according to selected processes, design options can be evaluated in a new light. Both engineers and manufacturers are often surprised at the results, she says. Multi-axis machining might be the best choice, as it turns out, even for a very elaborate part, when certain constraints are in place.

And bringing manufacturing to the front of the decision-making process underscores the role generative design has to play in the choice of product, Losey adds.

Estimating manufacturing costs
PowerMill 5-axis CAM software provides expert CNC programming strategies for complex 3- and 5-axis subtractive, high-rate additive, and hybrid manufacturing. Meanwhile, PowerShape is CAD software that creates complex 3D geometry to better control CAM software such as PowerMill. It works with any combination of surface, solid, or mesh data and quickly creates damage and collision-free toolpaths for large, complex parts, Losey says.

A recent video from Autodesk, in reference to questions to keep in mind while populating a prospective generative design, asks: “Will you deviate from the traditional design scope to include manufacturing constraints? Will you use 5-axis, 3-axis or even 2.5-axis milling? What about die casting? Can your design be water milled? Or does additive manufacturing provide the best value and performance?”

Clearly, the manufacturing process is a big influence on the type of geometry produced, Losey says.

While generative design can provide results optimized for your manufacturing method of choice, how do you evaluate the tradeoffs between performance and the cost to make your part?

Autodesk includes software—the aPriori Cost Insight Engine—as part of its generative design package. It generates a manufacturing cost estimate for each design alternative created.

“It interrogates a model for features or tolerances that would be costly based on certain manufacturing methods,” she says. “It allows engineers to fully explore costs and to strike balance between performance and cost.”

Another way generative design reduces manufacturing costs: the generative process can result in a single, solid-mesh body that can replace multibody components, such as a welded assembly. This reduces a manufacturer’s need to spend money on jigs, fixtures, welders, and welding material. And single-body parts can be made via additive manufacturing, which also reduces the need to design and manufacture tooling.

Also, generative design allows engineers to replace small assemblies with a single component to reduce manufacturing costs and bill-of-materials complexity.

Milled motorcycle parts
MJK Performance had shied away from the generative design method because Phil Butterworth, MJK designer and co-owner, felt the visual style evoked through generative design wouldn’t fit his company’s style. The company, of Calgary, Canada, produces aftermarket parts for Harley Davidson motorcycles.

“It always made me think of those spiderlike, organic, alien models,” he says. “I just thought it’d give us the same style only blockier, covered in intricate little pieces and looking silly.”

But MJK recently turned to generative because weight, strength, and style were all necessary considerations for the triple clamps it makes for motorcycles and Butterworth knew the method could help with weight reduction.

On motorcycles, stanchions from the telescopic fork are attached to the triple clamp, and sliders at the other end are attached to the front-wheel spindle. The clamps are part of the fork that connects the motorcycle’s handlebars, steering stem, and shock absorbers.

“Our clients want the look of a 200-pound race bike for their 1,000-pound Harley,” Butterworth says. “As a result, we need to make our parts as light and strong as possible but also stylish. Every part has to look like it belongs on a hundred-thousand-dollar bike.”

But the triple clamps are large and bulky, leading Butterworth and his fellow designers to attempt to reduce their weight. With an additional factor: The clamps had to be fully machinable on a 2.5-axis mill because the company makes all its parts at its small, four-machine shop.

Butterworth says he was surprised to learn that generative design might be the answer to his needs. He’d assumed generative design was mostly limited to additive manufacturing.
He soon discovered that Autodesk’s generative design technology could develop parts for conventional 2.5- and 3-axis milling and set Fusion 360 to design parts that could be made exclusively through those methods. Using that input, the CAD and CAM product quickly returned a range of designs that are lightweight and fully machinable, Butterworth says.

Not only that, “when the model came back, it looked like something I would buy immediately. I was blown away. It looks racy; it’s got all the cool geometry. It has all the cool stuff generative does but in a style people understand and recognize,” he says.
After studying the potential designs, Butterworth selected one and then spent approximately 20 minutes editing it to suit the characteristic MJK Parts style.

Through use of generative design, engineers went from computer model to a prototype within a few hours. And the weight of the triple clamp was reduced by 23% compared to a similar triple clamp designed by an engineer rather than the generative program. Nor did the generative design sacrifice safety, Butterworth says.

Normally, this process would take one or two days to complete. But with generative design MJK was able to accelerate this process. They went from a computer model to a prototype in a few hours. Fusion 360 can easily be set to produce designs for 2.5-axis milling, he says.

Within JPL, its Atelier division is the team charged with trying new approaches and processes, and its recommendations are passed on to teams working on specific missions. This division is collaborating with Autodesk to evaluate generative design for the proposed lander.

Topology optimization joins in
Capabilities are also changing fast in topology optimization, which differs from generative design. When using topological optimization, an engineer defines loads within a 3-D space and the program removes material to attain a shape that uses the least amount of material while still retaining required stiffness and density. The method also creates parts with odd shapes, though it typically gives fewer results than does generative design.

Additive manufacturing, with its capability to create never-before-seen shapes, seemed a natural for both.

But, to give you an example of the move to find methods beyond additive has quickened, take the example of the following two engineering journal submissions.

An October 2016 paper in the journal “Advances of Engineering Software” stated that: “Despite being an effective and a general method to obtain optimal solutions, topology optimization generates solutions with complex geometries, which are neither cost-effective nor practical from a manufacturing perspective.” That paper was written by Sandro Vatanabe and his coauthors.

In it, Vatanabe, now an engineering professor at the FEI University Center in São Paulo, Brazil, and his colleagues proposed techniques to restrict the range of solutions for the optimization problem. The paper was entitled Topology optimization with manufacturing constraints: A unified projection-based approach.

Three years later, a paper entitled “Topology optimization for multi-axis machining” presented a topology-optimization approach that incorporates restrictions of multi-axis machining processes. In it, author Matthijs Langelaar posits that particular cutting tool shapes and maximum insertion lengths can be included in topology optimization without much additional computational effort. He then shows examples of how to generate optimized, machinable, three-dimensional parts. Langelaar is an associate professor of structural optimization and mechanics at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.

Langelaar set out a formulation developed for 5-axis processes, though the technique also covers other multi-axis milling configurations, 2.5-axis milling and 4-axis machining by including the appropriate machining directions. In addition to various tool orientations, user-specified tool length and tool shape constraints can also be incorporated in the filter.

So, while a generative design or topology optimization study can result in interesting new designs, perhaps previously unfathomable designs, engineers needn’t limit themselves to 3-D printing to manufacturing the design of their choosing.

Butterworth says generative design has opened up countless new avenues at his company.

“Before I even start programming a mill, I know my part is going to pass any performance test,” he says. “Whatever the weight optimization in the simulation does, the 2.5-axis generative design just gave us a solid model right away.”

Autodesk
www.autodesk.com

KIA Motors has always been an industry leader when it comes to implementing new and innovative tech in their design process. Now, with Varjo XR-1 supported by Autodesk VRED, the designers are moving into an immersive photorealistic environment. The benefit is that global design reviews can go from days to an hour.

Photorealistic, real-scale and hands-on – seeing is believing
Thomas Unterluggauer is the the Europe Design Center of KIA Motors Creative Manager CGI. He’s wearing the Varjo XR-1 headset as he works on a KIA model in the studio; moving seamlessly between the real and virtual car in front of him, and making changes on the fly. What he’s seeing and doing in the KIA studio hasn’t been possible until now.

When KIA’s European team tried out Varjo’s VR headset for the first time, they were impressed by the clarity and the resolution of the headsets.

“For the first time, we could literally see the metallic flakes in the paint and perceive the depth and quality of the material shaders. We could see the beauty of the details more than ever before in the virtual world. Varjo is the only device capable of this level of clarity and sharpness,” Unterluggauer says.

Seeing more details in the car exterior was a breakthrough. But when Unterluggauer and the team got to explore the Varjo XR-1 mixed reality device, they realized they could also use it to take their design work to new heights.

With Varjo XR-1, designers can work with their colleagues in the physical design space they’re used to and collaborate on photorealistic, real-scale virtual car models while seeing their hands and bodies. In an immersive mixed reality experience like this, they’re able to talk as they go, give immediate feedback, and run more engaging reviews.

“Immersive collaboration works more naturally than we expected. This is something I’ve always wished for,” adds Gregory Guillaume, Vice President of Design at KIA Motors Europe.

At the end of a mixed reality session, Unterluggauer takes off the Varjo XR-1 headset and looks back into the room. “It’s fascinating how quickly you adapt to the mixed reality.

You’re tricked into thinking for a moment that reality is wrong, that there is something missing. It’s completely different to any other experience I’ve ever had in VR,” he says.

KIA’s workflow changes up a gear with VR/XR
Located in Frankfurt, Germany, Kia’s Europe Design Center is helping to change perceptions of the Kia brand across the continent as well as worldwide. Its dedicated team of designers create concept cars of the future as well as production models for both Europe and the global market.

The ability to design and collaborate with Varjo’s photorealistic VR/XR and Autodesk VRED is a game-changer for KIA’s designers.

Until recently, the automotive design process relied on 2D reviews on screens and powerwalls, followed by physical clay models and prototypes to further refine and develop the surfaces.

As manager of the studio’s digital department, Frank Hübbe knows that a 2D model is always a projection that lacks volume. “Although you can use keyboard, mouse, and screen to work efficiently in 2D, you’ll never get a fully realistic impression of the car,” he says. Today, KIA Europe’s designers are complementing their entire workflow with virtual and mixed reality. The teams are using VR/XR technologies to make their visualization work more effective and showcase projects in new ways.

For example, designers can review a virtual model directly against a physical model in the same room, or even augment an existing clay model with virtual details.

“With VRED and the Varjo XR-1, you have the context of the real world and the flexibility of the virtual world,” Hübbe says.

Remote collaboration when the world needs it most

In the midst of a global pandemic, the ability to collaborate remotely and reliably with teams across the globe has never been more crucial.

With COVID-19 currently preventing most business travel, KIA Europe has turned to Varjo’s VR/XR and Autodesk VRED’s virtual collaboration feature to continue working with the other global studios. Designers can collaborate on the same photorealistic models from wherever they’re based around the world, trusting that everything from the smallest details to the full-scale appearance of the car looks correct.

As Gregory Guillaume says, until now, if he wanted to discuss a model with the design management at KIA’s global headquarters; he’d have to fly to Korea to do it. Reviewing a digital model with design management always took a minimum of four days. “Now, I can do it in one hour,” he says. The ability to carry out design reviews virtually presents KIA with the opportunity to save time, work and money.

And while professionals worldwide are currently struggling with often unreliable phone and video conferencing technology, Guillaume has had promising experiences with this new collaboration technology. Despite the complexity of the VR/XR hardware and visual rendering software, his team hasn’t had any reliability issues with the Varjo XR-1 and Autodesk VRED at all.

“You’d think this is so much more complicated than a video call. But collaboration has been very reliable,” he says. Guillaume and his team can be in the same virtual room with the design management team and look at and discuss the same car model in perfect detail. “That’s only possible if we trust what we’re seeing and the tools we’re using. It amazes me that something so complicated is working so naturally and easily.”

Despite all the restrictions and uncertainties that come with the global pandemic, using Varjo and Autodesk VRED is enabling KIA to continue their design collaboration with studios across the globe. “This technology is bringing us together at a time when we can’t be present in the same physical place,” Guillaume says.

Autodesk
www.autodesk.com