It’s difficult to really go into depth on a subject like CAD in
this format, but I do have some experience with the subject and
would like to share a few thoughts.
I am a jewelry designer, and I now do all of my design work
digitally. My criteria for using any design media, is that it
cannot limit my creativity in any way. If I find myself changing
a design to be more “media friendly”, than that media is not
suitable.
That said, I can comfortably state that it is completely
possible to design anything you want digitally. The work is also
invariably cleaner, more easily edited, and more permantent than
designs done with traditional media.
I also model much of my design work digitally. I have yet to
come across a design that was impossible to model accurately.
perfect symmetry, and accurate fits are a snap! Once a model is
completed, it can be scaled, edited, chopped up and reused to
your heart’s content.
The learning curve is another matter. I am not “digitally
gifted” in the least, so I may not be an ideal example, but it
took me a year and a half of study to get my mind around this
stuff. I still have A LOT to learn! Now if you’re going to be
working from exhisting libraries of parts, etc., it might not be
so daunting, but if you want to feel free to pursue any concept
that might flash through your cosmic ether, plan on a serious
learning curve.
CAM is another issue altogether. The output from the latest STL
technologies is very impressive! It is definately jewelry
quality. This was not true 5 years ago, but it is now. It’s
exiting to think how great it’s going to be 5 years from now. CNC
mills will execute a level of precise and delicate detail that
would be impossible to execute by hand, and they can do it all
day long.
Both technologies have their limitations. STL’s still show
minimal stair stepping.The surfaces are fine for 90% of jewelry
applications, but for real delicate bas reliefs or textures, they
are in my opinion still too course. There is also the issue of
cleaning up the prototypes. The raw surface of these, is porous
and grainy, and really requires some manual attention, either in
the resin, or in the metal. This also limits the level of surface
detail that can be successfully rendered by this technology. The
prototypes also require some special handling during the casting
process, but this seems to be more a matter of educating the
caster than a real limitation. CNC mills are limited when it
comes to undercuts, and the very nature of working with tool
paths, impacts the design process tremendously. In fact, tool
paths could be called a design process in their own right.
Depending on your software and the model in question, this could
be another meaningful learning curve. Essentially I think of
milling as being a suitable approach for relief-tye designs or
simple forms with complex surfaces, not for sculptural, free form
or other complicated forms. All this being said, the combined
strengths of the two technologies should be able to execute most
jewelry applications beautifully.
Practicality is another issue. It takes me 7 to 30 hours to
complete a digital model ( mind you, these are complex pieces
created from scratch). After that, I still have a few hundred
dollars to shell out to an STL server, or I have to own a 50,000
dollar machine, with which I have to spend more time, or pay
someone elso to spend more time. If I’m outputing to a mill, I
have the expense of the mill, the expense of the tool path
software (camex etc.), and the expense of someone who has the
time and expertise to use both ( or take on another learning
curve myself). Compare that to paying $400.00 to a skilled model
maker and being done with it ( you hope), and you have to think
hard about the time and money involved in CAM. On the other hand,
once it’s digital, its quite permanent, easy to revise and reuse,
and available to take advantage of future advances in technology.
It’s also generally a superior product, and often times it’s the
only approach that will truly deliver a satisfactory result
consistently.
Wrapping up, I have to say that I find the computer to be an
indespensible design, development and engnineering tool. When I
have completed a digital design and model, there are very few
questions left for myself, the model makers (digital or
traditional), or the jeweler. I can really explore my options
fully, and when a project is complete, it becomes part of my own
library for future manipulation and development. On the
manufacturing front, I really enjoy being able to obtain the
predictable, precise results that CAM provides, although being a
staff designer for a large manufacturer makes the very real cost
and overall practicality issues less of a concern for me. One
thing is for sure; digital technologies are already impacting the
jewelry industry, and will inevitably become more affordable,
practical and therefore prevalant, in the future. It therefore
merely becomes a question of how long, and to what extent this
will impact us in our careers, and how proactive we are willing
to be in these changes.
I told you it would be difficult!!(hope it wasn’t too long and painful)
Kim
note:
“CAD” stands for “computer aided design”
“CAM” stands for “computer aided manufacturing”