Visual change cue for communicating manufacturing issues of a custom part

Any issues associated with manufacture of a part are identified and highlighted on a part rendering. A software method and system then uses a visual change cue on the part rendering for communicating the manufacturability issues to the customer. The preferred visual change cue is a throbbing of the highlighting of the manufacturability issue, with the throbbing occurring in both color intensity and size. The part rendering depicts the part translucently, so throbbing manufacturability issues can be readily identified even if obscured behind a more-forward face of the part.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S)

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to software supported methods, systems and tools used in the design and fabrication of custom parts, and in presenting information to customers for the customer to make selections or changes to help minimize the cost of manufacturing the customer's part.

Injection molding, among other types of molding techniques, is commonly utilized to produce plastic parts from molds. Companies and individuals engaged in fabricating molds are commonly referred to as “moldmakers.” The moldmaking art has a long history of fairly gradual innovation and advancement. Molds are designed pursuant to a specification of the part geometry provided by a customer; in many cases, functional aspects of the plastic part also need to be taken into account. Historically, moldmaking involves at least one face-to-face meeting between the moldmaker and the customer, with complex communication between the moldmaker and the customer and complex decisions made by the moldmaker regarding the construct of the mold. More recently, this process has been automated to a significant degree, to assist in transmitting information between the moldmaker and/or the moldmaker's computer system and the customer, thereby realizing significant efficiencies and corresponding price reductions in the manufacture of molds and custom molded parts. Other manufacturing processes, such as machining of a part, have also been significantly automated including transmission of information regarding the part to be manufactured. Such automation is described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,957,830, 7,840,443, 7,836,573, 7,630,783, 7,590,466, 7,496,528, 7,299,101, 7,123,986, 7,089,082, 6,836,699 and 6,701,200, all assigned to the assignee of the present invention and all incorporated by reference.

While this automation has greatly improved the process of identifying manufacturability issues, communicating those issues to the customer and quoting manufacture of the mold and/or part, problems still remain. One particular remaining problem is a difficulty of customers in quickly understanding where on a part a particular problem or needed change is located. With the face-to-face meetings between the moldmaker and the customer of the prior art, customers and moldmakers could work through the communication issues with pointing or similar gestures, on-the-fly sketches, and give-and-take dialogue characteristic of face-to-face communication. To automate the process so no moldmaker-customer face-to-face meeting is necessary, clear communication is vitally important. Sometimes the identified problem or needed manufacturability change is on a small detail of the part. Sometimes the manufacturability change is only seen on one side of the part.

The invention of U.S. Pat. No. 7,299,101 in particular, which disclosed a programmed flight pattern to show various issues to the customer, made great strides in communicating such manufacturability issues to the customer. Still, some customers are more comfortable and understand issues better when they manipulate the part rendering on the screen themselves rather than viewing the programmed flight pattern. While the programmed flight pattern may proceed too quickly for some customers, other more experienced customers may consider the programmed flight pattern tedious in proceeding through viewing all the issues on a particular part. Faster and clearer methods of communication between the part maker and the customer are needed. The need for communication clarity increases as the variety of parts manufactured through automated methods becomes more and more complex. The clearer methods of communication should permit transmission via computer and without real-time face-to-face personal interaction.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is a software method and system for communicating manufacturability issues. The customer's CAD file for the part is received and assessed for compliance with constraints of the manufacturing method for making the part. Preferably as an integral portion of the quotation returned to the customer, a computer rendering of the part is provided which graphically identifies the manufacturability issues. Sections without a particular manufacturability issue are shown translucently relative to at least one section identified as having that manufacturability issue such that the section having that manufacturability issue can be viewed through a more-forward face of the part. The section(s) identified as having that manufacturability issue is (are) depicted with a visual change cue, such as a throbbing effect, which enables the customer to immediately identify the locations on the part having the issue.

While the above-identified drawing figures set forth one or more preferred embodiments, other embodiments of the present invention are also contemplated, some of which are noted in the discussion. In all cases, this disclosure presents the illustrated embodiments of the present invention by way of representation and not limitation. Numerous other minor modifications and embodiments can be devised by those skilled in the art which fall within the scope and spirit of the principles of this invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1shows an exemplary part10for discussion purposes of the inventive way to communicate issues associated with the manufacture of that part10. In this example, the part10is a “cam” part custom designed by a customer named John One. In part because the cam10is custom-designed (i.e., not a staple article of commerce) by or for this particular customer, the cam10includes numerous features, none of which have commonly accepted names. For purposes of discussion, we will give names to several of these features, including a part outline flange12, a 60° corner hole14, a 30° corner hole16and a partial web18. However, workers skilled in the art will appreciate that the customer may in fact have no name or may have a very different name for any of these features. Without commonly accepted names for these features, verbal communication about changes to one or more features of the cam part10is difficult. The present invention is particularly contemplated as a better way to communicate changes or injection molding requirements or machining requirements of the part10.

The quoting of the mold and/or manufacture for the part10may generally proceed with automated systems and methods such as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,957,830, 7,840,443, 7,836,573, 7,630,783, 7,590,466, 7,496,528, 7,299,101, 7,123,986, 7,089,082, 6,836,699 and 6,701,200, all incorporated by reference herein. In procedure explained in these patents, a basic step is receiving customer part data comprising a CAD file for the part10to be molded or machined, with the CAD file defining a part surface profile. The part10is custom designed by or for the customer, and its shape is unknown at the time the computer system housing the invention and software of the invention is finalized.

While the software analysis of the customer's CAD file may be a stand-alone feature offered on a website or provided in other ways to the customer, in this example the context of receiving the customer's CAD file is that John One requested a quote, i.e., John One is interested in learning how much it would cost to injection mold (or machine) twenty-five cams10for testing. John One provided his CAD file and filled out various menu fields associated with the requested quotation. Analysis of the part10is conducted, and a quotation is returned to John One, either by email, by a website, or by another computer supported method which allows viewing of graphical information regarding the quotation on a computer or similar screen.

A preferred format for the quotation20is shown inFIG. 2. In this case, the quotation20is provided through an internet browser (such as MICROSOFT'S INTERNET EXPLORER), which permits an address bar22, active fields24and buttons26on the computer screen and active links28on the page as well known in internet browser and website construction. The quotation20includes identifying information for the quotation20, including the source30of the quotation20, the customer's name32, the quote number34and quotation date36, the customer's part name38, and the x- y- and z-extents40of the part10either in English or metric units. An image42of the part10is also shown.

The preferred quotation20includes a first “Enter Specifications” section44providing several menu fields which are initially populated with information entered by the customer on the original quote form (at the time the CAD file was provided), but which permit the customer to enter changes for instantaneous and automatic feedback on how the changes affect the quotation price. This information preferably includes how many cavities46will be included on the mold block, surface finishes48on the A-side and B-side of the mold, how many samples50are desired, the delivery time52in which the samples are needed, and the material54which will be used in injection molding the part10. Pricing information56for the part10is provided to the customer as part of the quote20.

In this example, the software analysis of the customer's CAD file has identified several issues associated with manufacture of the cam part10. For instance, if the manufacture of the part10is through injection molding, the CAD file can be assessed for compliance with constraints of injection molding, and the identified manufacturability issues are various failures to meet geometry criteria of an injection molding process. If the manufacture of the part10is through machining a block of workpiece material, the CAD file can be assessed for compliance with constraints of machining. The identified issues are explained to the customer in a “Review Issues” section58of the quote20. In this example, the analysis of the customer's CAD file has identified no “Required Changes” issues60which require significant changes to the part shape, but has identified three “Moldability Advisory” issues62which do not require changes to the part shape but are alerts as to possible molding difficulties, and one item of other information64of which the customer should be advised. Rather than have to step through these issues60,62,64in any particular order, the customer can use a mouse pointer66to click on the issue which the customer desires to view. In this example, the customer has clicked on the “Texture” Moldability Advisory issue68. In addition to the top section listing the “Required Changes”60, “Moldability Advisory”62and “Other Info” issues64, the Review Issues pane58includes a textual explanation70of whichever issue is being considered, i.e., of whichever issue the customer has clicked on.

The customer can scroll downward in the quote20, such as by using a scroll bar71as further shown inFIG. 3, to view additional information in the Review Issues pane58in the quote20. Beneath the textual explanation70, a rendering72of the part10is provided. The preferred part rendering72is manipulatable by the user by using the computer mouse66to rotate the part10, zoom the part10and pan the part10, as indicated by a mouse control key74. As indicated inFIG. 4, the preferred manipulation algorithm includes the orientation globe76as taught in U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0206030, incorporated by reference. A lower section of the quote20may include other information, such as a Notes section78, a copyright notice80, a Terms & Conditions section82, and/or a Privacy Policy link84. Another section of the quote20may include prices for future/additional orders86, such as based upon any entered lot size88and updatable with a “Go” button90.

In Applicant's prior art system such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,299,101, the information was communicated using an opaque image which showed the locations of failure highlighted with color or otherwise identified so the customer would see where the changes were needed. In contrast to the prior art part rendering, the part rendering72now is translucent. The translucent coloring is omitted fromFIGS. 3 and 4for clarity, but is better shown in enlarged view ofFIGS. 5 and 6. In this case the customer zoomed on the part10somewhat, enlarging the size of the part10relative to the textual information70and the mouse control key74(and the orientation globe76, not shown), in addition to the fact thatFIGS. 5 and 6are enlarged to only show a portion of the Review Issues pane58.

The faces92where the issue exists are colored with a different color than the faces where no issue exists. In this example when the issue is draft associated with texture, faces with a draft of less than 3 degrees are colored red and faces with a draft of 3-5 degrees are colored yellow. For the example of this cam part10, the 60° corner hole14and the 30° corner hole16do not have the recommended draft for the texture being used, and are shown in opaque red coloring92. Particularly given that there are no known names for the 60° corner hole14and the 30° corner hole14at the time the quote20is transmitted, it would be nearly impossible to communicate these failures to the customer, in a way that the customer would quickly understand and appreciate how to make changes to the part10to correct the failures, using strictly verbal communication. Translucency of the part rendering72(other than the issue coloring92) is particular important for features such as the 60° corner hole14and the 30° corner hole16, which features are not shown in all viewing angles of the part10. If the customer rotated the part rendering72180° about the Z-axis, for instance, the red-colored surfaces92would not be visible on an entirely opaque rendering of the part10. Because the rendering72in the Review Issues pane58is translucent, however, red coloring92can be seen through the most forward face(s) of the part10(in this case, through the part outline flange12), even when the most forward face(s) don't have the same manufacturability issue. If desired, the issue coloring could also be translucent (i.e., translucent red and yellow), but the preferred embodiment provides opaque issue coloring.

In the preferred embodiment, the translucency is provided by shading each of the external surfaces of the part rendering72with a set amount of transpency, while leaving the interior of the part10entirely transparent. In this way, the translucency coloring of the part10is independent of how thick the part10is at any given location, and dependent solely on how many faces overlap in that particular viewing angle of the part10. For example, each face may be rendered with a transparency of from 50% to 95%, such as preferred a transparency of about 80 or 85% per face. For the cam part10at the 0° slant, 30° tilt orientation shown, there are some portions with two overlapping faces (i.e., a line of sight from the viewing angle passes through the part10a single time), some portions with four overlapping faces (i.e., where a line of sight from the viewing angle passes through the part10twice, such as through both the part outline flange12and the partial web18), and a few portions with six overlapping faces (i.e., where a line of sight from the viewing angle passes through the part10three times). If desired, the translucency coloring can be set based upon which side of the mold forms that face. In one preferred embodiment (not shown inFIGS. 5 and 6), faces formed by the A side of the mold are colored translucent green, while faces formed by the B side of the mold are colored translucent blue. Additionally, whileFIGS. 3-6are line drawings showing lines on the part rendering72at edges, the inclusion of lines-at-edges on the rendering72of the part10is optional, i.e., if desired the image of the part10can be provided solely by the colored translucent faces without any opaque or darker lines at the edges.

In the preferred embodiment, the coloring92of each issue is only shown when that particular issue is clicked by the customer. In this preferred example, the coloring for the “Thin area” issue, the “Thick area” issue and the “Radius” issue is different from the red and yellow coloring of the “Texture” issue, such as using bright green, dark blue and magenta for those issues. When the customer clicks on the “Thick area” issue94(shown inFIGS. 2-4), for instance, the text70changes to describe the thick area issue (describing possible sink marks), the red and yellow coloring92disappears from the part rendering72, and dark blue coloring appears in the locations having the thick area issue. If desired, the same colors can be used for different issues which do not show up at the same time. Alternatively, multiple issues can be presented on the part10at the same time, each issue using different color(s).

In Applicant's prior art system of U.S. Pat. No. 7,299,101, the customer was shown each issue by using a programmed flight pattern to automatically manipulate the part10so the customer could see the next issue. The present invention can be used with or without the programmed flight pattern, but is intended to further empower the customer to self-manipulate the part10when viewing a particular issue. The present invention, beyond providing a part rendering72which is translucent rather than opaque, also adds a visual change cue to the manufacturability issue. The visual change cue changes as a function of time, at a rate fast enough to be identified by the viewer, by itself and without requiring manipulation of the part rendering72.

In the preferred embodiment, the visual change cue is a throbbing of the coloring, transparency or intensity of the manufacturability issue shown by a comparison betweenFIGS. 5 and 6. The difference betweenFIGS. 5 and 6is that the red coloring92of the texture issue throbs relative to the static blue (and green) coloring of the other part faces. For instance, the intensity, hue and/or shade of the red coloring92in the preferred embodiment changes (growing brighter and dimmer) with a period of about 1¼ seconds, i.e., the part rendering72changes fromFIG. 5toFIG. 6in about ⅝thof a second, and then changes back toFIG. 5in another ⅝thof a second, alternating in a continuing succession.

To further create the throbbing effect, one preferred visual change cue includes a slight spreading of the more intense color92on the surface of the part10. The size of the issue coloring92spreads and shrinks on the surface of the part10with the spreading/shrinking timing corresponding to brightening/dimming timing.

One preferred and commented code to produce this throbbing effect according to a relatively simple animation of the rendering72is shown below:

const int ANIMATION_START_MS = 200;// where to start so itappears smoothconst int ANIMATION_LENGTH_MS = 1250;// total length of animation(1.25 sec)const int MIN_VALUE = 0.5;// min value producedconst int MAX_VALUE = 1.0;// max value produced// this will produce a percentage between 0 and 1int total_ms_elapsed = m_glow_time.elapsed( );int ms_in_animation = (total_ms_elapsed + ANIMATION_START_MS) %ANIMATION_LENGTH_MS;double perc_in_animation = (double)ms_in_animation / (double)CYCLE_TIME;// produce a symmetrical animationif (perc_in_animation >= 0.5)perc_in_animation = 0.5 − (perc_in_animation − 0.5f);perc_in_animation *= 2.0;// return range to 0-1 (from 0 - 0.5)// will produce a value between 0.5 and 1.0. 0 = 0.5, 1.0 = 1.0double emission_val = (perc_in_animation * (MAX_FACTOR − MIN_FACTOR) +MIN_FACTOR;//// SEPERATE FUNCTION where the colors are derived and rendered// multiply the color by the emission value. An emission of 1 would produce the startcolor, 0 would produce blackPvColor new_color = old_color * emission_val;// blend a bit with white in relation to the strength of the emission. In this way// we can get a larger spread of color as well as get even blacks to glownew_color.blend(PvColor::WHITE, emission_val / 2.5);// the opengl callglColor4ubv(new_color);
This code results in a throbbing color value, with varying emission values and varying additional amounts of white blended in as a function of time.

In the preferred embodiment, the throbbing effect of each issue is only shown when that particular issue is clicked by the customer, even if multiple issues are presented on the part10at the same time using different color(s). In this preferred example, only the “Texture” area throbs; the “Thin area”, the “Thick area” and the “Radius” area throb only when the customer clicks on the headings for those issues.

The throbbing function has been found to be immediately recognizable to viewers for identifying the surface(s)92of the part10having the manufacturability issue, even when the location of the issue is very small and even when the face having the manufacturability issue would not been seen at a given viewing angle on an opaque rendering. Once the customer sees the throbbing92, the customer can then self-manipulate the part rendering72in rotate, zoom or pan to better view the issue, and the throbbing92continues throughout and after the rotate/zoom/pan manipulation. Alternatively, the customer may be able to immediately—without manipulation—identify the location on the part10having the manufacturability issue and requiring change.

The visual change cue works so effectively to communicate the location of the manufacturability issue because the viewer's eye is so attuned to detecting motion or change in the viewed image. Because humans are so adept at motion perception, they can immediately locate the throbbing location on the part10even when the location is small and/or behind other surfaces. It is noted that many types of visual change cues other than throbbing, such as a flashing, color shade changes or a slight movement of the colored locations on the part10, could alternatively and effectively serve to immediately communicate the location of the manufacturability issue to the viewer. The key concept for the visual change cue is that, even when the part rendering72is not being moved or manipulated but rather is being viewed at a stationary viewing angle, something about the identified manufacturability issue changes as a function of time so as to be perceived by the motion perception abilities of the average viewer. The visual change cue, particularly when coupled with the translucency of the part rendering72, permits communication to occur as quickly as possible, and fully allows the user to select the rate and order at which different issues are viewed.