Kubotek’s KeyCreator Compare – Review
By
John Evans, Jan 31, 2012
KeyCreator Compare software from Kubotek is a sub-set of KeyCreator,
the company’s direct modeling platform. The software allows you to
compare parts or assemblies to find differences that may have
developed over time.
click picture for larger view
The company outlines the benefits, as follows:
-
Is-was comparisons for quoting manufacturing jobs and changes
-
Collaboration on design changes via live or virtual meetings
-
Revision management for design updates
-
Customer confirmation of changes including detailed mark-ups using
simple screen grabs
I arranged to get the software and after using the tool for a few
days, I began to see its benefits. While the functions are there for
anyone to use the tool in numerous ways, the biggest benefit I can
see is determining specific versioning differences in libraries,
such as Vault, and in designed components being sent to simulation
and FEA (finite entity analysis) programs. Clients often want to
know exactly which features were modified or eliminated in the
simplification processes, and this tool clearly provides the
capability.
KeyCreator Compare has a list price of $2,495, but needs to operate
inside KeyCreator, and so the cost rises to $6,195. Kubotek software
totes along an annual maintenance fee coming in at 22% of list.
Kubotek recently announced that an introductory price of $1,495 is
available for a limited time to early adopters.
Built on KeyCreator
The KeyCreator MCAD program offers an extensive library of file
conversions, including Catia, Inventor, and STEP formats, which
makes the Compare utility useful to almost anyone. Every non-native
model selected is translated in a similar manner and loaded into
separate windows. The importation and conversion process is
automated, and a report is generated by the translator after each
one is complete. See figure 1.
Figure 1: Reported generated by KeyCreator’s
translator.
I receive many simulation projects in STEP format,
and so this software makes it easy to analyze the differences
between components I simplified, and those that were originally
issued. In my review, I routinely compared STEP and Inventor
formats. KeyCreator did not, however, care for Autodesk’s Fusion
2012 .dwg format, and would not open it.
The Comparison Interface
Compare evaluates the contents of two separate files after you fill
in a simple dialog that contains separate fields for the IS and WAS
models. A button near the top of the dialog allows you to map the
file names to those of the models that are already loaded, if
desired. See Figure 2.
Figure 2: Entering file names of models to be
compared.
Once the models are loaded, the validation is run.
The toolbar offers simple but effective tools to set up the views
and validation process. See Figure 3.
Figure 3: Toolbar controls the comparison process.
The pull-down menu shows in gray the numerous options that are not
included in this version of the software.
Once Validate Parts is picked, the software analyzes
the differences, and loads the results in windows positioned to the
side and bottom of the views. See Figure 4.
click picture for larger view
Figure 4: The “is” model is shown on the left, the
“was” model on the right.
On the far right is the Difference Results window,
which lists only the differences, if any, that are present in the
assembly or part files. As each difference is picked, it is
highlighted in the graphic views. Different pages are present in the
window, depending on the settings and components being analyzed.
To the bottom lies the Assembly Tree Compare, where all components
are loaded, with basic information and the results of the comparison
between all components. In Figure 4 above, the damper was only
present in the assembly to the right, which is reinforced in both
the Difference Results window, as well as the Assembly Tree Compare.
You can apply tolerances to the analysis, allowing specified
allowances in the model precisions and variations. I used the
default of 0.001 units.
Mouse-over investigation is one of my favorite features. This
permits you to move the mouse over parts or assemblies, visually
inspecting the differences that exist in the compared model views.
When the cursor passes over an identified difference, a tooltip
appears with a summary of the part and its difference. See Figure 5.
When the mouse passes over positively checked components or
features, nothing happens, leaving your attention to the negative
details.
click picture for larger view
Figure 5: Mousing over differences displays a brief
report in a tooltip.
The Examine View functionality seemed weak and
troublesome at first, but I went back and gave it another look. The
approach is to combine the two parts in the coordinate space they
occupy as they are evaluated.
What this view does for you is to evaluate the differences together.
It is often difficult to envision just how components differ when
the differences are displayed in separate views. In this dialog,
they are overlaid and highlighted in opposing colors, making the
differences appear as offsets. I find this is much easier to
visualize, as you can see in the figure 8, later in the “Compare in
Action” section of this review.
At the top of the view are two sliders. These allow you to adjust
the transparency of objects, from shaded to wireframe. See Figure 6.
With a little adjustment, it was easy for me to distinguish the
surface mismatches without the error overlay.
click picture for larger view
Figure 6: Adjusting the transparency of overlaid
models.
The Orient Copy command cab be picked from the Compare pull-down
menu, which helps users orient components to a coincident spatial
relationship. See Figure 3. This is quite handy when validating
components that have been developed by two different companies,
where the coordinate bases are likely to be different.
The tool automates the collection of a base point, and two
coordinate axis within each of the Is and Was graphics windows.
While I initially found the selection process a bit clumsy, after
getting used to it (which really only took 20 minutes of paying
attention), the process went well, and the wizard-like step-by-step
automation made it easier to to get comfortable with.
Configuration
The analysis section is quite customizable. Picking Configuration
Options from the toolbar opens the configuration dialog which
contains numerous options for the analysis. By default, the analysis
looks for feature changes; however, turning on functions, such as
volume, force the application to populate the differences dialog
with the additional factors. See Figure 7. They were all null by
default, which is probably a good thing, and reduced the comparison
time, which I like.
click picture for larger view
Figure 7: Dialog box for selecting configuration
options.
While I didn’t have time to check my theory, I
wondered if careful selection might ease up one methodology and
tighten up another, allowing substantial flexibility to this tool.
Compare in Action
Compare is quite well suited for part changes, making short work of
rooting out the slightest difference in a single part file. I was
able to visualize minute differences between versions of the same
designs in Autodesk Vault quite easily. This was actually kind of
nice.
As an analyst, using the tool to delineate the steps associated with
reducing the complexity of models being introduced into simulation
environments was the best thing by far. It is often quite difficult
to convey the differences in the analyzed components to engineers,
and this tool provided a great way to do that.
click picture for larger view
Figure 8: Even the subtlest differences are
highlighted.
By the nature of the reduced complexity, the
validation process did get quite lengthy. This particular mechanical
event simulation subject went through extensive simplification,
resulting in 1,579 geometrical differences. See Figure 8. The
downside is that I found this many differences difficult to
visualize individually.
I found Walk useful for viewing every detail; while lengthy, it made
reviewing smaller details easier. This feature allows you to step
through all the differences that are discovered. It automatically
zooms in to each item, orienting the view normal to the feature in
question.
More Usefulness
I decided to go one step further, and analyze the differences
between similar components that were not mine. On GrabCAD recently,
I had been struggling to determine the validity of some components,
for I was faced with numerous versions of what should be the same
model. KeyCreator Compare came to the rescue.
click picture for larger view
Figure 9: Once components are aligned correctly in
the same coordinate system, then the differences can be correctly
displayed.
I converted both components on the fly and loaded
them up. Shortly after I picked the Validate button, a huge error
list came up. The components were not aligned in the UCS. After a
little adjustment, I found some common ground with which to orient
them, and so proceeded on to analysis. See Figure 9.
Want to talk about being exposed? Compare ripped them apart, every
little detail. I really started to like this tool.
Issues
While the tool functioned as advertised, I did take exception to a
few items that bare mentioning.
There were some problems with the display, most likely relating to
my hardware. I have never had problems with OpenGL or DirectX on my
computer’s NVIDIA Quadro graphics card. On various designs, however,
Compare experienced instability, the largest of which occurred using
Direct3D with hardware support. The views became unstable, and often
could not display all the components in the Is or Was assemblies.
(Kubotek does not recommend Direct3Dfor the current release.
Disabling the ‘Quick Move’ options in the Graphics Card section of
the configuration dialog helps the supported OpenGL performance.)
Picking Examine View usually caused a crash to desktop with any
video card setting. I had no idea why, but after many attempts, I
narrowed the problem down to not having a view window active when
the toolbar is picked. I don’t recommend trying this, unless you
want to quit the application very quickly.
I didn’t care for how the conversion process stopped after each file
was converted. This caused half the conversion process to wait while
waiting for me to return to the computer. If you are converting
large assemblies in the background (which might take a couple of
minutes each), you’d hope the process is completed batch-style when
you return to the application. (I can’t stand waiting that long, and
so I find something else to do in the meantime). This is a minor
inconvenience, and perhaps there is a toggle in the settings to
avoid this.
The validation of part files seems to be related to the spatial
similarity between the two models. When I moved a part in space and
then revalidated the parts, the entire component flagged as an
error. It seems that the software is not able to rectify the part
features when they were not in precisely the same spatial
orientation, something that does not sit well with me. While the
Orient Copy tool does make orienting the Is and Was components
easier, I think that some research in this area would pay off, and
even sway a few prospective clients off the fence.
Reporting features in the Compare menu are all grayed-out. Kubotek
explained that these features do not come with Compare, because they
are reserved for the higher end analysis packages. That’s a shame,
because a reporting function would seem to be quite useful. (The
workaround suggested by Kubotek is to take screen grabs, and then
print them out.)
One other thing that irritated me was that I had a hard time finding
help. A search of the KeyCreator help system for the keyword
‘compare’ got me nowhere. Kubotek later explained that there are two
ways to get help. One is select Compare Parts from the Compare
menu,
and then click the Help button in the dialog box; the other is
review the KeyCreator Test Drive Guide at KeyCreator University; go
to support.kubotekusa.com/support/kcu/keytutorials.asp and then
click on Comparison Suite.
Installation and Licensing
Installation was simple, with nothing outstanding. I had to also
install KeyCreator, because Compare runs inside the MCAD program.
Licensing comes in four options, one of which is a license file that
is generated by Kubotek using the MAC (media access control) address
of your computer’s network card. I hated this option, but understood
the need.
The license number I was issued initially did not work. I emailed
the support team, and after testing it themselves, they sent a new
license file to me very quickly. Sure enough, it worked fine the
second time around.
Closing Thoughts
One thing that I think we will see more of in the future is the
ability to capture existing physical features, and compare them to
the originally designed models. The capability is there, and has
been for years. The problem is that it has been extremely expensive
and quite difficult to achieve good results. Various companies are
beginning to develop this functionality. KeyCreator Compare is
positioned in a good place to do just that, working with any model
presented to it, freeing companies from the need to be tied to
expensive software that is specific to the hardware being utilized,
or that only performs the comparison.
With the tolerancing and feature toggles in the configuration, this
application could possibly be tuned to sniff out differences between
surfaces generated from point clouds and original solid models. The
main issue that exists is the need to have the existing model
oriented exactly to the designed model.
KeyCreator Compare works quite simply, and the interface is straight
forward. You compare two files, and the differences are identified.
I think that there is significant merit to the tool, and its
usefulness is easily understood.
For More Information
--------------------
 |
John Evans has 30 years experience in the
aerospace industry, including mechanical engineering,
design, fabrication, and CNC manufacturing processes. He
expanded into MEP and civil engineering 18 years ago. He is
certified AutoCAD Civil 3D and Autodesk Inventor.
Along with providing data management for a civil engineering
firm in northwest Florida, John works as a design consultant
for Autodesk digital prototyping, and has joined forces with
an emerging clean tech developer. John continues to explore
the Autodesk design industry on the
Design & Motion
blog. John has been a regular contributor for Civil 3D and
Inventor articles in AUGIWorld Magazine, and now serves as
its manufacturing content editor. He has presented at
Autodesk University. He speaks English and Japanese.
You can contact John at
info@johnevansdesign.net . |
| 
