Pretty much anytime you transfer models between CAD and CAE programs, applications which were developed on separate platforms with different databases aimed at different users, you're going to experience some problems.. especially given the back-and-forth nature of many design processes. This can vary significantly by industry and depending on what the design objectives are.

For example, it may make sense to analyze a detailed part with bolt assembly as a simplified rigid object in some design situations, but in others not. In some cases it may make sense to analyze an entire interconnected system to get a sense as to what's going on, but in other design situations you may need only to analyze a single part or portion of the system, or check local stresses in one area of a part or piece of equipment. The experienced engineers doing the analysis are going to understand these issues much better than a CAD designer who doesn't know analysis. And again keeping in mind, analysis is often integral to the design. If CAE developers have real-world engineering design experience just as CAD developers have real-world design CAD experience, theoretically this would result in advantages for the CAE companies since they would know how to better manage and classify objects for analysis.

Contrary to what was suggested on this thread, I don't believe that you can mesh your way into better designs or useability for many/most situations, and even if you could, raw output from finite elements is often not a feasible approach for many types of designs.. Furthermore, there are design code requirements associated with many CAE analytical designs (ASME, AISC, AASHTO, etc) which dictate how stresses are to be calculated, and failure modes vary, depending on what's being designed. Fatigue may dominate some designs, buckling may dominate others, and deflection limits may govern in other designs. It depends. There are a lot of these types of issues to consider, and the issues vary significantly between industries that utilize both CAD and CAE. They also vary significantly between engineering disciplines within the same industry – structural and mechanical engineering depts. may both utilize CAE and CAD in different ways working on their own segments of a larger design.

If my prediction comes true regarding CAE companies eventually moving into CAD turf, it would likely occur on an industry-by-industry basis addressing industry specific design issues.. and if it happens, the large CAD companies won't see it coming

I'm late to comment, but as a twist to the idea of having CAE more accessible to designers, perhaps the disruptive technology of the future will involve CAE products adding database and graphics capabilities that enable a unified platform for both CAD and analysis without having to transfer models between different applications which have their own separate databases. In some industries, preliminary designs are far off the mark without analysis.. analysis is often integral to the design, not some “after the fact” verification of the design.

Analysis packages have come a long way in terms of graphics and modeling user interface.. DirectX offers built-in meshing and advanced surfacing which comes for “free” to users, which could potentially include CAE software vendors. There is of course, more to it than simply adding graphics – generation of dimensioned drawings, BOM's, clash detection and other capabilities would be needed.. But I wouldn't be surprised if CAE vendors at some point go after CAD software “turf” in some industries.

http://lifeupfront.com/2009/09/18/a-3d-printer-...

http://lifeupfront.com/2009/01/16/globalization...

Economically we migrate from the centralized big manufacturer to distributed manufacturing. From hand layouts and big printing presses, to computer layout, and print on demand.

If I were focused on this market, I would have a low cost subscription service, with an integrated Cad/CAE product with a tie in to the service houses for custom parts, and I would do something like traceparts where every order I recieved a small commision for every ordered routed through my software.

I would make the system as intuitive to use as spaceclaim, but would add an expert system for CAE with a visual programming paradym, where you can update material properties like you do with materials web, and then connect the dots and be guided by the expert system. For advanced application the expert system would recommend farming it out to expert consultants at a reasonable price for analysis.
Further I would create a social network which tied in common project management schedules and costs.

Such aproach would be making an argument to provide everyone who has ever longed for a custom product to try their hand at it. be it hobbyist or small business.

I think we will get to that point sooner than some care to think. You will have a couple of big winners and the rest of the market will be flushed out.

Price can certainly be disruptive, but I think it follows that same thinking. The only truly disruptive price for a $5-20k software package (in my opinion) is “Free.” (ie, advertising supported or freemium model). But, that's looking at it from the perspective of mid-large size businesses, not smaller shops.

The most disruptive technology may be what we already have, just priced such that every individual, an or small business can afford to use. The tools we have combined with the rapid manufacture technology, can enable a transition from a centralized manufacturing base to a distributed one.
Cost is a primary barrier currently, but as prices decrease it will become a mass market.

The troublesome part in these modern co-prossirs is the bandwidth/memory constraint. If we were to add a solid state disk to the card to store the memory space without having to travel the system bus, we would be well on our way.

http://lifeupfront.com/2009/09/18/a-3d-printer-...

http://lifeupfront.com/2009/01/16/globalization...