Budapest or Global? Istvan Knows No Boundaries

Shape3D demonstrated how CAD can feel as natural as drawing with a pencil on paper, while still handling complex product design with an iPad and the Apple Pencil. Shapr3D’s founder, István Csanády, has taken the company from its Apple roots to Windows, and by doing so is starting to be recognized by the market. 

Join as István discusses:

• Pain points with legacy CAD and steep learning curves
• Origins of Shapr3D and mission to simplify serious design
• GDP-scale impact from productivity gains in manufacturing
• Building a global, multicultural team from Budapest
• Apple partnership and a single app across iPad, Mac, Windows, Vision Pro
• Offline-first performance, local compute, cloud sync and versioning
• Comparison to cloud CAD and limits of browser-scale assemblies
• Current strengths and acknowledged gaps in drawings and large assemblies
• Beyond B-rep ambition for robust Booleans, fillets and shells
• Practical AI for visualization and auto-generated drawings
• Enterprise traction, shop-floor use, and secure environments

Transcript

A Pencil, An iPad, A Promise

Roopinder 0:18

Hello and welcome to FoDES, the Future of Design and Engineering Software podcast. My name is Roopindert Tara. On this show, we will have guests that will discuss tools and technology that engineers will find interesting and useful. Can you see what I'm holding up here? To this day, it's my favorite pencil. I got this last time I was over. I think you were demoing the AR ARVR capabilities. Vision Pro version. Yes, yes. I love that pencil. I first saw Shaper 3D being demonstrated in San Francisco in 2018. There Istvan on his first trip to the US from his native Hungary. His startup from Budapest was going to show a room full of cat insiders how to do CAD. But where was his computer? He stood in front of us with an iPad on one hand and an Apple pencil in the other. And he had no keyboard. Shaper 3D was no toy, he assured us. It was based on Parasolid. Was Shaper 3D giving engineers a natural way to sketch, finally being able to capture ideas as easily as drawing on a notepad, which was missing in every CAD program? Shaper3D has grown quite a bit since those early years. Shaper3D is ported to Windows, applied rendering, drawings, ARVR. This is called the Future of Design and Engineering Software. And on it, I hope to get companies like Shaper3D that are, I think, the future of CAD. By the way, later on is Brad Rothenberg. You're very good friends, actually. So you two guys, I think you just team up because I see in both your products what the future of design and software looks like. Tell me what distinguishes you. You said it in my words, but tell me in your words, what what made you get into CAD? Because you're not a CAD user by birth, shall we say, right?

Ambition and GDP-Level Impact

István 1:59

But I became one. I actually learned CAD when I was a teenager. I learned CAD when I was 30 years old. I started coding even earlier when I was six years old. And then I grew up in a household where complaining CAD was a regular topic during Sunday dinners. My dad is an engineer, my mom's an architect, my brother is an architect. They really suffered a lot from CAD. I still remember talking, they've told a lot of how hard it is to use and how expensive it is. It's a very useful tool, but it's so clunky. So somehow it became like a core memory for me. Somehow I grew up with this, with this idea that CAD is like really bad and it's ripe for disruption. Even in the 1990s. I was a CAD in the 1990s. Even in the 1990s, it already felt like it's ripe for disruption. But quite frankly, not much has changed in the last 20, 30 years. There has hasn't been like a fundamental shift on the market. Like the market dynamics that we that we saw in the early 2000s or mid-2000s are pretty much the same today in terms of market share. Growth rate is very low in this industrial. The entire industry is growing. Maybe it's a single digit percent growth rate that we see in this industry. And even that mostly coming from just squeezing out more money for the same products instead of like truly innovating and truly like solving more customer problems and providing more value. And it's just when I quit my previous job eight years ago or nine years, actually, quite like a few years before that, I was not sure exactly what I want to do with my life. But CAD was such an obvious choice for me as my next venture, what I want to do. Especially because even before that, I had another CAD company that failed after a couple of years that didn't really work out. And then I joined an enterprise SaaS company. But I always felt that this industry is super interesting. It has a lot of depth, a lot of complexity. It has a truly meaningful global impact on the world, on the physical. You can work with the coolest companies in the world that are building the coolest thing on Earth. And if you build a successful company in this industry, then I genuinely believe that you can make a global GDP level impact. Like when I describe how I envision a successful future for Shaper, I always say that I think there is a qualitative and a quantitative answer for that question. The qualitative is that like if five years from now, if you walk into a room anywhere in the world, you should find at least five different objects in that room that were designed in Shaper. And I think the quantitative way to think about a successful future for Shaper is that 16% of the global GDP is in manufacturing. One sixth. And all of these companies are running on this extremely outdated, extremely obsolete software stack. If we can just increase their efficiency just by 6% by building better software, that means that we are increasing global GDP by 1%. I think that's actually doable. That's actually not impossible.

Roopinder 4:47

We have that in common, by the way. I'm a, I would say a veteran CAD user. I used CAD from the early days. I introduced my company to CAD back in the late 80s. I've used several CAD programs. One of the reasons I was so impressed with Shaper when I first saw it is I found every CAD program difficult to use. It took years to get good at AutoCAD, for example. Eventually I taught AutoCAD. I learned SolidWorks, I learned Solid Edge, I learned all these programs. Bentley, I used Bentley for six months at a co-op. I found all of them there was a steep learning curve. And I've since said the only people that consider CAD easy to use are those who know how to use it. Everyone else has a difficult time. To this day, I won't make a CAD drawing. If I'm making something in my wood shop, I'll sketch it up and on pencil and paper and go in there because it'll take me too long to fire it up and get started, right? You're right, it needs to be disrupted. Okay, so here you are. I love Budapest. I wouldn't call it a remote place, but it's kind of like not in the center of action.

István 5:49

That's not a tier one tech hub by any means, yeah.

Roopinder 5:52

I love Budapest. It is a great place. So what made you think that you could, from Budapest, conquer the world, shall we say, of CAD?

Building Globally From Budapest

István 5:59

I will turn around the question. What made you think that I cannot? And seriously, I don't really understand this obsession with where you start from. Eventually, you will become a global company if you succeed. We just opened our US office, for example. We are hiring around the world. Our enterprise account executives are all around the world, like in Dublin, in Paris, in the United States, across the world. Well, I think it's eventually you will become a global company. But what made me think that it's a good place to start this company is the fact that the most outstanding talent pool in computational geometry and C, the kind of skills that you need for building a CAD system. We have like truly outstanding people here in these fields in a much less competitive environment than the Bay Area or any of the Tier 1 tech hubs.

Roopinder 6:48

I remember in your office, you had all the flags, all the people. Did you bring that over to the new?

István 6:53

We are hiring global. Even when we were a fully co-located company, and up until a year ago, actually, we were a fully co-located company. We didn't even hire remote people and we relocated a lot of people. And even today we have more than 20 different nationalities working at Shaper, which is super fun because from many of these nationalities, we hire we have multiple people in the team. So you're walking around in the Shaper office and you will hear people talking to each other in French and in German and in Russian and in Hebrew. It's super fun to have this extremely multicultural environment here. And the reason why we can we can relocate these people to Budapest, there are a couple of reasons. One is Budapest itself is a super fun city as you experience it for yourself. It's beautiful, it's fun. The price-value ratio is outstanding. You can have access to pretty much all the services and goods that you have access to in any other large Western European city. But in terms of affordability, it's slightly more affordable. Not much more affordable anymore, unfortunately, but slightly more affordable than Western European cities. It's also at the center of Europe. It's really easy to get to anywhere from Budapest. And last but not least, our expat colleagues immediately feel that we are an extremely mission-driven company. So it's just like it's and it's a lot of fun to work with a bunch of other folks who are really excited about the same mission that that keeps you going too. That's really the true superpower of the company. If you ask anyone here, if you walled around in a Shaper office and just like walk to anyone's desk and I'll like what they think, why are we here? Every single person will tell you that we are here to build a generational industry-defining company that will define the design, engineering, manufacturing, software space for the next 50 years. That's why they are here. The combination of these things enabled us to build an outstanding team that is able to ship a lot with a relatively low head count. The entire team right now is 150 people, and half of that is in engineering and product. And if you look at it like how much we are shipping a year, and we are maintaining a parametric CAD system on four different platforms and a highly differentiated metric CAD system on four different platforms, then I don't think that there are too many other companies in the world that can do that.

Apple Partnership and Platform Choices

Roopinder 8:59

I got one more question on that same subject. Everybody speaks very fluent English, which is great for me. But is Shaper 3D localized in other languages?

István 9:08

We support, I think, nine different languages. We have users more than 180 countries. Oh, localization was very important to get to that point.

Roopinder 9:17

I'll go back to when I first saw it because I can't leave that image of you showing Shaper 3D on an iPad. I made you come out to Starbucks the next morning and you demoed it right there on your on your iPad. I thought I've never seen anything like it. Now you had really good initial success. I think your product was nominated as the product of the year or something like that for Apple.

István 9:39

We have a really uh good relationship with Apple overall. We were featured in more than 10 keynotes in the last seven, eight years. We got an Apple Design Award. We were a finalist last year in the App of the Year award. We have had this really good relationship with them, and overall we are like one of the flagship applications of the iPad and of the Mac.

Roopinder 10:00

Question. Today Apple is gonna have its event. I think it's an iPhone-related event, though. I don't know if you're gonna be on that mention on that, but yeah, I think I don't know either. They're a very secretive company. So, but what happened with Apple? It still works on the iPad, but you also poured into Windows. That was a business or market decision, I guess.

One App, Many Modalities

István 10:19

It was a strategic decision, it was a very pragmatic and strategic decision that we made because the entire existing ecosystem is running on Windows right now, and enterprise companies are still primarily using Windows. In the last few years, we have been seeing some shift, even in enterprise companies, actually, towards Apple platforms. I'm actually very bullish on Apple. I think currently they make by far the best computers on the planet. The hardware, software integration, the quality and performance of Apple Silicon Chi, the quality of their graphics APIs and development environment is just outstanding. I genuinely think that for the price-value ratio of Apple products is just outstanding. There is nothing even comparable. And right now, you can buy a MacBook for less than a thousand dollars that will run circles around any PC in the world. Despite all this, we have to acknowledge that pretty much the entire CAD, CAM, CAE industry is on running on Windows and we want to be part of the ecosystem. That doesn't mean that we are neglecting the Apple platforms. We're still natively running on iPad, Mac, Apple Vision Pro, and Windows, of course. But the way we envision Shaper's future, not just a future, the way Shaper works or the way we think about Shaper, it's Shaper is doesn't have different versions on different platforms, right? We have a single Shaper 3D application that you can access on multiple different platforms. And because some of these platforms have different strengths and different weaknesses, we are heavily optimizing for those strengths and weaknesses. So for example, on Apple Vision Pro, we heavily optimized for the 3D augmented reality, virtual reality capabilities of the device, because that's where the Vision Pro really shines. On iPad, we really optimize for the pencil interaction and touch interactions and also augmented reality on iPad. On desktop computers, we really focus on the fact that these computers have larger screens, they have more memory, more horsepower. So we are really taking advantage of that. But eventually at the core, there is a single Shaper application that runs on every single platform. You just access it through different modalities on these forms. That's one of the core value propositions with Shaper, and that's what makes people love our solution that you can just pick up Shaper anywhere on any device. You can just sign in and you immediately have your designs there. You can start working, you can switch between your devices, you can start sketching on your iPad, then you can switch to your desktop platform when you need more, you need a bigger screen or more horsepower, and then you can do a design review with your colleagues on Apple Vision Pro, and and everyone can look at the same design in augmented reality, and you can even do real-time modifications. So every platform that we support has its role, its purpose in the in the Shaper workflow in the ecosystem.

Roopinder 12:58

I'm glad to hear you still having faith in the Apple interface. I'm a big believer in Apple tools. Secrets out now, but every time I do sketch something, it's usually on an iPad, iPad Pro, and then I take I take that into the shop rather than a CAD drawing. I'm really glad to hear that. I think yours program and also Sketch SketchUp are the most are the only two CAD programs that are really usable on iPad.

István 13:23

I prefer not to comment on other other products that are available actually.

Offline-first vs Cloud CAD

Roopinder 13:27

Oh really? Oh really? My next question was going to be how you compare. I'm going to ask anyway. The only other CAD program that's made in the century is Onshape. Onshape and Shaper3D. In my mind, going head-to-head, this is for the next program for the next generation. How would you compare your Shaper 3D to Onshape strength and difficulty? If not, I will question was gonna be how you compare. I'm gonna ask anyway. The only other CAD program that's made in the century is Onshape and Shaper 3D. In my mind, going head to head, this is as for the next program for the next generation. How would you compare your Shaper 3D to OnShape strengths and difficulty? If not, I will.

István 13:47

I think onShape is fantastic, really. I think it's a great tool. I think the way they they view the market is just completely different from how we think about product strategy and and how we think about a future. Our view on the future is that the future is going to be different from the present. We think that the world is changing, it is going to change, and the way people work is changing, the way people prefer to work and the way they prefer to interact with their CAD is changing. Our focus is primarily on really trying to understand how these changes in the world open up new opportunities where traditional systems are weaker. So our opportunity is not that we want to like do immediately everything that every other Legacy CAD does. That's not how you win. You win by differentiating yourself, by providing something that Legacy CAD systems cannot provide. And because of that, we are obsessed with great user experience, like truly great. And when I say great user experience, what I mean by that is like consumer great user experience that opens up a lot of new markets and a lot of interesting opportunities, even in enterprise companies. We are really heavily investing in AR and VR, not just a second thought, like something that we duct tape on the product. It's an intrinsic part of the workflow. It really, really, really invest in performance. Like Shaper can work with really complex and really large designs, even on an iPad, which is really difficult with any other tool that is that is out there. I would say it's impossible.

Roopinder 15:19

I want to ask you a little bit about that because you mentioned that you can use Shaper, pick up your design on every any device you're working on or a computer. That's one of Onshape's big selling points, too, that it's it's cloud-based. But your Shaper 3D is not cloud, full cloud, right? It operates locally. So how does that magic possible then that you can pick it up from anyone?

Reliability, Versioning, and Enterprise Needs

Market Fit, Limits, and Differentiation

István 15:40

This was a very important decision that we made at the time I started Shaper is that we are so that I just want to clear up this. There's I think there's some confusion around like what is cloud-based and what is not. When you have an application, there are two different types of computes that you have to do. One is computation for displaying the geometry, rendering it. The other type of computation is processing the geometry itself and doing the geometrical calculations. And then there's a third one, which is storing the data, which also requires some computer, but it's primary storage. And then when you are designing an application, you can decide where you want to perform these operations. Basically, you could do everything in the cloud, you could do everything locally, or you can find a middle ground. But eventually you have to split it somewhere. Like you have to decide where you want to do the visualization computation, the geometric computation, and the data storage. So there, these solutions that call themselves cloud native, they decided to draw that line at the geometric computation, and they are visualizing the data locally on the browser, but they are doing the geometric computation in the cloud and they are doing data storage in the with Shaper. We drew that line a little bit here, like closer to the data storage. We are doing all the computation, like geometric computation locally, all the visualization locally, and we are doing the data storage and synchronization and collaboration part in the cloud. The reason we decided to do that, because that's how you can build the highest performing, fastest, smoothest user experience. There is a reason why, for example, gaming haven't moved to the cloud yet, is because gaming is incredibly computational in intense to provide a very low latency, highly interactive experience that skills really, really need to do local computation. Actually, I will say something controversial here, but cloud is not designed for computation. Cloud is designed for storage, and cloud is designed for a very specific type of computation that is not like CAD-like computation where you need a lot of floating point operations for a long, long, long time, but you need to like update a database or you need to like manage files or that kind of computation. But cloud is really not designed for this raw floating point computation. And that's why we believe that these kind of applications like gaming and CAD and similar applications like Photoshop are better off with doing most of this geometric computation locally on the user screen. That's that's the way to provide a highly interactive user experience, a really responsive experience. Quite frankly, that's the only way to support very large assemblies with tens of thousands of parts, for example. Currently, if you want to build an application that does the computation in the cloud and does the rendering in that in a browser, then you will run into this issue that displaying really large data sets in a browser is very difficult. It's actually so difficult that above a certain scale, it's just impossible because the browser takes care of all the memory management and the browser-based graphics APIs also are fairly limited. For example, if you want to like load a very large assembly in a browser, you will run into very significant performance issues. And it's not because these visualization tools are poorly written, they are fantastically well written. It's a it's an intrinsic technological limitation of browser-based technology for it to get it.

Roopinder 18:54

You also avoid the what I've called the Achilles heel of On shape, which is if I'm not online, I can't work. Yes, right. So you can you can continue. I think that's always been an issue. Although I understand most people have are online all the time, most of the time. Yeah, 99% of the time. But but you know, there's times where you travel, there's time where the power goes out, especially other countries.

István 19:16

It's actually true. And quite thing, that's that was really not one of the things that we considered when we made this decision, but this turned out to be one of the more important value propositions for our customers. For example, we have many, many, many, many users at some of our largest Fortune 500 customers, automotive OEMs, who are using Shaper on the shop floor. And like it or not, very often these factories don't have a high quality, reliable network connection. Sometimes they don't have a network connection at all. And you know, like they are working sometimes with very large assemblies. And if they had to open those large assemblies through a poor network connection or without network connection, they would be in trouble. But using Shaper, they can just like take it there on their iPads and they can work even from the shop floor or from anywhere, even if they don't have a network connection. So actually, that's turned out to be a slightly surprising, but indeed important value proposition of Shaper that we do work even offline. We hear that a lot, that it's a great attribute of Shaper.

Roopinder 20:12

If the power goes out and I'm using Shaper 3D, I don't lose my data, correct? It's being saved all the time.

Beyond B-Rep: Performance and Scale

István 20:18

Under the hood, we have a database in Shaper, a SQL I database, which is a military grade, extremely reliable database. Even if literally flight hits your iPad while you're designing, even then, it's very likely that that your data remains intact. And we also keep so and so and that's stored locally, and we are synchronizing across your devices through the cloud. So even if you I don't like if you lose your device, if you if you don't have access to your device anymore, then you can recover it from the cloud. You basically just set up a new computer and open Shaper and sign in with your account, and then you have your designs there immediately. And some of our enterprise customers, especially in the defense industry, are using Shaper completely without a cloud, just like pure like local installs, and then they're just using it there without any uh any cloud connection or any any internet connectivity.

Roopinder 21:08

That's critical. I think once you get used to that, like from using Google Docs or anything on the cloud, I don't have to worry about lights going off, power going off. I can never go back to a where I lose data if the power that's just stupid to me. That even allowed to happen.

István 21:24

In that sense, Shaper is barely distinguishable from a uh browser-based cloud app that you're saving everything automatically. So you don't even have to press like S on just like keep working and everything is automatically saved. It's not just everything automatically saved, but everything is automatically versioned. So if you you can go back to any version, previous version, anytime, basically, and recover an older version of your design that works completely transparently, you don't have to do anything about it, that just happens automatically.

Roopinder 21:53

I want to leave with one last question. Shaper 3D, in my mind, and I'm sure in yours, is checked off all the boxes. You have, you know, you you have a great you're parasolid-based, you can do drawings, which oftentimes is a big check box. I think you do full drawing, full drawing now.

István 22:11

We are doing okay drawings, like there's a lot a lot of room for improvement there.

Roopinder 22:14

Okay, so there's some room there. That box may be half checked off, but everything else, it seems like this is really a good CAD program, easy to use. What how frustrating is it for you that everybody's not using it? How what is how do you what do you blame that on?

Pragmatic AI: Where It Actually Helps

István 22:28

Inertia or what we are getting very good fraction in enterprise. They we are growing, we are doing really well. Quite frankly, it's not frustrating at all because we are making a lot of progress. Okay, we are getting to this point, we are doing some larger scale replacements of legacy CAD with some of our customers. I think it's we have come a really long way, to be honest, and and I think we are on track to get where we want to. It just takes time. Disruption always takes time, especially when building a product like ours, it just takes a lot of time. I don't think that it's possible to build uh something like Shaper in less than six, seven years, even if you know what you want to build. Shaper is now nine years old. Wow, isn't it? Time flies. We got to early enterprise product market two years ago, and then last year we started to scale up, and now it's going really big.

Roopinder 23:14

I'm thinking about AutoCAD and I think back on SolidWorks. I know I'm compressing time, but it seems like they were overnight successes. It was a matter of timing, but all of a sudden there was AutoCAD, it was it took years, I know. It took a couple of years before AutoCAD was everywhere since the first inception. But SolidWorks also was rather quick. And I know that was because it was replacing Pro/ E at a lesser cost. So it's not any more ease of use, it's a big thing, but is are you competing on a price level as well or a cost level?

Automating Drawings and What’s Next

István 23:45

Not really. It depends, like how how you look at it. I think it's like comparing Shaper to the uh to the legacy CAD systems, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think it makes a lot of sense. You're not really aiming to directly compete with traditional cat. The way we think about the market is that there are certain workflows and types of teams that can benefit from Shaper. But like Shaper right now, we couldn't serve a full end-to-end CAD workflow for the aerospace industry. We are not yet able to create very large assemblies in Shaper, we are lacking certain data management features. But if you are working, for example, in consumer products and consumer goods design, or if you are working in the automotive industry in the conceptual vehicle team, in the ergonomics team, in the interior design team, in the UX design team in an automotive company, or you are running shop floor teams at large-scale manufacturing companies, then Shaper is a much, much, much better than any other tool out there. And then you know that eventually they'll get there, and step by step you're adding more and more to the product so that we can serve more and more audiences. But I think to get to this like core CAD workflow disruption, that will take a bit more time. And honestly, I think there has to be innovation. Like innovation has to happen even at the core CAD engine level, so at the parent level. I don't know yet what it is, but I think to provide a workflow that is 10 times better, so that it's worth the switching cost, then 10 times better than a legacy workflow, I think you have to innovate even at the deepest level of CAD. Is it possible to build a CAD system that, for example, that never fails, where Booleans always succeed, where every single fillet will always succeed, where shells never fail, where I can, instead of just being able to handle a few 10,000 parts, I can handle a million parts. To get there, you really need to like come up with something better than boundary representation, something better than current B rep engines. I'm not sure what that is yet, but I think that's what is needed to disrupt the core engineering workflow. But the market is really large, and the edge markets around the core CAD use cases are also very exciting, and a lot is happening there.

Roopinder 25:55

I promise I'd let you off the hook, and then I realize that no conversation about any computer software is complete unless I ask about AI. Are you getting a lot of pressure to introduce AI, get putting AI in the product? How tell me your views on AI, and I'll let you off.

István 26:10

You're not the first person who asked me this question. I find the question a little bit odd because people at this point just treat AI as it's a magical fairy powder. You just like put some AI powder on your product and it's magically going to be AI. And then and my problem with this idea is that it's a technology-first thinking and not a customer-first thinking. So that and you cannot really build a great product by approaching the problem from the technology perspective. You have to approach the problem from the customer's perspective, and you have to work towards the technology from the customer's viewpoint, right? So, and then eventually I will rephrase this question is that what are those customer problems for your customers that you think AI could solve really well for them? And my answer is that I think there are quite a few, but I also think it's not like some sort of magical fairy powder. And I think the expectations are a little bit inflated in the CAD world towards like what AI can do. Because basically, what we call today AI are basically LLMs, right? And LLMs are really good at processing text, but really not very good at processing numbers, geometry. They don't really have like a really good spatial understanding, especially not with beer beer, right? For the core geometry workflows, I don't really expect anything revolutionary coming out with the current AI technologies. I do expect, however, that for example, I think in visualization, AI is going to be completely I agree with with Jensen Huang's comment on this that in the future, every single pixel will be generated by AI and it will not be rendered. That makes a lot of sense. I I totally agree. And we are about to add uh an AI-based visualization enhancer into Shaper that will dramatically improve the quality of Shaper's visualization. Or I can totally see LLMs being useful for processing every like textual data around CAD, like documentation or communication around the design. I think all of those make a lot of sense, but I think that we should not expect that AI is going to design our parts anytime soon, unless we have a similarly large breakthrough in AI as LLMs were a few years ago. LLMs are fantastic for certain things, but they also have their limitations. And right now, the CAD is just not a good fit in those limitations. Um so I think what I expect is plenty of smaller enhancements like AI-based enhancements, like workflow simplifications, better visualization, but I don't expect an AI first or an AI native CAD to come out anytime soon.

Roopinder 28:38

I'll give you one thing since you mentioned that you're still the drawing package is still a work in progress. I as an engineer, I love the design, but I hate to document. I hate to make drawings. That's the worst, that's just paperwork I don't need to do. And I always wish, like instead of AI make me a part, I would say AI make me the drawing. And I want I wanted to make that drawing. There's three views and asymmetric view dimensions. AI, I'm sure you could do that. Not you as as Shaper 3D, but I'm sure that we can create that, right?

Closing and Listener Invitation

István 29:08

I think that's one of the best use cases for AI technologies. I think I agree that probably like generating technical documentation for designs can be done by I agree. And and I find it quite likely that a few years from now, engineers will spend probably like 67 to 80% less time with creating drawings than they are spending today, simply because most of that is going to be automated. Still, they will review it, they will still fix it when it the AI breaks it.

Roopinder 29:34

I want my role to be just the checker. I just want to be the checker of that drawing.

István 29:38

I think that's not not an unrealistic expectation. But again, like it's not going to completely transform the CAD work. But I think that's that's quite significant and an important, a potentially improvement important improvement.

Roopinder 29:50

Very good. Okay, I'm finally gonna let you go. But I would like to have you on again, and would when you do, you'll have a drawing package for me. Thank you for listening to FoDES, the Future of Design and Engineering Software show brought to you by ENTtechnica. I hope you have learned of a new application or technology that will help you with your job. If you have an application you think would be of interest to other engineers, please let me know by emailing me at roopinder@engtechnica.com or message me on LinkedIn.