Industry Technologies
By Dipl.-Ing. Yvonne Heinen-Foudeh, Senior Int'l. Correspondent
"Success is the result of small daily achievements." This insight also applies to the highest degree for the transformation to a results-oriented, process-integrated 3D product development of apparel. We learn from the luminary Professor Dr.-Ing. Dipl.-Ing. Michael Ernst. Crux and key points for the still hesitant breakthrough of 3D technology he has brought to the point in talks with The Needle’s Eye - open and blunt.
Conclusion of the Michael Ernst Report
Yvonne Heinen-Foudeh (YH-F): Let's come back to your key domain in research as well as teaching, Professor Ernst. The three-dimensional design of clothing is ultimately also a prerequisite for applications in the direction of Industry 4.0. In your estimation, is the industry moving closer to future-oriented strategies around the topic of model and pattern development and optimization in the foreseeable future? In your opinion, what measures are needed to accelerate the widespread use of existing technology?
Michael Ernst (ME): The process has long since begun. Nevertheless, the industry, the sector as a whole, is facing immense challenges, especially when it comes to converting and aligning processes across product development. And these challenges cannot be mastered overnight.
What is mostly manageable in the 2D area via corresponding import and export functions across systems, is not quite so easy to implement in the 3D area even though this is precisely what is repeatedly requested. The simulation files cannot (yet) be exchanged, and working across systems thus significantly restricts the flexibility to which we are accustomed in 2D.
The "depth" of the simulation that is necessary—or sometimes only supposedly needed—in the various stages of product development is also a constant point of discussion. If I call for high-end rendered simulations at the beginning of the process, I tend not to arrive at the end—the consumer—with a correspondingly real part produced. Here, it must be clearly defined throughout the process which simulation depths are absolutely necessary so that the corresponding flexibility is still given. And thus the original goal of saving time and costs in the long term remains in focus.
The vision leads to product development carried out predominantly in virtual space, where I already provide everything digitally at the beginning—sections, simulations, material parameters—visual and physical, concerning PDM information, tech-packs, etc. To then communicate at this level with all those involved in the process up to the point to be defined. Whereby the transfer to the reality of a real prototype, which is usually still necessary after all, is indispensable, especially for new developments and I, therefore, obtain all the necessary product data from the "cloud" at the latest for production.
This now sounds very much like dreams of the future and leaves many questions in the mostly common - perhaps also somewhat encrusted structures - and the everyday challenges. So it is unquestionably required to deal with the fundamental transformation in sufficient depth - and not just in the hectic day-to-day work.
YH-F: Let me recap. Even if 3D pattern design has outgrown the prototype status, there is still a lot to be done concerning market maturity for all product categories in terms of increased user-friendliness in everyday operation on the pattern maker's screen and in fitting for body-conscious garments or mapping multi-layer garment systems such as men's suits.
What else is missing and can also help increase user acceptance of the 3D way of working? Where do you see the priorities?
ME: Almost all providers have recognized the sluggishness of their 3D systems and are working on smoothing this out within the scope of the complexity that may be involved in a complete 2D connection. Let’s face it, the computerized processes behind all of that are highly complex - programmed on different bases, moreover. If a certain depth is to be achieved, these cannot be set up completely from scratch - without starting from the beginning. Of course, there are differences between the various providers. The flexibility of stand-alone systems cannot be topped with a fully developed 2D system in tow even if this is desirable, because the advantages of integrating 2D and 3D are obvious.
However, it should be noted here that the systems cannot do the "thinking" for the user. To some extent, the expectation seems to be going in that direction. Where I should position the buttonhole and the button, for example, so that this can also be implemented - virtually and in reality - should still be known by oneself.
“The vision leads to product development carried out predominantly in virtual space, where I already provide everything digitally at the beginning: sections, simulations, material parameters - visual and physical.”
Michael Ernst
YH-F: And then, for true-to-life modeling, there is the additional need for the simulation of real material behavior in motion, the consideration of material parameters for outer fabrics, linings, inserts, and ingredients (e.g. shoulder pads) based on actual fabric types used. Where does the technology stand in that respect?
ME: When it comes to physical material parameters, the belief is still rampant that systems must be able to simulate an infinite variety of materials in truly different ways. Considering all the simulation parameters, such as grid size (mesh), friction, distance to an avatar, collision management, realism of virtual "manufacturing" - plus inlay materials, ribbons, etc. there are still numerous adjusting screws and yet the material parameters are permanently checked in a time-consuming manner.
However, all systems can only simulate a limited number of physical and material parameters in a diversified and perceptible way. You just have to accept that. And even the waterfall shirt may not immediately show the same position on the first fall in 3D as on the bust with attached linen. How is it supposed to know how to fall in 3D now? If there are already numerous variations in reality. On top of that, it needs the ability to "read and interpret" a 3D simulation correctly. Nevertheless, there are serious differences between the systems. If I simulate really "messed up" cuts in 3D, which could never be sewn together in real life, and the result still looks great, then I have to ask myself what the 3D simulation is really telling me? Then we are just as far along as in the current image sender process. Now, perfect-looking 3D simulations are generated. But the appropriate cuts, those are to make then again someone else. With this approach, 3D is nothing more than a better 2D drawing tool - with more game options. I hope this will not catch on. YH-F: At the Mönchengladbach premises of The Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences (HSN), where you teach and conduct extensive application-related research, enjoy a top reputation beyond the borders of Europe with its textile/clothing department. To what extent do you personally consider the possibilities and thus also the curricula for the complex and widely ramified segment of textiles and clothing at HSN to already meet the requirements of the industry? What is missing so that teaching in these times of extreme and also rapid change produces the qualified young people that the digitally networked industry needs?
ME: When it comes to physical material parameters, the belief is still rampant that systems must be able to simulate an infinite variety of materials in truly different ways. Considering all the simulation parameters, such as grid size (mesh), friction, distance to an avatar, collision management, realism of virtual "manufacturing" - plus inlay materials, ribbons, etc. there are still numerous adjusting screws and yet the material parameters are permanently checked in a time-consuming manner.
However, all systems can only simulate a limited number of physical and material parameters in a diversified and perceptible way. You just have to accept that. And even the waterfall shirt may not immediately show the same position on the first fall in 3D as on the bust with attached linen. How is it supposed to know how to fall in 3D now? If there are already numerous variations in reality. On top of that, it needs the ability to "read and interpret" a 3D simulation correctly. Nevertheless, there are serious differences between the systems. If I simulate really "messed up" cuts in 3D, which could never be sewn together in real life, and the result still looks great, then I have to ask myself what the 3D simulation is really telling me? Then we are just as far along as in the current image sender process. Now, perfect-looking 3D simulations are generated. But the appropriate cuts, those are to make then again someone else. With this approach, 3D is nothing more than a better 2D drawing tool - with more game options. I hope this will not catch on. YH-F: At the Mönchengladbach premises of The Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences (HSN), where you teach and conduct extensive application-related research, enjoy a top reputation beyond the borders of Europe with its textile/clothing department. To what extent do you personally consider the possibilities and thus also the curricula for the complex and widely ramified segment of textiles and clothing at HSN to already meet the requirements of the industry? What is missing so that teaching in these times of extreme and also rapid change produces the qualified young people that the digitally networked industry needs?
Managing apparel processes purely virtually therefore cannot be an option. The real problem, however, is that "from the outside" this is always suggested, and thus the implementation of the product with sewing, ironing, or even gluing and welding, etc. no longer sounds quite so "sexy" compared to the work in front of the screen.
ME: We have constantly adapted and redeveloped our curricula in recent years, especially in the digital area. However, there is also a limit here when it comes to the required overall scope that can be taught in a given time frame. Because the world and the requirements have become so complex, a wide range of subjects is also required in their entirety, which then cannot be easily exchanged without generating corresponding gaps.
When listening to statements like "now, where processes are getting all-digital, there is no more need for real samples, to teach manufacturing and classic cut design." I only can reply that there still stands a real product at the end. Managing apparel processes purely virtually therefore cannot be an option. The real problem, however, is that "from the outside" this is always suggested, and thus the implementation of the product with sewing, ironing, or even gluing and welding, etc. no longer sounds quite so "sexy" compared to the work in front of the screen. This is a worrying development that harms the transformation process.
I don't accept the argument that "others will do it anyway." I always ask our industry partners who the others are supposed to be and why it is assumed that these unknown third parties can then perfectly implement everything that is part of the production process. Therefore we are constantly working on the university to stop - to prevent - the progressive loss of know-how.
There is no need to mention dependences, especially in these times, when the limits of globalization are brought home to us all.
When listening to statements like "now, where processes are getting all-digital, there is no more need for real samples, to teach manufacturing and classic cut design." I only can reply that there still stands a real product at the end. Managing apparel processes purely virtually therefore cannot be an option. The real problem, however, is that "from the outside" this is always suggested, and thus the implementation of the product with sewing, ironing, or even gluing and welding, etc. no longer sounds quite so "sexy" compared to the work in front of the screen. This is a worrying development that harms the transformation process.
I don't accept the argument that "others will do it anyway." I always ask our industry partners who the others are supposed to be and why it is assumed that these unknown third parties can then perfectly implement everything that is part of the production process. Therefore we are constantly working on the university to stop - to prevent - the progressive loss of know-how.
There is no need to mention dependences, especially in these times, when the limits of globalization are brought home to us all.
YH-F: What kind of further intensified cooperation and support would you like to see in the ranks of teaching on the part of the industry - and also on the part of tech providers, to make the training of bachelors and masters, managers, and doers in the near future even better suited to the requirements profile that has been completely redefined with digitization and all its many aspects?
ME: Most important remains the close connection with the clothing companies. Students write that cooperation with companies is appreciated since they are the employers. After all, our primary goal is not to train scientific personnel for jobs in the university sector - but still for the industry.
This connection is synergetic and leads to pure win-win constellations. It would be useful if CAD providers also saw it this way. Unfortunately, one must state that some, after they have also gained a foothold in the market, tighten the set screws and then demand ever more expensive license fees. Some decision-makers seem to forget that today’s students will be tomorrow's customers. And perhaps also a bit about why they were able to establish themselves in the first place. Fortunately, as a university, we are free to choose our systems and, with our number of graduates, we are multiple mouthpieces directly to industry.
ME: Most important remains the close connection with the clothing companies. Students write that cooperation with companies is appreciated since they are the employers. After all, our primary goal is not to train scientific personnel for jobs in the university sector - but still for the industry.
This connection is synergetic and leads to pure win-win constellations. It would be useful if CAD providers also saw it this way. Unfortunately, one must state that some, after they have also gained a foothold in the market, tighten the set screws and then demand ever more expensive license fees. Some decision-makers seem to forget that today’s students will be tomorrow's customers. And perhaps also a bit about why they were able to establish themselves in the first place. Fortunately, as a university, we are free to choose our systems and, with our number of graduates, we are multiple mouthpieces directly to industry.
.jpg&height=393)
Prerequisite for personalized model development: the capturing of body data. Michael Ernst and his team at VirLab work with a TG3D bodyscanner.
Rendering: 3D content transferred from CAD and exported as high-quality images. Photo: VirLab/Mylene.
Detection of visual material parameters with the xTex system from Vizoo at University Niederrhein's VirLab.
In addition, the NunoFabric-Scanner is available for the visual recording of material parameters.
In addition to visual parameters, physical parameters also influence material behavior and support the simulation process of powerful 3D software systems: testing device for measuring strain properties.
