Interview Questions for Dassault Systèmes CATIA

In CATIA, Part Design and Assembly Design are distinct modules focusing on different aspects of product development. Think of it like building with LEGOs: Part Design is creating individual bricks, while Assembly Design is putting those bricks together to build a structure.

Part Design focuses on the creation of individual 3D components. You define the geometry, features, and material properties of a single part. For example, designing a single gear, a bolt, or an engine block would all fall under Part Design. It utilizes features like extrudes, revolves, and sweeps to build up complex shapes from simpler primitives.

Assembly Design, on the other hand, is about combining multiple parts created in Part Design (or imported from other sources) into a functional assembly. This involves positioning, constraining, and managing relationships between parts. Think of assembling the engine block, gears, and other components to create a complete engine. Key aspects include managing constraints to ensure proper fit and movement, creating exploded views for documentation, and performing interference checks.

In essence, Part Design is about individual components, while Assembly Design is about their integration and interaction.

My experience with CATIA’s surface modeling capabilities is extensive. I’ve used it across various projects requiring complex organic shapes and freeform designs, from automotive body panels to consumer electronics casings. CATIA provides a robust set of tools for generating and manipulating surfaces, offering both precise control and intuitive workflows.

I’m proficient in creating surfaces using various techniques, including: Sweep (creating surfaces by moving a profile along a path), Fill (creating surfaces between defined curves), Revolution (rotating a profile around an axis), and Multi-section (creating surfaces based on multiple cross-sections). I frequently leverage surface editing tools like blending, filleting, and offsetting to achieve seamless transitions and refine the aesthetic and functional aspects of the design.

One particular project involved designing a sleek, ergonomic handheld device. Precise surface modeling was crucial for ensuring comfort and intuitive operation. We used CATIA’s surface tools to create smooth, flowing curves and then employed advanced analysis techniques to validate the design’s ergonomics.

Managing large assemblies in CATIA efficiently requires a strategic approach. Simply opening a massive assembly can lead to performance issues. Here’s how I tackle this:

• Component Simplification: Before assembling, I aim to simplify components wherever possible. Using lightweight representations (e.g., simplified geometry) for less critical parts speeds up the assembly process and reduces file size.
• Product Structure Management: I utilize CATIA’s Product Structure tree to organize components logically. This facilitates efficient navigation and management, especially in hierarchical structures. Proper naming conventions are crucial for maintainability.
• Component Reuse: Wherever feasible, I reuse already-created components, reducing redundancy and improving consistency.
• Assembly Constraints: Careful application of assembly constraints is vital. Over-constraining can lead to issues, while under-constraining results in instability. I use a combination of geometric constraints and relation constraints to accurately define the assembly.
• Sub-Assemblies: Breaking down large assemblies into manageable sub-assemblies is key. This improves performance and allows parallel work by different team members.
• Lightweight Assemblies: CATIA offers lightweight assembly capabilities. I use this feature effectively to reduce the computational burden of large projects. This often involves using representations like simplified geometry for distant components.

By implementing these strategies, I can effectively manage even the most complex and large assemblies in CATIA, ensuring smooth performance and efficient collaboration.

CATIA employs a wide array of constraints to define relationships between parts within an assembly. These constraints ensure proper fit, movement, and functionality. They can be broadly categorized as:

• Geometric Constraints: These define relationships based on geometric properties. Examples include:
• Mate: Aligns faces or edges.
• Distance: Sets a fixed distance between two points or faces.
• Angle: Defines an angle between two lines or planes.
• Tangent: Makes two surfaces tangent to each other.
• Relational Constraints: These define relationships based on the movement and behavior of parts. Examples include:
• Revolute Joint: Allows rotational movement about an axis.
• Prismatic Joint: Allows linear movement along an axis.
• Fixed Joint: Prevents any movement between parts.
• Advanced Constraints: CATIA offers advanced features like:
• Kinematic constraints: Simulating more complex mechanisms with multiple degrees of freedom.
• Wire constraints: Managing cables and harnesses.

Choosing the right constraint is critical for accurate assembly modeling. Improper constraints can lead to design errors and assembly difficulties.

CATIA’s Knowledgeware is a powerful tool for automating design processes and creating reusable design elements. It allows engineers to create and manage design rules, parameters, and relationships, creating a more efficient and robust design workflow.

My experience with Knowledgeware includes developing and using knowledge-based features for automating repetitive design tasks. For example, I’ve developed automated scripts for generating families of parts based on user-defined parameters. This means that instead of manually creating multiple similar parts, I can modify a few key parameters (like length, diameter, etc.), and the system automatically generates the variations.

I have also used Knowledgeware to enforce design rules. This ensures consistency and prevents potential errors. For example, I might create a rule to automatically check for clashes between parts during assembly. This prevents costly errors that could be discovered only later in the development cycle.

Knowledgeware greatly improves design efficiency and reduces the risk of errors by automating repetitive tasks and enforcing design rules. It allows for easier customization and rapid adaptation to changing design requirements.

Managing design changes and revisions in CATIA is crucial for maintaining design integrity and facilitating collaboration. I typically use a combination of CATIA’s built-in revision management and external systems (like PLM) to achieve this:

• Revision Management within CATIA: CATIA’s revision management allows for creating new revisions, tracking changes, and comparing different versions of a design. This involves creating a new revision of the part or assembly, documenting changes clearly, and potentially using the ‘compare’ function to highlight differences.
• External PLM Integration: Integrating CATIA with a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) system is essential for larger projects. PLM systems provide comprehensive change management capabilities, including workflow management, version control, and change requests. This ensures that all changes are documented, reviewed, and approved following established processes.
• Change Notifications: Using CATIA’s features to notify affected team members about changes is critical for collaboration and reducing confusion.
• Configuration Management: Managing different versions of components through configurations allows for maintaining various design options or for managing different product variants efficiently.

By combining these strategies, we ensure traceability, maintain design integrity, and minimize disruptions during the design iteration process. A methodical approach ensures that design changes are managed effectively, promoting collaboration and maintaining design integrity across a product’s lifecycle.

CATIA’s Drafting module is a powerful tool for creating 2D technical drawings from 3D models. My experience encompasses creating detailed drawings including views, sections, dimensions, annotations, and BOM (Bill of Materials).

I’m proficient in generating various standard views (front, top, side, isometric, etc.), creating detailed sections to expose internal features, and adding all necessary dimensions and tolerances according to relevant standards (e.g., ASME Y14.5, ISO).

Beyond basic drawing creation, I’ve used CATIA’s drafting features to create:

• Detailed Drawings: Including fully dimensioned and annotated drawings for manufacturing and assembly.
• Assembly Drawings: Showing the relationships and connections between different parts in an assembly.
• BOM (Bill of Materials): Generating and managing BOMs linked to the assembly structure.
• Exploded Views: Creating exploded views to clearly illustrate the assembly process.
• Custom Symbols and Templates: Creating and reusing custom symbols and templates to ensure consistency across drawings.

I understand the importance of clear and accurate technical documentation and ensure that the drawings I create are complete, accurate, and meet industry standards.

Creating detailed engineering drawings in CATIA involves a systematic process that ensures accuracy and clarity. It begins with a well-defined 3D model, which acts as the foundation for all subsequent drawings. I typically start by selecting the appropriate drawing template, ensuring it aligns with company standards and project requirements. Then, I strategically place views of the 3D model onto the drawing sheet using tools like ‘Projected Views’, ‘Section Views’, and ‘Detail Views’. This provides multiple perspectives of critical features.

Next, I meticulously add dimensions and tolerances, carefully considering which dimensions are essential for manufacturing and assembly. I leverage CATIA’s automated dimensioning tools to ensure consistency and accuracy, minimizing the chances of manual errors. Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) symbols are applied where necessary to communicate precise manufacturing requirements. Finally, I add annotations like notes, part numbers, revision details, and material specifications to complete the drawing’s documentation. Throughout this process, I maintain a high level of attention to detail, ensuring that the drawing is clear, unambiguous, and ready for use by manufacturing and assembly teams.

For example, in a recent project involving a complex robotic arm, I used section views to clearly display the internal mechanisms and projected views to show the external surfaces. Using GD&T, I specified tolerances for critical mating parts, ensuring smooth assembly and optimal functionality.

CATIA integrates seamlessly with FEA software, allowing for a streamlined workflow. Typically, I export the CATIA model in a suitable format, such as STEP or IGES, to import into an FEA software package like Abaqus or ANSYS. Before exporting, it’s crucial to carefully mesh the model within CATIA itself, considering element size and type based on the simulation’s objectives. A finer mesh is needed for areas of high stress concentration for better accuracy. Once imported into the FEA software, boundary conditions (fixed supports, applied loads, etc.) are defined based on the real-world conditions the part will face.

The simulation is then run, generating results such as stress, strain, and displacement. These results are then imported back into CATIA for visualization and interpretation, allowing engineers to identify potential areas for design improvements. This iterative process, moving between CATIA and the FEA software, is critical for optimizing the design’s performance and durability.

For instance, in designing a pressure vessel, I used CATIA to create the 3D model, defined a mesh specifically refining elements near the weld joints (where stress concentration is expected), then imported this into ANSYS for stress analysis. The results showed a potential stress concentration needing design modification, allowing me to iterate the design within CATIA until satisfactory results were achieved.

My experience with CATIA’s simulation tools extends beyond FEA to encompass various other functionalities. I’ve extensively used CATIA’s built-in tools for flow simulation (CFD) to analyze fluid dynamics in complex geometries. These tools are particularly useful for designing aerodynamic components or analyzing fluid flow in internal passages.

I’ve also utilized CATIA’s kinematic and dynamic simulation capabilities to verify the functionality of mechanical assemblies, helping to identify potential interference issues or areas of excessive stress during operation. The ability to perform simulations directly within CATIA improves efficiency by reducing the need for external software and maintaining data integrity across the design process. For example, in simulating a car’s suspension system, I used CATIA’s dynamic simulation tools to analyze the system’s response to various road conditions, helping identify potential design weaknesses before prototyping.

Effective data management is critical when working with CATIA on large-scale projects. My approach involves leveraging CATIA’s built-in data management capabilities, often integrated with a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) system such as 3DEXPERIENCE. This ensures version control, preventing accidental overwriting of critical files. We implement a clear file naming convention, utilizing project-specific prefixes and revision numbers.

The PLM system allows for centralized data storage, ensuring accessibility for the entire team while maintaining security and controlling access. Workflows are established to govern the release and approval of designs, ensuring that only approved versions are used in downstream processes. Regular backups are also implemented to safeguard against data loss. In essence, the key is to implement a structured and disciplined approach to data management to ensure seamless collaboration and avoid any potential issues during the project’s lifecycle.

CATIA’s generative design capabilities represent a paradigm shift in engineering design. I have experience using these tools to explore a wide range of design alternatives based on specified constraints and objectives. These tools are incredibly powerful in finding optimal solutions that might not be apparent through traditional design methods. The process begins by defining design constraints, such as material properties, manufacturing limitations, and desired performance characteristics.

The generative design algorithm then explores a vast design space, generating numerous design options that meet the specified constraints. These options are then evaluated based on predefined objectives, allowing engineers to select the most suitable design. This significantly accelerates the design process and can lead to innovative and efficient designs. For instance, in optimizing the design of a lightweight bracket, I used generative design to explore various design iterations, ultimately resulting in a design 20% lighter without compromising structural integrity.

CATIA offers a variety of modeling techniques, each suited for different design scenarios. Solid modeling is the most common approach, creating a complete 3D representation of the part, including its volume and mass properties. This is ideal for parts with complex geometries or when accurate mass and volume calculations are essential.

Surface modeling, on the other hand, focuses on creating accurate representations of the part’s surfaces. This is often preferred for parts with complex curves or freeform shapes, such as car bodies or aircraft fuselages. While surface models don’t inherently contain volumetric information, they excel in creating aesthetically pleasing and manufacturable shapes. I regularly switch between these techniques depending on the project’s needs. For instance, in designing a mechanical component, I would use solid modeling, while for creating a product’s aesthetic outer shell, I might opt for surface modeling. A good understanding of both techniques is crucial for effective design in CATIA.

I’m highly proficient with CATIA’s Part Design workbench. This is the foundation of most of my CATIA work, and I’m comfortable using all its features. From basic sketching and extrusion to complex features like patterns, sweeps, and revolved features, I can create detailed and accurate 3D models efficiently.

My expertise extends to using advanced features like knowledge-based engineering (KBE) to automate repetitive design tasks and parametric modeling to create flexible and easily modifiable designs. I understand the importance of employing good modeling practices, such as maintaining a clear feature tree and using appropriate constraints to ensure model integrity. In essence, I can confidently say that my skills in CATIA’s Part Design workbench are a key asset to any engineering team.

CATIA’s Assembly Design workbench is the heart of any complex product development. It allows engineers to create and manage assemblies, which are essentially collections of parts working together. Think of it like building with LEGOs – each brick is a part, and the Assembly Design workbench is the instruction manual and the workspace where you put it all together.

My experience includes extensive use of features like constraints (defining relationships between parts, like how a bolt fits into a hole), assembly features (creating patterns or mirroring components), and advanced assembly tools for managing large and complex assemblies with thousands of parts. I’m proficient in managing the assembly structure, using exploded views for visualization, and creating and managing product structures with different configurations. For example, I’ve used this workbench to assemble entire automotive engines, creating various configurations for different models and options.

I’m also adept at using the different assembly management tools to control the design process, ensuring efficient collaboration across teams. This includes managing revisions, checking out and checking in components, and using the assembly’s bill of materials (BOM) effectively.

My familiarity with CATIA’s Manufacturing workbench is extensive. This workbench is crucial for translating a 3D design into a manufacturable product. It’s where we bridge the gap between design and production. Imagine you’ve designed a beautiful chair; the Manufacturing workbench is how you figure out how to actually make that chair efficiently and effectively.

I’ve used this workbench extensively for creating manufacturing processes, including generating NC (Numerical Control) programs for machining, defining fixtures, performing process simulations, and generating tooling paths for various manufacturing techniques like milling, turning, and sheet metal forming. I understand the intricacies of different manufacturing processes and how to optimize designs for manufacturability, considering factors such as material selection, tolerances, and surface finish.

For instance, I once used the workbench to optimize the manufacturing process of a complex aircraft component, reducing material waste by 15% and production time by 10% through careful fixture design and optimized machining strategies.

My experience spans both CATIA V5 and CATIA 3DX. V5, while mature and still widely used, has a more established workflow, especially for mechanical design. 3DX, on the other hand, is the newer generation, emphasizing collaborative design and a more integrated experience across the entire product lifecycle. Think of V5 as a powerful, well-tested car, and 3DX as a futuristic, feature-rich vehicle.

In V5, I’m proficient in using all its major modules, from Part Design and Assembly Design to Drafting and Simulation. I’ve used V5 extensively for various projects, including designing complex mechanical assemblies, creating detailed 2D drawings, and performing simulations to verify designs. In 3DX, my focus has been on the collaborative aspects— leveraging the 3DEXPERIENCE platform for data management, concurrent engineering, and streamlined design reviews. I’ve found that 3DX excels in managing large, complex projects with multiple stakeholders and distributed teams.

My transition between the two platforms has been seamless, showcasing my adaptability and my deep understanding of CATIA’s underlying design principles. I can leverage the strengths of each platform depending on the project requirements.

Data integrity in a CATIA project is paramount; it’s the foundation of accurate designs, efficient collaboration, and reliable manufacturing processes. Think of it as the structural integrity of a building – without it, the entire project is at risk.

I ensure data integrity through a multi-pronged approach:

• Version Control: Strictly adhering to version control practices within the CATIA environment and/or a connected PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) system ensures that changes are tracked, managed, and easily reverted if necessary.
• Regular Backups: Implementing robust backup strategies, both local and potentially cloud-based, prevents data loss due to hardware failures or other unforeseen circumstances.
• Data Cleansing: Regularly reviewing and cleaning the data to remove outdated or irrelevant files minimizes clutter and reduces the risk of accidental modification or corruption.
• Clear Naming Conventions: Establishing and consistently applying a clear naming convention for all files and folders prevents confusion and ensures easy identification of components.
• Collaborative Workflows: Utilizing CATIA’s collaborative tools and adhering to established workflows minimizes conflicts and ensures everyone is working with the most up-to-date information.

By implementing these measures, I create a reliable, consistent, and accurate design process.

One challenging project involved designing a highly complex robotic arm for an automotive assembly line. The challenge lay in optimizing the arm’s reach, dexterity, and speed while keeping its weight and cost minimal. It involved intricate kinematics, complex geometries, and close collaboration with manufacturing engineers.

We overcame these challenges through several key strategies:

• Modular Design: We broke down the arm into modular components, simplifying design, assembly, and maintenance. This allowed for easier troubleshooting and modifications during the design process.
• Simulation and Analysis: Extensive finite element analysis (FEA) was conducted to verify the structural integrity of the arm under various load conditions. This ensured the design could withstand the rigors of the assembly line.
• Iterative Design Process: We followed an iterative process, constantly refining the design based on simulation results and feedback from manufacturing engineers. This ensured the final design was both functional and manufacturable.
• Effective Collaboration: Close collaboration between design, manufacturing, and control engineers was essential for success. Regular design reviews and open communication ensured everyone was aligned on the design goals and challenges.

The project ultimately resulted in a highly efficient and cost-effective robotic arm, exceeding initial performance expectations.

CATIA offers a robust suite of collaboration tools, allowing seamless teamwork on even the most complex projects. These tools facilitate efficient design review, concurrent engineering, and real-time collaboration across geographically dispersed teams.

I utilize these tools in several ways:

• Collaborative Design Reviews: I use CATIA’s built-in review tools to share designs with stakeholders, allowing for annotations, comments, and feedback in a centralized environment. This reduces email chains and ensures everyone is working with the same information.
• Concurrent Engineering: I leverage CATIA’s data management capabilities to support concurrent engineering, where different teams can work on different aspects of the design simultaneously without conflicting data.
• 3DEXPERIENCE Platform: For larger projects, I extensively use the 3DEXPERIENCE platform, which provides a collaborative environment for sharing, reviewing, and managing all project data. It allows multiple users to access and work on the design concurrently, greatly speeding up the design process.

These tools streamline collaboration, reducing design cycle times and leading to more effective and efficient product development.

My experience encompasses various CATIA file formats, each serving a specific purpose. Understanding these formats is crucial for efficient data management and interoperability.

Here are some key formats and their uses:

• .CATPart: This is the native file format for individual parts in CATIA. Think of it as the blueprint for a single component.
• .CATProduct: This format represents an assembly, containing multiple parts assembled together. It’s the blueprint for the entire system.
• .CATDrawing: This is the format for 2D drawings generated from the 3D model. It’s essential for manufacturing and documentation.
• .IGS and .STEP: These are neutral file formats for exchanging data with other CAD systems. They’re crucial for collaboration with partners or clients who may not use CATIA.
• .CATIA V5 and .CATIA 3DX: These more generally refer to file structures rather than a specific file extension and are generally part of a larger project file structure maintained within the CATIA software suite or within the 3DEXPERIENCE platform.

My proficiency in these formats allows me to manage data efficiently and collaborate effectively with others, regardless of their CAD software preferences.

Creating and managing CATIA macros involves a blend of VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) programming and understanding CATIA’s object model. My preferred method starts with a well-defined plan outlining the macro’s functionality. I then leverage the CATIA VBA editor, writing code in a structured manner with clear comments to improve readability and maintainability. I favor a modular approach, breaking down complex tasks into smaller, reusable functions. For example, a macro to automate a complex assembly process might have separate functions for component placement, constraint definition, and part suppression.

For managing these macros, I use version control (like Git) to track changes, ensuring collaboration is smooth and errors are easily traced. A robust folder structure, organized by project and macro type, is crucial for easy retrieval. I also meticulously document each macro, detailing its purpose, inputs, outputs, and any potential issues, creating a kind of internal knowledge base. This approach allows me to readily find and update macros across different projects without needing to start from scratch.

For example, a frequently used macro I’ve built automates the creation of detailed drawings, dynamically populating them with title blocks, dimensions, and annotations based on the 3D model. This drastically reduces the time spent on repetitive tasks, enabling me to focus on higher-level design aspects.

Troubleshooting CATIA errors requires a systematic approach. I start by carefully reading the error message itself. Often, it provides valuable clues about the problem’s source – incorrect parameters, file corruption, memory issues, or conflicts with add-ins. I then check the CATIA log files for more detailed information. These logs contain technical data that often point directly to the root cause.

Next, I employ a process of elimination. If the issue is related to a specific model or assembly, I might try creating a simple test model to see if the error persists. This helps to isolate whether the problem is with the model itself or a broader CATIA setting. If the error is related to macros, I employ debugging tools within the VBA editor to step through the code and identify problematic lines.

Furthermore, I leverage online resources like the Dassault Systèmes support website and various online forums. These communities often provide answers and workarounds to common problems. In persistent situations, I might need to reinstall CATIA, ensuring all updates are applied, or contact Dassault Systèmes support for advanced assistance.

I have extensive experience with CATIA’s customization options, ranging from simple workbenches and toolbars to complex macro development and the use of customization files. I’ve customized toolbars to add frequently used commands for quicker access, streamlining my workflow. This might involve creating custom icons and associating them with specific VBA macros or CATIA commands.

I’ve also developed custom workbenches, integrating specific tools and commands relevant to a particular project or industry standard. For instance, I created a customized workbench for automotive design, consolidating tools needed for surface modeling, assembly, and drawing creation. This created a highly tailored and efficient environment.

Beyond these, I’ve used CATIA’s customization options to integrate with external applications, automating data transfer and improving interoperability. For example, I’ve linked CATIA to a PLM system using customized scripts, ensuring seamless data management and version control across the entire product development lifecycle.

Ensuring dimensional accuracy and tolerance compliance in CATIA models is paramount. I achieve this through several methods, starting with a thorough understanding of the design requirements and specifications. This includes carefully reviewing drawings, specifications, and tolerance analysis reports.

During the modeling process, I meticulously define dimensions and constraints, using both geometric and parametric constraints to ensure the model’s stability and accuracy. I actively utilize CATIA’s dimensioning tools and tolerance annotations to specify the permissible deviations from the nominal dimensions. I also employ CATIA’s simulation capabilities for finite element analysis (FEA) or other simulations to validate the structural integrity and compliance with specified stress and strain limitations.

Regular model checks using CATIA’s built-in analysis tools are crucial. These checks detect potential conflicts, errors in geometry, and dimensional discrepancies early on, preventing costly rework. Furthermore, I make extensive use of GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing) to clearly communicate the design intent and tolerance requirements, which is critical for successful manufacturing.

My familiarity with CATIA add-ins and extensions is quite extensive. I’ve used a range of them, depending on the project’s needs. For example, I’ve worked with add-ins for generating finite element meshes for structural analysis, enabling me to assess the performance of complex geometries under various loads.

I’ve also used extensions for improving data exchange with other CAD software, enabling smooth collaboration with teams using different tools. Specific examples include using add-ins for efficient data transfer between CATIA and other commonly used design packages. Additionally, I’ve utilized add-ins for advanced surface modeling techniques, specialized analysis tools, and data visualization.

My experience extends to evaluating the suitability of different add-ins and integrating them seamlessly into existing workflows. I understand that selecting the appropriate add-in often depends on project-specific needs and that careful evaluation and testing are crucial before implementation to ensure compatibility and performance.

Parametric modeling in CATIA is a cornerstone of my design process. It allows me to create models where dimensions and features are defined by parameters rather than fixed values. This means that changes to one parameter automatically update related features, ensuring consistency and reducing the likelihood of errors.

Imagine designing a simple rectangular box. In a non-parametric approach, you’d manually adjust the length, width, and height. In CATIA’s parametric environment, you’d define these as parameters. If you later decide to change the box’s length, the volume and surface area automatically recalculate, keeping everything in sync. This makes design modifications far easier and less prone to errors.

The benefits extend beyond simple shapes. Complex assemblies benefit greatly as changes to a single component can automatically propagate throughout the assembly, ensuring design consistency. The ability to explore design variations easily and quickly is a key advantage. This allows for rapid prototyping and optimization, saving significant time and resources in the design process.

Staying updated with the latest CATIA features and releases is an ongoing commitment. I regularly visit the Dassault Systèmes website, checking for new releases, updates, and documentation. I also subscribe to their newsletters and technical bulletins to be notified of significant changes and new functionalities.

Active participation in online communities and forums related to CATIA is another crucial aspect of my learning strategy. This allows me to engage with other users, share experiences, and learn about new techniques and workarounds. Participating in training courses offered by Dassault Systèmes or authorized training centers provides in-depth knowledge about specific features and best practices.

Furthermore, I actively search for and review webinars, tutorials, and case studies related to new releases and updates. I regularly experiment with these new features in practice to solidify my understanding and to assess their applicability to my workflow. This constant engagement ensures that I’m well-versed in the latest CATIA capabilities.