sounds interesting when are you planning on making more info publicly available?
not a great answer but the true answer would be only God knows.
Personally my goal is 1 month.
posting random "artistic" snapshots of various aspects of Transfigure (instagram: itstransfigure) if you care to follow.
without saying too much, the competitive advantage is in training data and I think that will be the deciding factor as to whether or not a company is successful in (Transfiguring? rezzing? summoning?) a real part from a sketch, that can be made into physical stuff, without looking like shapenet cartoons.
however, the output of the current SGS-1 model leaves a lot to be desired in terms of usability and manufacturability.
as sir liam powell so explained, the STEP generated is indeed a STEP file in the fact that it will load on your CAD of choice (CATIA, NX) but it's not even close to being useful for the designer/engineer/fabricator much less a factory or even a 3d printer.
Most importantly: -Surfaces are not G1, G2, or even G0 (un-CAE-able and un-manufacturable) -simple shapes are hyper overcomplicated (a fillet turns into 10++ surfaces mashed together) -and most unfortunately in one part I generated, the output was a collection of separate STEP child parts (meaning, when importing, your single "part" is actually a product containing 10000+ child parts)
looking forward to V2, keep it coming
shameless plug: my entire career has been in CAD and that is why I started Transfigure. to eliminate my own job as a CAD monkey: and get on with the engineering. already having anticipated the limitations which SGS-1 is dealing with, Transfigure's AI architecture is approaching the problem from the perspective of a mechanical engineer whose customers rely on clean data, ready for simulation and manufacturing. because if I submitted data generated by SGS-1 to our fab shop... I would be fired.
yo@xfgr.ai