Well yes and no.<p>This tech is SUPER cool.  It can find strength &#x2F; weight combinations that are very difficult to arrive at via the standard analytic means.  That&#x27;s worth a lot in some contexts.<p>However, these structures do not map well to existing manufacturing.  They do map extremely well to additive manufacturing, of which ordinary 3D printing is a core component.<p>CAD continues to segment:<p>The very high end of CAD is serving the major vertical markets, and typically what happens there is tech like this will get licensed, reverse engineered, duplicated, whatever and integrated into a greater whole ecosystem that goes well beyond geometry create.<p>Middle, or ordinary CAD, is being used for all sorts of stuff, and people don&#x27;t mind a bit longer workflow, or missing out on some features.  They want an effective tool at a great price, and their access to manufacturing tends to be as mainstream as the CAD is.<p>On the low end, CAD is being used for maker &#x2F; hobby tasks, and a whole lot of experimental type work.  This tech is something to come out of that, and it&#x27;s currently being supplied to the mid or mainstream CAD market by a vendor looking to move up and own more of the stack.<p>Whether that&#x27;s successful or not remains to be seen.  There is a lot of legacy data, operations, systems that just can&#x27;t be ripped out.  Users of those systems may well adopt this feature in whatever system it&#x27;s present in, and simply move the resulting geometry to the larger system, perhaps automate doing that too, and move on.