Design automation · Technical systems · For manufacturers

Your design rules, turned into verified production systems.

Software that takes the rules your designers already apply by hand and produces models, drawings, cut files and BOMs — checked against independent software, repeatable to the byte, and handed over with source, tests and documentation.

Fixed-fee assessment first. You keep the source, the tests and the documentation.

Developed front panel of an offset rectangular hopper transition, with edge lengths and slant dimension, generated by the geometry core bottom 320.0 mm top 900.0 mm 704.3 mm 607.0 mm slant 579.7 mm · lean 15.0°
Developed hopper panel with its edge lengths, generated by the same geometry core that runs the free tools.

Built for

  • Fabrication & equipment manufacturing
  • Sheet metal & enclosures
  • Process & material-handling equipment
  • Configurable industrial products
What this solves

The same job, rebuilt by hand, every order.

The pattern is almost always the same: something correct is being redone slowly, with room for error, by the one person who knows how.

Save-as engineering A rule set your designers own

Copying the last job and editing it works until the variant is slightly different. The rules get captured once — documented, tested, versioned.

Spreadsheet sizing A calculation tool with a verification record

The sizing sheet everyone trusts and nobody can audit becomes software with stated assumptions, test cases and an independent check.

Drawings, DXF and BOM assembled by hand Generated from one parameter set

Models, drawing sets, cut files and BOM data produced together, so they cannot disagree with each other.

Quoting that waits on engineering Preliminary drawings and BOM in minutes

Sales gets a checkable package early; engineering finishes the real one without starting over.

How the work is scoped →

Work

Demonstrations you can download, verification you can read.

Self-owned demonstrations, written the same way a client project would be: problem, constraints, engineering logic, system, validation, result. Nothing here is invented.

Self-owned demonstration 2026

Fabrication Generator: cones, cylinders and clamps with a second implementation that checks the first

A portable Windows application that produces cutting DXF, real DWG drawings, PDF and a job record for rolled and press-brake parts — and refuses to invent the numbers it cannot know.

Result 1,078 checks across four independent methods; one datum difference with common calculators found and documented rather than hidden.

Read the case study →
Self-owned demonstration 2026

A fabrication geometry core and six public tools, verified three ways

The engine behind the free tools on this site: developments for cones, hoppers, profiles, bends, bolt circles and pipe cuts, exported as deterministic DXF and checked by software that had no part in writing it.

Result Every exported file audited by an independent DXF library; hand-derived golden cases; accepted in real CAD.

Read the case study →
Self-owned demonstration 2026

An Autodesk Inventor add-in that turns a hopper configuration into a verified release package

A parametric rectangular-transition-hopper generator for Autodesk Inventor 2026: eleven inputs become part models, an assembly, drawings, flat-pattern DXF, PDF and a bill of materials — then the package is validated and refused if any check fails.

Result 64 engine rules across eight families, with a second implementation that agrees on all seven reference sizes; flat patterns read back within the 2.5% validation gate (about 1.2% on the nominal hopper); 111 automated tests pass and every release carries a SHA-256 manifest.

Read the case study →

All work →

Approach

Manufacturing geometry deserves stricter engineering than marketing software.

A wrong dimension in a generated file becomes wasted plate and machine time. That sets the standard for how these systems are built and checked.

  1. Requirements and acceptance cases first

    Past orders with known-good outputs become the test suite before any code exists.

  2. Domain logic separated from the interface

    The same rules can drive an Inventor add-in, a batch generator or a browser tool without being rewritten.

  3. Verified three ways

    Hand-derived golden cases, geometric invariants, and read-back with software that had no part in writing the file.

  4. Assumptions stated, not buried

    Every tool says what it does not account for. K-factors, springback and seam rules stay yours.

  5. Handed over, not held hostage

    Source, tests, rules documentation, user guide, training. Your designers can change a rule without calling anyone.

order /parameters rules captured inventory · owner tests per rule deterministic versioned models drawings DXF · BOM your engineerchecks · approves
Rules in, production files out — and the engineering decisions stay with the responsible engineer on your side.

The full approach, including who is responsible for what →

Services

Start with one repeating job.

Every engagement begins with one concrete example of the job you keep repeating. Where it goes from there depends on how much of the workflow is worth automating.

  1. One repeating task, examined end to end. Process map, rules inventory, feasibility, ROI estimate and a fixed quote for what comes next.

    fixed fee 1–2 weeks

  2. One generator for one job: parameters in, models, drawings, cut files and BOM out — tested against your own past orders.

    fixed scope 3–8 weeks

  3. Configuration, drawings, BOM and ERP data connected into one verified flow, with a rule library your team owns.

    milestones 2–5 months

  4. Support & Improvement

    Rules change; the regression suite stays green. A monthly allocation of hours.

    retainer ongoing

Scope is quoted before work starts. Engineering decisions stay with the responsible engineer on your side — see Approach.

Who builds this

One person, both disciplines

Ruthen Systems is run by Mykola Hera, from Canada, working remotely with manufacturers across the country. CAD and fabrication practice on one side, software discipline on the other — and the verification habits of someone who has seen a wrong flat pattern reach a laser.

About →

Have a job worth automating?

Send one example — a drawing, a spreadsheet, or a plain description of what you keep redoing. You will get a direct answer on whether it is worth automating, including when the answer is no.