Two macro problems in hardware design
Kyrall is a Munich, VC-backed startup focused on design automation for hardware. Osama’s framing: tools are fragmented, and work inside each tool is still manual - click-heavy CAD plus weak connectivity upstream and downstream.
They are not building another requirements or sizing product. The bet is to collect sizing outputs, CAD, specifications, requirements, and mission definitions, then generate parametric models that can continue into analysis and manufacturing.
“More circular” design - and why a mesh is not enough
A customer line he quoted sets the ambition: design should be more circular. Change a calculation or requirement, and CAD geometry and simulation should update; simulation should flow back into the design. Engineers become orchestrators of that loop.
The technical bar is where demos usually fail. A usable model is not any 3D mesh. It has to be B-rep, with sketch constraints and assembly mates, so it opens in CAD as if a designer built the feature tree. The same bar applies downstream: topology-optimization STL back to parametric CAD; manufacturing method changes that reshape geometry without redrawing every step by hand.
Three use cases and three adoption gaps
In delivery: conceptual design (thousands of early configurations from sizing XML), asset generation (drawing or photo toward a parametric part with feature tree), and STL to parametric CAD (mesh from simulation, scan, or legacy sources).
Adoption is still slow, he argued, until three gaps close: local fine-tunes on company CAD and design habits (small models on ordinary machines), reliability via automatic evals, and deep integration into the tools the company already runs - not a product that sits on top of the stack.