>> MCAD User News and Reviews
Thread views: 383612 View all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | >> (show all)
(Stranger )
02/12/07 05:41 AM
Re: Inspection new [re: Johnny On The Spot]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Here Here Johny on the spot!

Btw- AIMS takes huge advantage of the 3D annotation and you are right; works with Verisurf and about 80% of all other CMM systems out there.

(Stranger )
02/13/07 10:24 AM
Drawings provide design intent [re: Johnny On The Spot]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Hi Johnny,

I have had quite the opposite experience, when I have created detailed drawings for my manufacturing customers from parts designed by CAD jockeys. It scares you to death, especially when it comes to setting up datums. These are aircraft parts, not washing machine parts.

I can see that no one has really scrutinized these parts. It is not that I am stuck in the past; I just have seen parts that would never have gotten approved if they went through a complete design process. Striving to meet schedules is allowing too much garbage to be released.

It is just my "measure twice, cut once" and "Murphy's Law" mentality.

You know.. There are many places where drawings are not required. Many plastic part need no drawings. Simple parts like blocks with holes in them can easily be done with limited 3D annotation. But there are some very complex parts that just need a more clear record of design, maybe that would be the compromise.


It should be "Let me THROW out a bone"

I wish I could send you a leading edge rib... I recreated a solid model from the drawing for machining. I was amazed at the skill of the designer. I feel a solid model and drawing leave nothing to be misunderstood and clearly provide the design intent.

(Stranger )
02/15/07 06:12 AM
Re: Drawings provide design intent new [re: jetero]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

What is a leading edge rib? Is that a rib that also makes up part of the leading edge?
Certainly we don't think that a wing rib is what we are going to consider a complex part. Is it? LOL

I continue to enjoy the cute stabs on the simple block with two holes. You know the amazing part is that so many people are unable to calculate variation in gaps based on the simple base with two pins that it assembles too.

(Stranger )
02/18/07 10:10 AM
Re: Drawings provide design intent new [re: NormCrawford]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Who is this "WE" Norm...

Most hog outs in an aircraft parts are incredibly complex with many many features that mate or align with other parts.

Obviously ... more that two holes in a block.. That many can't understand..

It is not a stab.. it is the only thing you have shown "US", isn't it. LOL

The problem I have seen from the parts I have detailed is that the parts are freely designed and the features that are not dimensioned do not reference relationships that when clarified would ease manufacturing.

Assembles too??? Do you mean assembles to???

Johnny On The Spot
02/20/07 04:47 PM
Inspection new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Hey there jetero. Your sentiments are echoed by many. However, if your company or those with which you are associated do not embrace model-based definition and eschew the old techniques that include paper drawings, you will be left behind. This is true in aerospace manufacturing even more than any other industry. I am shocked that you are still getting work such as a leading edge rib with the product defined “the old fashioned way.” I am involved in close cooperation with Boeing, particularly for ramp-up on the new 787 aircraft production both for aircraft parts and tooling. They are not providing product definition via any other means besides the “digital thread”, now the norm. I have also just gotten back from visits with Airbus and Lockheed Martin where the plan to move to fully model-based definition is well on the way. One thing you might want to consider when dismissing the importance of MBD for aircraft design and manufacture, is the history of discrepancies between drawings, CAD model, and other defining elements such as mylars and hard-tooled master models. There are many efficiencies to be realized with this approach, the least of which is the cost of paper. Then there are quality and safety issues. If your washing machine breaks down, so what. If your aircraft has a failure because the drawing did not match the CAD model, and the safety of that component depended on the digital definition, you can’t pull the airplane over to the nearest cloud and park it.

(Stranger )
02/22/07 04:58 AM
Re: Inspection new [re: Johnny On The Spot]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Here here Johny on the Spot again.
I have sited the Boeing and other aerospce examples in the past. There are also medical companies like Abbott Labs that work completely with 3D annotation, no drawings and have done so for over 7 years.

I know people want me to show some sort of real part but there is a disclosure issue. Like I have offered before; give me a part, whatever is considered complex, and I will annotate in 3D, provide the CAD neutral model with the annotation, a viewer to view it all, AND even provide the 5 or 10 minutes of training it takes to use the viewer.

Johny on the spot and others who do understand or at least wish they did --- Thanks for your support.

Did I mention that I do have years of experience in Military & Commercial Aircraft design? So, trust me, I understand the complexities and it's all simpler with 3D annotation.

(Stranger )
03/16/07 12:42 PM
Re: Inspection new [re: NormCrawford]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I have thoroughly enjoyed this article. I also believe that 3D GD&T can accomplish the same job that 2D drawings with GD&T have been able to do. I am a young engineer that has some experience with 3D GD&T and found it useful. Of course like mentioned earlier in this post my suppliers did not have a system to read the new 3D GD&T and preferred 2D drawings. So 2D drawings is what they received. I wish I knew then about 3D adobe.

The real point that I would like to make is the perception of 2D drawings compared to 3D models. In the businessman's eyes paper and printers to plot will become a nuisance to the bottom line. In the future computer power will not be a discussion with regards to CAD capability. If you walked into any intelligent businessman's office and gave them an unbiased presentation of both 2D GD&T and 3D GD&T which one do you think that he will choose? I will concede that not all decision makers today will choose the 3D approach. But by the time that my peers have the experience and are able to sit and make those decisions, I can say with utter confidence that none will choose the 2D way. The current implementations of 3D GD&T may or may not have serious shortcomings but will be adapted in some form in the future. Today’s video gamer will one day be our boss and the neat graphics and pure sophistication of the software that he can purchase will influence their decision.

So once again Norm thank you for the article.

And Joe I concede that you have brought up some valid points and that you have a wealth of experience that I can not pull from but the future will be 3D GD&T no matter if you agree with it or not.

(Stranger )
03/21/07 08:03 AM
Re: enjoyed the article new [re: brian575]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I'm glad you liked the article.
Yes, 3D adobe is going to help make a big change for many.
Keep in mind too though that the ability to view 3D GD&T with other viewers has been around for over ten years now.

It just takes that long for culture to move on and so now we are seeing numerous cheaper and even free ways to make viewing intelligent 3D models easy.

As from the business person perspective; Can that reduce the cost of paper, printer maintenance, and use of "outdated" hard copies? You bet ya.

So glad you are on board and see the light.

(Stranger )
06/04/07 09:31 AM
data on 3D CAD printable with model new [re: jetero]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Hi, I just want to add that any data about the properties or FEA analysis applicable to a 3D CAD, can be printed along with the 3D model, using a color 3D Printer (there's only one brand in the market that does it). This way, the 3D model or prototype becomes also an engineering report. Awesome.


(Stranger )
06/05/07 05:32 AM
Re: data on 3D CAD printable with model new [re: inma]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

A point I try to make often; That what you see on the screen can be captured in whatever way one wants to view it, even if it is on paper. (Rarely ever my choice.) I assume you meant that the 3D annotation on a CAD model can be "printed" along with the other various design data that belongs to the model. AHHH. The other design data. Now we get into configuration management, another one of my favorite discussions. But, another time.

When you say there is only "one brand that does it"; Do you mean one brand of printer or one brand of software? Frankly, I find that hard to believe so maybe I missed something.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | >> (show all)
View all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode
Jump to


TurboCAD pro : Start at $299

Internet Business Systems © 2016 Internet Business Systems, Inc.
595 Millich Dr., Suite 216, Campbell, CA 95008
+1 (408)-337-6870 — Contact Us, or visit our other sites:
AECCafe - Architectural Design and Engineering EDACafe - Electronic Design Automation GISCafe - Geographical Information Services TechJobsCafe - Technical Jobs and Resumes ShareCG - Share Computer Graphic (CG) Animation, 3D Art and 3D Models
  Privacy Policy Advertise