MCADCafe
   >> MCAD User News and Reviews
Thread views: 389434 View all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | >> (show all)

(Unregistered)
08/08/06 04:21 AM
Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T


Use this link to read the full article


Disappointed
(Unregistered)
08/08/06 04:21 AM
Sales are in the other column new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

This is not the forum for advertisements.

DKorneffel
(Unregistered)
08/08/06 06:29 AM
Re: Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

This is a great article. 3D annotation is the way of the future, with better and better capabilities in the CAD tools. It is nice to see that experts in the application are now available, so more companies should be moving this way. 2D drawings were OK in the 1900's, but are a little too primitive for this century. I can't find a college grad that can read one.



CPerhala
(Unregistered)
08/08/06 07:00 AM
Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Article provides a good overview of data needed to manage a product's dimensions over the life cycle. The comments about datum identification and multiple references in numerous drawings is dead on accurate; this has been the root of many headaches.
The focus on UGS systems only limits the usefulness of the article and can give the impression of an extended advertisement. It would be of interest to know of other packages that can do the same or similar things.
Some of the grammar should be cleaned up to make it more readable. There are several instances of the wrong word being used (e.g., 'to' instead of 'too') which requires rereading the sentance (sometimes several times) to understand the thought being conveyed.
On the balance, a useful article. Some additional work would make it more readable (and useful).

Norm Crawford
(Unregistered)
08/08/06 08:01 AM
Re: Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T new [re: CPerhala]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Thank you for your honest feedback. As for other systems that can also emulate this process, there are none. However, bringing different packages together from various third parties may at least approach the process.

The good news is that more systems are at least providing 3D GD&T and companies like Adobe are chiming in with providing extended viewer capability to provide downstream value in the 3D GD&T without having to use CAD.

But when it comes to tolerance analysis, I think 3D is the only way to go and from what I have seen, VisVSA is simply in the lead.

I also appreciate your candor with regard to my writing style. I can't please everyone and you are right I did find an instance of "to" being incorrectly used. Sorry about that. Btw- sentance is spelled sentence. lol and again thanks!



Joe
(Unregistered)
08/19/06 08:30 AM
INSPECTION new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I was assigned a job of making some inspection drawings from some aircraft parts. The models were done in UG and came with drawings with critical dimensions and GD&T. I was using KEYCREATOR (CADKEY) to create the drawings. These parts were designed by CAD jockeys or engineers. If they had to make a complete drawing they would have realized the problems that manufacturing would face with making and inspecting these parts. The article shows a block with a couple of holes in it. Many parts have hundreds of features that have to be defined and inspected. You either do it by sitting down at a computer and verifying that the part matches the model feature by feature or you create a hard copy drawing that anyone can pull out at any time to check a feature. Now many companies are sending out models with minimum annotation. But they are just passing this required function off to the manufacturing company to do the full inspection drawing. This is something that would be much better done by the original design group. Complete drawings are part of the design function.

Norm Crawford
(Unregistered)
08/23/06 07:05 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Joe]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

With regard to inspection and limited dimension drawings, rest assured I feel your pain. I do not support limited dimensioning any more then I support limited 2D tolerance analysis. Please re-read the third to last paragraph. Please not there and on my process map, that there are products for the inspection process that take adavantage of the 3D annotation. The UG-AIMS product is very exciting.
As for anyone can pull a fully detailed drawing anytime and read it, well the flaw has always been that a fully detailed drawing is normally not detailed correctly, its cluttered and hard to read by someone versed in GD&T and detail views and all that much less for someone who isn't.
I know my block example only has a few holes, but if you had a chance to look at how "model views" manage the annotation on a complex part, I think you would be pleasantly suprised. Plus, with a 3D part/assy, it is much easier to "see" the design and "manage" it. For example, drawings pulled from a drawer are often out of date. Ever experience that issue? Or, the drawing is up to date but the CAD model isn't. And is much of the manufacturing process driven by the CAD model?
Trust me. We are in agreement. Detailing of features needs to be complete. Please do not misunderstand the efficiency of leaving off BASIC dimensions and multiple copies of datum symbols as a support for limited part/product definition.
However, I do support title block tolerancing for robust designs that do not require excessive detailed and unique GD&T on every feature. To bring my point home, on my "simple" block, a linear overall width dimension is not necessary with a simple profile of surface control. In fact, a "feature of size" linear dimension intended to control the width of the "simple" block would in fact be incorrect and an extremely poor transfer of functional design intent.
Finally, I am a huge advocate for CMM and especially non-contact lazer point cloud inspection tools and process to further take advantage of the not so new relm of 3D annotation and "smart modeling".
I am only to glad to help. My contact information is at the bottom of the article.



Joe
(Unregistered)
08/28/06 07:38 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm Crawford]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Reading a drawing is a requirement for engineers and is the skill of a drafter. I personally have created hundreds maybe thousands of clear concise complex drawings from which parts have been made. We didn't have 3D solid models to work with. We had complex installation drawings made from full scale layouts of aircraft structure, mechanical and kinematic assemblies. We had to define 3D parts in 2D. This article made me realize that many out there have never defined a 3D part in a 2D drawing and never will. I am going to write an article for my customers (I have been selling CADKEY for over 21 years, and a Design Drafter for gulp!! 40 years) about the history of the drawing. One more point: Engineers rarely made drawings, but they seem now to be put to work creating 3D models, which I consider is a total waste of his skills. Boeing had 5 or more drafters under one engineer.

There are a few places where the drawing can get by with a few dimensions. I find plastic parts basically need limited drawings, since the model provides a direct tool path to generate the mold core and cavity. And many times the parts are check by a stl model prior to final design acceptance.

But when you get to large complex hogouts of interrelating static and kinematic aircraft parts, you are not going to make stl models. A drawing in a pdf format doesn’t need the original software to view the part, can be reviewed by many eyes (I will not bore you with the many times I would be taking a break with a fellow working, and see a mistake on his drawing). So as I said before, creating a drawing now is more of a checking function. Maybe we can have a new discipline: PART AND DESIGN CHECKING. Ooops, hey didn’t we already have those guys. I will send you my final article, Norm, or you can go to www.tecnetinc.com and check to see if it is posted.

It is much easier to inspect a part with a nice concise detail paper drawing with a yellow or red marker. I think from all the specific software (undoubtedly expensive and complex) that is required in your article, drawings would be cheaper and simpler too. Of course as I said in the beginning you would have to be able to read a drawing.




Norm
(Unregistered)
09/01/06 07:55 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Joe]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Joe,
I have done drawings, and I was very good at it, long before CAD came around. I might add that I have experience doing so on military aircraft. So, I can speak from my personal experience of using the different methods of reading product design from creating and reading paper drawings to 3D solid models with value added 3D GD&T.
The "technologies" you speak of to view and read 3D solid models with intelligent value added 3D GD&T are far cheaper then the capital and maintenance cost of plotters and the paper.
Here is a real life example of through put. I worked for a company, although using CAD, plotted all the drawings, which were checked by checkers using red, yellow, and green markers. I changed that process, although using 2d drawings, the drawings remained electronic and I trained the checkers to use only what they needed to mark the drawings up using basic cad skills. The difference was a 700% increase in work throughput and far far better retieval (reuse) of the corrections to understand and learn (teach) to begin to eliminate constant errors and gain significant consistency. Doing a similar but improved process with 3D will gain similar results.
BTW are you familiar with the new PDF capability to view 3D models and the 3D annotation? Might want to look into that.



JoE
(Unregistered)
09/02/06 08:59 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I didn’t say anything about paper ... I assume the drawings are going to be electronic generated from a 3D model... duh...and delivered as a pdf.

It is mandatory that a good drawing be provided to the outside manufacturer to completely define the part they are making. When you get one part to make, you have no idea of how it relates to other parts. Many times there are questions and you have to go back to the customer to get these questions answered. Even with a completely detailed part you may have questions. I think the drawing should be done by the original drafter, designer or engineer, except of course when you are designing little blocks with holes in them.

It seems like you are more on the design side, take some time and visit the manufacturing side to make sure you are delivering what they need.



Jeroen
(Unregistered)
09/05/06 12:58 AM
Re: GD&T new [re: JoE]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Hi,

Just a few cents worth from the other side of the pond. As one of the other CAD vendors we have been in the 2D business for many years as well as developing professional 3D CAD Software. www.cocreate.com

Most of the companies in Europe do not yet adhere to the mentioned standards, but instead they use the GD&T standards that are for example widely published in Germany.

As the number 2D Vendor (after Autodesk) with many of our users moving to our 3D solution we also see the shift to insert more and more information directly into the 3D model.

Although we do not ourselves provide analysis software, we link to other packages that allow this function.

Best in class Solution providing.

Regards,

Jeroen



Norm
(Unregistered)
09/06/06 07:59 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: JoE]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

With all do respect Joe, when you mentioned 40 years ago, you mentioned paper. LOL You are right, I am from the design side but have spent my share of time from the manufacturing side in a number of ways including NC Programing from both 2D drawings and 3D models. Other then that I am not so insecure to defend my experience and what manufacturing needs to get the job done. Your stab at the block with wholes is cute and I enjoy your candor. I do recommend taking a more open minded look at the 3D viewing capability of a number of products; some I can recommend. It is my real life experience that when manufactuing companies "see" the examples they often ask; "Why are we waiting? Why don't we start using this now?" Seeing an entrie assembly or sub-assembly or whatever level of parts a supplier may need to see along with all the manufacturing information is really very simple.



JOE
(Unregistered)
09/07/06 10:31 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Well now that we are talking directly to each other..Norm.

I will not bore you with my complete history in 3D CAD, but it started in 1982 with Computervision (3D wireframe with some surfacing) then CADKEY in 1985, which I was instrumental in bringing PC based 3D modeling to Boeing. I became a CADKEY VAR.

In the beginning I was incredibly excited about what you are doing now. All that manufacturing needs is the model and some qualifying dimensions. But when I started selling CAM software I began communicating with Job shops (independent machine shops). Soon I was providing them models to do CNC programming. It started with 3D wireframe models, and then surfaced models (some for stl), then of course, complete solid models generated from paper or Acad drawings. These Job shops are not privy to the complete assembly, many times for confidential reasons, mostly because it is not their job to review the design. It is here where the minimum data concept falls apart. The Job shop now gets this kind of data and now I am hired to do complete detail drawings so they can inspect the parts. Believe me I have gone through this process with hundreds of parts that if they did a drawing many of the parts would have been done totally different.

There may be a standard that will allow this to be done automatically. But that is not the point I am trying to get across to you. The drawing delivers a complete description of the part. You don’t need special software to view it, evaluate it, check it, etc. You have one easy to read document with all the info of that part or assembly. Drawings from solids are not that difficult, in fact they are quite easy by a skilled drafter. No more than a few hours for rather complex parts. But not only does the drawing deliver the complete description it also allows the design engineer, designer, drafter, checker, manufacturing engineer, planning, engineering groups to review the design. It is a hard copy of all the information in one easy document. Now of course we haven’t even talked about revisions. As for errors, since you do have both the solid model and a drawing, you have a double check on the part.

I have talked to one of my customers and associates that is a drafting instructor at a local community college. I asked him can we do away with drafting. He believes that knowing how to create and read drawings is the basis for good design communication. That is a good question for you, Norm. Do we need to train drafters?? Do we need drafting programs?? As you know drafting is taught for only one quarter in an engineering degree, I have taught many engineers how to draw while on contract at Martin Marietta. They had no idea what a datum was. So how do we teach good design, are you saying the concept that has produced programs like the space shuttle, 707, 747, C5A, etc is now archaic. Just a few dimensions on a solid model are all that is required.

I see you have a vested interest in pushing this concept. It may work in a system that has total control from design to part release. But from my experience, working with smaller Job shops that really don’t have the expert personnel to do this extra work, we will always need the complete engineering drawing. I believe that the short time spent doing a complete detail drawing on the front end, and providing manufacturing with both the drawing and solid model is the complete communication solution to provide manufacturing with necessary data.




Norm
(Unregistered)
09/13/06 02:11 PM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: JOE]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Interesting start in CAD. CADDS3 I assume then. Same for me and to this day think was one of the best systems I ever worked on.

Anyway, we are in violent agreement. I am not suggesting and do not advocate "limited dimensioning" or limited manufacturing information. I do believe in the generic principle of a "complete definition of the part and all feature requirements". However, I am saying that we can achieve that objective faster and more reliably, including updates/revisions, through the use of 3D annotation and appropriate systems in place to make it all available to anyone faster.

As for the whole paper thing, it is extremely easy to print out the screen image of any 3D model in any orientation with whatever set of dimesnions or all dimensions turned on and thus put it on paper if desired. That means that if my supplier does not want to make a minor investment in a simple viewer; not to mention the "FREE" adobe 3D viewer, then I can simply print all the information out onto paper in a reasonably traditional form from the 3D model. In fact, some companies have macro programs just for that purpose.

The value in my suggested process is that the "complete" annotation of part requirements is faster then creating the 2D drawing. Yes, fundamental "drafting skills, even in 3D, is still required and so yes the trraining still has to be there. The added value, similar to the shear value of a 3D model for generating parts/tooling/NC code, is that with the right tool for using 3D annotation also allows that annotation to be used downstream in other functional groups such as tolerance analysis, manufacturing, inspection, and reporting making all of that far more efficient and accurate.

So, again, if anything I am absolutely all about having "complete part defintion" and 3D annotation offers that faster and better.... Faster & Easier to create, Faster and Easier to read, Faster and Easier to Update, Faster and Easier to apply downstream.

BTW - feel free to contact me direct by e-mail or phone. Info listed at the end of the article. I always enjoy debating and learning different points of view.



Joe
(Unregistered)
09/14/06 08:04 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I will continue the conversation here but look forward to talking to you.

I have taken another job to detail a part that came from a large aircraft manufacturer. This one came without any annotation. I believe as schedules get tight and now that the drawing process has been eliminated, any annotation will be also eliminated. This is a part that has gone to a company that specifically designs these types of parts. We have had to redesign and add simple things like thread relief’s and actually had change the configuration. What concerns me is that the design is not being scrutinized enough. I believe the drawing is that one thing that allows a more complete look at the design. I even believe it is less time consuming to create the drawing. I can do a very complex part in 3 to 5 hours from a solid model. The days of the 20 hour D size drawings are over.

I would like to see one of the jobs you do with let’s say 30 holes and bosses, including thread info. I am sure those that are interested would like to see how simple it is to move thru the model inspecting the part or doing a design review. I sure would like to see more than a block with a few holes.

If you need a good viewer, you can down load SPECTRUM for free from www.kubotekusa.com.




Joe
(Unregistered)
09/14/06 08:13 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

CADDS IV...

Two colors green and highlighted green...

Until the Color monitors came out at $25,000 each...

It was $750,000 for three seats and of course that included a PLOTTER FOR THE DRAWINGS.... and a temperature controlled room. Storage was a large bin that stored 250 meg, all backed up on large tape reels

Give me CADKEY 99 any day..at least it included solids..




Norm
(Unregistered)
09/27/06 06:54 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Joe]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I am often asked for real parts with 3D annotation, but unfortunately, especially as a consultant, I can not disclose customer parts and in particular with all the annotation included. So as a policy, I simply don't take the chance. I can tell you that a bunch of holes, bosses, and some screw threads are of no challenge to 3D annotation. Companies like Boeing and Abbott Labs have done away with the drawing process in favor of 3D annotation and they have some rather complex parts. The reported savings in delivering higher quality product through better collaboration (drawings are just an old collaboration method) and delivering to market faster are very reasonable.
I already have a good viewer that reads 3D annotation.
In the meantime, I will try to come up with a more complex example of a 3D annotated part for the audience. Perhaps write another article on the subject.



Joe
(Unregistered)
09/27/06 08:11 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Norm,

Okay let's put you to the test. Give us something to review, with 20 or 3O features.

We will need a free viewer.

As from my previous posts, you have not eliminated the "old collaboration method", you just moved it down the manufacturing cycle. Even in your example of a block with a couple of holes. What if someone asks what is the size of this block??

"Wait a minute while I get into the computer and verify it. hmmm.. where is that damn file.. wait a minute this isn't the latest part.. I will have to get back to you.."

Have you ever worked at Boeing??

I have just detailed a part from Boeing that was just delivered as a model ... no annotation and the manufacturer had to complete the design. Requiring a detailed drawing completes the design. It makes a statement that the part is done and is in stone.

I will be waiting for your example.





dprawel
(Unregistered)
09/29/06 09:47 PM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

What, if any, standards do you see most often used for 3D annotation in general, and 3D PMI/GD&T specifically?
Just interested.



Norm
(Unregistered)
10/05/06 04:20 PM
Re: standards new [re: dprawel]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

ASME Y14.41-2003 is the 3D Digital Definition Standard. Basically for 3D annotation.
Naturally it is based of the ASMEy14.5M-1994 Std. for dimensioning and tolerancing. The Y14.41 is more around the display and query capability of 3D annotation.



Norm
(Unregistered)
10/05/06 04:35 PM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Joe]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

OK Joe, when I get a chance I'll put a more complex model together.
Yes I can get you a free viewer all too easy.
But you will probably need about 3 minutes training.

What is the size of that block? Well let's think about the so called complex part. Where is the dimension? What edges (2d) is it touching. Hmmmm Lets see if there is a non-value added no cost savings detail identified with some odd ball font for no real value added reason on one of these pages. By the way, do we have the latest drawing here? I don't know. How do we check? i don't know.
Come on, I've been around the block in the day light and the dark. LOL

Btw - in a half way decent file management system I wouldn't look for a part. I look for the assembly to which the part belongs so that not only to I get the part but all the associated parts that may be of interest. But even part by part searching in a semi halfway decent file management system is better then hunting down a piece of paper in a room full of drawers. Been there done that.

You don't mean to say that you can manage 2D electronic files better and easier then 3D electronic files do you?

Boeing is pretty big and I am sure there are still projects and divisions using the older methods, but i can assure you with 100% certainty, in areas the drawings have been history for a long time now and that will continue to grow. My guess though is that there is plenty of legacy and lower priority work for the 1 & 2 dimensional types.

Send me your e-mail, and when I can, I'll follow through with "putting me to the test".



Joe
(Unregistered)
10/06/06 09:01 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Norm,

Actually your example proves my point. With a drawing you need nothing but The ABILITY TO READ A DRAWING. With your concept you need a computer, software to see the part, understanding of the software, time to verify the dimension, an environment that is conducive to computers. Where is the time saved? I really don’t think you have been around the block in the dark.

But that is not the only reason for the drawing.
Design Review (nothing makes you realize how a part should be made like a good detailed drawing)
Checking
Approval
Inspection

Most parts are outsourced and that is where the problems start. I have done drawings for two suppliers that have needed inspection drawings created from limited dimensioned parts. Since I am a skilled Design Drafter, my future looks good.

130 parts from UG
2 small assemblies from Catia. (They do a drawing for every part they receive)

I am going to find out from my Boeing contacts how it is working inside the company.

I know it is a definite problem with the suppliers. But then it maybe just a learning curve they have to get past.

It would be nice to have you explain the new engineering design cycle how all of the above steps are done, especially when outside sources are used since you seem to be the GURU.

In fact, why don’t you describe how the outside source would do this?

Of course none of these folks have UG, Catia, Pro/E.

I am looking forward to your example and instructions.

Joe

jb@tecnetinc.com







Joe
(Unregistered)
10/06/06 09:54 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Joe]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

It seems there is a program out there for Catia that seems to do this also.

www.3dannotation.com using Acrobat 3D



Norm
(Unregistered)
10/11/06 06:47 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Joe]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

The new Adobe acrobat 3D capability is one of many ways to view 3D models and related annotations.

I have explained a new process and it certainly includes the outside suppliers, including over seas. And I have presented it in conferences many times.

It seems there is so much to explain that it goes beyond this forum. Don't forget, I actually get paid to teach and implement the new technologies and processes.

Your arguments are all so common but the reality of it is that there is a certain denial in order to maintain the old ways. I can't change that only you can.

Again, I have the task on my list to provide more in depth examples, but for now I am pretty busy helping those who see the future.



Joe..
(Unregistered)
10/11/06 08:12 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

And I am experiencing the pain of that future...

The vested interest always leads the deniles...



Joe
(Unregistered)
10/11/06 08:23 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Joe..]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Norm

tap tap tap

I am still waiting for that example..



Joe
(Unregistered)
11/12/06 06:33 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Joe]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Another wonderful assignment

Detailing another Boeing part with limited annotation..

If this fellow did a drawing he woud see just how bad his part is designed...

angles less than one degree... I am getting worried that there just is no way to check these shapes.. they definitely are not parts... until they get to the manufacturer...where the design cannot be scrutinized...




Amazed
(Unregistered)
11/15/06 07:20 AM
Annotation is not the way to go with GD&T new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I was rather amazed at the short-sightness of this article. Handling GD&T as an annotation problem is not an effective solution. GD&T must be model based and defined within the CAD model using a structured GD&T database for features, datum reference frames and tolerances. Many CAD systems treat it as simply annotation. The problem is, downstream applications (like inspection) then need to interpret low level annotation and reconstruct the GD&T model. This is poor practice.
What really surprises me here is UG (the article is all about UG products) does not even mention their best tool to do this job - Tecnomatix products. Tecnomatix has a complete model based solution for GD&T including modeling, analysus, inspection, measurement and reporting.

Norm
(Unregistered)
11/16/06 09:12 AM
Re: Annotation is not the way to go with GD&T new [re: Amazed]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Amazed, sorry you were so disappointed. The article was not intended to be all incusive of all the capabilities of various products and processes, but only to provide food for thought.
As one can imagine, the article would get a bit long.

I agree with the need for downstream use and yes, many systems using 3D GD&T are "only" annotation that limits the value. None the less, there is value in "annotation only" detailing on the 3D model versus the 2D drawing. 3D visualization and global collaboration is enhanced and is faster then creating a 2D translation of the design intent. After all, 2D annotations on a drawing do not flow down through downstream processes to well either.

Thanks for you mention on Tecnomatix; you are right. It's another technology that can take advantage of "smart" 3D GD&T. Did I mention AIMS also? Which btw interfaces with Catia as well.



Johnny On The Spot
(Unregistered)
02/02/07 08:30 AM
Inspection new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

There are solutions such as Verisurf software that import the GD&T from Unigraphics and Catia into a CAM system such as Mastercam, and provide a metrology interface with digital inspection devices such as CMMs, that utilize the unique GD&T for measurement, analysis and reporting. As the data are available in the CAM system, manufacturing, quality control and vendors have all of the information they need to manufacture the product without needing drawings. I don't know about other software, but Verisurf is fully 14.41 compliant. It is also AIMS (mentioned by one of the respondants) enabled. It is a shame that some continue to live in the past and resist moving towards full model-based definition. I have experienced numerous situations where engineers changed design simply to make the part or assembly dimensionable for paper drawings, when they could have designed, manufactured, and inspected the parts digitally and would have been able to go with the design they actually wanted.

NormCrawford
(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.



jetero
(Stranger )
02/13/07 10:24 AM
Drawings provide design intent new [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.

Norm...

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.



NormCrawford
(Stranger )
02/15/07 06:12 AM
Re: Drawings provide design intent [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.



jetero
(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
(Unregistered)
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.

NormCrawford
(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.



brian575
(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.




NormCrawford
(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.



inma
(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.

Inma
www.zsi.com.es



NormCrawford
(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.

Norm



jang2946
(Stranger )
08/18/07 05:55 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Hi,

Thank you for your information. I’m looking for the information related to VisVSA. However, it’s not easy to find. Could you provide more information related to modeling methodology about this software or the direction to find information?

Thank you,





NormCrawford
(Stranger )
08/23/07 06:31 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: jang2946]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Since you ask, the best place to get information on VisVSA and related applications about the overall modeling is Geometric Solutions. They are a .net company on the web. It is a UGS (now Siemens) product, but the guys at Geometric know the application perhaps the best of anyone.

Basically, VisVSA uses the JT neutral format of models to add 3D GD&T to part features. It then uses those features to assemble parts together (constraints). From there you setup what you want to measure among the parts. Run monte carlo simulations to get a process report, histogram, and pareto of contributors for the measurements created.





BrentArmstrong
(Stranger )
09/06/07 01:09 PM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: Norm]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Joe & Norm,

 You guys are near my career range/experience.

3 years Computervision (CADDS ???? years were 1985-1988)

7 years CadKey(2D)

3 years SolidWorks

3 years Cimatron

My 2 cents based on what I've been through and my current opinion.

3D annotation is a good direction for the future and present when communicating with engineers, technologist and designers. But.... lets take it to the shop floor and WHAM!!!!! Comments start to surface such as "Oh sure this makes your job easier but not ours." Teaching those the shop floor is a huge investment not to mention all the plots that they're going to have to manage above and beyond the ones that the office produced.

 

Brent

 

 





NormCrawford
(Stranger )
09/07/07 01:32 PM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: BrentArmstrong]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I know the culture issue with the shop. That too has been around for way too long. But then again, the shop environment is changing.  Many companies have converted over to "electronic" 2d drawings where shop personnel open prints up using on the line computers. And they have been doing it for years.

The future view is that the same people simply open a 3D model the same way they open 2D except it is simply much much much much much easier to read.

For shop floors still depending on "paper", again technology through API programming and advances in 3D adobe, make it all to easy to provide all the orthographic views with all the tolerance and note information in the now old fashioned format "automatically".

So, yes I hear you. And, yes we need to take of the entire "work flow" of the part definition, but the answers are there and the investments will save money.

Norm Crawford



Norm Crawford
GDTP S-0386

BrentArmstrong
(Stranger )
09/10/07 06:07 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: NormCrawford]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Oh yes, I remember visiting a shop that scanned their drawings into the network for everyone to view and printout. That looked like a good step forward.

 From my experience the culture of the company management would need to embrace this new technology then support it. Is it only the big companies going this way? Is it only internally driven?

 Is 3D Adobe similar to edrawings?

Brent Armstrong

 

 





jim_merry
(Stranger )
11/29/07 09:01 AM
Re: INSPECTION new [re: BrentArmstrong]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Well this certainly has been a passionate thread...  just a few words about 'Adobe 3D' to respond to Brent's question. (Full disclosure: I am a technical evangelist at Adobe focused on PDF and the mfg industry).

eDrawings is a great tool and the differences really come down to scope and requirements of specific business processes.

The current feature set of Acrobat 3D version 8 really has been driven by 3D MBD requirements and for many of the use cases listed in this thread - specifically, how do you package all the relevant product data including a fully annotated 3D model or assembly and distribute that information efficiently (low/no cost viewer, small file size, appropriate interrogation tools, etc). The scope of this requirement is where you start to see the differences relative to many of the view and markup tools available on the market including eDrawings.

To be specific:

With PDF you can aggreagate multiple types of information into a single PDF document including 3D with MBD annotations, eDrawings just handles the 3D data and 2D drawings., I.e, no spec sheets, project plans, etc. that all has to be sent separately. 

 eDrawings stores all geometry as a surface tessellation; PDF v1.7 provides for precise  B-Rep storage of geometry and subsequent extraction of that precise geometry to STEP, IGES, or Parasolid with Acrobat 3D for reuse by suppliers.

 Full SDK and Javascript APIs - anyone can use the Javascript interface of Acrobat and/or the free developer SDK to create custom behaviors that can be attached to document entities or 3D geometry stored in PDF. Developers can also access the geometry *and* MBD annotations (a.k.a., FTA, GDT, PMI) for extraction and reuse in their applications all with free and open APIs or format specifications.

Also - PDF has built in security capabilities like digital certificates and signatures, and encryption that make it suitable for use cases that require approval as well as long term archiving.

There are some sample PDFs available here; the 'Transmission Order Form' near the bottom is probably the most comprehensive example and shows how 3D content can be leveraged as an information navigation system and integrated with PDF forms and digital signatures in the context of a compound document.  These types of capabilities are not within the scope of products like eDrawings.

 





NormCrawford
(Stranger )
12/04/07 09:06 PM
Infrastructure to View 3D PMI new [re: jim_merry]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

I certainly aplaud and fully support the new Adobe 3D technology and the answer is reasonably complete. Thank you.

I think too though that readers should be aware that other viewers are available that also provide all the information in a single light weight file using the JT format. The viewers are also easy to use and come in a price range of free to a bit pricey but it all depends on the need of the users.  The so called "pricey" ones offer "high end" digital prototype capability for considerable analysis well beyond the simple "reading" and "visualization" of parts and assemblies.

The Adobe solution is nice because only the author buys the authoring tool and users/readers only need to use the "free" reader that we are all too familiar with when it comes to the pdf format. But again, there are light low cost and no cost viewers packaged with the UGS products that produce this 3D PMI, meta data attributes, and precise geometry translated into the JT format. Other systems are also tapping into the JT format technology to follow suite.

The message here is not one of competition among viewers. It is that the technology continues to develop and will continue to build an infrastructure that will provide many options for accessing the information on the 3D model. No different then having a choice of many CAD systems where as back in the day there were only 2 or 3 worth mentioning. The 3D annotation capability is 10 years old. It just takes more companies like Adobe and programs like the JT Open program to build this infrastructure and spoon feed the culture into developing and accepting new innovative lean and more accurate ways of defining design requirements as well as interpretation of the design requirements.

I might mention too, that it is all so interesting that SolidWorks is now advertising Y14.41 compliant 3D annotation capability. I am looking forward to trying that out. But, I have to also "assume" that the company will work on getting the information into their edrawings soon, if they haven't already dones so. Maybe even the JT format too! eh? Anyone listening? :-)

Bottom line - 3D annotation is here. It has been here for 10 years. And it is here to stay and grow.



Norm Crawford
GDTP S-0386

BrentArmstrong
(Stranger )
12/19/07 05:38 AM
Re: Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T new Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Well I have played with Adobe 3D and now own a liecence of SolidWorks. So when I have more experience with SolidWorks 3D I'll post my thoughts.

Question. What is the approach used in getting companies on buy into this technology? What does the layout(steps) look like to convince companies to invest?

Thanks,

Brent  

 





NormCrawford
(Stranger )
12/21/07 07:01 AM
Re: Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T new [re: BrentArmstrong]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Are you using a version of SolidWorks that has the 3D annotation (PMI)? From what I have seen in the sales brochures, it looks pretty good and it appears they did a good job of leveraging it for FAST 2D drafting. It will be interesting to here how well, if at all, the PMI shows up in 3D Adobe.

For now I am using SolidEdge for numerous business reasons. So, when I get some experience with that one, I'll let you know. Another system, which from what I have seen is just "lights out" for modeling is SpaceClaim; very impressive. They too have 3D PMI but I have not had a demo on it yet, but will. And I do have the free trial to try it out. I'll be interested to know if their PMI goes over to the JT file. BTW - SpaceClaim has the JT translator OTB.  Are you listening SolidWorks?

As for convincing an organization to go 3D PMI, there just isn't any one answer. It's just classic croney issues that keep our society from going for it.  But look at what is happening. High end system like I-DEAS was the only one with PMI. In fact, I-DEAS (when it was SDRC) was the one who coined the acronym PMI. NX soon followed suit after the merger of SDRC and UGS. Keep in mind too though that even the older UG system had embedded 3D GD&T and is quite powerful. But now look at the mid-range market. SolidEdge has had PMI for a while now and SolidWorks is finally getting on board and like I mentioned SpaceClaim. Owe and BTW Catia also has the capability. Owe and there is now an ASME Standard, now 4 years old, ASME Y14.41-2003 that defines how PMI is to be displayed, queried, etc.

What more common sense does "leadership" need to see the light. If it's wait and see what the other guys do first, then they should turn in their year end bonus! That's not leadership.

Lead, follow, or get out of our way! Wink

 Norm



Norm Crawford
GDTP S-0386

BrentArmstrong
(Stranger )
12/22/07 08:07 AM
Re: Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T new [re: NormCrawford]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

Yes. It says it was created as per ASME Y14.5M and displayed in 3D per ASME 14.41.

What does PMI stand for?

So, I'll need more info on the "why we need to implement 3D Annotations" and the downstream application/intergration.





NormCrawford
(Stranger )
01/03/08 06:54 AM
Re: Increase Solid Model Value with 3D GD&T new [re: BrentArmstrong]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply

PMI stands for Product Manufacturing Information and originally coined by SDRC back in the '90s.

As for the advantages, there are many and we can always discuss in more detail if you e-mail me direct.  The basics are (when truly Y14.41 compliant)

1. No BASIC dimensions - saves time & reduces clutter & no mismatch with the 3D model

2. Easier for a single FCF to be associated to numerous features - saves time

3. Faster to dimension directly on the model then to "switch over" to drafting typically with a whole new set of menus to learn and use.

4. Superior communication - 3D models are easier to "read" and clearer then 2d line drawings.

5. Fewer files to manage

6. Downstream applications (with appropriate translators or compatability with other applications) like CMM programming/reporting, tolerance analysis

There are more!

But if nothing else - common sense advancement



Norm Crawford
GDTP S-0386
GD&T Instructor / Consultant
Applied Geometrics, Inc.
www.gdandt.com


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

 




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