>> MCAD User News and Reviews
Thread views: 623412 View all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

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

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


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)

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.


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. using Acrobat 3D

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.

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...

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


tap tap tap

I am still waiting for that example..

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...

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.

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
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.

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


Kenesto: 30 day trial

© 2021 Internet Business Systems, Inc.
670 Aberdeen Way, Milpitas, CA 95035
+1 (408) 882-6554 — 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 PolicyAdvertise