>> MCAD User News and Reviews
Thread views: 643563 View all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
09/05/06 12:58 AM
Re: GD&T new [re: JoE]Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply


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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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

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


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 least it included solids..

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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