3D PMI What is the future and or are 2d drawings going away like the drafting board? 5

[SDETERS]

As I mentioned in a different thread, are 2D drawings a dying art>? What is the future of 2D drawings, vs. 3D documented models? We are still using 2D drawings, but we are controlling only critical dimensions on the 2D drawing. We are looking into annotated 3D models or 3D PMI. As Cad programs keep improving to translate between different packages, CAM CMM, are 2D drawings going to be like the old drawing boards?

 

[ctopher]

Yes, 2D is slowly going away. Our company is in the process of slowly transitioning to 3D MBD.
Making good readable dimensional drawings/models is a dying art.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks
ctophers home

 

[SDETERS]

When is your date to be fully away from 2D? If you do not mind me asking. We are a ways out yet but would like to get there in the next 5 years or less.

 

[ctopher]

No date set. But, we are working on having templates and training (engineering) in place by end of this year.
The remainder of training for others don't expect to be complete until sometime next year. It takes a while to shift gears from what we are used to, to a whole new mindset.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks
ctophers home

 

[geesaman.d]

In my current industry I don't see that happening anytime soon. 2d drawings (digital or paper) are easily stored and migrated from one data storage medium to another. We regularly pull up designs that are decades old and re-make or build variations off of them.

3D CAD data is a relative nightmare to maintain and convert. Company history has shown that legacy data will be abandoned if the short term cost is too high. 2D drawings are truly the most durable format I know for product definition.

Maybe you're in an industry where scrapping a product and starting over is a regular occurrence, such as software. Software writers love to project that ignorant idealism on others and often convince management. But where data durability and portability is important, this problem must be resolved.

 

[ATDENGINEERING]

I'm 23 years into my career, have always heard we were a few years away, and I just haven't seen it.
Any attempts from our customers have created more work for us and ultimately have fallen flat on their face.
I don't know if I agree in principle with the sticking with the 2D drawing, but it seems like the old 2D drawing generations will have to die out for the switch to 3D to be adopted.
I have otherwise brilliant folks in manufacturing making the company lots of money who couldn't be bothered to learn how to navigate a computer network to find 3D drawing data, let alone work a program to view and manipulate it.

 

[SDETERS]

We reuse our 3D models constantly and reuse the 2D drawings that come along for the ride, we are still converting and starting with 3D models done 15 years ago.

How is the downstream process fairing with 3D MBD? That is supposed to be where the time savings and error reduction are supposed to be. Speed up Quotes, speed up CAM processes, and improve CMM and inspection from needing to retype and regurgitate all of the 2D data on a separate report.

3D MBD was never going to be a time savings for the Eng or designer.

Great comments do appreciate it

 

[greenimi]

WHY MBE/MBD/PMI WILL FAIL (and some people insist will fail...I am on the fence, still need more information)
Why is it those that promote MBE never use it?

https://www.tecnetinc.com/Why MBE.htm

https://www.tecnetinc.com/

 

[ctopher]

From my experience, a lot of machine shops are not setup to use MBD/PMI. They say they don't have time to learn the new software, or want to.
It's more efficient for them to keep using what they have.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks
ctophers home

 

[ewh]

It's just a matter of time.

"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[Burunduk]

Software packages that are used for creating and reading PMI will have to improve a lot before it catches on.
Sometimes the data is not transferred smoothly, at other times specifications that are supported by ASME Y14.5 are not available as "semantic" annotations, which means they will not be machine-readable down the process.

 

[greenimi]

Sometimes the data is not transferred smoothly...

Sometimes? Maybe, everytime
Give me an example of the software within which the original CAD data is transferred smoothly into a neutral format (lets say Step 242 or JT files or 3D PDF). Complete trash.
You spend hours having PMI's embedded into the model and then they are not visible or they are lossing associativity with the features when additional derivatives are created.
What's that about? Why should do it?
It is only Propaganda, Advocacy, sugar coating and more importantly "BUY OUR SOFTWARE"
Advocacay must be clear than the truth.
Remember not everyone is Boeging to afford to waste millions of USD's for an idealistic approach (again, when no software support is currently available)

 

[geesaman.d]

My experience matches greenimi. The people making CAD software are fighting furiously to expand and control as much as possible and that means forcing their proprietary formats outward and making them as difficult as possible to interchange. And this changes with every release of every software. (Let's be clear - it's hard enough to get these programs to play well on the first use - but as time passes the entropy increases). I don't see this PMI stuff extending beyond OEMs and their Tier 1 providers into general manufacturing until a lot of stuff solidifies and cools down.

My company's legacy data (or today's data / tomorrow's legacy) is far too valuable to fully trust in unstable media.

Maybe there comes a point where a company is so big the software company will make it happen, just for you. But I doubt I'll ever be a part of an organization of that size.

 

[drawoh]

SDETERS,

3D MBD is not happening until universally accessible 3D software becomes available. Right now, a fabricator who wants to support complete MBD is going to have to work out which commercial 3D software packages he is willing to (pay to) support.

--
JHG

 

[SDETERS]

This is very interesting; this feedback has been really helpful to us. I do appreciate all of this. All of you are leaders in this field and in very different industries. I have yet to see a positive comment about 3D MBD, and its use in actual production. We use Siemens NX and they are moving full speed in improving this portion of their software at an extreme pace.

All of the issues noted above are the same issues we are anticipating, and it sounds like they have not been solved yet.

It also sounds like if it is designed in NX for Example, this software is the only way to get a true and accurate model to manufacture. Even though the implementation of stp ap242. and other 3D universal formats.

What about the integration within the same software company? For Example NX and Siemens CMM solution. Does the model play well even within its own suite?

Thanks again, really helpful feedback!!

 

[drawoh]

What about the integration within the same software company? For Example NX and Siemens CMM solution. Does the model play well even within its own suite?

All the 3D CAD packages I have looked at do rotten jobs of managing older and newer versions of the software. SolidWorks users can communicate reliabley only if everyone uses the same version of the software. Perhaps NX and CREO are better behaved?

--
JHG

 

[greenimi]

What about the integration within the same software company? For Example NX and Siemens CMM solution. Does the model play well even within its own suite?

Not sure about NX and Siemens CMM solution, but here is how Zeiss Calypso CMM "works" with PTC Creo
"With Creo Parametric models, PMI is only imported from the active view"

What that does mean?
Means that you spend time (and a lot of time) having PMI's nicely arranged in proper and appropriate combination states (to look nice and professional) and then Zeiss Calypso is NOT ABLE to use them in the way the designer wants, because can only import PMI from the active view. Only one view!

Now, you can make up your mind and conclude by yourself (if you are still sober) how well the model plays with the metrology suite......

 

[3DDave]

Lock-step versions of software is key to driving a continuing revenue stream. Round-trip between different versions would slow that cash transfer.

It's also a problem to add new functions/model features in a way that older versions can interpret/edit/update, so it is also a functional requirement.

The smarter the model the more difficult the task of maintaining that. What should not be compromised is reading old information into new versions.

 

[drawoh]

3DDave,

In addition to software version control, there is my reluctance to send intelligent CAD files out into the wild. With 3D STEP files, dumb is good. 2D PDF copies of drawings tell vendors what I need them to know.

--
JHG

 

[ctopher]

I ran a test on Friday.
I sent an MBD file, and STEP file to one of our machining vendors.
I received an email back this morning.
He doesn't know anything about what MBD is, and doesn't care.
He only needs the STEP and a 2D dwg, because it is what he knows.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks
ctophers home