Using PMI with Master Model Concept?

[NXLars]

As previously stated in thread561-358657 (locked thread)

Hi,
I'm working on different ways to incorporate PMI as a replacement to 2D-drawings in NX and would like your input regarding this.
What is considered best-practise in using PMI?
1) Is it to populate 3D-model with PMI (in the same file)?
2) Or is it to use the Master Model Concept/Approach and put your PMI in the "assembly file" the same way as we're used to do with our 2D-drawings?
3) Any other way?

The different ways has their own set of pros and cons of which I so far has identified the following:
1) Pros.
Single source for downstream applications.

1) Cons.
Doesn't allow for a concurrent way of work since PMI & 3D-model is in the same file.
Demands a new revision of the 3D-model if a modification is made to PMI/GD&T.

2) Pros.
Allows for a concurrent way of work.
Allows for modifications to PMI/GD&T without revising the 3D-model.

2) Cons.
Possible confusions regarding which data to use(?).

So, what's your take on this?
Are there any key reasons to chose a specific way to do this?
Which are the pros and cons that I have missed?
I think that I want to go for option 2, but I haven't tested this enough just yet so I haven't seen any of the possible problems that may follow depending on the choice I make. Which options do I have to consider when chosing my way of work?

Regards,
Lars

 

[MikeHyde]

Hi Lars

We are also looking at using PMI to do away with drawings but haven't found all the answers yet. In the interim we will probably go with a drawing with an ISO view and all the notes, and have all the tolerancing defined by PMI in the model. We need PMI in some assemblies as we need to dimension/tolerance the assembled condition, so we will have a mix of the 2 conditions you have suggested. I don't see any way around revising the model when the PMI is modified.

Exporting data to other CAD systems is one the main problems for us. Most of our suppliers use a French CAD system, as they also supply our neighbours. We have been able to export PMI in individual compoents via STEP 214 but the export falls down if we try to export assembly PMI. The Catia translator doesn't help either. It looks as though we will have to send a JT to show the PMI, and STEP for the geometry. Our suppliers will have to use JT2GO to view the GD&T instead of downloading a PDF reader for the old style drawing.

What is driving you to use model based definition? We are looking at CMM and VSA being able to use the PMI but our main reason is to reduce design time.



Mike Hyde

http://www.astonmartin.com

NX8.5 with TC9.1

 

[Dave K]

Good question.

We're looking to move to a more PMI based system. Everything here is master model based, except for the PMI, which we have been putting in the model file.

I'm curious what the Siemens PLM suggested method is?

-Dave

NX 9, Teamcenter 10

 

[UGperson]

I have done some PMI (3DA) drawings for Fiat. The 3DA stands for 3D Annotated models. The PMI was created in the 3D file not a separate file . In the 3D file you create a new work view for each view that you would have on a 2D drawing and add the GD+T dimensions and notes as needed.

 

[NXLars]

The corporation that I work for has been using MBD for quite a while (>10yrs) but in this French CAD-system. In my role I am suppsed to educate in, and implement, the MBD way of work at other companies (customers) that shows interest in that method. Some of our customers uses NX and therefore I'm interested to hear about different approaches on implementation of PMI/MBD in NX, best practises etc.
I'd agree that it would be quite interesting to hear about what the Siemens PLM suggested method is in NX.

/Lars