AnsweredAssumed Answered

The "Spark" to push MBD adoption

Question asked by Alessandro Tornincasa on Feb 13, 2016
Latest reply on Feb 15, 2016 by Alessandro Tornincasa

During my customer visits I've more and more found out that, in the country where I live, companies are relying mainly on "cordinate" dimensioning and just plus/minus tolerancing.


If you dimension a part with DimXpert by using plus/minus tolerances and show tolerance status it will show the part as undefined.

Take the example of this shaft: these are used datums:

DimXpert datums.png


And this is the tolerance status when using Plus/Minus dimensioning scheme:

DimXpert plus-minus tolerance status.png

Cylindrical surfaces are undefined.


This is not a fault in the software, it is correct, because there no tolerances to define form, location, and orientation of the surfaces.


When using GD&T dimensioning scheme the shaft is completely defined:


DimXper geometric tolerance status.png


When a designer uses DimXpert the software will take care of all the hard work of completely defining the part and check consistency of dimensioning respect to GD&T rules.

This will ease desginers' life.

A more detailed explanation of why GD&T is better than coordinate dimensioning is here:




So we should push more the importance of using GD&T.