3DCC is looking for you opinion

Discussion created by Bill Taylor on Jun 1, 2009
Latest reply on Dec 17, 2009 by Deepak Gupta

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 20

Hello everyone, the folks working on 3D Content Central are looking for your feedback.

Content Question(s):
1. Industrial component suppliers often create surface models of their products to hide internal detail and reduce file size when asked for CAD models of their products by their customers. As a consumer of industrial component CAD content, are surface models adequate in supporting your design needs? Why or why not?
Follow up:
2. Do you find the inability to section surface models in drawings to be a major drawback?
Follow up:
3. Describe the situation in which you need to section an industrial component model that may or may not be a surface model.

Outcomes

20 Replies

1-I7AP5K Jun 1, 2009 7:28 PM
It's kind of hard to move components or features of a surface model. For example, I use lots of air cylinders. I need to be able to move the piston. You can't very well do that with a surface model.

Usually, I don't care about sectioning vendor models because I'm interested in the guts of my machine, not theirs. However, there will be times that I need to see a cross-section of their model for a drawing or design documentation. Surface models make for very bad visuals.

If they're concerned about proprietary details of their products, they should model a simplified component. It sounds like they're looking for a way to get around doing the work to provide adequate models to their customers. If they want to hire someone who'll do a good job for a reasonable rate, I'm available. :-)

I also am concerned about getting reasonable mass properties from a surface model.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Charles Culp @ 1-I7AP5K on Jun 1, 2009 7:42 PM
  "move face" or "move body" should still be able to be used to move the shape for something like an air cylinder.
  
  I don't see the section view issue as a big deal. If the vendor doesn't want me to know what's on the inside, then obviously it should not be important to me; and then why should I want to section it on a drawing? Sounds like it will just make my section views less complicated with unneeded detail.
  
  I will agree with the other statements. You can't even use "assigned mass properties" if it is a surface body.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - John Slocum @ Charles Culp on Jun 1, 2009 9:19 PM
    Hi Charles,
    Let's say for the sake of argument that the vendor has used 'save as part - exterior faces' to produce that surface model, so it does contain the orignal mass properties. Does that solve the mass properties issue?
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
- John Slocum @ 1-I7AP5K on Jun 1, 2009 9:25 PM
  Hi Ray,
  For what percent of downloaded models might you need to show a section view of an assembly containing a downloaded component model?
  
  Suppliers generally are concerned about the internal details of their models, and the file size can be an issue for consumers. Is saving these models out as 'parts-exterior faces' an acceptable option for them, or too much of a compromise?
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - 1-I7AP5K @ John Slocum on Jun 1, 2009 9:46 PM
    
    John Slocum wrote:
    
    Hi Ray,
    
    For what percent of downloaded models might you need to show a section view of an assembly containing a downloaded component model?
    
    Suppliers generally are concerned about the internal details of their models, and the file size can be an issue for consumers. Is saving these models out as 'parts-exterior faces' an acceptable option for them, or too much of a compromise?
    
    John,
    
    It is impossible to say how often I'll need to show a section view of a vendor model. In most cases, it's not necessary. But in certain projects, it is indispensable and frequent. Would you want to have a customer on a deadline try to produce a vital design drawing and find that he can't because it's a surface model? It would be a great way to anger your customers. I've changed component vendors for far less. One of the three primary criteria I have for using a particular vendor is, do they supply the solid models that I need? If not or if they are problematic models, I look for another vendor. I don't have the time to waste on models that don't work, are corrupt, or that keep me from generating drawings. Engineers are doing more and more in less and less time. We no longer have the luxury of modeling our vendors' products or struggling with the models that they provide. I'd suggest using solid models that omit sensitive internal details. I realize that's more work for the vendor, but from a customer's point of view, the vendor should service our needs, not the other way around.
    
    Also, I've never downloaded a model from 3DCC and found the file size to be a problem.
    
    I hope that's helpful. Thanks for asking for our opinions. It's much appreciated.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
Charles Culp Jun 4, 2009 7:58 PM
I missed your response earlier, John. If the file contains accurate mass properties, then all problems are OK for me; I didn't know that was possible.

Other users probably get a little twitch in their eye when they see surface models, but I think that would be just fine.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Kevin Quigley Jun 4, 2009 9:56 PM
John,

What would be very handy would be for suppliers to tag their models with a "not included in section" property so that if you use any model from 3DCC and section the assembly the Solidworks section command automatically knows not to attempt a section of that part. In fact this ability would be very useful for any model (library parts for example).
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Albert Whatmough @ Kevin Quigley on Jun 4, 2009 10:16 PM
  Kevin,
  
  Great IDEA!!!!!
  
  In regards to the movable components... that is an issue.. with the Cylinder example.. you want a assembly that has the range of motion that you can insert into an assembly as a flexible assembly.
  
  Cheers,
  
  Al
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - John Slocum @ Albert Whatmough on Jun 8, 2009 1:56 PM
    Suppliers would still have the ability to offer fully featured models, but some suppliers are looking for an automated way to remove internal details. We are looking for ways to offer both, but it sounds like the section view issue and mass properties are the real hot topics here on the 'save as part-exterior faces' output.
    
    If we were able to offer those two capabilities with the simplified models, yet still allowed relevant suppliers to offer fully featured models, would we be missing anything from the 'content usability' equation?
    
    Thanks,
    John
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Tim R @ John Slocum on Jun 8, 2009 7:30 PM
      Hi,
      I skimmed the previous answers and didn't find this, maybe it's already been covered. But we have gotten quite a few engine models from vendors that are pretty much nothing but surfaces.. and the size of that file compared to what a regular sized native Solidworks assembly/part file would be is enormous.. what would be a 7-10 megabyte file in native Solidworks seems to balloon up to a 36-40 megabyte file as an imported surface file. This includes the wires, various components of the engine. It slows down editing of an assembly that the file has been inserted into quite a bit too.. using a lot more memory than a native Solidworks file would. I would really like to see just a simplified native
      Solidworks file instead of the surface model file available for download. I've considered making one myself from the surface model data, haven't yet though.
      
      -Tim
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Joel Bickel @ Tim R on Jun 8, 2009 7:55 PM
        Sometimes surface models don't show up in ANY views of a drawing. This is big problem.
        
        If suppliers are concerned about "internals", maybe an option to fill in the internal volume would be useful. For me, that would be better than just the external shell.
        
        I have seen file sizes increase exponentially when saved as surface data too.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Tim R @ Joel Bickel on Jun 8, 2009 8:11 PM
        Yep, I have seen that too, Joel. The entire engine model in certain views doesn't show up. You move the view around the drawing area and the engine surface model blinks in and out.. sometimes it's there other times it's not.
        
        -Tim
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
1-I7AP5K Jun 26, 2009 3:51 PM
I've had the misfortune of working with a vendor's surface model this morning. So far, I've discovered that I cannot add color or texture to it by selecting a body or feature, which means I have to select every tiny facet and feature to change the color or texture. Very, very time consuming and it makes the part run rather slowly.

I've also discovered that I cannot section it at all. I thought sectioning would leave me with a sliced shell, but no. The part remains whole while the other components are sectioned, so I still can't see the interior features. Similarly, I found that I cannot cut a hole in a surface model, so I am still unable to see the inside of the assembly.

I realize your vendors are trying to hide their corporate secrets, which I understand, but this is a wholly unacceptable solution.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
1-I7AP5K Oct 5, 2009 5:01 PM
Just in case this issue is still open at 3DCC, I encourage those who are considering this change to go to AB's website (www.ab.com) and try using one of their surface models. Follow this link and see if you are able to do anything useful with the model: http://raise.rockwellautomation.com/raconfig/rtcache/dwg/abdrs021.dwg. I've been fighting with it for hours. This is a perfect example of why surface models are unacceptable to me. By the way, you should take note of the size of the model. It comes in at the wrong scale. I encourage you to try to correct it by scaling the model and see what happens.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- 1-I7AP5K @ 1-I7AP5K on Oct 5, 2009 5:30 PM
  And one more complaint, then I'll stop. I promise.
  
  I downloaded a model of an electrical enclosure, which came in as a surface model. The only problem is that I need to add two cutouts to the door of the enclosure, which is a very typical activity with electrical enclosures. Only problem is, since it's all surfaces, it seems to be impossible to punch a hole in it. Terrific.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Deepak Gupta @ 1-I7AP5K on Oct 6, 2009 3:42 AM
    Did you tried converting the model to Solid and then punch the holes.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - 1-I7AP5K @ Deepak Gupta on Oct 6, 2009 1:36 PM
      I've been unable to find a way to successfully convert the models to solid. Thicken won't work, knit won't work. I don't know what else to try except a new enclosure vendor.
      
      Thanks for the suggestion, though.
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Deepak Gupta @ 1-I7AP5K on Oct 6, 2009 3:44 PM
        Can you post the link for the part or upload here.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        1-I7AP5K @ Deepak Gupta on Oct 6, 2009 4:04 PM
        The original file (.stp) is attached. If you have any suggestions, that would be helpful for future reference, but please don't spend a lot of time on it, as I've already modelled the door as a sheetmetal part.
        
        Thanks for your help, Deepak.
        Attachments
        csd20168lg.stp.zip493.8 KB
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Deepak Gupta @ 1-I7AP5K on Dec 17, 2009 6:39 AM
        Hi Ray,
        
        Sorry missed this thread. I just checked and found that geometry is coming as solid only but with some bad faces. So one to fix those faces first and then process further.
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions

3DCC is looking for you opinion

Outcomes

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content