-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew,
To implement a Model Based Definition, one that could truely be the "authority" for accurately representing the a full design design description, including engineering intent, you need a modeling language that can express it.
A CAD model cannot, alone, be that language. It is a language of geometry, not engineering. Many of the attributes required of the description are currently just bags hung on the CAD model.
Even if you have an engineering model, how do you verify its correctness? Today, there are a few engineering design automation models separate from CAD systems that, for narrow design families, can produce correct designs. This, it could be argued, is a form of verification. Ironically, for a static representation of a single design instance, it is much harder.
How does Model Based Definition (MBD) stand the test of time? Will a defintion today be readble/executable next year? ... ten years from now? How is a single MBD readable outside the system that created it?
Many designs becomes signed as contract documents. Can a MBD be a contract document?
Some of these issues are easy enough to deal with. Others are just hard. None are there today.
If SolidWorks presumes to become a MBD design repository, it is first and foremost going to have to commit to a moving from being a geometry model to an engineering model. Some of this will be forced on SolidWorks just to support analysis in a robust way. The rest has to to be a business decision.
There is a long way to go.
Perhaps this is why there is a deafening silence to answering your question.
... or, maybe it's just the weekend.
Regards,
- Tim
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono
Jun 11, 2012 8:38 AM
Tim,
ASME Y14.41-2003 creates a standard format for using just the model to define product. Is this standard lacking in some way to not allow the engineer to full define the product using the model?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
To elaborate on this excellent statement, I'll make a comparison.
A model alone is like the above post. It gives you an overview of what is to be, but it lacks the detail. On a model this might be proper GD&T to determine fits, tolerances, etc which are not necessarily in the model. Face drafts, critical dimensions to be checked, surface finishes, etc. In the above post, it might be a list of details that I've just gone over as to why a drawing is needed and a model is simply not sufficient.
Drawings aren't just important for production but for quality control and future engineering. They give you the ability to put down details and notes, annotations, detail views, GD&T, etc. to allow you to really specify and control a finished part with great accuracy and lowered cost as opposed to undrawn parts.
Where I work, even the parts we have made from models as they are complex plastic molded parts, we also include drawings which give some critical dimensions, tolerances on specific features, to show the manufacturer what is important to get right and to what degree such that our finished product is quality.
To me, the obsession MBD and dropping drawings is just laziness. And while it may be possible in some cases, why would anybody do it? It is more difficult and time consuming for producers, quality control, everyone except the people who would make the 2d drawings. It is just not the way to go.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Christopher,
At this point in the MBD life cycle we will supply a 3D PDF with the STEP file to convey the information such as GD&T, material, notes, etc... So it is a combination of the two that gives the Product Manufacturing Information. One without the other (at this stage) does leave a lack of information.
Here Quality has been using the SOLIDWORKS model to create their inspection plans for the CMM (gantry type and Faro Arm). So for us Quality was ahead of the curve.
At a previous place of employment we forced the machine shops we used to purchase CAM software that could read SOLIDWORKS native files. They resisted at first, but once they did we started supplying a reduced dimension drawing. Ironically once this become part of their workflow they asked why couldn't I supply all of the information in the 3D file. I told them I would work on it. That question came up more than 6 years ago. The shop was able to reduce their quote time, programming time and turn time. Something we greatly needed as we kept them swamped with work (2 shifts). This is with production and prototypes. Both of these companies worked in the commercial realm and not government fields.
As far as the sheet metal parts at that company, the vendor used SOLIDWORKS in house so supplying a file and reduce dimension drawing worked really well for them.
Is MBD that answer to all issues. No... will it be? Who knows. An area that is should help with is going from a 3D model to a 2D drawing back to a 3D model. Granted some parts still work with a 2D DXF translation process and may still.
I look at this transition the same way I did when I went from pencil and velum on a drawing board to 2D CAD and ultimately to 3D models. It is another tool. Use what works best, but look to the future and prepare for change.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Which is only useful if all of your supplies and possible alternates use the same advanced software and make those investments. If you deal with smaller shops, import from countries with less technology, or want to hand something to a machinist to make, it simply won't work.
I came to CAD when it was 3d models, starting with Inventor version 9 in 2002ish. I didn't learn drafting until highschool, several years later, and just the basics at that. Not all tools are beneficial, I see this the same way I see proprietary connectors like Apple's Firewire, or any other tool that reduces and restricts functionality to a specific toolset. It may be fine for massive companies dealing with massive companies, but for small and mid sized firms, small manufacturers and supplies, it just doesn't make any sense to add the overhead of turning those files into something a machinist can use.
Our inspectors get a drawing, they look at it, compare the inspection dimensions to the incoming product, it takes seconds. They don't have to bring up files on computers they aren't at, they don't have to click through multiple menus to do it, they don't have to interpret the file, they just have a drawing and they work from it. Everything about this MBD sounds like more overhead at every step of the game, unless you are doing things on a scale that is beyond what most people out there will ever use or come into contact with, and by its exclusivity of use it becomes worth less.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Christopher,
I am glad to see that you are inquisitive enough to be looking at threads on MBD. It shows that you have an interest in the tools you work with.
At this point in time MBD may not be for everyone. It is driven more by the design house looking for a shop that can handle the MBD approach. What drives the design house? It may be their customer (DOD), or it may that they are looking for a better way to convey the part information to the shop.
The size of the shops I was working with when the question of being able to supply the PMI in the 3D model came from a shop that is 1 1/2 person shop (single CNC machine, unsure as to the CAM product being used) and the other was about 30 person (4 CNC's, CAM was a DelCAM product). Using the lower level MBD (model as master with a limited dimension drawing) have been a 3 person injection mold house, a 7 person blow molding house and about 6 person sheet metal. The sheet metal house used SOLIDWORKS so this was an easy transition. The mold houses where using some form of Pro-E (or Wildfire?).
All of these shops used the model to quote from (or in the case of the blow mold house, their mold maker did). The 30 person shop also used the model to inspect from (on CMM), while the 1 1/2 person shop used the standard hand tools to check with. The mold houses I am not sure, but they did have CMM's in their shops.
The parts being produced through the shops was from 3 off (prototypes) to 100 per run, to 10,000 per run.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I don't know that it is a better way. I looked this up thoroughly last friday, set up some 3d pdfs, tried to implement MBD on a few drawings in progress I had going, and I found the system seriously lacking and opaque, I found it inadequate for proper tolerance that I was looking to do.
Now if we are talking pairing a model with a limited dimension drawing, that is fine, we do that on our plastic parts because they are complex and difficult to define directly from a drawing - you'd need dozens of pages to adequately define it. But we took maybe 8 critical features from the model to apply proper tolerances to and label as critical v. the non-critical model defined features. A combination approach allows us to set precedence on the importance of critical dimensions and tolerances that I'm just not seeing in the MBD setup.
Now if the part is made with CAM in mind, or is a loose tolerance, I can see that being reasonable.
But a lot of companies in this country have a lot of old products that are being maintained from old files, you have companies with a large number of SKUs, many of which coming from early CAD days or even pre-CAD days, many parts that are defined solely on the drawings, with very small staff working on updating and maintaining the large database, which also makes something like full MBD impractical when drawings are so great at making the right points, adding notes, revision histories, BOMs, tolerances, etc.
Sure it has it's use, but I wouldn't by any measure call it a "better" system of conveying information. anymore than I would call the regular version of a movie more informative than the directors cut.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Christopher,
Are you using DimXpert to set up your dimensions and including the tolerances that are critical there? For standard tolerances you can declare them in the notes section of your 3D PDF template. I will see if I can get permission to post one of our parts here to show you.
Pairing a model with a reduce dimension drawing is a level of MBD, if you declare the model as the master. The 3D PDF just adds more functionality to drawing if you will. It should have the file (STEP is what is called out in MIL-STD-31000A) with it, preferable attached.
CAM is one of the reason for MBD, another is the ability to transfer large amounts of PMI to clients and suppliers. The DOD jumped on board due to the fact that sometimes the documentation in paper form took more to transport to them than did the product.project. If you would like to see a report on this, Google Navair MBD ITI Transend and you should find it.
We are one of the companies that have to deal with a large amount of legacy data. Our contracts are based on updating products that have existed since the early 50's and just gets updated every few years. Some of these drawings are hand drawn, some are 2D AutoCAD and some are in SOLIDWORKS. You are correct, it is a challenge to decide when and how to move to MBD.
From your statement "Now if we are talking pairing a model with a limited dimension drawing, that is fine, we do that on our plastic parts because they are complex and difficult to define directly from a drawing - you'd need dozens of pages to adequately define it." already in the lower levels of MBD. The 3D PDF is just another step in this process.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Nothing you have said has made MBD sound or appear any better or more functional to me. The person examining still has to get the dimensions themselves measuring each feature of the part in the pdf, there is no clear priority outside of notes added to pdf, and the underlying modeling software has, in my experience, been glitchy enough that it is far easier and more effective to define a part in a drawing than by the model, given how easy it is for the model to be broken.
Now when it comes to CAM parts, sure. It is easier. But how much is really made with CAM parts straight from models? Complex machined parts, sure. But that is like 5% of the parts we have. Springs, standardized fasteners and stock pieces just cut to lengths, etc. In one of our more complex products there are maybe a total of 2 parts complex enough for MBD to be worth it, maybe 10 parts with any machining done to them but it is single step work ( lathe groove into shaft, drill 2 holes in flat plate, etc) where a drawing is far quicker and simpler as the machining code even for automated parts is just a few lines of code on repeat, and then a bunch of stock material just cut in lengths, and purchased parts used as is. It is very limited application and we use it in those applications. It is a tool in the toolbox, but one that I see many reasons to avoid and reduce the use of to times when it makes a great deal of sense, rather than as a general rule.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Good point Christopher - I did think of something that was done here for years, all the information to make an elaborate cabinet, bedroom suites, chairs, dining room furniture was all done with work order router instructions, no drawings. They use drawings for the first prototype and first production run, from then on no drawings, all instructions and training. Still have a hard time getting to that mind set.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
John,
It was something for me to wrap my mind around when I started where I am now for about the same reason, I had not delta with a company that uses animations for their assembly/routers. Virtually now verbiage what so ever. It allows for workers who English is a second language to easily do a job.
To quote an old song... these times they are a changing. I think I said the same thing when I went from a drawing board to a computer.
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Christopher,
For your work MBD at this point may not be a good move for you and your company. At least you are keeping up with what is happening. My intent is to engage others for their input to help us (me and the company I work for) move along.
We use a lot of injection molded parts as well as casting. MBD helps us up front to convey this information better to our suppliers. They often use the file to start their process. Machined parts here are limited due to the volume of parts used (sometimes 5000 per month or more). At my last place of employment, their parts are predominately machine parts so an MBD process would work for them (they do a level of MBD, but don't know that is what it is called). So you are right it works well for some, but not all instances. For some it will only come into play if/when it becomes a contractual requirement. Parts that are simple enough to program right at the CNC or require a simple process (drill, cut, a couple of grooves on a lather) would gain little from MBD.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew,
Maybe you only want to hear from people who are leaning in that direction, but where I work it will never happen. We will always need drawings.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono
Jun 11, 2012 8:42 AM
Glenn,
What are the limitations that keep you from getting rid of drawings in your environment?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I work at a university-based facility that designs and tests roadside safety and anti-ram structures (see here). I believe that SW is designed for, and focuses on, mechanical engineering projects (and some of the stuff we do would qualify), but most of the stuff we do here is civil engineering. Most (probably all) of our fabricators want drawings, our construction crew will always need them (if we issued them iPads they would need a new one every 2 weeks), and they are also required for the reports that we issue documenting the structure that was tested.
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
just remember once the version of the software we are using at this time becomes obsolete and you cannot open the file anymore drawing will always be there!!!
It's nice BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! until there is only ONE software.... it won't happen anytime soon.
check out the LinkIn form for Mechanical Design : http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2666729&type=member&item=116225468&qid=27a25521-e82f-4dca-b9fe-ae19e283f1ea&trk=group_items_see_more-0-b-ttl
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono
Jun 11, 2012 8:41 AM
Lenny,
Wouldn't it be possible that there doesn't need to be just one software, as long as there is a common exchange format?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono wrote:
Lenny,
Wouldn't it be possible that there doesn't need to be just one software, as long as there is a common exchange format?
Matthew,
No it wouldn't, to many shops still stay on the oldest computers and software they can until it no longer works, same goes for their machinery from dos based to current machines some PC based and other not.
Maybe a large company that designs and manufactures will but the bread and butter of most manufaturing is the small to middle sized shops.
Here is another glitch, what if there is ever a EMP strike on the US, wipes out all digital data, power ... then we have no records without drawings.
Now I'm not saying I wouldn't love this, It's all I do every day straight from SW to CAM, but until the people that make the parts (average age of 55+) changes their mind set it aint gona happen soon.
Talk to Mark Biasotti, he knows me, worked together at IDEO, me the machinist\model maker , he the designer\engineer.
just being the realist, and a little sometimes.
lenny
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
"Here is another glitch, what if there is ever a EMP strike on the US, wipes out all digital data, power ... then we have no records without drawings."
We won't worry about having drawings or SW for a long time.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
alas we forget that we can machine parts without electricity, remember the old mills next the the river or steam power, large safts with belts that came down from the ceilings to drive the lathes and mills!
so if drawing in hand we can rebuild him........
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono
Jun 13, 2012 7:30 AM
Same can be said about calculators too. When's that last time anyone of us did long division?
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono
Jun 13, 2012 7:37 AM
Wouldn't small and medium manufacturers benefit the most from the hypothetical reduced costs of not having to product a second data set (drawings), assuming there was a common format (like 3D PDF, for example)?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Some things may seem simple and/or "no-brainers" but people are reluctant to change old habits quickly. We have been hearing for years that we are able to be a paperless society but I do feel a little more secure holding a copy of drawing. I think it has also been more than 20 years since the US was told we would switch to metric-units instead of inches. I do think it's possible, even desirable, to produce solely from the model, but the paper crutch will be around for a long time.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
We machine parts, drill and tap holes, some facing, turning ID's to size, etc. Very basic maching so we can assemble castings, stampings, into final assemblies with other parts.
I've never looked at the ASTM standard for MBD. We don't do drawings to an ASTM standard. We make drawings so our machine shop and assembly personal can understand the drawings and make our parts. We are ISO certified (if that's worth anything, besides a 'stamp' for international customers).
It would be nice to read the standard before answering here.
I'd just love to see computer screens at every workstation so they could view edrawings, pdfs, or something of the like instead of having paper drawings everywhere. That would be a major step for us.
I can't see how you would put together an assembly without some written documentation, drawing or otherwise.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono
Apr 24, 2015 9:47 AM
Currently, as far as I am aware, the only MBD standard that is published is ASME Y14.41-2003.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I'm going to have to check out the standard sometime.
We receive quotes from our vendors all the time based on us sending them iges files, but most still request a 2d drawing to go with it.
And for us, some feel having a paper drawing, fully dimensioned, is more secure than electronic data. It's pretty easy to see if someone has done something to a paper drawing, versus wondering if anyone has done something to the electronic data you gave them.
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
imho, working from paper is more natural.
i prefer to read printed books as opposed to digital media.
it's just a hassle to always require a computer, even if it's a laptop or tablet.
that said, annotation/notes will always be a pita to have to constantly go to an electronic device to refer back to.
at some point, someone will print those notes onto a piece of paper to make it easier to refer to.
then there's quoting.
quoting from electronic media is another potential pain.
i don't see it (paperless) happening in my lifetime.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Few years ago we tried this with SDRC Model Views using ASME Y14.41-2003 standard. We did OK but Model VIews are very limited and we had lots of issues with our suppliers that manufactured our parts. They could not fully understand the model dimenions from a printed pdf since all of them did not use SDRC. Also since we switched to SW, all those Model Views are history as they cannot be read into SW. Just my 2 cents. I would prefer to use the 2D views to send to our suppliers.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono
Jun 13, 2012 7:31 AM
Mukesh,
Have you explored the 3D PDF format?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Yes, we did but since most of our suppliers did not have SDRC to open the Model Views we had to rely on PDF to print the views which showed tolerances and Key diemension features. The issue we had is we could not fully dimension the model views because of the limited options (remember SDRC was not updated since Siemens purchased it, so the technology was very old). Maybe with SW it can be improved. I know for a fact when we purchased SW, which replaced NX at my company, we decided not to go back to Model Views but to continue create 2D drawings.
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matthew Lorono
Jun 13, 2012 7:34 AM
Kenneth,
You mentioned quoting from electronic copy is a pain. I found vendors in NorCal where more than capable of producing quotes from the native SolidWorks files, even without annotations required for true MBD. Are you currently having difficulties with quoting (as the quoter or the quotee)? If so, what are the roadblocks?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
i'm the submitter.
we supply pdf of drawing and CAD model (native or .step).
our vendors typically use CAM software to open the CAD model.
The CAM seats are expensive and aren't usually available to the quoting department personnel.
Some vendors still need .step file instead of native Solidworks.
I don't know how well the translation retains the ASME Y14.41
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi Matt;
Interesting question and responses about creating a complete Product Definition with 3D MBD and moving away from 2D drawings.
The DOD (Army, Navy, Air Force) has been working with Adobe (and selected Prime Contractors) towards this vision and are ready to launch their 3D MBD - Technical Data Package requirement (to their Primes and Subcontractors) towards the end of this year...called MIL-STD-31000 Rev-A.
Having a complete Engineering product definition (3D parts, Assemblies, 3D Dimensions and Tolerances and engineering attributes) in an open 3D format (supported by a powerful and independent company like Adobe) which can be deployed, interacted with and viewed for free is a dream that many of us in the CAD business have had for many many years.
Who would have guessed that the DOD would be the first to really make this happen...but when you look at the cost benefits of eliminating the need to create, maintaining and storing redundant 2D drawings and the inherant mis-interpretation of design intent that 2D drawings are plagued with; you can almost believe that the DOD could save their projected 27% of the overall cost of provisioning their nearly 1700 weapons systems.
Cheers
Chris G.
p.s. Also, having Adobe guarantee to the DOD that their open ISO Standard 3D PDF format will be viewable for decades to come (within the Free Adobe Reader) provides the comfort level the DOD must have to guarantee our national security based on this new DOD Design to Manufacturing... paradigm shift.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Do you have a link to something to see what this MBD looks like when implemented? Would it be just a 3D PDF with all the required details available to make it a viable alternate to what many of us use already which is 2D prints (electronic or hard copy) along with 3D models in electronic format (3D PDF, or eDrawings, etc. all which have measurement capabilities). Or is it just the elimination of hard copy 2D drawings?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Go to the SolidWorks proceedings site:
http://www.solidworks.com/sww/proceedings/proceedings-presentations.htm
And search by name for "pdf" and you'll find a presentation that shows what it's about. I can already say right now that absolutely no it's not just the elimination of hard copy 2d drawings, it goes much much further!
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Thanks Kevin, I watched quite a bit of the Anark presentation. Pretty neat concept which I feel follows closely to what I believe is what is the best in 3D, what makes it a key element in collaboration, especially for us folks who are visual learners. That is, it takes the guesswork out what is being presented. Many non-CAD users that need to see what is in development do not understand 2D drawing for the most part (heck, even I can't visualize much of it on occasion and I rank in the 99th percentile for spatial perception based on some testing I did years ago). This is a huge step forward to the future (which is now) where everything will be presented in 3D in some form or another. I just love being part of this 3D CAD world and I am so pleased to see continual developments within it. And, for as much as Adobe aggravates me at times, I am so happy to see them continue to develop the freely offered reader. This free reader on every computer is a huge asset (HUGE!!!).
I have been trying to convince another CAD company for the last year or two of the value of being able to create 3D PDF files directly from their system and they just don't seem to get it. Thank goodness that I can export out of there in a format that SolidWorks can read so I can get my work published to 3D PDF. I use this in many of my client works in the manufacturing industry, in the trade show booth business and in the advertising industry. If there is a band wagon that I would jump on - it is 3D PDF and anything good that can be added to enhance it like MBD.
It is my hope that MBD will be affordable. Many of us are freelancers, one man operations, and cost is always a concern.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
It's a bit of a shame Adobe kind of handled the whole 3D PDF technology awkwardly, from a business sense anyway. Having at first acquired Tech Soft 3D and now having spun it back off and a new company added to the fray called Tetra 4D (I think that's how it went!)
The positive thing is that Adobe seems to not want to pursue 3D on their own agenda, this makes 3D PDF almost vendor neutral to the perspective of Dassault, Autodesk, PTC and Siemens PLM. Which could be a pretty darn good thing for its acceptance!
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I am just flicking through this presentation and it seems a little too optimistic with it's claims. Claims that could only be met by eliminating quote and rework/scrap entirely.
The DLA survey apparently said:
- would help reduce procurement cost by almost 27% - Comment attached says "will reduce by 27%"
- would reduce cost of quoting, which accounts for 8% of bid - Comment says "will reduce costs 8%". Assuming that quoting can be wiped out completely.
- ~19% of scrap and rework was due to poor TDP qualty - Comment says "will reduce scrap and rework by 19%".
But overall I have found Adobe software to be terrible. Adobe reader X is a massive resource hog that is so full of bugs it can't open multiple PDF's without 30 seconds between them. I have tried to use 3D PDF's 3 times (last two years ago) and found them buggy and inconsistent. I use E-drawings instead.
I can see why Adobe, Solidworks and Anark are excited about this. But honestly it screams "group think".
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi Don;
Just back from Lake Arrowhead Ca....beautiful place to visit...
Here are some links to some DOD inspired 3D PDF MBE documents that you might find helpful.
You will notice that the 3D PDF TDP contains a fully annotated 3D Model + 3D GD&T tolernaces, plus a STEP file attachment for manufacturing + a set of vector based 2D drawings which can be printed on A,B,C,D... size paper for use on the shop floor (and in case of an EMP Strike ;-).
The first link is to a zip file with 2 3D PDFs..one which captures a complete Engineering Product Definition and one that demonstrates a 3D animated shop floor Work Instruction.
http://www.anark.com/downloads/3DPDF-MBD-Samples.zip
Here are direct links to the same PDFs in the zip file.
http://www.anark.com/downloads/3DPDF-Drawingless-TDP.pdf
http://www.anark.com/downloads/3DPDF-Digital-Work-Instructions.pdf
Note...these 3D PDFs work best if the current version of the Free Adobe Reader is installed which can be downloaded from here:
Hope these help...
Cheers
Chris G.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Thanks for the PDF links Chris. Great stuff!
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Thanks.
Having had a very quick look at the files and thinking about the way we get parts and assemblies manufactured it would be more trouble than it's worth. Our parts are always made by external vendors, often in the Far East, and our drawings are always covered with toleranced dimensions and notes. I can't see how this format would save any work as we'd spend just as much time adding tolerances to the model as we do to a 2D drawing. Further, a lot of the time spent on a drawing is useful thinking time where issues often become apparent that were missed during the modelling phase. Finally one of the first things that struck me about this format was that in checking a design I'd spend a lot of time interrogating the model for dimensions when normally they are right in front of your eyes.
Our normal way of communicating complex designs these days is to send out a drawing and an Edrawing model to help with it's interpretation. It seems to work fine.
If you make most of your parts using a well understood manufacturing process where tolerances of size and form are well understood and designs always work within those tolerances then, yes, it looks like a good way of doing things.
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
In a nut-shell. Never.
I first struck this attitude from a solidworks rep about three years ago, the comment was "I'll bet some of you guys are still using drawings".
That raised a chuckle from the audience. One of those "what planet are you from?" kind of chuckles.
I think what really scares solidworks about drawings, is drawings are completely independent of software platform. I can create a drawing with pencil and paper, inventor, autocad, inventor, MS paint etc and anyone can still make the parts for me. In 100 years if they find the drawings they will still be able to read it and make the parts correctly.
Drawings will still be around when solidworks no longer is. The more solidworks try to push their customers away from drawings, the sooner the previous sentence will become a reality.
When was the last time I did long division? Last month.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi Dougal;
3D Model Based Definition stored within the Free to View 3D PDF is an easier way to understand and interpret the original engineering design intent with fewer interpretation errors.
As you know, not everyone downstream has the same grasp of the designer intent which causes problems down stream...or at the very least phone calls back to the original designer to help the reader understand their design intent.
Also, you can always store the original SolidWorks 2D drawings (as 2D PDFs) within the 3D PDF and then at any time "print" and use/archieve a high quality A,B,C,D sized drawing.
Cheers
Chris
p.s. Never is a long time ;-)
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi Chris
I believe the key to fewer interpretation errors is better drawings. Sub-standard drawings will always give you a sub-standard result. Those downstream don't need to know all the design intent, all they need to know is how the finished parts should be. Each part drawing is a communication document giving all of that information.
What industry do you work in and how 3D are the parts/products you design?
Never is indeed a long time. But it's often the most accurate description available. Especially when a supplier of one your business tools wants to replace something that is universally understood throughout the world and history and replace it with a system which requires more computer hardware, more computer software and new training through the whole chain of users.
Here is a short list of the downsides that apply directly to my situation:
Higher computer system costs throughout the chain.
Higher software costs throughout the chain.
Higher training costs throughout the chain (including time).
Higher maintenance costs (including time).
A more complicated system with a greater number of potential failure points.
A system that requires power to run at every location.
A less portable system.
More problems with software interchange.
Higher risk of data corruption.
A very small list of vendors willing to adopt such a system.
Very expensive parts residing in hazardous workshop environments.
Most of these points has not only an up-front cost associated, but a perpetual running/maintenance cost attached as well. Each one is an efficiency loss.
Tell me what the good part is again?
Essentially I couldn't agree more with the first 3 responses to the original question.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
You may be right, who knows if it'll be for everyone? Definitely planes trains and automobile companies will go that way, as they already have for a large part. And defence is another one as mentioned before. But is it for the masses? Time will tell!
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi Dougal...just back from my nephew's wedding in beautiful Lake Arrowhead California...
My manufacturing & inspection background is with FMC Corp (then a $3B DOD contractor and now part of BAE systems) where I worked for 7+ years...and particularly on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle that FMC use to make...
Within FMC we used 100% GD&T Tolerancing schemes (which as required by the DOD) and it was the way we communicated Engineering Design intent throughout the organization (Engr, Purchasing, Manu, Inspection, Assembly, Spares and repairs back to the DOD...)
As you probably know, GD&T (ASME 14.5) is a very complete "Engineering Language" and is very powerful when used correctly for capture design intent.
The problem with GD&T is that it is so powerful that many folks "outside of" the engineering department struggle with understanding the original design intent by trying to read a bunch of 2D Drawing layouts...
So...the move by the DOD to replace "static" 2D drawings full of hard to understand GD&T symbology with a completely interactive and intiuitive 3D + associative GD&T equivalent...makes perfect sense.
Chris
p.s. also, GD&T stored within 3D PDFs (i.e. the machine readible semantics behind the GD&T symbololgy) are so well defined and unambigous (when compared to +/- linear tolerancing) that they can be used as the basis of Generative NC programming, Generative CMM Inspection programming and someday...generative Process Planning...
-
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Never fits for me too.
Maybe I'm getting to be a curmugeon, but I don't see it happening.
Sending a 3d pdf or edrawings file as an aid to axplain the drawing has occasionally been useful over the years, but never will 3d geometry in soley electronic data be universal. In tight relationships between designer and manufacturing where someone else is paying the overhead, people willl play with this on the cutting edge, but I don't see the benefit for the masses.
Too much overhead to make everyone understand the 3d content, and all you experienced people that need to review and comment onf the design content will not be your power cAD users or tech savvy users able to use the latest viewers.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
While I am not sure that my company will be able to do this anytime soon because of too many people within the company that think like many in this group. I do intend to push for this at my company and we are making steady movements towards this philosohpy.
As a general note on this though; technology is evolving faster than ever in history. For those naysayers, you sound almost exactly like the all people who were dead set against going from 2d to 3d CAD.
This is the next logical evolution of 3D. You can fight it and find every reason why not to do something innovative. That mentality can cause you to be left in the dust and we will all be laughing at you like we do now to 2d CAD mfg companies.
This can be done, It is being done. All the tools are there, you just have to let go of your old ones. Combine google glasses with leap motion technology and the entire way we access data has been flipped. Its just a mattter of time.
This isnt for every company. Different challanges are there for each company but buisness and design is about finding ways to overcome challanges to become more profitable and innovative. If it was easy then everybody would do it, if you wait for it to become easy then you have just become "everybody". If your company is fine with being everybody then all I can say is good luck.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I enjoy change a lot - even more when it is truly beneficial to an overall experience!
I am sure that MBD entails much more than simply "get rid of drawings". In fact, part of the info about MBD points out that you will be able to print from the data. I think it would have been better to have this threa broken in two - one for people's ideas about MBD and one for thoughts on "getting rid of drawings".
"Skepticism" is not bad because it can bring about positive results. Throwing an anchor or drawing a line in the sand can be more painful.
It has been over 30 years since our country decided it would be a benefit to switch from our measurement system to the metric system. It has been a long while since the prediction of a "paperless" society. 2D has not been made extinct by 3D. SWorks Corp has been taken over by Dassault .
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Looking at the ASME Y14.41 standard briefly I can see a benefit to using the method of model and drawing in digital format. I cannot see a benefit to model only method. This is due to the type of work that I do. I would like to hear the benefits of a model only method by someone using it.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
A benefit that I see with the modeling only approach is that this would cut down substantially on drafting labor, extra communication within the department and confusion/quality problems of drafters interpreting design intent. the best person to have control over tolerance is the designer or engineer (2D drawing is really just communicating tolerances). This supports the one source of truth philosophy. any time you add an interpretation, you are opening the door for quality problems. yes the designer has to sign off on drawings traditionally but how much time is he spending on that rather than innovating new products?
This also contributes to tolerance stacking occurring earlier and easier in the design process. if a designer is dictating tolerance while designing, on the model, then he doesn't have to wait for drafting to get done with the drawing to run a tolerance stack analysis. tools in SWX really help this philosophy.
BTW my company is basically paperless mfg now and we are looking to move further along this philosophy. the paperless was easier than you would think and "model only" seems very doable.
As for vendors, I am of the philosophy that vendors need to keep up with the times better than OEM because it is their job to work with many companies. To be competitive, they need to be flexible.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I do not see it cutting down the labor substantially. Looking at the standard I’m going to spend just as much time adding annotations to my model as i would creating a drawing. If you cut down the drafting then the designer has to add the annotations. It’s still the same amount of work. In some cases were you can use standard tolerance on the majority of the part then I can see it saving time. I’m my case we have a lot of tolerances. It would save some time how much I don’t know.
I do see it cutting down on errors on the drawing or for a better term the information you are providing to your venders. We are a smaller company so I’m the one that is designing, drawing, checking, and sometimes even talking with venders when they have questions. So communication confusion and design intent are not a problem.
We are paperless even though I still use a ton of it every day. We send are venders a PDF and sometimes a 3D model. We tell them that the PDF is the controlling document. We do this because of +/+ or -/- fit tolerances.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Ryan it appears the benefits you see are unique to problems within your organisation. These benefits are still hypothetical until you have implemented the system and measured the results.
For example the tolerance issues you mention between designer and drafter. This isn't a 2D drawing problem at all, this is a communication issue. Changing the medium does not fix communication issues. People who struggle with a concept in a face to face meeting usually struggle with the same concept in an email.
The problem you have was solved in the larger organisations I have worked in by having the engineer tolerance their own drawings. This process is exactly the same whether it's 2D or 3D. In fact I already tolerance critical part features in the model and have those tolerances pulled through to the drawing automatically.
Essentially the solution to your tolerance communication problem already exists and has nothing to do with removing 2D drawings.
As Toby has pointed out, the work load in defining each feature is exactly the same. The only difference is how the work is presented. 2D drawings (which can be, and in many cases are, paperless) vs 3D model based.
The work required in quotation sums this up perfectly. The promoters of this system have claimed in a presentation that 3D model based manufacturing will remove the cost of quoting completely. How do they plan to do that?
If the work performed in the quoting system is simply pushed back up the chain, then you've simply increased the work load for engineers and drafters who are both more expensive to pay and harder to find than estimators.
IMO this is just another case of people trying to use new toys to create a complex solution to an already solved problem. I call it the ipad response.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I would argue that many companies still have drafting departments that have to interpret a communication from their designer onto a 2D drawing. All I am saying is that in these companies, that communication wouldn’t have to exist, nor the labor to create a 2D drawing with all of the formatting that is involved with that. If you never have to redline a drawing then you don’t have a problem, if you do then consider a simpler approach.
I would also argue that the process is not exactly the same weather it is 2D or 3D. One requires the labor of translation to 2D and one doesn’t. In world full of how many mouse clicks does it take to get things done, that can be substantial.
To Toby’s point and circumstance, I have been there too. IMO I would have liked the ability of not dealing with projected views or views at all and I think that I could have saved some time in my workflow by not having to create a drawing.
I will definitely concede that the amount of time that it takes to actually create a drawing is small compared to the design process.
I will also concede that I don’t believe that this will completely remove the cost of quoting there is just too much involved in that. But I do think that most quoting processes can be substantially simplified and that this philosophy could assist in that.
As for moving things up the chain. This is just a simple disagreement in philosophy. If an engineer has to wait for his design to go through drafting, then mfg engineering, and then cost estimation, the whole project takes more time.
The point is to do it better and with more information the first time. That requires more effort up front in order to remove as many cycles as possible. If we took the argument that we shouldn’t shoulder more responsibility on the engineers then we would still be making 5 physical prototypes and testing them until they broke and then redesigning off of those results instead of doing FEA during the design process. This is extending the philosophy of digital prototyping.
I really don’t see the harm in model based dimensioning if your company is already heading to paperless. lets take your list for example:
Higher computer system costs throughout the chain. (pencil drafting board had this same argument against CAD)
Higher software costs throughout the chain. (3d pdf is free, i dont see the cost here)
Higher training costs throughout the chain (including time). (I think that this would be fairly small)
Higher maintenance costs (including time). (Ill buy that more computers cost more to maintain but this could be offset with less traffic for paper and if you are going paperless anyway then this is required)
A more complicated system with a greater number of potential failure points. (I see this as simplifying the processes by utilizing technology)
A system that requires power to run at every location. (a valid point but true paperless needs this anyway)
A less portable system. (I would argue that portability is much easier if you spent the money on intelligent hardware)
More problems with software interchange. (This is quickly, not becoming a problem and isn’t in many situations)
Higher risk of data corruption. (From what transaction?)
A very small list of vendors willing to adopt such a system. (Vendors by business model need to adapt)
Very expensive parts residing in hazardous workshop environments. (Your talking about computers, they have systems for this)
This is not an upfront free thing to do and anybody that is telling you otherwise is lying to you. It is the future though and it is here, you don’t have to take advantage of it if you don’t want to. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea though.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
What industry do you work in Ryan?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I have 15 years experience in heavy machinery mfg/engineering/administration/drafting.
I don't mean to seem combative, I just wanted to express my opinion on how this might work. My interpretation may be way off here. I do see technology making this easier and easier though --- very quickly..
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
The reason I asked which industry you work in (which you haven't answered) is because some industries are more isolated from the rest of the world than others.
Like the defence industry which is interested in a lot of things which are completely unworkable for those not government funded.
We have three seperate concepts here:
1. 100% model based.
2. Paperless, where you are using 2D drawings heavily but they aren't actually printed.
3. Paper drawings.
There is a very fuzzy line between 2 and 3.
You have made comparisons to 2D-3D cad and even drawing board to cad. But these aren't related at all. Drawing boards and cad are design tools. So are physical prototypes and testing.
This whole discussion isn't about design, it's about the processes that follow. Getting finished designs built and the best process for that.
2D drawings have evolved to their current stage (either printed or displayed on-screen) because they are the most efficient and portable medium to transfer all that information.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I'm sorry that heavy machinery wasn't specific enough information for your intent. To answer more directly, aggregate and agricultural in the private sector. While it may be that some industries are more isolated than others, these are usually business decisions that can be negotiated if enough incentive is there. While government funding can play a role, it really comes down to how profitable your company is on whether or not it can pursue this. "IF" it increases profit, then it can be justified.
I would suggest that the fuzzier line is between #1 & #2. the difference between these two are really a matter of visualization format. As long as you are using digital information that fully defines the part for your needs, you are only debate file type and weather most people can understand a 3d representation better than a 2d representation. I feel that is a much more substantive debate.
I agree that this "isn't about design, it's about the processes that follow", that is why I tried to showcase how cycles of redlines and interpretation can be minimized.
The only reason that i brought up 2d board drafting is that many of the arguments for keeping that technology are still being used.
Ill repeat once again, this is not for everyone and I’m not suggesting that everybody go out and do this or anybody is stupid for not doing this.
IMO 2d drawing technology has plateaued for a long time. Tools are becoming more in tune with this model only approach and I encourage all to keep an open mind. All I am trying to do is show the positives that could come from this. It has always been far easier to deny than embrace technology, I don’t embrace everything that is put out there but this seems pretty interesting to me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I just noticed in the ASME Y14.41 section 5.1.2 Hard copy
“A Hard copy of any given visual display shall be available on demand. When a hard copy is intended to be used as an engineering drawing, it shall meet applicable drawing standards.”
That solves a lot of problems downstream as far as the guy on the shop floor having a drawing to make the part. There is always going to be a hard copy for whoever wants one. So the title of this thread should not have the part about get rid of drawings. There is always going to be a drawing it just might not look like the drawings of today.
Also I interpret that as all the information that would be on a drawing needs to be display with the 3d model. In my case that would take a lot longer to do then a drawing. Because of all the different sections views I have to show. If it was easier and quicker to add annotations to a model then a drawing I would be all for it. Until that time I’m going to do what costs the least amount of money and time.
Like Douglas said 2d drawings are the most efficient way to display information. For model based definition to be a benefit it needs to be more efficient the a 2d drawing. I can see this happening but not with the tools we have right now.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
My company is currently looking at this issue. Part of our business is military based and we're being told that MIL-STD-31000 Rev A(DOD MBD Standard) is due to be released end of Sept or early Oct and that all DOD contracts let after that date may/will (we've heard both) require documentation per this standard.
http://model-based-enterprise.org/default.aspx
The output of the Techinical Data Package is a fully annotated, multiple view 3D PDF. We've been talking to a company called ANARK who has a software to produce output to meet the standard, but they're not very forthcoming in providing information on the workflow involved, only the bells & whistles of the final output (salesmen, go figure). They provided us with one of their SW files, fully annotated, and they are using SW DimXpert to do the annotation. SW is able to annotate the models but the interface is clumsy slow and there's not much documentation to be found for annotating 3D Views. However, when you save the drawing as a 3D PDF from SW the annotations don't appear, hence the need for a 3rd party software to package it.
DimXpert seems to be another good idea that got started but is not finished and not ready for prime time.
Tony Dum
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi Tony;
There are indeed some limitations within SW current implementation of DimXpert...we have been told that SolidWorks intends to fix them soon...
In the interum, we have found that a combination of DimXpert dimensioning, the use of RefDims (smart dimensions) and 3D Annotations contain a complete set of MBD tools sufficient to capture a complete 3D MBD of a part or an assembly (i.e. the complete product definition in 3D rather than 2D drawings).
If you are interested in seeing how this is done, you can connect with us through my email chris.garcia@anark.com
Cheers
Chris G.
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi Matt;
Just one more parting shot on all things 3D MBD (aka drawingless design);
The DOD will be hosting a Supplier Oriented 3D MBD summit meeting Dec 11th-13th at NIST HQ in Gaithersburg MD to discuss the new contractual requirements of MIL-STD-31000 Rev A (which will accomplish their 3D MBD/TDP paradigm shift) as well as show the "state of the art" in 3D PDF TDP and 3D PDF Model Based Enterprise document creation.
To get a "sneak peak" at what this state of the art looks like you can download these two Anark generated 3D PDFs...
http://www.anark.com/downloads/3DPDF-MBD-Samples.zip
Here are direct links to the PDF documents.
http://www.anark.com/downloads/3DPDF-Drawingless-TDP.pdf
http://www.anark.com/downloads/3DPDF-Digital-Work-Instructions.pdf
These 3D PDFs are best viewed using the latest version of the Free Adobe Reader which can be downloaded from here: http://get.adobe.com/reader/
Notice in the 3D PDF TDP:
- The associative PMI data (just click on a GD&T callout)
- The navigation Thumbnails in the lower row (which are created directly from the Pro/E Combination Views)
- The attached STEP file (suitable for manufacturing)
- Optional Attached 2D drawings (for those in 2D drawing to 3D MBD transition)
These are exciting times for the 3D design and manufacturing community and the thought that there could finally be a way to:
1) Eliminate or reduce the dependency on 2D Drawings for communicating design intent,
2) In an open and free to view format (supported by an independent and big "non-PLM" software company...Adobe),
3) That is already viewable on 98% of all PCs around the world and 100% of all DOD computers,
4) and is being pushed heavily by the Department of Defense
Could truly provide the makings for a complete paradigm shift away from 2D drawings and into a world where the complete product definition is being produced in an easy to distribute and easy to understand 3D PDF MBD equivalent...
One can dream !!
Cheers and thank you for asking the question about 3D Model Based Definition...
Chris G.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi there,
after SolidWorks announcing the new MBD tool in 2015 version, is there someone thinking to implement it?
I'm evaluating to propose it in my company ... I think that it could be applied on some internal manufacturing products ... more difficult should be to apply it with external suppliers, but on some product line, that is completely manufactured inside the company, I think this approach can speed up and improve the production workflow ...
I installed SW2015 and I discovered that this tool requires additional license ... not a great strategy to try encouraging this new revolutionary approach ... What do you think about???
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Matteo,
The company I am working for is in the process of implementing Model Based Definition. It is seen here as a way to open revenue markets. The approach is if we are an earlier adopter of the DOD requirement (MIL-STD 31000A) we can be a supplier to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 contractors. Being the first on the scene allows for being one of only a few that can meet the requirements. This increases the likelihood of being awarded the contract.
In regards to working with suppliers, if you have sent files to them previously (SW, STEP, IGS, etc.) then this is more of an extension of that.
Currently we have the Anark Core MBD software in here and SOLIDWORKS MBD (on evaluation). We have completed a test purchase using the MBD process. I am reasonable sure it cause one of the sub suppliers to update their software. In my opinion not a bad thing as they can use this with other companies and if the choose to exploit it as being a progressive company that can keep pace with changing times (read as an opportunity to supply more customers).
Is MBD for everybody? No. Can it help the average company? Depends on their business model and what they are currently doing.
At my previous place of employment (non-government related products) we made the move to making the 3D model the authority with a reduce dimension drawing a supporting document. This support document was a 2D PDF. Are you currently doing this? If yes, then you are closer to MBD than you think. As far as the suppliers go, most made the transition without much fuss. One machine shop resisted a little, but now swears by the process. I don't know if my previous employer has moved to MBD yet, but I did heat that the moved away from the 3D model being the authority briefly, but now moved back to that philosophy.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Casey, please keep us informed on how this works for your company. It does seem to be an interesting methodology. I'm not sure why it needs to be an add-on and certainly not as pricey as I have heard.
I would like to suggest a challenge to SW Corp. When some other functionalities were added (I think PDM Works, animator, etc) there was a special incentive period / offer. Even better would be to show the desire to take the lead in an emerging field by adding it to the existing packages at no cost. If done smartly, I would think this could result in increased sales and market share.
The current method seems to me to further complicate a product portfolio. We used to have SW Standard, SW Office, SW Pro and SW Premium. Now there are quite a number of choices for packages plus added-on "conceptual" items and MBD. This used to be commonly-voiced complaint about Pro-E with many add-ons.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Will do Jeff.
One of the biggest hurdles so far is internal. Trying to educate others that the change is helpful and not just for change sake.
You are not the first person that I spoke with in regards to the way SW came out with the pricing strategy the way they did. I have also found that the price has increased since the initial announcement of MBD.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Jeff,
A little update:
We have done a corporate wide (multi-division, multi-discipline, commercial and military divisions) presentation showing what we have so far. In the presentation we covered the tools one needs to consider when starting to make the move, those the process has an impact on and what the deliverables look like at this point in time (3D PDF).
In the background we have been evaluating validation software (part of the MIL-STD-31000A standard). It looks like we have settled on one that works for us.
With regard to the 3D PDF publishing software we have been evaluating Anark Core MBEWorks and SOLIDWORKS MBD. The first files we created and set to one of our suppliers was created with the Anark software.
As far training users, we are having just a couple of our Design Services SOLIDWORKS users taking existing files and work with them. They are learning the use of DimXpert (a bit of a challenge) and how to work with Annotations Views (creating, saving, etc.) SOLIDWORKS MBD does have a great way of creating these views. It is with the use of "Capture 3D View" button. When you need to update the view it is just as easy (RMB on the thumbnail and select "Recapture".
Some things to consider as you make the move to MBD, is to review your processes as these will change. Also engage those that will be receiving your MBD files. It will give you a clearer path as well as educating yourself and them. Also, people adapt more readily if they are part of the change.
This is where we are at so far. At this point regular work is forefront for most in the Design Services group so the journey isn't as quick as it could be.
Casey
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Thanks for the continuing info! My next User Group meeting is going to include a presentation by our VAR of MBD.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Simple answer no.
Most of my clients do not have the company structure for this type of work and aren't looking to change anytime in the near future.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I Have worked with parts that have MBD & it's usually a mess
We usually screen shot the views & print them out
Adobe is a horrible software to use when reviewing large complex parts
As per SWX
I am sure this won't be a free add in or included in my professional suite?
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Put briefly, we don't like them.
We are a 3rd tier aerospace manufacturer, and we're starting to get these documents in more regularly. Our shop needs tangible information in order to fabricate & inspect our parts. Our experience with the active PDF is the info in the notations are sparse, and filling in the blanks using the adobe measurement tool is cumbersome. To meet our production needs we still require a print, so I produce this in house. I end up needing the PFD & a separate solid model so I can dimension every feature on our internal drawings in order to fabricate & verify. Putting my process management hat on I can speculate that perhaps our customers save some time creating a simpler presentation of their parts, but that work is just transferred to me the part vendor. Admittedly I'm slightly reluctant to change, but put that aside & I believe transitioning to the shop working with the PDFs directly just isn't practical. It's still simpler for me the in house CAD guy to do the translation, and the end result is that active PDF really didn't add any value to the design / fabrication process.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Mike,
Does your client supply you with a STEP file as part of the 3D PDF? If not they should be. If the do, why wouldn't you use it? Check and see if it is attached to the 3D PDF. In SOLIDWORKS your client will have to save a STEP file separately and attach it inside the 3D PDF. Hopefully this changes.
I agree that using the Adobe measure tool wouldn't be the way to go. According to MIL-STD-31000A a STEP242 (not readily available yet in SOLIDWORKS) file should be supplied with the Technical Data Package (TDP) supplying the Product Manufacturing Information (PMI).
The time savings you mentioned is only part of the reason for MBD. Another part of this is to be able to convey the complete PMI in a simple package that reduces the risk of input error by using the original (or validated derivative) 3D information. This should reduce, if not eliminate the need for a 2D drawing (granted at this stage of the process the 3D PDF can still be construed as a 2D drawing). It should also take of the need to recreate a 3D model to use in your CAM program.
Here our main customer is the U.S. Navy but we are trying to expand our customer list. As such we are looking at offering our services to Tier 1 and Tier 2 government suppliers. This is one of our reasons to move to MBD. The others are time reduction during development, time reduction in change request and supplying a better TDP to our vendors.
Take a look online and see if you can find a free copy of MIL-STD-31000A. It will better explain what you should be getting from your client.
Casey
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hi Casey, thanks for addressing my rant.
Does my client supply a STEP in my PDF. I have hunted for them and so far come up empty. The only place I know to look for attached files is here
and I keep looking but there's never anything there. So I think my answer is no they are not attaching the STEP in the PDF. I'll usually (but not always) get a separate model file which will get me there. If I'm looking at something that's in the quoting phase I'll often have only the PDF and I'll need to get some measurements the ugly Adobe way and I don't get that model until we get the job.
If they attach the STEP within the PDF is there any improved functionality that I'm currently missing out on?
- Disclaimer: more ranting below -
We work largely in sheet metal. Our shop needs a DXF of the flat pattern along with a bend profile and other supplemental info and then GD&T dimensions if applicable, so in my situation we will always need a print, for the bend info at minimum. Someone still needs a print with clearly defined geometric requirements to inspect to, it's just the world I live in. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some job security and we are prepared to live with the changes we see, especially since our clients are just giving us the documents provided by their client and neither of us can change that process. I can't help but feel like the process is loosing the benefits of efficiency, and negates the input error potential that it is intended to increase. I'm not recreating the model, but I still have to present it ya know? The active PDF just doesn't translate to the shop. Changing this would require some drastic overhaul of how we do business, and I just don't see it happening.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Mike,
You are looking in the right place. I would kick back to the client and ask them to supply a file (STEP or other format that your software can read) when requesting a quote. This should help with any measurements you have to make. I will admit that querying the 3D PDF is challenging and not the most efficient approach.
If your client is trying to make the change to Model Based Definition I would think they would want to work with you to insure you get the information you need. Seeing how STEP242 isn't readily available yet this will have to be with a file and a 3D PDF (some may say this is still a drawing). The 3D PDF can be fully annotated with GD&T as well as with all of the dimensions. If your client is using DimXpert, they can use the AutoDim Scheme. It works reasonable well.
As with any major change in industry, it takes the early adopters to work with the process and help refine it. This is the way 2D CAD came about as well as 3D Modeling. Many of the tools are in place and some have been using them for a little while, but there is still refinement to bring this mainstream. As I have mention I have been working with suppliers for several years in a lower lever MBD (didn't know what it was called back then
-
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
As a small Furniture Manufacturer, the plan here is to be paperless within a few years. We have stopped updated our shop binders a few months ago.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
One other thought about electronic documents.
I once had a conversation with someone in the publishing industry about the difference experience in reading from a screen rather than a piece of paper. He told me that proof readers detect 20% fewer errors when reading a document on screen than they do on paper.
This rings true for me. Whenever I have to read something complicated like a scientific paper or a large inspection report full of details and diagrams, I print them out. I always find I absorb more information from a piece of paper than from a screen
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
The next generation won't have that same issue, unfortunately going paperless is going to happen, the question is for me is this generation ready to adapt, I would say big percentage No? Only a mere guess, but within ten years over 50% of the manufacturing industry will adapt the new standards and be paperless, if that would be the case then it won't take another 10 years for the other 50% to adapt. Total paperless is hard for us to imagine almost the same as it was to see the first faxes to work along with tons of other advancements.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
I don't think the issue is a generational one. I just think you don't absorb information from a screen as readily as you do from a piece of paper.
You may well be right about the world going paperless but not all "progress" is for the best...
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
The paper verses screen is a toss up.....
But, I will Never agree that paperless is the best - once we are paperless, the greater the temptation for an individual, fanatic group or a rouge country to take over the digital information, plus I have often had conversations with other older fab guys in the area..... Who knows how to calculate Bends, Bend Relief, Hole Cords, Acute Angles and tons of other stuff we used to figure out, so once the digital information is gone, then what. Don't get me started on this, and Matthew I surely don't want to hijack the post, so the question still is as posted
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
They've been saying society will go paperless for the past 30 years and there is more paper than ever as far as I can tell. I think the paper v. screen has more to do with how we think of paper v. interactive media and device screens, how our brains process it. I think the discrepency will get worse, not better, over time.
-
-
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Smart a$$ comment of the day
Question: So why did the blonde secretary get fired from here job?
Answer: She kept putting White Out on the screen!
that being said there will always be some sort of paper being used, be it post-it, note pads or simple prints along with pens\penciles to add dims or calculations for cutters and so on...JMO
HAPPY FRIDAY!!
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
We have no such plans for several reasons, including:
1. Some of my suppliers can't even deal with Solidworks models, much less drawingless models.
2. One of my best machine shops was maligning a customer who had implemented MBD and said that he was going to have to create a drawing from the model so he could quote the part. This is not some low-end hack, it is a large, certified, and very skillful shop.
3. Trying to read dimensions from a model is very difficult, even if they are laid out well. As far as I know, they cannot be readily broken into groups the way the are in drawing views, so they all display at once, which is very difficult to look at.
4. I'm largely paperless now, I rarely print drawings except for check drawings.
5. I see a lot of effort to make the change and very little benefit.
6. It is a lot harder to catch mistakes on a screen than on a piece of paper.
7. It's one more abbreviation/buzzword (MBD) to keep track of.
-
Re: Do you intend on implementing Model Based Definition? (get rid of drawings)
Hello together,
I have started my first job as a design enigneer in germany and some of my first thoughts were why do we have to put all the dimensions from the 3D model to a 2D drawing again? Isn't it much easier if all the dimensions are directly in the 3d model? Since then I am facinated of the MBD concept and want to learn more about it. I figured out that you can do much more with an annotated 3d model than just replacing a 2D drawing.
At the moment there is no intent (as far as I know) to use MBD at our company but I think this would be the right way for the future.
Best regards,
Patrick
