Stop doing detail drawings?

[design-engine]

I found many detail draftsman with little work or unemployed. With that said it will get worse as companies leave the need for detail drawings and move past minimal control drawings and opt for the new ANSI Y14.41 2003 standard for annotations.

I told (leave the yellow company un-named) companies like those major making tractor manufactures that the needs for fully detailed drawings is going away. That was 1998.Minimal control drawings was the wave of the future.I hear 15 years later that there is a program at the unnamed yellow company to eliminate the fully detailed drawing and opt for the minimal control drawing. Try to explain to the same company that annotations is the new way. Does that mean they will adopt that new methodology 15 years from now? Ive been on forums

Have any companies stop doing detail drawings yet? With the new ANSI Standard for model annotations is making the need for detail drawings go away. A note pointing to the model not the drawing. All this making the need need for detail draftsman are going away.

I am at a cross road teaching my students but maybe it's years away still with annotations in model mode. I've been teaching the draftsman (or non degreed folks) annotations along with all the other items or modules they need to specialize in to get or keep their jobs. In the past, I've always tried to teach those non degreed people one thing to make them valuable to a potential hiring company like cabling or surfacing... to give them an edge. Looks like Model Based Definition coupled with windchill looks like the way for the progressive manufactures to go.

Government has mandated that they don't want drawings any longer. They are looking for exported step files with model annotations in the step file. Combination states... 3d PDF's for purchasing etc....

Who is leading the Model based environment methodology? BAE, Gulf Stream, Boeing Satellite Division, and other military contractors.

What do you guys think I should teach my non degreed draftsman types?I have a TC member in for training this week and he is planning on giving us all a demo Friday. I'm trying to get him to create an account on mcadcentral today.

comments? I suggest doing a little research before you post you thoughts.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[megaladon]

My 2 cents worth says it is still more than a few years away. i work for (an un-named green company) and i stay up on the happenings. there is no talk of this at this time.


something i would like to discuss is PTC ever going to do something like Dimensional Boundary Studies with GD&T included? maybe i'm ignorant and this can be done now? i would love to run a study from least to max material conditions plus dimensionaltolerances to see if my assemblies make sense. i feel this needs it's own interface.

 

[design-engine]

There is a rep from the green company on that Model Centric TC

 

[bfairhurst]

We tried going down this path for 2 years (parts from solids) and spent a small fortune in the process. We spent money at the vendors being sure they had all the correct software along with training. In the end too many people along the way to getting a part made to putting the assemby together to inspecting the parts that still rely on having a drawing the can hold. We are not a small company, close to a billion dollars when the economy is good.

 

[design-engine]

people do love their drawings.

 

[jsantangelo]

One concern I have as a engineer/draftsman is that I use the drawing as a final visual check to ensure all the critical design intent (dimensions) elements are conveyed. Looking at a model with a couple dims in one view and then other dims in another view doesn't quite give me the big picture like I can get with a drawing. Of course I'd say a majority of the time(roughly 70%) is detailing a drawing. I can crank out the model quickly. Do you see any time reduction by just adding the dimensions on the model versus a drawing? If I can save time then I'm all for it. But if it will take longer than detailing a drawing than I don't see a benefit unless I'm getting paid by the hour. The old saying Time = $$ still holds.

 

[dgs]

The problem is that drawings, when printed on paper, are a universal format. You don't need any special software or any hardware to view and use them. An electronic copy in PDF format is darn near universal as well. I can expect to send a PDF to any vendor and know that they can read it and quote or build my part.

A 3D model with annotations requires Pro|E or at least a PTC plug in. Even if it's free, it's not anywhere near universal. It's unlikely that a new vendor will have the special PTC software to view my 3D annotated model. What about the guy from purchasing or marketing who needs to see the part? Are you going to give everyone in the company the PTC plugin or say that some of you just can't view the parts your company makes?

Than, as James said, you have to view it on screen and you have to spin it around to see the different views and you can't easily see multiple views at once like you can in a drawing.

"People love their drawings" for good reason - they give real, practical benefits that any 3D solution will have to work very hard to overcome.

There's been talk for the 13+ years I've been on Pro|E that drawings are going away, but I've yet to see it. I've long said that a much better use of PTC's energy would be to make drawing creation much, much easier. There's a LOT of room for improvement there. If they had spent all the money - heck, half the money - they have over the last decade on trying to make 3D annotations as useful as a 2D drawings (and they are still a long ways away) on making drawing creation dirt simple, we'd be much better off.

Sometimes new technology isn't better, it's just new.

 

[zpaolo]

At the company where I worked, external manufacturers of our designs wanted drawings in pdf format, and that was also the media used in production to maintain documentation. But then for complex metallization patterns suppliers need the DXF so they can build the mask directly. It would be much better to be able to share a model with critical dimensions and tolerances, in our scenario the drawing was still needed to define tolerances of critical areas and to capture design intent.

Paolo

 

[design-engine]

All the information is located in the model and 3d pdf's rock!
Edited by: design-engine

 

[zpaolo]

I thnk 3D PDF is one way to go, although it is not so polished in my experience. But AFAIK you can't get geometry data from a 3D PDF so my supplier will go on asking for "drawing + dxf" :/

 

[dgs]

Supposedly you can save a 3D PDF as IGES or STEP, if you applied the right permissions.

 

[design-engine]

when I teach new users about Detail drawings I usually introduce the drawing mode in order to dimension the cross section of parts in an assembly.My main need here is to share a workflow of using the drawing as a design tool instead from a need to document a part or assembly.
Edited by: design-engine

 

[marker4x4]

Someone has mentioned exporting annotations in the STP file... I've tried to get Annotations and/or Notes across translation, but it never worked.... am I missing something??


Thanks!

 

[emetz700]

Bart,


I think you should still teach students how to create drawings and assembly drawings. In doing so, you would be teaching them how to use the all the features built into the"view manager" extensively, which is VERY important IMO.


Its true we dont need fully detailed drawings anymore. We do not need torecreate a single part from a drawing like years ago, butthe drawing still playsmany roles.They convey our intent (sometimes its just a picutre with a few notes), critical dimensions for Q/A, specs/tests/notes,for purchasing (initial quotes)and archiving 2D PDF files for the world to see.

 

[mgnt8]

When Acrobat Manufacturing first came out it was possible to do a 3D capture and bring the annotations along with it. Now in Acrobat 9.3 Extended, I can't get 3D Capture to work. There are some other silly bugs in Acrobat 9 that make me not want to rely on it for enterprise wide operations like 3D documentation.


I've also had some weird things happen wiith title blocks I brought in as symbols. The fonts go all haywire.

 

[pjw]

I think there will always be a need for physical drawings. If it is possible to be drafted then I think that's what you should do. There may be legally binding modifications to a drawing that you can't document in a model. The only time we struggle with drawings is when the part has complicated surfaces that can't be detailed easily. Then we just have to the best we can (still drafted as far as possible) and send the STEP file (including shrinkage allowance) to the vendor for cutting the tool. I suppose it really boils down to how you manange to convey the information that needs conveying. How can you guarantee that your model is correct? at which point does it get checked and then a verification added to confirm that it has been checked?

 

[willyt]

I saw a question regarding annotations in the stp files. Is this possible?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
How are part dimensions annotated when using top down design? Many features in this scenario will be controlled by a skeleton or part in an assembly. With this approach, features in the part would not have dimensions with controlling parameters.
Many times, features are created with dimensions that will not agree with the manner in which the part would be dimensioned on the drawing. I know this may not the best way to go, but perhaps this would increase time due to redefinition of part features.
We currently use a minimum dimensioning system, presenting the drawing with overall dimensions and some critical dimensions for inspection. We have a standard note: "Part Geometry is contained in the electronic data file. Dimensions are for reference and inspection only." This was brought on due to a large number of pockets (of different depths) machined in the parts. We then supply the fabricator with dxf & pdf of drawing, and stp files. I know this makes us rely on the NC fabrication, with features probably located with more accuracy than our default tolerances.

 

[gcook]

Bart, I would strongly encourage you to teach 2D detail drawing creation (teach 3D annotation methods as a supplement or alternative only). For over 10 years or so it is very obvious to me that there are too many people out there in engineering that do not know what they are doing andsome of that stems from the fact that any "joe-blow" can make a 3D model but how many understand what it takes to makethat "pretty picture"in the real world and what the details/dimensions/tolerances/quality controls, etc,mean exactly after it leaves the hands of the designer.


I just can't see 3D drawings working on a mass scaleanytime soon. Whenever I see 3D drawings I can't help but think to myself...."it's the same damn thing as a 2D drawing, except you can rotate it on screen!"....which leads me to another point....and that is "how many fabricators out there have equipped their machine shops,finish shops, etc, in such a manner that each and every worker's station has a proper computer?"....the answer to that is "not too many"...bcuz it costs money and doesn't make any sense when a 2D drawing can be made, printed and handed to that worker. Of course, if you work for a huge money filled hole of a company where cost is no issue and every piece is made on site then maybe it makes sense (but we ALL don't work for those companies and so therefore it makes sense to teach students in a manner that prepares them for what comes their way...that will help them land that job). Heck, if you don't know how to detail a drawing or if you don't understand the fundamentals, you are sure going to have a difficult time detailing it in 3D.


The past 2 companies I have worked for the managers at those companies when hiring would always complain that there were plenty of solid modeler folks out there but not many who could read or make a drawing (and at both of those companies the drawing was ultimately the functional deliverable used to make the part, QC, etc, except when the supplier asked for the STP, IGES or DXF so they could use it to setup a CNC program, etc, otherwise the drawing was always enough). Creating a drawing faster (or saving time) doesn't necessarilymean making it in 3D will solve that time issue.


As far as technology (software) goes I have to agree with alot other persons comments on this forum in that PTC software (& others) have a ways to go still in making this work seemlessly and even then it may not be any better than a drawing (maybe just really similar at best). I think eDrawings software had it partially correct in that they made it such that the software necessary to view the sent file could be embedded into the file itself thus taking the resource issue (need for plug-ins, viewers, etc) out of the equation...the only problem is thateDrawings didn't have enough features to put everything you needed into the file in terms of implementing the ANSI 3D drawing standards and such is concerned. I have yet to see anyone do this correctly.


Just my 2 (or maybe 3) cents on the issue.

 

[ParadigmBrad]

We work mostly in plastic part development and for a variety of clients in many different industries. I haven't done a fully detailed drawing in a decade. We only provide minimal / critical dimensions and incoming inspection docs. Everything else references the 3D model. We don't even do texture specs on the drawings anymore. Annotated screen shots are much faster and leave nothing to interpretation. None of my clients would pay for fully detailed 2D drawings. And that includes some military and DOE contractors.

 

[mgnt8]

They have shop floor tablet computers. It's not hard toimagine that when the price drops enough, it will make more sense to use these as opposed to buying a printer. Better than edrawings is 3D-Tool.


What's bugged me latelyare shaded views. Most drawings we use are for visualization, reference, & inspection. The shaded views are great for slaes & marketing but you can't edit the cross sections & the edges don't appear. Why not give it the same functionality as 2D sections and make it look just like active sections in part mode? PTC is missing the boat in this case.
Edited by: mgnt8