×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

(OP)
Which software is easier to work with for making 2D drawings with GD&T?

My company currently uses Pro/e but we have been talking about switching to Solidworks. We are also beginning to use GD&T. If one software package is better to work with for making drawings with GD&T it might make our decision easier.

Thank you!

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

I have worked with both in a professional setting, as well as several other systems.. none of them are significantly different with regard to GD&T implementation.

GD&T is a scheme to control manufacturing tolerances- not a scheme used to design parts. In the drawing creation sections of both programs and every other CAD system I have used, you just find the symbol you want, and add it to the required callout. Understanding what the symbols mean and how they should be applied is on the engineer.

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Quote (jgKri)

GD&T is a scheme to control manufacturing tolerances- not a scheme used to design parts. I

Well well I will agree with you as long as you tell us where that statemwnt is written. Do you have a reference, standard, etc. to support your statement

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

I'm way back on SW 2011 so I'm not sure what it is like in current releases. For 2D drawings we have no problems designing to ASME Y14.5 - 2009 with the exception of sometimes it doesn't like to attach the datum feature label properly and we can't figure out why (re-make drawing, problem gone, or delete and re-insert sometimes problem gone sometimes not). The work around is sometimes to just attach it to a hidden sketch line but it hasn't been so troublesome that we have invested time to figure it out and fix it once and for all.

For doing GD&T within the digital definition it is much more cumbersome so we have stopped using the practice for now since most of our vendors need the 2D drawings anyway.

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

OP,

My information is way out of date but when I was using Pro E 15 or so years ago creating good drawings generally was harder than with some other CAD SW.

Haven't used SW much yet, but again creating good drawings seems a tiny bit harder than its less popular 'Solid' cousin, however much of that is probably my relative experience on the 2. Want to say drawings I see done on SW tend not to look quite as good as I can do on the other Solid SW but in that case it's probably just perception.

Greenemi?

GD is a formalized manner of dimensioning geometry.

T is a way to express permissible deviation from said geometry on actual parts.

What part of jgKRI's statement really needs backing up from a definitive source?

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Kenat,
I would say "not a scheme used to design parts". This statement I would like to be explained in more details

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Creo and Pro/E are pretty easy. They don't have all the variations possible, but there are at least the methods available to get the job done.

For the most part I found it far easier to create the datum scheme model references in the models/assemblies and the use the drawing mode to apply the FCFs to the model in the context of the drawing. My experience is that those who have difficulty either have no training or no business using CAD anyway.

In Creo, after deciding to create an FCF, the dialog box just has boxes to choose the symbol, the datum references, a place to type in a tolerance, and a place to select any other symbols (all around, diameter, et al). Then you can place the FCF with a leader or add it to a dimension. Some people think this is too hard.

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

GD&T is a way of documenting what you have designed and permissible deviations there from.

It in itself is not an algorithm, process, equation or any such thing that really helps you get that design in the first place.

Why jgKRI felt the need to make that statement in the context of this thread I'm not sure, but struggle to see what the issue with it is.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Kenat,

What concerns me about jgKRI’s statement is the disconnect and disassociation of GDT with the design and a relative association and embracement of the manufacturing suggested and what would be the implication of the above account.
Basically, and blunt put it, does the above –quoted- statement means that, GDT has nothing to do with the design and only important/pertains to manufacturing?

Should the “average” reader of this thread understand just that?

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

I believe a size tolerance would have prevented the making of a mountain from that mole hill.

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

@greenimi:
Think of it this way: the manufacturing process is THE ONLY reason we have tolerances.

From "functional" point of view it would be better to have everything made to theoretically exact dimensions and at perfect form, orientation and location.

By using GD&T you establish the limits that allow your "design" to be made in real world and to be operational still.

So, in the big sense, GD&T is your message to manufacturer.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Andrew, I've used SW since 2000 for mechanical cad work, primarily sheet metal and small metal weldments and assemblies of 100 components or less, few surface models and nothing swoopy. With a few exceptions I add the tolerance to the drawing, not the model. I've not found any instances when SW didn't have the tools needed to either model parts and weldments or make accurate drawings. We work primarily to ASME standards, and occasionally to ISO. I've been overall pleased with the software. When I've worked with people coming from Pro to SW and they criticize SW for it's limitations I show them the correct method of modelling in SW and poof, complaint goes away. My experience with Pro was only educational so I won't comment.

Regards, Diego

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

A part can be designed using GD&T on a napkin. Parts are designed regardless which software is used, but it's how you implement GD&T that determines cost and mfg of the part.

Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks '16
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Apologies for following the path into the weeds...
Parts should be designed with manufacturing tolerances under consideration. GD&T is the language used to define what is and what is not an acceptable part, and as such it should be used as "a scheme to design" as well as manufacture that part.

"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

AndrewTT,

The big problem with GD&T sits between the keyboard and chair. I would worry about the 3D modelling and the 2D drawing in general. Choosing between CAD packages, GD&T is a detail.

--
JHG

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

KENAT,
I feel that it should be "baked" into the design. Design is more than the original concept; it includes the refinement of that concept to define an acceptable part that is reasonable to fabricate.
More than once I've started with a concept and through refinement quickly discovered that it would not be practical to manufacture. If all the tolerances are held very tight, it would work very well but the costs involved quickly become prohibitive. Being able to recognize early in the process that a concept would not be worth the effort of a formal design involves recognizing whether the tolerances involved would be reasonable or not (which includes the use of GD&T in the design). That is why I feel that while it may be used as a scheme to document a design, it is also important to use it in the design development (or at least be aware of it).

"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Quote (CheckerHater)

Think of it this way: the manufacturing process is THE ONLY reason we have tolerances.

From "functional" point of view it would be better to have everything made to theoretically exact dimensions and at perfect form, orientation and location.

By using GD&T you establish the limits that allow your "design" to be made in real world and to be operational still.

So, in the big sense, GD&T is your message to manufacturer.

Precisely.

You design to the nominal or ideal condition- and then you use GD&T to tell your producer how much they can deviate from that perfect form before you start sending parts back.

Getting back on topic:

Quote (drawoh)

The big problem with GD&T sits between the keyboard and chair. I would worry about the 3D modelling and the 2D drawing in general. Choosing between CAD packages, GD&T is a detail.

This is, perhaps, a more succinct explanation of my point of view.

In every CAD package I have used in a professional setting, adding GD&T symbols to a drawing was very very easy. As a result, I do not believe that any of the packages (at least among those I am familiar with) have any advantage over any other in this very narrow area.

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Quote (ewh)

KENAT,
I feel that it should be "baked" into the design. Design is more than the original concept; it includes the refinement of that concept to define an acceptable part that is reasonable to fabricate.
More than once I've started with a concept and through refinement quickly discovered that it would not be practical to manufacture. If all the tolerances are held very tight, it would work very well but the costs involved quickly become prohibitive. Being able to recognize early in the process that a concept would not be worth the effort of a formal design involves recognizing whether the tolerances involved would be reasonable or not (which includes the use of GD&T in the design). That is why I feel that while it may be used as a scheme to document a design, it is also important to use it in the design development (or at least be aware of it).

GD&T is a tool you use to express your judgement. It does not tell you which choice is correct (like, for example, a simulation package might). That's all I was saying- that good judgement and sound engineering is required regardless of what software tool you use to create a tolerance callout.

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Quote (CH)

By using GD&T you establish the limits that allow your "design" to be made......

Quote (jgKRI)


GD&T is a scheme to control manufacturing tolerances- not a scheme used to design parts

Are these two quotes in agreement with each other?

Still not convinced that jgKRI statement is "very fortunate"

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

I even say "poor choice of words"

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

So yea, how 'bout them CAD packages....


I have no experience with Pro/E, but from what I've seen Solidworks is pretty straight forward on accessing the various objects and symbols and being able to apply them in the manner needed. I don't think I've ever come across any issues with graphical errors, or an inability to attach things as needed. For example, there's issues with some softwhere, where a Datum attach to a circle will not appear "just right" because the trianglular leader-end / arrow will not conform to the curve of the circle. You end up with a triangle on the end of the leader with a tangent flat-side, rather than fully conforming to the curve, and it looks weird.

I find NX is a bit too 'picky' about how to attach/place GD&T frames extended from a surface - these are things that make software easier/harder to 'use' GD&T in the drawing end of things. I would barely consider the differences as having any amount of weight in software decision-making, however. They are all "good enough" to get by with, and any minor issues like I mention are made insignificant by the pros/cons with the general modeling, file management, and whether or not the software is best for "the type of work" you do.

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

(OP)
Thanks JNieman. This is the type of answer I was looking for.

So far, with no real training on using Pro/e to make 2D drawings, I have found Pro/e somewhat difficult to use w.r.t. making the drawings look the way I want. specifically my trouble is getting the datum feature symbol to show up where I want (attached to a FCF) and also having FCF disappear from the drawing even though it is in the model tree/drawing tree. Is this user error/ignorance? Very possible. Do most of the people I speak with who have used Pro/e and SW say SW is easier to use in general? Yes.

I sat through a 2 day SW intro course a while back and the instructor quickly went over the drawing functionality and did a little GD&T. I remember thinking that it looked much easier and cleaner than what I have dealt with in Pro/e.

FYI- currently we use AutoCAD for our 2D drawings. I believe that ACAD mechanical is coded up to the 1994 ASME standard. We are going to implement the 2009 ASME standard.

The rest of this conversation is interesting though....

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

<sorry continuing the off topic 'cause ewh & I don't disagree often so I need to whip him back into line smile>

ewh, sure tolerance analysis and implication of required tolerance on manufacturability etc. do form part of the design process. One of the reasons I like doing my own drafting is that it's during drawing creation and assigning tolerances that I typically address this in more detail than when I'm modelling.

However, how you document/communicate the permissible documentation from nominal shouldn't really be a factor in determining the actual design of the actual hardware. For example it's the fact your design needs need .0001 flatness to work that may drive a design change, not the fact you put an FCF with .0001 flatness on the drawing.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

Andrew TT, like I said it's been a while since I used Pro E and I'd assume it's ease of use has improved since but back then SW would have been easier to use across the board.

Originally you said you were on Pro E and considering changing to Solid Works, but now you imply you're actually on AutoCAD (2D only?).

I would caution against changing from one more or less adequate 3D CAD system to another more or less adequate 3D CAD system - there can be a lot of head aches if you already have a lot of stuff in the existing system, and all your folks are trained on the existing system, your company processes implicitly or explicitly are tied into the CAD system.....

I find it hard to believe in most circumstances that the benefits of one 3D CAD package over another to justify a change. Even the justifications of 'it's more common' are pretty weak. Obviously there are circumstances where change is necessary such as major customer that demands it (so major saying no isn't commercially viable option) or if you merge with another company (or perhaps more likely are taken over) and need to coalesce your CAD data bases fully or similar.

I've been in the situation twice where folks in management arbitrarily decided to switch 3D CAD systems . First time ended up an abject failure & was pretty much given up on (tech director that made the decision quit and it fizzled out). Second time I'm still working through the pain since being told it was happening circa 2009.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

(OP)
OK, more background.

We have been using Pro/e for 3D modeling since ~97-98. We have been using ACAD for 2D drawings since much earlier. We were bought by a German company that uses SW a few years ago. Prior to being acquired by the Germans we had many that wanted to switch to SW from Pro/e b/c SW was cheaper. When I started in `99 I was told we would probably be switching to SW soon. I was also told that we would be going away from using 2 different software packages, one for 3D and one for 2D. Ideally we would model and draw in one software package. I have heard that same message every year since.

If SW is easier to make 2D drawings with GD&T on them than Pro/e it may finally be enough to make this happen. So I was hoping to find a couple people who have used both SW and Pro/e and could say what their preference was.

RE: making drawings with GD&T - Pro/e vs. Solidworks

The people on the PTC Community that have contract design businesses that deal with both generally keep that SW is a bit easier to use, but tends to fail in ways that Creo doesn't. I guess it's a choice between fast vs reliable. And the difference in speed is pretty small for anyone motivated to learn. I think what SW users miss in coming to Creo is that PTC doesn't build in a lot of hand-holding/predefined point-and-click things they think are required (What!!! Creo doesn't have a hypoid gear set generator so I can 3d print a model of a differential with two clicks - that stinks!) In contrast Creo allows the user to build anything, and that's much beyond where SW can go.

I think the result is much the same as moving from an automatic town car to a manual heavy duty truck. Want to get a pop tart? Truck seems like overkill. Want to run a business on software that has support for opening models any time from the last 20 years because the company believes that's important? Then that's Creo.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources