2d to 3d, organising drawing and models 3

[Dutchmech]

Hello,

I've just been in touch with a company that is switching from 2d (ACAD) to 3d (Solid Edge) and that has made me curious about how everybody has dealt with some of the changes and new possibilities.

In 2d you have main assembly, sub-assemblies and parts and each of these is a drawing. With 3d each of these is a 3d model and a 2d drawing. How have you set up the file-/and drawingnames? One example I've seen is [id number][type] where type can be for instance M for model and D for drawing.

How have you done numbering of drawings/parts that are made using a parametric model?

Have you set rules for colour use like set colour for type (welded frame, coverplates, bolts and nuts, motors), function (transport - conveyor belt, support - frame, protection - plate) or something else?

And one more. About modular parts (like a complete encased drive unit with wheels, motor and mount) which are made to stock. Do you make a simplified model of this for use in assemblies? That is, treat it as if it's the same as a part you buy like a cylinder or motor?

Thanks, Ming-Hua

 

[swertel]

File management is a big issue when moving from 2D to 3D. One that is often overlooked and can cause serious heartache if not thought through in advance.

How have you set up the file-/and drawingnames? One example I've seen is [id number][type] where type can be for instance M for model and D for drawing.

For solid edge, you do not need to designate among a drawing, part, or assembly in the filename because the extension tells you if it is an assembly, part, draft (drawing), sheet metal, or weldment. If you had UG, on the other hand, then you may want to designate in the file name.

Solid Edge does prefer to have the revision in the file name, set apart from the rest of the description by a deliminator [id number][deliminator][revision].ext. The deliminator and revision is something you have to remember to add to the filename, but if you make sure the deliminator is set in the Tools|Options to match the one you use on the filename, Solid Edge partially takes care of filenaming when revising a part.

How have you done numbering of drawings/parts that are made using a parametric model?

All models are parametric in Solid Edge. Use the same filenaming convention that you defined above. If you plan on linking across parts, just be careful. Make sure you don't link attributes of a part to one assembly if it is going to be used in another assembly also. That will cause you problems down the road when the first assembly changes, but the second doesn't.

Have you set rules for colour...

Colors were used in ACAD to control linewidths during plotting. Colors in 3D MCAD packages are used to make realistic looking renderings. Settings rules/standards for applying colors will just add unecessary work.

Do you make a simplified model of this for use in assemblies?

For purchased parts, I try to download from the manufacturer. Otherwise, I only put enough information into the model as I need to define it in my assemblies and drawings. Anything more is extra work for you and extra effort on you computer, thus wasting time.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[Dutchmech]

Hello Swertel,

thank you for your reply. Setting up the file management is definitely something the company will have to do carefully. Also since they want to start using ERP software later in the year.

Any other advice on what to keep in mind when switching from 2D to 3D?

Best regards,
Ming-Hua

 

[swertel]

Don't believe the marketing when they say X-company saved so many hours by switching to 3D. Make sure you management doesn't fall for that either.

It is true that drawing creation is quicker and easier, but the time saved creating the drawing is spent creating the model, something you didn't do in 2D. You also have to make sure all the models properties are correct in order to propogate to the drawing. Just like switching from board drawings to 2D CAD, the time wasn't saved in the creation of a new print, but modifying one.

You will find 3D beneficial and time saving when you think of the entire process, from concept to shipping product. Utilizing your 3D data for sales, marketing, shipping preperation, as well as engineering will be where the real value shows up. Being able to keep it straight through good file management and CAD standards is key. Without those, you just end up with a large pile of data that you don't know how valid it is at any given time.

I personally won't go back to 2D. There is too much information that can be captured in the 3D model so I don't have to memorize it (also a shortcoming because I start to loose the whole picture of the machine in my mind) or write it down on a bunch of loose papers that I lose on my desk. Any time I need a reminder as to what I was thinking, I just interrogate my model.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[ctopher]

Just my .02.
I suggest NOT adding the revision to the file name. THis over time becomes a headache and confusing IMO. I strongly suggest getting some type of PDM software to handle that for you, either 2D or 3D files. We did file mngmt without, not use PDMWorks. I will try to never go away from it.
good luck

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP1.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site

 

[swertel]

ctopher,

If you are referring to not putting revision in filenames for Solid Works, I agree. When I was working with Works the software was not too fond of revisions in filenames.

Solid Edge, on the other hand as well as UG/NX, thrive on the revision being in the filename. Their whole file management and linking system is based on it, and I'm not talking about using the PDM system that comes with it. This is plain, out of the box, master model approach file and link management.

--Scott

For some pleasure reading, try FAQ731-376

 

[IRstuff]

My guess is that the design effort time will actually increase. The reason is that you'll be trying to solve fit problems and the like in the design phase, where you should be doing, as opposed to finding out during, or after, assembly.

The OVERALL cycle time will go down, because you won't have to make altered item drawings to fix problems or re-spin parts that couldn't be made to fit.

TTFN