Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

CAD DATA EXCHANGE

Status
Not open for further replies.

dimensioningman

Aerospace
Sep 14, 2010
2
Can you give me some insite to CAD Data Exchange or interoperaability
 
As a general rule, we preferred native, parasolid, stp, iges in that order.
Native files we would translate into parasolid by way of TransMagic. We found better results by translating the files ourselves than having the submitter translate them before submittal (isn't that a word? Spell check doesn't think so).
Parasolid is a very robust format and seldom gave us any problems.
Iges was used only as a last resort, and even then it was often easier to recreate the file than use the translation, using only key surfaces from the iges file.
I hope that helps some.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
 
ewh: yes, that is the information I'm interested in. I sure appreciate your effort your detail.
 
Ok well in that case.

I use the other Siemans CAD product than ewh did and would list preferred formats in the same order as ewh.

Not sure all CAD systems support parasolid though.

However, certain industries or even companies have other preferences.

According to our purchasing guy - not that I necessarily believe he knows what he's on about - most of our plastic part vendors prefer .igs.

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
 
For our (non parasolid based kernel) CAD system I would prefer STEP over Parasolid. There are many situations were a simple 2D transfer is all that's required. For that DXF is almost universally used.
 
As a general rule, I never send out native files, even if receiver has the same application. I've been burned one too many times by intrepid tinkerers who somehow tweaked my model and then delivered junk as a result.
 
Tick, that's my rule of thumb too. Can't seem to get others around here to think similarly sometimes though.

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
 
Tick, that is a good rule, but it is becoming a tenuous form of control with the rise of 'direct modeling' in many CAD packages.
 
Sure it's not perfect, and there are times when it's justified to use the native format, such as if it's more of a design collaboration than just 'make it as modeled', there's just more to think about in that situation.

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
 
Our way around that was strict control of submitted files. If questions ever arose as to unauthorized changes to the received file, the last saved by and date was easily verified by file history. Any modifications made by us would only be to copied or translated files.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor