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

[AndrewTT]

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!

 

[SwinnyGG]

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.

 

[greenimi]

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

 

[Keith1029]

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.

 

[KENAT]

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My information is way out of date but when I was using Pro E 15 or so years ago creating good drawings generally was harder than with some other CAD SW.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

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[greenimi]

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

 

[3DDave]

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.

 

[KENAT]

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

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[greenimi]

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?

 

[JNieman]

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

 

[CheckerHater]

@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

 

[DiegoLGraves]

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

 

[ctopher]

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

 

[ewh]

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

 

[KENAT]

It's a scheme to document the design, I still don't buy that its a way to get to the design.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[drawoh]

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

 

[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).

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

 

[SwinnyGG]

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:

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.

 

[SwinnyGG]

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.

 

[greenimi]

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

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"