design in collaboration between different cads (and locations) including creo direct modeling

[marcok625]

hi, in the company we are looking for the best possible way to be able to collaborate between the different locations of the group in the phases of design.
the offices have different cads including modeling, solid-edge, solidworks and inventor.
as plm we are working to have it on all locations, so as to have a common data manager for all, but having different cads it is not easy to manage to collaborate effectively, because even if the cads have the possibility to open natively the formats of the other cad you lose many important information and what even worse is that, if with another cad apro a set, I modify it and save it in the plm the axieme is saved in the format of the so I think that if I need to make a change on a set created by a different cad from my I will have to ask to make the change to the other place. a possibility that I have, in order to maintain a certain order is to exploit only the parts that the various offices design, so I would have a set made by native details of my cad and imported from other cads, but when save the aid I will remain archived the information correctly.

do you have similar situations in the company? How do you manage them?
I hope I've explained, and I haven't done wrong.

 

[falonef]

Hi.
interesting post.

from us precisely for this reason we standardized the cad and replaced all cax with the same cad so as not to be compared with the issues you described.

I am curious to see that solutions have been evetually adopted at other companies.

ps: Despite from us users use (for years) the same cad, I do not hide that between the different locations and departments turn several step files.
And you don't know how much they turn to me?

 

[Vittorio]

@marcok625 a nice mess your situation
We all have the data exchange problem.
In my personal case, I was almost obliged to buy caia to unify and facilitate the exchange of projects... and then,Who put me in a chain, I pass the step.
All right. I prefer the step rather than the source made by a twisted mind.
returning to your problem, it seems to me that solid-edge has the synchronous modeling that should, in part, improve your problem.

 

[marcok625]

returning to your problem, it seems to me that solid-edge has the synchronous modeling that should, in part, improve your problem.

ciao @vittori, as regards solid-edge exactly as you say it has this possibility that is not bad, but I see it mostly as an initial step, i.e. once the plm is unified on the various sites with yet each one their own cad will try to work with the best possibilities of the tools that everyone has. in the case of modification to axiemi also with the use of this technology the problem of saving then the whole assembly in the plm remains, because then the assieme would be put in parallel with the owner axieme and here they would be born the case because there would be a side branch cad, with an anagraphic with a structure that goes behind the owner cad and also linked the very non-owner with the possible modifications only side cad.

If I didn't get it wrong, you're using two cads to change the files of the other locations.
manage data cad in a plm?

from us precisely for this reason we standardized the cad and replaced all cax with the same cad so as not to be compared with the issues you described.

ciao @falonef We are also thinking about this passage, but probably as a step after the unification of plm.
Can I ask if in unifying the various cads, did you do data migration from the old cad to the new? or you started redesigning only the most used components directly in the new cad.
How many posts were subject to this change and how did you choose the cad to use?
in the sense you took the cad of the same software house of plm if you have one or have chosen it according to the number of active licenses you were already using?

 

[Vittorio]

If I didn't get it wrong, you're using two cads to change the files of the other locations.
manage data cad in a plm?

No no.. the other sites use caia like me.. But sometimes I pass the step and I don't understand it despite the fact that it has evidenced the weirdness of nausea.
In any case for your problem I do not see any other solution to have a unified cad in all locations.. and not only the cad but also the respective releases.
in fact I am using an old release just because in all other locations we are using this version. the passage to the next version must be synchronized in all locations.

 

[falonef]

ciao @falonef We are also thinking about this passage, but probably as a step after the unification of plm.
Can I ask if in unifying the various cads, did you do data migration from the old cad to the new? or you started redesigning only the most used components directly in the new cad.
How many posts were subject to this change and how did you choose the cad to use?
in the sense you took the cad of the same software house of plm if you have one or have chosen it according to the number of active licenses you were already using?[/QUOTE]In unifying the cads, we also made a migration of the various files. But you don't have to expect miracles. in migrations you find yourself with the most part of the "mother" files (just to mean the 3d as step and 2d as dxf) to be opened comfortably in the "new" cad.

for the various migrations we talked about unifying a dozen old cads (most part 2d) and moving to a modern cad (at the time, about 20 years ago); ).

Subsequently according to the time available and orders it was decided to evtl. reopen from 0 recreating for the various projects the various files.

our advantage was to switch from cad 2d to a cad 3d so we took the opportunity to recreate a lot from 0 on cad 3d.

We are talking about a 3-digit number of posts.

to choose the cad we made a benchmark.
you have to choose which critical points, priorities, costs, timing etc.
In short, it takes a progertto it well done. we were 20 of people.
on the web you should be able to find documentation about it.

in the context it was also thought to introduce a pdm/plm system.
for various reasons we did not manage to unify this instrument too.
today we find ourselves with agile-plm, smarteam and many other windows explorer.

the cad we currently used was chosen at the time for the simple fact that it offered us solutions in the most part of the phases of realization of a product.
example: once you build a component you can import it natively in the cam working environment. changes to the 3d are recognized directly in the cam. Just update the geometry.

I repeat, we must carefully evaluate what we really need in business processes.

 

[falonef]

hi vittorio

Have we been to help you?
What do you think you're doing?

let us know when there's news.
Okay?

 

[marcok625]

ciao @falonef ,
being able to compare is always a help and thank you for this.
I will update the debate when we have made a decision.

 

[biz]

it is a problem of many.in the company where work you use solid edge and creo direct/modeling, and as 2d me10.In addition the analysis to the finite elements are carried out with other software owners or opensource.we do not have pdm/plm.the electrical/electronic/software design is performed with other sw.ad today the need to create a digital twin is increasingly felt, especially for those who like us develop.

 

[falonef]

it is a problem of many.in the company where work you use solid edge and creo direct/modeling, and as 2d me10.In addition the analysis to the finite elements are carried out with other software owners or opensource.we do not have pdm/plm.the electrical/electronic/software design is performed with other sw.ad today the need to create a digital twin is increasingly felt, especially for those who like us develop.

a great challenge.
I tell you in advance: without the support of your direction you will only bang your head against the wall.
the department it will also have to be involved as the head department design, development, workshop etc.

depends a bit on your forsde processes you also have a sap or erp interface.
definitely not a project to do in your own corner.

difficulties must be found and faced.
attention: no war between the departments but collaboration.

Good luck

 

[Kaji]

the main problem of modeling is that whenever you charge a step it regenerates it and assigns it new id as if it were a particular new one and this is true for the assemblies and also for all its subgroups; the software house that follows us told us that windchill manages in creo parametric (only in creo parametric not in creo/direct) 3d coming from different cads; However there are some companies that usually manage the problem because as a weighted choice they treat standard production with creo parametric, while customizations with creo direct.
I personally had more problems, even if I don't deal with it directly, with the coexistence of autocad and me10 because classically when there are dwg layouts are actually 1:100 scale and in me10 appear giants and scale all quotas and texts become unmanageable.
I personally think that in my specific case the solution to be adopted would be as follows:

- create with annotation the view from the top of the machine or group in scale 1:1 and save it locally
- upload this table to me10 and save as part the only view from above
- create the new blank board in which to import all the giant autocad layout
- then load from time to time the individual machines as parts so they are also recognized by the pdm
- finally insert the cartilage (which will be scaled of 100) and then save everything to pdm

this method has the advantage of making the pdm recognize the machines, tapes etc, making them ball, also in case of changes of the 3d just recharge the design in annotation and make it update; the only big defect is that when printing it is necessary to remember to insert the print factor 1:100

Unfortunately this method that for the few tests I have done seems to work, is not well tested because those who care about layout matters everything in me10, we mess up and loses the association both 3d-2d and part-pdm; I think the real problem is due to the fact that often you do not have the will to deal with the problem by method and find the optimal solution (at least in my office)

 

[cacciatorino]

the main problem of modeling is that whenever you charge a step it regenerates it and assigns it new id as if it were a particular new one and this is true for the assieme and also for all its subgroups

I think this is inevitable. the only one is to create "stable" groups in your structure, encoding them in the pdm and from time to time importing the steps into these groups. At least the id will always remain that, in the eyes of the pdm (I don't know if I explained).

 

[marcok625]

Hi, I'll tell you what was decided and why.
after a few meetings to understand the need for data exchange in a native way it emerged that, only some locations have a lot of need and therefore with need to move on the same cad, so the other locations will keep their cad, for the happiness of the designers.
I see this as a first step, however they will take all the sites under a single plm, for now maintaining several cads, if in the future we would have continuous data exchange needs I believe that the single cad is indispensable, as it has emerged since now.

 

[falonef]

practically remain in the comfort zone for convenience of the various caddisti.

I really want to see bringing all the locations under one plm.

what plm do you plan to use and how do you plan to implement it?

Let us know. Okay?

 

[marcok625]

practically remain in the comfort zone for convenience of the various caddisti.

for such a complex project, cadrites would have learned to use another software if managers had considered it necessary, simply for now there is no such high data exchange to have the need for change cad in some locations.
the standardization of the plm we are implementing with the standardization/change of the erp another super project. There is so much meat on fire, and we would not have the resources necessary to better manage the project internally, so we are entrusting ourselves to large external consulting companies.
the passage to the new erp and plm will not be for all locations at the same time so that you can manage "more easily" the issues that will emerge to improve the passage to each stage. I'll keep you updated.

 

[PIETRO2002]

for such a complex project, cadrites would have learned to use another software if managers had considered it necessary, simply for now there is no such high data exchange to have the need for change cad in some locations.
the standardization of the plm we are implementing with the standardization/change of the erp another super project. There is so much meat on fire, and we would not have the resources necessary to better manage the project internally, so we are entrusting ourselves to large external consulting companies.
the passage to the new erp and plm will not be for all locations at the same time so that you can manage "more easily" the issues that will emerge to improve the passage to each stage. I'll keep you updated.

I wish you a lot, surely relying on the great consulting companies will assure you of the costs well salted, but not always at such expenses will follow the results hoped, the thinking that some gurus have the magic wand can be misleading, I think before deleting outside the strategic choices, you have to do the appropriate tasks at home, but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[marcok625]

I wish you a lot of good wishes, surely relying on the great consulting companies will assure you of the costs well salted, but not always at such expenses will follow the hoped results, the thinking that some gurus have the magic wand can be misleading, I think before deleting outside the strategic choices, you have to do the appropriate tasks at home, but perhaps I'm wrong

You're good. of thought and solutions, we have made these years. It is not easy to fully understand the complexity of these projects, especially if you do not know the details. We're not doing the blindfolded project by letting us drive, but we're doing the whole thing together. I assure you that in order to be able to make such projects without someone who really knows a lot you risk not getting to a positive result, clearly there is no certainty even with a consultancy company that ends in the best ways. at least by choosing the right partners you will have the opportunity to exploit all their experience and to avoid remaking things several times in the future. There is no figure of the guru, but several internal and external figures with key roles to complete the project. on costs, I wouldn't worry too much about those of the consulting company, but both of the hardware and software to have to buy for the implementation in the various locations, which in any case you would have and that are the big slice of the cake.

 

[PIETRO2002]

You're good. of thought and solutions, we have made these years. It is not easy to fully understand the complexity of these projects, especially if you do not know the details. We're not doing the blindfolded project by letting us drive, but we're doing the whole thing together. I assure you that in order to be able to make such projects without someone who really knows a lot you risk not getting to a positive result, clearly there is no certainty even with a consultancy company that ends in the best ways. at least by choosing the right partners you will have the opportunity to exploit all their experience and to avoid remaking things several times in the future. There is no figure of the guru, but several internal and external figures with key roles to complete the project. on costs, I wouldn't worry too much about those of the consulting company, but both of the hardware and software to have to buy for the implementation in the various locations, which in any case you would have and that are the big slice of the cake.

I fully realize the complexities of the problems you have to face, different locations, different cads, a new plm/erp system etc., the meat on fire is so, logically it does not need a guru but a team of people capable both internal and external, if you start with the wrong foot then it is a disaster to fix things. As they told me, eating a whole elephant is not easy, maybe doing it in small pieces you can better... so leather.. wanting to keep different cads and pretend to manage them with the same plm does not seem a good start.. Maybe it's better to start with the most important operational unit, implement the whole, verify the results and then cascade, implement in other locations ( same cad, same plm, same erp... ) but surely you have already evaluated this solution.

 

[marcok625]

If you start with the wrong foot then it's a disaster to fix things. As they told me, eating a whole elephant is not easy, maybe doing it in small pieces you can better... so leather.. wanting to keep different cads and pretend to manage them with the same plm does not seem a good start.. Maybe it's better to start with the most important operational unit, implement the whole, verify the results and then cascade, implement in other locations ( same cad, same plm, same erp... ) but surely you have already evaluated this solution.

I agree perfectly, in fact the project will be managed in various steps, where the first step to the new erp and plm will do it two locations, in essence the only two that currently work on the same erp. for the cad, it will be more complicated to manage different software (in the first step will be 2 different), but the plm allows it and with the help of partners with experience in multicad projects, I am confident that will be applied the best logics future to avoid big problems. Consider that users will already have to learn who the new erp who the new plm had to learn a new cad in the same period, it would have been even more impatient. It is not excluded that in the future we can also uniform that, we will see way by doing, but for a speech of exchange data on such projects in the different locations.