modelling in context and working method for studies

[turcoli]

Good morning to all; I am a mechanical designer with about 20 years of experience in the 2d environment (autocad mech). in the company we are implementing the 3d (nx) ; I attended a basic course, but I have some strong perplexities on the approach method;

premise: the company in which work builds large steel plants, consisting of dozens of machinery . the plants have extensions of approximately 500mt x 100mt.
in the company (about 25 designers) we only perform studies now in environment 2d, the detailing and the putting into the table is carried out extensively by ut extends; we check on the return of the works and put in the plm.
the required development times (2d) are very tight (a few months for the whole plant);
Many machines are changes of existing ones, others are sometimes heavily overwhelmed; they are often new demands of customers.
On average, the individual machines are made up of 150-200 components, plus sales (vites, motors,....)

now I come to the point:

1)from the course done and the various videos found on the internet, I always see to model the single components and almost never in the context; the need is to generate piece on piece, often starting from a concept completely different from the final result; with autocad changes are very fast; often in 1 day several completely different mechanical solution options are generated; with the 3d (premit that I am not familiar with the instrument) only to draw 2 components ( maybe 2 carpenters composed by plates, tubes..) I put 1 day; with the 2d I would have already finished a feasibility study ' . as first impression does not seem sustainable from the point of view of the time of forced evasion. Do you have any comments about this?

2) Do there exist methods or environments to perform machine layout studies in nx? (maybe a first stage only 2d)

3) just to put the constraints I lose a lot of time


I kindly ask advice on how to make the implementation of the 3d sustainable without decreasing the current level of productivity;

precise that could not be a problem the volume of hours necessary after the study (it's a question of man hours in a certain time, we would possibly increase the potential in detailing and assembling to maintain current timing). the problem is to maintain the same productivity in the study phase, as this phase is managed by only 1 man per machine, as complete control by 1 person is necessary in order to minimize the times at most; for example 60 machines (40% equal to previous imp., 40% to change, 20% new or heavily modified) to 3-4 designers for plant to be evaded in 3-4 months.

I kindly wait for commeni or suggestions of approach

Thank you very much

 

[cacciatorino]

Good morning to all; I am a mechanical designer with about 20 years of experience in the 2d environment (autocad mech). in the company we are implementing the 3d (nx) ; I attended a basic course, but I have some strong perplexities on the approach method;

premise: the company in which work builds large steel plants, consisting of dozens of machinery . the plants have extensions of approximately 500mt x 100mt.
in the company (about 25 designers) we only perform studies now in environment 2d, the detailing and the putting into the table is carried out extensively by ut extends; we check on the return of the works and put in the plm.
the required development times (2d) are very tight (a few months for the whole plant);
Many machines are changes of existing ones, others are sometimes heavily overwhelmed; they are often new demands of customers.
On average, the individual machines are made up of 150-200 components, plus sales (vites, motors,....)

now I come to the point:

1)from the course done and the various videos found on the internet, I always see to model the single components and almost never in the context; the need is to generate piece on piece, often starting from a concept completely different from the final result; with autocad changes are very fast; often in 1 day several completely different mechanical solution options are generated; with the 3d (premit that I am not familiar with the instrument) only to draw 2 components ( maybe 2 carpenters composed by plates, tubes..) I put 1 day; with the 2d I would have already finished a feasibility study ' . as first impression does not seem sustainable from the point of view of the time of forced evasion. Do you have any comments about this?

2) Do there exist methods or environments to perform machine layout studies in nx? (maybe a first stage only 2d)

3) just to put the constraints I lose a lot of time


I kindly ask advice on how to make the implementation of the 3d sustainable without decreasing the current level of productivity;

precise that could not be a problem the volume of hours necessary after the study (it's a question of man hours in a certain time, we would possibly increase the potential in detailing and assembling to maintain current timing). the problem is to maintain the same productivity in the study phase, as this phase is managed by only 1 man per machine, as complete control by 1 person is necessary in order to minimize the times at most; for example 60 machines (40% equal to previous imp., 40% to change, 20% new or heavily modified) to 3-4 designers for plant to be evaded in 3-4 months.

I kindly wait for commeni or suggestions of approach

Thank you very much

it seems to me that you use in the 3d a different methodical from the 2d: on the 2d you make the maximum layouts and then you develop out the design, instead from how you write it seems that on the 3d you want to define everything and immediately. so you find yourself defining the welding cord of the pedestrian loft when you still don't know how the plant will be!

have you thought about working in a schematic way even in 3d, that is by drawing simple indicative solids and then leaving the executive design outside as you do now? I in your place would entrust to an experienced designer the drafting of a 3d layout, with a floor that represents the floor of the customer's factory with columns, doors, chariot etc etc., and then I would define various simplified solids that indicate the various functions of the plant. Then every designer will use this master to place the machine of his own compentence inside, in the end you will see the assieme father (the master document above) grow slowly with all the machines contained within it. I have customers who work this way and the results can be valid, even if with the 3d making design and detailing outside and then reinserting it into the system is a very complex thing, if you don't force your suppliers to take the same cad and the same pdm I predict disasters... .

Then I don't know almost for nothing and if you've already bought it patience. otherwise I have seen working very well, on even complex lines, creo direct/modeling (not the simple direct creo that is another thing): in pre-study phase is great because it integrates quite well 3d with 2d geometries, and also allows very quickly the evaluation of alternative design.

As a general note, once you take the practice with the 3d then you don't go back, because the advantages are in precision and in time (although now it may seem strange) are huge, but it's okay to understand how to use the tool.

 

[The_Matrix]

here the question is not "nx", but it is the "3d".
I have many comments to make... some in scattered order:
- a 3d should be judged on the overallity of the contract not on the drawing, otherwise a 2d will be faster than a 3d, especially in mechanics. dmu? The cae? changes? dimensional analysis?
- a 3d can study in 2d... I do it often, indeed... always. and the 2d in a tool like nx is the sketch environment.
- a study can be done with a mixture of 2d and 3d

a little hard to give you advice so... on a forum... We should see each other and talk about it in front of nx.