use 'correct' software cad 3d

[ceschi1959]

I'll tell you two short episodes:
many years ago (about 25 ahimè) came to the course of construction of machines a big piece of fiat.
he showed us a simulation made with i-deas of an eight-plane.
predicted that with the development of the cad within a few years there would no longer be need of the 2d as all the information was present in drawing 3d...
second episode: a motorcycling company gave me to 'pulire' a rubbing ug from the smooth edges of too much, not of all, but of the 'bad' ones. employed a week (it was an alettated motor test). happy to them...
that to say how much the 2d still conditions us.
I agree with the_matrix that problems are others, management of revisions for example, with what involves x production, management of spare parts etc. etc.
In addition, the 3d has information that allows us to better manage the project: for example interferences, thickness analysis, fem etc. etc.

 

[The_Matrix]

I'll tell you two short episodes:
many years ago (about 25 ahimè) came to the course of construction of machines a big piece of fiat.
he showed us a simulation made with i-deas of an eight-plane.
predicted that with the development of the cad within a few years there would no longer be need of the 2d as all the information was present in drawing 3d...
second episode: a motorcycling company gave me to 'pulire' a rubbing ug from the smooth edges of too much, not of all, but of the 'bad' ones. employed a week (it was an alettated motor test). happy to them...
that to say how much the 2d still conditions us.
I agree with the_matrix that problems are others, management of revisions for example, with what involves x production, management of spare parts etc. etc.
In addition, the 3d has information that allows us to better manage the project: for example interferences, thickness analysis, fem etc. etc.

the world's largest automotive and aeronautical companies have long been experimenting/applying the noted 3D.
needs a mental adaptation of the whole company, but you can do without any problem.
for at least 10/15 years the automotive/aeronautical companies that have not embraced 100% the 3d annotated produce "simplified" designs, therefore practically without quotas, but only with the cartiglio, annotations, tolerances etc.
It is the common culture that does not want us to change that is the real obstacle.
25 years ago there was war (other than 2d/3d) between the tecnigraph and cad:
"You can't design on a 20-inch screen"
"I make a trip and change a share... other than falling
"cun vare ca custa 'n cad mi e cat 30 tecnigrafi" (with what costs a station I buy 20 tecnigraphs)
etc. etc.
I imagine who is the moticiclistic company that pays you 40 hours (=1520€ at the hourly rates of torino) to clean a 2d... There's never worse at the limit, but let's look who's good, not mental kisses.

 

[blackwing]

I fully share dear the-matrix (I liked the old name more) however, me and many others, we fight every day with companies that they want continue on the old road...and they are the ones who pay us at the end of the month...(until their myopia won't shut us down) what to do? ?

there is no worse deaf etc. etc. and eventually binds the deaf where the master wants.

 

[beppino]

second episode: a motorcycling company gave me to 'pulire' a rubbing ug from the smooth edges of too much, not of all, but of the 'bad' ones. employed a week (it was an alettated motor test). happy to them...
that to say how much the 2d still conditions us.

I work with clients (also big aims), who provide 2d and 3d.
in case of inconsistencies between one and the other (he happens very often), he does "faith" the 2d, and this is quoted in a demential manner.

It is the common culture that does not want us to change that is the real obstacle.
25 years ago there was war (other than 2d/3d) between the tecnigraph and cad:
"You can't design on a 20-inch screen"
"I make a trip and change a share... other than falling
"cun vare ca custa 'n cad mi e cat 30 tecnigrafi" (with what costs a station I buy 20 tecnigraphs)
etc. etc.

In my opinion, for small realities, today the speech is a little different.
now, who has not updated has closed. work for two years to this side, there was for those who managed to do it in the most consonant times and ways, and for others, nothing.
the fact, is that still now, the "great" customer, "invites" small suppliers to use his tool (cad 3d), but then does not pass working procedures, which in the end would give benefits to all parts.
when then the orders are shuffled to sub-sub suppliers, then there is the marasma.
the job must be finished immediately, without if and without but, (they are all caxxi yours), no one takes any responsibility.
... is a difficult world...

 

[ceschi1959]

Bye to all,

the request for information on the management of a 2d view brought discussion on the use 'correct' of instruments cad 3d.
on suggestion of ipdesign I open a new thread in which to compare our experiences on nx 'correct' usage.
by 'correct' I mean everything that can bring innovation in design and not a simple tecnigraph-cad transposition.

good work at all
c.

 

[IPdesign]

I moved the answers to this discussion and cleaned up the old discussion.
Let's continue from here.

 

[Kakisan]

Bye to all,
I would say that the discussion could be generalized for any cad that you go to use and not just for nx.
the elimination of two-dimensional tables, especially in areas where you work on the standard as the automotive is a step that will surely be done, if it has not already been done as confirmed by the_matrix.
However, for all those companies working on orders, perhaps very special, and have complex products with equally complex processes, the elimination of table 2d is almost impossible in the short term because the operator who works the piece, which maybe will be the only one who will do, wants to have a document on which to control what the cam sent him in the car.
for example now I am working on a cast iron product, about 12ton, whose design is formed by 4 tables a0.
If we put the program into production, made with the cam, without giving the operators the design 2d, there would be a revolt of the whole workshop.
As for the correct use of the cad, I would say that the course linked to the sub-contractor for the reality in which I work is definitely critical, because as far as the external studies are educated with procedures and courses, then they will still do what they want, because for another company they work differently from what you ask and according to them it goes well as do others...
Well... good day to all.
♪

the world's largest automotive and aeronautical companies have long been experimenting/applying the noted 3D.
needs a mental adaptation of the whole company, but you can do without any problem.
for at least 10/15 years the automotive/aeronautical companies that have not embraced 100% the 3d annotated produce "simplified" designs, therefore practically without quotas, but only with the cartiglio, annotations, tolerances etc.
It is the common culture that does not want us to change that is the real obstacle.
25 years ago there was war (other than 2d/3d) between the tecnigraph and cad:
"You can't design on a 20-inch screen"
"I make a trip and change a share... other than falling
"cun vare ca custa 'n cad mi e cat 30 tecnigrafi" (with what costs a station I buy 20 tecnigraphs)
etc. etc.
I imagine who is the moticiclistic company that pays you 40 hours (=1520€ at the hourly rates of torino) to clean a 2d... There's never worse at the limit, but let's look who's good, not mental kisses.

 

[ceschi1959]

I agree with kakisan that the discussion concerns all cad 3d. does not want to run out in a simple 2d vs 3d. That was just a point.
I tell you another 'positive' episode to better explain the purpose of the thread.
a plant builder company (not within the details for privacy issues), was used to 'segrezza' the project in autocad. then exported the dxf, it 'clean' and then used these curves for the construction of the 3d model. in this company 'was always done so' and you could not see why to change. thanks to the propositive capabilities of the technicians of the company and with investments of time not too expensive ('mirate' courses to the design of the product), now develop the project entirely in nx.
start from a skeleton consisting of a set of sketches, use the wave to create the various details and by assemblies and then exploit a whole series of 'sub-products' of the modeling that are free: model to be fed to the fea, for example, views and sections 'strane', diba, parameterization driven by spreadsheets etc. etc.
It didn't take long, it just took a change of mindset. of course the human material was also up to date.
How many of the companies you know or work in have these working standards?

 

[Sagoma]

I agree with kakisan that the discussion concerns all cad 3d. does not want to run out in a simple 2d vs 3d. That was just a point.
I tell you another 'positive' episode to better explain the purpose of the thread.
a plant builder company (not within the details for privacy issues), was used to 'segrezza' the project in autocad. then exported the dxf, it 'clean' and then used these curves for the construction of the 3d model. in this company 'was always done so' and you could not see why to change. thanks to the propositive capabilities of the technicians of the company and with investments of time not too expensive ('mirate' courses to the design of the product), now develop the project entirely in nx.
start from a skeleton consisting of a set of sketches, use the wave to create the various details and by assemblies and then exploit a whole series of 'sub-products' of the modeling that are free: model to be fed to the fea, for example, views and sections 'strane', diba, parameterization driven by spreadsheets etc. etc.
It didn't take long, it just took a change of mindset. of course the human material was also up to date.
How many of the companies you know or work in have these working standards?

...bellaaaaaa ceschi...it seems to me to know that company there!!!:biggrin::36_1_11:. I can only add to your short story that if the human material was good, it could still achieve the results today thanks also to those who did the courses.... said this I confirm that the advantages obtained from a design realized upstream in this way are countless (I speak clearly for direct experience ). in addition to those indicated by baskets there is the very important fact that developing an initial skeleton that is being updated by the "projector" you are always sure to work "up to date", something that before, performing the pieces individually and only at the end montantoli together was not so obvious. So on the side that concerns modeling in my opinion this is a good method to fully exploit the potential of the software. I must say instead that all another speech must be made for the 2d. unfortunately we within our company instead of streamlining the designs we are forced to increase more and more sections, views, inicative writings of tolerances and norms etc. (I came to realize also five tables a0 to build a single piece and there were not so many free spaces on the sheets as they were full of views, sez and various writings... ) because of the suppliers who, after encountering some of their mistakes, try to appeal to anything that they can find on table 2d which, according to them, gave rise to different interpretations (and believe that in every plant they happen to all colors ). so in my opinion I see difficult (unless I always go from the same suppliers, but it is not our case ) to succeed in the enterprise to make sure that the 2d is only a marginal part of the information that receives the supplier, while all the big data should come from the 3d... I would like it to be so also because, sincerely, the 2d of nx is not really versatile (as it is right that it is that we speak so much of a 3d )

 

[The_Matrix]

difficult to discuss it in a forum, just writing... .
Anyway. . .
the design/production process of a building is made of various stages to which modern plm technique fits perfectly.I don't know.the collection of requirements (or voc, voice of customer) should be made with tools that allow the management or transformation in technical requirements with techniques of content management.
reqs, properly processed, become the input of the design and will later be monitored.studies.uuuuuhhh... topic that mni takes a lot.
can be made in 2d or 3d or a mixture of techniques.
the important thing is that the requirements are wired within the studio itself.
if you do in "2d" the technique that I always suggest is to use the sketcher using sections as a support geometry creator.
then the "study" (sketch flat) becomes the skeleton on which they lean and create the 3d parts.
in 3d the technique of "archetypes" is the most in vogue: presupposes good parametric capacity and ability to incorporate in know-how in 3d structures.modeling.model as you want! parametric... explicit... synchronous technology... but, apart from technicalism, you must start from study and requirement.Of course you work within a pdm... So, every time you get to a state of progress that you judge appropriate... It's released.to release the part must be certified as quality compared to corporate standards.
all information is checked (material, weight, cog, color, attributes) and is synchronized with the pdm.detailing.This phase I do not call it specially 2d... can be realized with a table (possibly "simplified") or by placing the necessary information to the model via pmi (control rates, tolerances, annotations, quality points).
pmi are managed within tc and displayed with cheap tools (portal, tcvis) or free (jt2go).
the pmi then have the huge advantage of "powering" other downstream tools so "live".
then opens the speech of the ltdr, but it is very solveable.dmu.our individual parts are part of more complex systems and subsystems of a higher level.
modern cads (at least nx... but as we are in the forum nx...) they have the possibility to carry out verifications, even batch, of collision and to store in the pdm the results.
in this phase is also done the "wrap up" of the weight.
tools such as hd-plm will be the "control tower" of the project progress and offer a user interface to the definitely higher level plm.
validation must be done with the requirements that must be controlled step-by-step and monitored through cad and pdm.mechatronica.all here you have obviously thought about mechanical design.
but by now what artifact is only mechanical? ?
electrical/electronic design is to be carried forward by using an electric 2d perfectly interfaced with the 3d that must create theharness and formboard (which is a 2d, but particular).
then opens the speech on the esm (embedded software management, but I prefer not to move on).distribution of information.pdm provides storage and distribution of information throughout the company and suppliers (production and design).
for the design suppliers would obviously be the maximum that they were equipped with the same plm tools (tc and nx) in order to work in real time with the interiors, thus creating the company "extended": now the technologies (the 4t, 4 levels) allow to work all together also with wan networks not so performant (latenze anche di 250ms).
for those of production the dialogue must be done with the output of the design properly scrambled of intelligence (pdf, jt). this output is created automatically by the pdm during release wfs and obviously attached to the newly released ethym revision. this always lets you know what you provided to the supplier. (excuse the game of words).
access to information must be made through the portal (rich or web, depends) so that the whole company "extended" refers to the same versions, always updated.production.the dream would have all the mfg talking 1:1 with the design: cam feature based and guided by pmi... cmm based on pmi... 3d operating tags and multimedia... reading and direct management of welds.... etc. etc.
even in the mfg the "archetypes" can have their fuck because... sheet molds... plastic molds.. .

What do you mean? Maybe it's the beginning of a dream... definitely is the way to be competitive without going down to the Chinese level.

 

[beppino]

... cut...
the dream would have all the mfg talking 1:1 with the design: cam feature based and guided by pmi... cmm based on pmi... 3d operating tags and multimedia... reading and direct management of welds.... etc. etc.
even in the mfg the "archetypes" can have their fuck because... sheet molds... plastic molds.. .

What do you mean? Maybe it's the beginning of a dream... definitely is the way to be competitive without going down to the Chinese level.

Well, nothing to say, that would be the best.
but, as I mentioned before, there are companies (even large), which are perfect at organizational level (pdm, releases, nomenclatures, codes, etc...), but they give you a design with incongruent, unrealizable quotas.
I would like to know what information for the cam can get you from some "projectists". . .
I think that managing upstream, all the information, for now, with the ivestiments (too few) that are done on people, is a utopia.

 

[axa]

Well, nothing to say, that would be the best.
but, as I mentioned before, there are companies (even large), which are perfect at organizational level (pdm, releases, nomenclatures, codes, etc...), but they give you a design with incongruent, unrealizable quotas.
I would like to know what information for the cam can get you from some "projectists". . .
I think that managing upstream, all the information, for now, with the ivestiments (too few) that are done on people, is a utopia.

and think that it would be enough to send these "projectists" to the workshop next to the operators for a few days to solve several problems, a pity that few/no one understand or do.

 

[The_Matrix]

Well, nothing to say, that would be the best.
but, as I mentioned before, there are companies (even large), which are perfect at organizational level (pdm, releases, nomenclatures, codes, etc...), but they give you a design with incongruent, unrealizable quotas.
I would like to know what information for the cam can get you from some "projectists". . .
I think that managing upstream, all the information, for now, with the ivestiments (too few) that are done on people, is a utopia.

This is another speech. . .
Unfortunately, as we all know, training does... but before training it takes someone who wants to have a company that works as you should work 2010. .
Damn it! all here to twist our clothes when we contact the "public" and they are not all web, computer, automated and if it happens to touch a piece of paper we adore... and then, in our work (and we should live in competitiveness) we are worse, but much worse.

 

[beppino]

and think that it would be enough to send these "projectists" to the workshop next to the operators for a few days to solve several problems, a pity that few/no one understand or do.

Here's the problem. .
but to go to the workshop they get dirty hogans with the white sole.. .

We continue so, that the Chinese are very close!

 

[The_Matrix]

Here's the problem. .
but to go to the workshop they get dirty hogans with the white sole.. .

We continue so, that the Chinese are very close!

[MODE MACHEDICI ON]a designer who earns (if okay) 1500€/month allows a couple of hogans from 300€?
Maybe you should use a different example. . .
or clarify that hogans are counterfeit Chinese.[MODE MACHEDICI OFF]

 

[beppino]

[MODE MACHEDICI ON]a designer who earns (if okay) 1500€/month allows a couple of hogans from 300€?
Maybe you should use a different example. . .
or clarify that hogans are counterfeit Chinese.[MODE MACHEDICI OFF]

Maybe it's a little forced example, but there's a lot of people who still "fuma" a nice part of salary some gadgets.
the example was to emphasize that (as rightly says axa), there is no more culture to let the technical office share the problems that arise in the workshop from their work.

 

[The_Matrix]

Maybe it's a little forced example, but there's a lot of people who still "fuma" a nice part of salary some gadgets.
the example was to emphasize that (as rightly says axa), there is no more culture to let the technical office share the problems that arise in the workshop from their work.

It can be, but I don't think for the "puzza under the nose" of the designers. . .
I saw, in a well-known great ge company, that designers are really badly wanted in production. . .
ah, and they also earn less than those who make the paths.

 

[IPdesign]

and think that it would be enough to send these "projectists" to the workshop next to the operators for a few days to solve several problems, a pity that few/no one understand or do.

I did just that time ago, having to and wanting to change company I had the opportunity to start again in workshop on machine tools .
I have thus spent 1 year and a half to "clean my hands" but to understand what it really needs and how it works in the workshop.
But how many designers would dare to do that?
to plant everything and to feel at stake by giving up a job now conquered?

[MODE MACHEDICI ON]a designer who earns (if okay) 1500€/month allows a couple of hogans from 300€?
Maybe you should use a different example. . .
or clarify that hogans are counterfeit Chinese.[MODE MACHEDICI OFF]

Usually one of these 300€ hogans if it allows them because it rounds the evening and weekends doing extra jobs and paid in the dark ... and there are more than suspicions.

 

[The_Matrix]

Usually one of these 300€ hogans if it allows them because it rounds the evening and weekends doing extra jobs and paid in the dark ... and there are more than suspicions.

Usually they are + the workers who making the canons 8 hours against the 10/12 hours of the designers year time to make the whites, mechanics etc...
ps. We are champions of the world of ot... and good at thinking that the problem is that designers should go a year to make the workers.
ah ah ah
and if the workers went a year to make the designers so they would understand when it is useless to do what they themselves ask the employees?

 

[ceschi1959]

and if the workers went a year to make the designers so they would understand when it is useless to do what they themselves ask the employees?

:finger:

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that we're going a little off-the-shelf because I usually carry the clarks... Then I go to the workshop often, accompanied by brown or mario that watch over me because it does not hurt me and above all does not do it to others.
we are often succubi of the customer, it is true, but sometimes we can be propositive and approach the project using the powerful and expensive cad tools at our disposal.
I propose a problem (already solved, I do not want to 'scrouch' skills) in which the simple modeling represents, as in the_matrix intervention, only a 'riga' (though important and challenging) of the design process.
I was asked to design a 'thing' that showed me a sketch of a designer. I have been given the maximum measures.
What would you do?