3D MCAD is not “done.” Not by any means.
Well over 40 years after the introduction of commercial 3D MCAD products, and 25 years after the introduction of feature-based solid modeling MCAD, many MCAD programs aren’t totally 3D. They’re 2D/3D.
What I mean by this is that their 3D capabilities are inadequate to represent real world products fully in 3D. They have to rely on 2D drawings as a crutch, because their 3D annotation tools (GD&T and PMI) are either weak, or missing entirely.
In short, with many CAD systems, 2D is the master. Not 3D.
Recently, Dassault Systemes posted an excellent video showing the benefits of using a 3D master approach. I think it provides a good starting point for the discussion.
Having watched the video I saw nothing you would consider new and I saw no compelling demonstration as to why 3D is a replacement for 2D sketches and documentation.
The initial statements define a management problem not a 2D document problem. 3D can/does and will have the same problems, avoided, maybe, if all stakeholders are using the same software and models and even then…..3D will never always be “up to date” etc.
For me, the dump 2D approach by CAD software developers has more to do with their disgust in individuals/companies making choices in line with their real business situations in preference to blindly following software developers’ un-qualified claims.
There are a host of cost/human factors supporting the continued use of 2D drawing/documenting techniques. One of the most significant being users can see more clearly – than CAD developers – what their real businesses needs/cost are. 3D, as with any business tool, should not set out to replace but compliment and develop then, if and, when the opportunity presents, it may find a greater role.
Developers should stop whinging and producing marketing guff defining their take on what they see is a problem when it is nothing of the sort.
Changes in software interfaces are another prime examples of a similar software developer disconnect with productivity reality and user up-take.
Recently I demonstrated – using another persons 3D model/example – it was faster to complete the 3D model using AutoCAD’s original (1980’s text only) menu than using the more recent pop-down/icon system and still faster when compared with the ribbon interface. Autodesk’s spokesman response; “you will never get Autodesk to go backwards”.
Backwards? That’s precisely to direction CAD vendors have been taking customers and, it would appear they are not willing to take customers ‘forward” even when it can be shown to be more productive?
Please remind me why do we use CAD software? Is it for fashion, passion or productivity?
3D printing is another “fashion” statement being presented – by marketeers – in the same stupid manner as has/is 3D CAD.
Cars/oil use have benefits, nuts and chocolate ah! great and CAD has been the way forward. However, each have down sides and not all are safe for everybody; vendors of 3D CAD need to understand that and recede into their proper place as supporters of customers in preference to acting as un-qualified drivers.
Let users decide on the path forward based on the availability of genuinely useful productivity tools and fact not glossy marketing devoid of real facts.
To “drive accuracy into your business” needs real productivity tools which improve the bottom line ($’s) I don’t see the video even coming close to addressing that reality.
2002-2005 Hewlett Packard San Diego,CA; All R & D design work used SolidWorks 3D files as the Master Reference. I was lucky to work on this pilot project. The results were excellent. Using the onsite machine shop, the Y14.41-2003 Detailed 3D SolidWorks files were sent to the machine shop. Each machine/operator also had their own seat of SolidWorks. Many times the machined parts were back on my desk within 2-3 days.
Sadly, even after all the success, the entire project was shut down and outsourced to Israel, to save money. Hundreds of people were laid off, including me.
SDRC started down this road with “Master Annotation” functionality designed to support the FORD C3P program for it’s supply chain.
At that time, model view functionality was added to present the 3D CAD model in different views with annotations and sections exactly how it is presented in a drawing, but in the 3D space. Users could define model views, annotate them, and output the whole thing to VRML, which made sense at the time.
Additionally, sketch dimensions could be promoted to be visible in the model view space, and users could optionally just display everything resulting in something a lot like the screen shot you shared.
This effort was ahead of it’s time as the ASME drafting standards body really had not yet started the serious work to define PMI / MBD / 3D annotation standards, leaving vendors to do it as they would. SDRC basically took the existing 2D standard and applied it to the 3D model as if it were a drawing. IMHO, this was plausible and it worked fairly well to cut down and often eliminate 2D drawings entirely.
Dassaut took a parallel path with CATIA and Boeing / Air Bus toward the same end, though I have less familiarity with that, the approach was much the same, leaving us with mixed terminology today.
PMI, 3D Annotation, MBD. PMI = Product Manufacturing Information, and MBD = Model Based Definition…
Interestingly, this was being done far earlier than that. CADKEY users were able to make 3D dimensions in versions as early as CADKEY 4, where a construction plane could be defined and used for dimension text visible in 3D views.
The old CADKEY models featuring 3D dimensions will still translate into many PMI / MBD capable systems today, and IGES and STEP both feature support for 3D annotations == capability that goes unused today in current CAD systems all of which appear to favor outputs to proprietary formats, or neutral formats, such as JT, leaving STEP and IGES behind.
Work continues in the ASME standards in that most things are becoming pretty well defined now and current software is capable of rendering those standard annotations fairly well too.
Back in the wireframe days, I too had a good experience with HP and 3D model definitions and this was before solid modeling had really become a reality for small to mid-sized companies.
IMHO, the big challenges now are getting the downstream users better able to make use of the 3D models. Often, annotated models are distilled down to shop type drawings used for inspection, reference, NC programming, etc… because the general utility of 2D is still very high and lean compared to 3D.
The rise of automated inspection CMM capability coupled with the ability to make use of the 3D annotated models continues to improve on this capability, and today paperless manufacturing is a reality for some. Progress! Slow, but it’s there.