Implimenting Y14.41 - drawingless models

[gchampoux]

Has anyone deployed Y14.41 successfully?
The topic has come up, and we are wondering if it is truly useful.
Eliminating drawings would be good, but can we fully embed all required information into a model?
And would it reduce costs and/or improve processes?
We already use many of our models for fabrication and quality, but the drawing is still king.

When PTC first implimented support for Y14.41, I had several concerns:

1) Support of the standard seems inadequate to be useful.
We are at WF3 currently, and hope to get to WF5 this year. What can I expect?
For example, how would we enter traditional drawing notes? Would they all be 3D notes? That could get ugly.
What about revision notes?

2) The standard itself seems to be lacking.
a) It shows how to include all info in a model, but in Pro/E, how do you communicate which info is to be used (or not)?
In other words, how do you segregate information?
Some data is for design intent only, and should not be used at all for fabrication. Can it be hidden?
Even if we use layers, how do we communicate which ones to use, and what they represent?
b) What standardized method is there to share models with our customers and suppliers who do not have Pro/E?
I suspect that STEP & IGES are not Y14.41 compliant.
What about 3D lightweight visualization tools such as eDrawings or Acrobat 3D? Do they support Y14.41?

3) How do you document models that deviate from reality?
Sometimes, a feature cannot be created because Pro/E fails, so we fake it by creating a visually-acceptable feature.
The drawing would contain notes/dimensions that represent our actual intent.
We also add a warning on the drawing, stating that the CAD model (or just the feature) cannot be used for fabrication.
Similarly, some features are not created because they are too time-consuming (for the user or regeneration).
Again, the drawing is used to pick up the slack.

Gerry Champoux
Williams International

This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

[DeanLong]

Hi Gerry,

Hope things are good at WI.

I spent some time recently at a client that was required to put all the "goodies" in the models. There were drawings for the parts and assembliesthat looked like drawings in the traditional sense. However, no drafting entities were allowed on the face of the drawings. I.E. GD&T, dims, notes etc..... I think they were allowed a couple "non-critical" bits of info on the face of the drawing as an exception to the rule, but rarely. All this was to follow Y14.4 and to be "paperless".

The results were very difficult to acheive for (IMHO) not much tangible benefit. Afterall, drawings follow the 3-D for a reason and drafting is still required. It was definitely slower to get the product out the back door. We spent so much time trying to "outwit" Pro to get what we wanted the production cycle was impacted.

In a general sense it sounds like a good idea but....

From the Pro/E side the models were REALLY crowded and hard to manage. Notes, 3-D GD&T, Dims, text in the dims and the worst...Symbols that had to be specified with refs and point to edges and features. YuK! Really painful.Layers and simplifies reps didn't do all that was required to make it clear enough.

Using letters in symbols gets stupidly difficult too. If you get it wrong or have to delete and re-do the symbol you may not be able to re-use the same letter because Mr. Pro/E tells you that letter is already in use. You are SOL my friend.This happened in the 3-D feature control frames too if I remember correctly.

Placing GD&T in the models is goofy too. It doesn't always show in the "drawing" the way it shows up in the model or the way you need it on the drawing. It gets frustrating and ultimately counterproductive.

Pointing to things got to be really difficult too. You may want to point to the edge of the cylindrical surface but the 3D-GD&T will only allow you to point to the axis of the cylinder. Or the reference is not in the correct view orientationyou want to use on the drawing. Painful.

Let's be honest...at times you need to fake it on the drawings. Good drafting still takes skill and is part artform.

From the MFG side...I have yet to find a manufacturing or toolingperson (and you know how long I have been around)that did not print out a drawing to draw their set-up, ideas and conversions. Looking at the screen is okay for us Design types but it's not what the MFG folks like to do.

They say the devil is in the details and using Pro in this way is about 25% beyond the devil. I say this because the functionality for total paperless is not up to snuff in Pro/E yet. It's still just too cumbersome.

Talk soon

Dean

[jellis]

Hi Gerry.

Excellant topic! We have not deployed Y14.41 but I have been asked to look into it for potential adoption in 2011. At this time I'm researching the topic and practices. Dean...Thanks for your comments in your reply!

The ProE Wildfire 4 Hands On Workshop has a short tutorial on 3d drawings. It's a good place to get your little toe wet on the topic. We have also found a 3-d drawing course on PTC's LMS site. This is shown as a four hour course but I haven't taken it yet.

I've heard many comments that the Automotive companies have been doing this for years. Hmmm....wonder what tricks they've developed for symbols/notes/details/layers/mfg etc?

Regards, Jim