Robert Green Survey - Just How 3D are We?

[J.D.Mather]

How do you think this reflects the MCAD world?

http://www.cadalyst.com/management/just-how-3d-are-we-part-1-13713

http://www.cadalyst.com/management/just-how-3d-are-we-part-2-13748

JD Mather

Certified SolidWorks Professional

Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert

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.

[JeffHoracek]

Having read the article, I can see how this guy gets his numbers, but I still think they're skewed a little towards the 2D side. Cadalyst magazine, like it or not, has always been geared towards the AutoCAD market and until I cancelled my free subscription 5 years ago after receiving the magazine for over 10 years, it seemed to be going more and more towards the architectural discipline.

Personally, I think we're much more 3D than what this surveys states. 2D will never go away as long as there are people on the manufacturing floor that rely on a piece of paper to describe the part or assembly they are building. Most if not all the design is in 3D, whether it be SW, Inventor, Pro/E or other, the need still exists for a 2D representation of the 3D model.

I don't know how much 3D work is done in the architectural field, and if Cadalyst magazine still caters mostly toward that discipline as I was seeing five years ago, it's easy to understand why Robert Green's survey is biased towards more 2D.

Regards,

Jeff Horacek
Sr. Designer
[cid:image001.jpg@01CBE577.FAA509E0]
STERIS Corporation
5960 Heisley Rd.
Mentor, OH 44060
(440)392-7721 P
(440)392-8954 F

[J.D.Mather]

[quote="iDS!"]However I do find that defining "Totally 3D" is misleading....

2D is not going anywhere anytime soon...therefore "Totally 3D" is a far fetched category and most likely not represented correctly...[/quote]

[quote]From a response to the article, "I wonder how you define whether we are 3D or not. We model our systems, but then deliver 2D views...."[/quote]

I had to go back and re-read the article, and I have come to the conclusion the survey was so poorly done as to be useless at best and misleading at worst.

When I do 3D it is a matter of course I will also generate at least some 2D documentation, and often more than I would have generated from a strictly 2D workflow. I just assume I will have an idw or dwg or slddrw along with the ipt, iam, sldprt or sldasm.

So while I define "Totally 3D" as using the 3D modeling tool as the default initial design tool from which all other documentation will be generated. The 3D model is the single source of truth for FEA, CNC and 2D documentation as required. I am also reluctant to call anything "Totally 3D" as I don't even think that is real world under any conditions. I am searching for a definition that entails 3D processes as the defining methodology, but I might start with a paper sketch on a napkin or a digital sketch. Art-to-part. What I am not doing is laborious 3rd angle orthographic projection line-by-line, arcs, hidden, sections, dumb dimensions... ...on and on.

I wonder how much of the MCAD community is doing traditional 2D orthographic projection - nothing more than electronic extension of the drawing board techniques.

How would the "business plan" of PTC or SolidWorks be defined in relation to the MCAD world?
Do these companies expect everyone to learn AutoCAD as "learning the basics of 2D drafting?

JD Mather

Certified SolidWorks Professional

Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert