Community Tip - You can change your system assigned username to something more personal in your community settings. X
Posted this a few days ago and not sure as to whether or not it went through, so trying one more time. This also piggy backs a little on the "should scale be removed" thread.
A fully detailed drawing is a narrative from the designer or engineer to the inspector about what constitutes an acceptable part. Drawings are easily reproduced, easily annotated, and easily distributed.
A CAD model, so far, has none of these features, except within its own ecosystem. Even then it can be unclear because of the many ways in which the software fails to record accurately what the designer or engineer required.
It would - were one to exist. I think there is no chance that a good one will ever exist** as that would guarantee unambiguous interchangeability of models between CAD systems. There is no motive for CAD software makers to make interchange that easy.
Some can use interchange, but the ones I've heard successful are the result of communications and documents outside the model that provide critical information the model does not contain. Tolerances, materials, datums, surface finish and lay. These are items that are not well represented in interchange models.
'14.43 does not supplya description of a model viewer or sufficient display conventionsto be useful. Independent companies can't build software that complies with '14.43 and works interchangeably. The XKCD page on standards comes to mind.
** My lifetime limitation and all that. The future is a very long time.x
In Reply to Bob Lohbauer:
A well-made point. I would counter that a generally accepted and adopted model viewer and display convention would complete that narrative (See ASME Y14.41-2003) as well without the need for secondary files (.drw’s)
My .02....
I have heard the buzz "drawingless environments" for 20 years or more. Many keep trying to make it all "cool and 22nd century" butfolks, remember, just because we "can do it" does not mean we "should do it" or it is the "best way to do it". Tim Knier has thecorrect thoughts on this thread in my opinion. This is not a technology question as much as it is a Human Being question. We simply do not operate well by interrogatingmanufacturing info on the screen when the rubber hits the road. It's really difficult to garner all the correct info in that manner. That is not how we operate or disseminate information in an optimum manner. We are not machines and we make mistakes.
The big (eternal)issue is noteveryone "models" their parts in the exact same way those parts and assembliesmight bemanufactured or inspected. Ask yourself this question: Do you ALWAYS, 100% of the time, model your parts with the manufacturing AND inspection processin mind? Or better yet, once you know how the parts are going to be manufactured/inspected, do you go back and remodel your parts to mimic that methodology if your parts were not modeled that way in the first place? If you do not, then this thread is essentially pointless. In other words, you can't have it both ways. You cannot be lazy in modeling and then simply let the manufacturer figure it out.
The reason we have "Arms length transactions" in things like real estate and legal matters is because we absolutely "need" the human element in the process to mitigate error. Sure, one could argue that the manufacturing/inspection process needs to usethe 3Dmodel to be correct because that is the "master". But, I submit it is better to create the 2D that explicitly states your intent as the product developer. For me, I choose to do the 2D when it ismission critical ensuring they get the full picture with less opportunity to get it wrong.
Being an old timer, I consider the 3D only asthe lazy way to product. Too risky in my opinion.