Does anyone have an example start template that is configured well form MBD, that they might be willing to share?
ASME Y14.41 defines two methods (see attached). It turns out that detailing in the model file (method 5.2.1)is both more difficult to input, and more difficult to read/review. This increases defect rate, and reduces productivity.... bad and bad. The best thing that you can do for your company, is to get them to gather data to verify an actual improvement before mandating method 5.2.1. At my company, leadership was told that method 5.2.1 would be more than 20% savings vs. method 5.2.2, when actually the opposite is true.
In the transition from board to computer, the work product was essentially identical, the overall workflow was identical, and the interface to the information by down stream users was identical. PDFs and the like are simplifications of the same distribution processes paper had into a machine distributable format.
MBD requires the down stream users to acquire new software, new hardware, and new training to use it. Doing so only helps with one CAD system at a time; they are not interoperable and they aren't cheap.
GM is not a good example - they are in a position to drive their suppliers. Those who don't go along with GM CAD, don't do business with GM. I think this even applies to their ERP software as well. GM also isn't a shining example of a design driven company anyway. They make metal boxes with motors and seats using the same manufacturing methods they've used for around 100 years.Yeah - Corvette is an exception. Not their main product.
Had 14.41 provided a single universal interchange format with defined tools to access and control the data - every using application would have identical layout, identical keyboard use, identical mouse and dialog boxes for one-time training, then there would have been some chance, but they didn't. It has suggestions for depiction, but not interoperability. It is designed to be a burden. It was effort wasted that could have been used to enhance STEP, which has also expanded scope and now languishes. STEP was going to have programatically extracted data that didn't require people to visualize the model; 14.41 is step in the wrong direction.
In Reply to Lance Lie:
This is only one person opinion from our company. Yes, MBD is a little
harder to read and annotate, but going from drafting board to a computer
drawing was also harder. Think about the future, the more you use MBD the
easier it gets. If you only do LDD and regular drawings, then MBD is harder
because it isn't something that you are constantly doing.
GM and other companies haven't done paper drawings in years.
Suppliers and vendors could receive a 3D PDF and model file.
Field Maintenance and Technical Publications are also leaning toward
electronic data. Updates are easier to make and push out. Every
computer/tablet allows html and pdf viewing.
That's just it. 14.41 didn't establish a format. STEP 242 may in some way meet the requirements, but STEP was intended to be a method for describing parts for manufacturing from the beginning. 14.41 is noise. I can't tell if AP 242 has even been released. Near as I can tell it is still under development, in spite of CAD suppliers claiming support. It is mostly a merge of AP 214, Core data for automotive mechanical design processes and AP 203, Configuration controlled 3D design, so I suppose anything that did AP 214 can claim to support AP 242. The STEP proponents dropped the minimum required capabilities that made STEP as created at NIST such a reliable means of exchange. IGES support could be claimed on 2D line segments alone. STEP initially had check cases that needed to be handled for a supplier to claim they supported it.
Even proponent Alex Krulikowski recognizes the basic problems while attempting to sell it in 2003.
The Y14.41 standard is a start, but there is much work to be done nationally and internationally. Harmonization and becoming mathematically robust are two major gaps in standards today. Closer adherence to standards by industry is also an issue that needs to be resolved.
Hardware used for CAD is generally too expensive. To have widespread use across all departments in thousands of companies, the hardware needs to be more affordable." http://www.etinews.com/etimail/archive/volume01/issue12/#main
The biggest advantages he lists are actually the result of any drawing standard, and are not dependent on MBD.