Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Massive project redraw from ACAD 14 to what?

9 REPLIES 9
Back to Inventor Category
Back to Topic Listing
Reply
Message 1 of 10
tap90291
619 Views, 9 Replies
‎08-28-2003 08:49 PM
‎08-28-2003 08:49 PM

Massive project redraw from ACAD 14 to what?

I just spoke with a possible client regarding a large job they need help with. They have purchased the complete design of a manufacturing system (very complex) from a foreign competitor, and must make modifications and translate all the notes from a foreign language, and produce a complete set of prints for a build to print design. There are tens of thousand's of ACAD 14 files to redraw, and update. The client is almost insisting on 2D ACAD as the format, they do not want to invest any more time in a single detail that is required, (and they have a point they did purchase a functional design). Is there a real case to be made for moving to inventor? Some of the design will have to undergo a FEA review in full ANSYS as well, (last time I checked you still had to create a model). How can this be justified in a manner the client can see, (No smoke and mirrors allowed, they have an established track record with very good man hour records for each assy and detail part and would compare after the fact). I guess I was shocked at the scope of the project and the tools they are using. I may not be able to change their mind but I want to at least see the whole picture. Bottom line with those files in hand how do you re-do the design and get them out the door in the fewest man-hours.

Regards

TAP
Report
0 Likes
Reply
9 REPLIES 9
Message 2 of 10
Anonymous
in reply to: tap90291
‎08-28-2003 09:20 PM
‎08-28-2003 09:20 PM

TAP

 

Biggest advantage to using 3D is that the parts
only have to be drawn once.  As each part is created, you can use the parts
to build the assemblies.  It is also the perfect form of error checking as
each part must fit into the assembly drawing with the same dimensions and
clearances as shown in the details.  If a designer makes a mistake in a
part file it will be obvious in the assembly file.  It also is a way to
verify the existing design prints - in a project this complex some changes and
additions made during manufacturing inevitably don't make it back to all the
as-builts.

 

If they want finite element analysis this may or
may-not help.  Depending on the complexity of the part and the difficulty
of the analysis the FEA guys may want to re-model the parts anyway but in
general, the solid should go right into the FEA pre-processor.  That should
also save them some money - FEA guys tend to get more per hour than
designers.


--
David Burton
See our Website
at http://www.sicoinc.com


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
face=Arial size=2> 
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 3 of 10
tap90291
in reply to: tap90291
‎08-28-2003 09:29 PM
‎08-28-2003 09:29 PM

You are right on target my thoughts exactly, but I am not sure they either understand the full implications of this or if they are un-willing to make the investment to model it, they are talking about a project involving literally tens of thousands of man-hours. I suspect they have no real modeling experience to give them a frame of reference. You cannot lead where you have never been before.

TAP
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 4 of 10
Anonymous
in reply to: tap90291
‎08-28-2003 09:55 PM
‎08-28-2003 09:55 PM

A sample illustration and interference checking of their product in IV 7
may change their mind.

 

Wolfe


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
You
are right on target my thoughts exactly, but I am not sure they either
understand the full implications of this or if they are un-willing to make the
investment to model it, they are talking about a project involving literally
tens of thousands of man-hours. I suspect they have no real modeling
experience to give them a frame of reference. You cannot lead where you have
never been before.

TAP

Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 5 of 10
Anonymous
in reply to: tap90291
‎08-29-2003 02:11 AM
‎08-29-2003 02:11 AM

I guess my first question would be that on top of
the notes translation do they also need to translate the dimensioning from
metric to inches. That would be a big mess in acad you can use the
conversion facture but that could then cause problems if any changes accrue in
future. you would need to always remember about the conversion and use
right dim setup. Don't like the chances of an added error.

       
               
               
               
               
        msk
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 6 of 10
Anonymous
in reply to: tap90291
‎08-29-2003 02:32 AM
‎08-29-2003 02:32 AM

Whenever I demo Inventor to someone using 2D they always throw one of their compicated drawings at me and say draw this! It seems I almost always find an error in the drawing that is obvious in 3D. Maybe you can go through a few drawings and find some serious errors that would make good demos. Particularly look for exploded dimensions, these are usually a sign that someone didn't know what they were doing. J.D.
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 7 of 10
xavierl
Advocate
in reply to: tap90291
‎08-29-2003 04:45 AM
‎08-29-2003 04:45 AM

firstly I would advise on leaving the dims in metric(just use dual unit dims) from experience you are going to pick up a lot of new errors by converting.(if you rescale things to get units correct)
secondly - you will need a person that is fluent in the other language with technical terms. do not try direct translation, because of slang or abreviations.
so I guess stay 2d and get the thing out the door.
regards
frans x liebenberg
cape town.
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 8 of 10
Anonymous
in reply to: tap90291
‎08-29-2003 08:25 AM
‎08-29-2003 08:25 AM

that was basically my point, if he has to switch to
inches from mm's than I'd want to move over to IV as it has no problems with
mixed units. Thus save a lot of headaches.

       
               
               
               
           
msk
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 9 of 10
Anonymous
in reply to: tap90291
‎09-01-2003 01:25 PM
‎09-01-2003 01:25 PM

Without knowing all the details i would suggest
that for some designs inventor would be best but for most autocad mechanical
would be easier to implement and would be adequate for most small revisions. The
only real advantage with 3D for existing designs is when they need major
revision resulting in a completely new set of drawings and/or the spatial
constraints are too hard to work out in 2D.

I find when modelling you have to know everything
about the design to completely build a part to make a small change to one
area whereas you can make small changes easily in 2D. (Not sure that sounded
like i wanted. Perhaps if you have a designed of a shaft in 2D and you wnt to
increase the size of a keyway at one end then that is easy in 2D. In 3D you have
to build the whole thing, generate a new drawing, and file a diferent file
format!)


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
I
just spoke with a possible client regarding a large job they need help with.
They have purchased the complete design of a manufacturing system (very
complex) from a foreign competitor, and must make modifications and translate
all the notes from a foreign language, and produce a complete set of prints
for a build to print design. There are tens of thousand's of ACAD 14 files to
redraw, and update. The client is almost insisting on 2D ACAD as the format,
they do not want to invest any more time in a single detail that is required,
(and they have a point they did purchase a functional design). Is there a real
case to be made for moving to inventor? Some of the design will have to
undergo a FEA review in full ANSYS as well, (last time I checked you still had
to create a model). How can this be justified in a manner the client can see,
(No smoke and mirrors allowed, they have an established track record with very
good man hour records for each assy and detail part and would compare after
the fact). I guess I was shocked at the scope of the project and the tools
they are using. I may not be able to change their mind but I want to at least
see the whole picture. Bottom line with those files in hand how do you re-do
the design and get them out the door in the fewest man-hours.

Regards

TAP

Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 10 of 10
Anonymous
in reply to: tap90291
‎09-01-2003 01:57 PM
‎09-01-2003 01:57 PM

While it is probably easier to leave the bulk of the designs in AutoCAD,
consider using the 2d to 3d conversion service of:
http://www.aspire3d.com/
This might get the models you need for FEA quicker and for less money.
It does depend on the quality of your 2D drawings but they have done
pretty well on some pretty complex geometry and you end up with a
parametric model.
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Reply

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Report a website issue