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:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Please implement ASME Y14.41 into the 3D modeling environment. Specifically, GD&T annotations. There used to be a Labs technology preview, but what happpened to that? Weld symbols seem to work well, why not build on that?
Here is a good article on MBD (Model Based Definition) that provides a good explanation on the benefit of embedding GD&T. The end game of course is a leaner, more tightly integrated, design and inspection process.
IDW/DWG should be like Sanskrit.. A "dead" language.. STOP FOCUSING ON IDW/DWG IMPROVEMENTS.. Its simply a waste of time at this point.. Any focus in the idw/dwg area should ALL be directed away from 2d drawings and into implementing "model based definition" or 3d PMI..
As much as I'd like paper to go away the need for 2D prints isn't going to go away for a long time. Especially for Welded IAMs and Assemblies (i.e. Products created with manual labor). Any parts prgrammed and createded by machines, I agree. Let the computers do the communication.
We stay away from GD&T due to the complexity and the training it would take on the floor, and we do a good job detailing it to get the intent across.
As for keeping GD&T out of the IDW environment, we don't have a need for it so I wouldn't have an issue with keeping it out.
At this time we still have a fear of putting an electronic device next to a welder to view prints, just don't think they'll last too long in that environment.
I agree with both points mcgyvr and mikeh are making. 2D prints will never go away and the drawing environment should improve as needed. That said, from what I've seen with some MBD/PMI examples out there, the 2D print is a by-product of the MBD/PMI 3D model.
The ability to open a MBD pdf file with all the 2D views and then rotate the 3D model and select a dimension that hi-lights all the associated features is a POWERFUL communications advantage.
A quote:"Kenneth W. Chase, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering Department Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Future of Tolerance Analysis It is a pleasure to address the question: “What is the future of tolerance analysis?” It is a subject about which I have strong feelings. I first began teaching a course in Design for Manufacture after returning from two summers working for John Deere in 1980. Two gray-haired engineers there, who were brothers, one a designer and the other a manufacturing engineer, persuaded me that mechanical engineers should include manufacturing considerations in their designs. They spent a lot of time with me, “filling in the gaps in my education.” I began to see that tolerance analysis was the vehicle to bring design and manufacturing together. Using a common mathematical model that combines the performance requirements of the designer with the process requirements of the manufacturer provides a quantitative tool for estimating the effects each has upon the other. It truly promotes the concept of Concurrent Engineering. At last, I can honestly say the tools are here, ready to earn a place alongside other standard CAD applications, such as kinematics, dynamics, vibrations, and finite element analysis (FEA). CAD-based tolerancing is quite sophisticated and advanced for a new CAD/CAM/CAE (Computer Aided Design/ Computer Aided Manufacturing/Computer Aided Engineering) tool. It had to be. No one today will accept an analysis tool that is not graphical and integrated with CAD. Inventor software designers and voters take note NO ONE TODAY WILLACCEPT AN ANALYSIS TOOL THAT IS NOT GRAPHICAL AND INTEGRATED WITH CAD.
This would be a major time saver if Inventor could display the MMC of any FOS or a true position or projected tolernace zone, a translucent envelope comes to mind. If this information was available at the API level could we also query the GD&T information of the assembly....fun..
Now that SW has launched MBD. It is time to bump this idea. Dual dimensioning has always been taboo. Why are we still doing it (model sketch AND idw annotations)?
Our shop is paperless and they are often measuring the 3D dwf model. Less risk of error if dimensions are defined from the engineering department.
No more need to teach orthographic projection. No more confusion between first or third angle projection...
This is a must for 3D design and engineering. Beeing able to define the function by defining the GeometricalProduct Specifications. GPS cover all areas from the designer's idea to finished and verified workpieces for testing or installation. I must say I envy the Solidwork users that have Dimxpert. See Youtube for details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5qk_cF3ijs
What are Autodesk's future plans for implementing 3D annotations with Geometrical Product Specifications?
Sadly Inventor is turning into a fancy drafting tool. GD&T is a engineering must in the model. It is the most important manufacturing aid to get product through production without a hitch. Autodesk we need to see engineering in the model. The model must be first than the drawings follow the model.
It would seem to many Inventor uses are still in the 2D drawing age to under the importance of this and vote for it.
Please personal message me if you would like an invitation to our Inventor Alpha/Beta feedback community to participate in some ongoing discussions & see (or play with) what we are working on. Thanks! -Dan
This idea has been implemented within Autodesk Inventor 2018 within the standard part environment. Special thanks to everyone who cast a vote for it.
Note: The core idea has been implemented to deliver MBD (model based definition) or 3DA (three dimensional annotations) in supporting GD&T annotations in standard parts. At this time we cannot state 100% compliance to the ASME Y14.41 standard. The Autodesk Inventor 2018 MBD solution features a tolerance advisor that generates standards based annotations given the graphical feature selections. General annotations that do not leverage the tolerance advisor can also be created within your standard part file.
