topic Re: MBD Model Based Definition implementation in Inventor Forum

MBD Model Based Definition implementation

SharkDesign — Thu, 03 Jun 2021 14:38:21 GMT

We're wanting to mostly do away with 2D drawings and go to MBD within Inventor.

I just wanted some feedback from people who have already done this.

What are the pitfalls?

Most of our stuff is CAD/CAM so we'd only really be putting tolerances on and other major dimensional info.

We're not sure how our suppliers will react to this, although if it's as widespread as reports make out, there's probably other customers already doing it.

Our main roadblock is inspection. We currently send most in-house parts to our inspection department where they use various measuring implements to check parts against paper drawings. They wouldn't be able to do this if no drawing existed and it seems a right pain in the arse to have to keep measuring features on a computer and then checking them. Plus it would be easy to miss features doing it this way.

How have other people got around this?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Re: MBD Model Based Definition implementation

SharkDesign — Fri, 04 Jun 2021 06:35:17 GMT

I guess nobody is using MBD in that case...

Re: MBD Model Based Definition implementation

mcgyvr — Fri, 04 Jun 2021 14:54:02 GMT

@SharkDesign wrote:

I guess nobody is using MBD in that case...

So I too wanted to make the big switch.. I haven't looked into it in a few years but Inventor just wasn't "ready" as it lacked many features one would need. The responses I got from Autodesk is that its still new and the process is still being worked out and that as people started to require more functionality Autodesk would "follow" and add that functionality. I think this is a process that really won't be ready for years as there seems to be little demand so far despite the fact that quite a few of us could see this as a massive time savings/error reduction,etc... I'm not sure the downstream consumers are capable of changing enough/accepting the non-2d content.

Years ago (probably close to 10 years ago) I saw a demo using Solidworks with MBD and InspectionXpert to generate FAI/Incoming inspection documentation and it was quite impressive and at the time required a 2d drawing (probably still does) but it was a 2d drawing generated from a MBD annotated 3d model.

Re: MBD Model Based Definition implementation

swalton — Sun, 06 Jun 2021 20:43:36 GMT

I find there is one main issue with using MBD .

Downstream users can't use the data.
1. Our downstream users are welders in a repair shop or outside vendors. They don't have computer screens to review models or a quoting process that can use the data.

I think the main reason to start using MBD is to make it easier to move legacy data from one CAD system to another without losing all the tolerance and dimension schemes. It seems that MBD give users a way to address the "incompatible" drawing format issue between Solidworks, Creo, Inventor and all the other parametric modelers.

I do find 3d annotations useful to track critical dimensions in assemblies, communicate tolerances to the drafting department, and add critical notes to help communicate engineering intent in complex designs. However, these uses are all to convey engineering design intent, not manufacturing or assembly intent.

Re: MBD Model Based Definition implementation

gcoombridge — Mon, 07 Jun 2021 05:00:51 GMT

I've played with this a bit and its worth remembering that MBDs are exported into 3D pdfs. You can also export BOMs and view reps from memory. The pdfs can then be printed in several views for the shop floor.

The challenge with 3D PDFs is finding the energy to recreate all of your drawing templates etc..

Re: MBD Model Based Definition implementation

SharkDesign — Mon, 07 Jun 2021 06:03:42 GMT

Thanks for everyone's replies.

Any thoughts or knowledge on physical inspection, or revision tables?

Re: MBD Model Based Definition implementation

steveh3 — Mon, 07 Jun 2021 11:53:42 GMT

Gang...

We have been kind of looking at this for a few years too, but it's a major change which is complete flip-flop to what the floor is used to. I would say 90% of MBD is there in Inventor. Couple of things as mentioned above with tolerancing, revision ballooning are a couple of things that come to mind. There was also a problem with weld symbols too, Haven't checked to see if that was fixed in 2022. Other than the cultural change, viewing the MBD data, was really the problem. With the release of the Vault Mobile apps and the Forge Viewing technology, I was hoping the viewing MBD may there......

So, you spiked my curiosity and it's been a year or two since we looked at MBD..... I decided to try it in VP2021 with the new apps. I have a model that has MBD on it. Viewed the .iam in a Mobile App and NOT seeing the MBD data 😞

Let me do some more testing and see if it's just a setting.

If it's there....then I feel the viewing issue may be a thing of the past.

Stay tuned 🙂

Best,

Re: MBD Model Based Definition implementation

tlebrun — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:41:28 GMT

We are starting to explore MBD and have hit the following red flags:

1. Only works on the part level, not an assembly. Weld 2 parts and post machine it = S.O.L.

2. No centerlines. Can't show a bolt circle

3. Can't add GD&T to dimensions, only surfaces.

4. Can't use dual-units

5. Can't break any rules! (no composite datums [A-B])

6. Can't add GD&T to an axis.