EXPORT MBD TO STP FILE 242

[Anonymous]

INVENTOR 2018 BUILD 112

WHEN EPORTING MY SOLID MODEL WITH MBD HOLE DIMENSION WITH +/- TOLERANCE AND PROFILE AND POSITION GD&T TOLERANCE, ONLY THE MODEL IS EXPORTED, NON OF THE GD&T SHOWS UP.

IT WILL SHOW ON A 3D PDF BUT NOT IN THE STP FILE.   WHY?

I'M USING STP 242 PROTOCAL

THANKS

Robert

[mcgyvr]

Seems that Inventor 2018.2 does not fully support the 242 standard yet and can only import the geometry and not the MBD information..

I was able to export to 242 and open that file in Solidworks Edrawings viewer and see the MDB information just fine..

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! Could you provide an example here? How do you know the MBD is not included in the STEP file? If you import it back, you will not see the MBD because Inventor 2018 is not yet able to import STEP 242 with MBD.

Many thanks!

[mcgyvr]

---

@johnsonshiue wrote:

Hi! Could you provide an example here? How do you know the MBD is not included in the STEP file? If you import it back, you will not see the MBD because Inventor 2018 is not yet able to import STEP 242 with MBD.

Many thanks!

---

@johnsonshiue Johnson the confusion here (I bet) is that one would expect that if you can export to the 242 format that you could import it fully too (geometry + MBD information)..

I haven't found where its clearly documented that Inventor does not fully support the MBD aspect of the 242 format..

I found this yet I don't see any footnote or anything showing that you don't fully support importing 242 step.. Just a check mark making it seem like you do..

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2018...

I know for a fact that the MBD information IS included in the exported STEP file because I can open it in your competitions free viewer and see the MBD annotations..

But do so in Inventor and well... nothing.. 

This is one of those "half finished" complaints I have about Autodesk.. You have had some support for the 242 format for years now but still don't fully support it even after introducing MBD in Inventor.

[johnsonshiue]

Hi Brian,

You got a good point here! Although it does not say STEP 242 is not supported, it also does not explicitly say it is supported. There is room for improvement in terms of how it was communicated. I will work with the project team and see what we can do.

Many thanks!

[mcgyvr]

---

@johnsonshiue wrote:

I will work with the project team and see what we can do.

Many thanks!

---

besides getting 242 fully supported..

How about this? 

[andrew_faix]

We're certainly aware that we don't support import of 3DA/MBD data.  However, to describe this in terms of being "fully supported" or not is to not understand the scope and evolution of the 242 standard.  The standard itself is still changing and evolving and the scope of what is covered in 242 is massive and I'd be very surprised if any CAD vendor could claim "full support" even on export alone.

The reason we don't currently support 3DA/MBD import via STEP 242 is just to dollars and sense.  Import doesn't come for free with export.  It's a lot of work and (more importantly), we (as a product team), don't understand the use case for import yet.

We still have a lot to learn about how users expect to use our 3DA and MBD tools, but we did implement export of these data via 242 because the down-stream workflows were obvious.  Product Manufacturing Information exported in 242 can and will be read into CAM, CMM, tolerance analysis solutions, etc.

Upstream workflows- we don't have as clear a picture of the use case.  We've done a lot of musing internally over the things user *might* want to do with imported MBD and 3DA, but not enough to invest in this area at this time. 

That all said, I empathize completely.  Because we don't support import of 3DA / MBD, we have no way for you to validate that the export was successful.  I believe that is a valid use case, but in all likelihood, we'll need better justification than that to invest here right now.

[mcgyvr]

---

@andrew_faix wrote:

We're certainly aware that we don't support import of 3DA/MBD data.  However, to describe this in terms of being "fully supported" or not is to not understand the scope and evolution of the 242 standard.  The standard itself is still changing and evolving and the scope of what is covered in 242 is massive and I'd be very surprised if any CAD vendor could claim "full support" even on export alone.

The reason we don't currently support 3DA/MBD import via STEP 242 is just to dollars and sense.  Import doesn't come for free with export.  It's a lot of work and (more importantly), we (as a product team), don't understand the use case for import yet.

We still have a lot to learn about how users expect to use our 3DA and MBD tools, but we did implement export of these data via 242 because the down-stream workflows were obvious.  Product Manufacturing Information exported in 242 can and will be read into CAM, CMM, tolerance analysis solutions, etc.

Upstream workflows- we don't have as clear a picture of the use case.  We've done a lot of musing internally over the things user *might* want to do with imported MBD and 3DA, but not enough to invest in this area at this time. 

That all said, I empathize completely.  Because we don't support import of 3DA / MBD, we have no way for you to validate that the export was successful.  I believe that is a valid use case, but in all likelihood, we'll need better justification than that to invest here right now.

---

@andrew_faix

Our sheet metal/machining vendor and a few others have already requested/discussed with me the importing of my annotated step file into their software (Solidworks 2018 because it supports importing of MBD through 242) to negate the need for 2d drawings/pdf files process. The CAM programming or final preparation is done in the CAD software for them so they are using CAD to view the MBD and generate all the information they need for the manufacturing/quality control,etc... 

The Step242 file is the "sole" document needed..

As CAM is also included in Inventor via HSM that is one valid case where Inventor should support the importing of MDB.. 

If I was a vendor using Inventor and HSM to import customer files I cannot at this time accept any annotated 242 files so if that was an important function of my business then I would using the competition as you have given me no choice.. 

For many the CAM is done in the CAD and its a one stop shop for everything now so it should support the importing of the MBD... 

As users we can't move the process of using MBD forward if the software doesn't support it.. Or we do its just not done via Autodesk software as you are now behind the curve again.

Its being used also by quality control to inspect (and will be here eventually.. but today I would need to use your competitions software to allow them to view the files I'm creating as there is no Autodesk solution that I'm aware of)

There are still too many "issues" with your MBD offering that I'm not adopting it yet and can't from an export side..

I got excited (finally its here I said) then found out its only supporting parts so it was useless to me as many of my sheet metal parts are assemblies (pem hardware added to an ipt,etc..) so I had to tell all my vendors requesting "hopefully next year guys sorry but I use Inventor". Now Assemblies are supported but many things still are not that I would need to implement it fully.. So again... its useless to me because you haven't taken it as far as you can at this time..

You guys seem to be stopping early or not finishing in many of your latest offerings/developments but its a huge problem in that no one can take it an run because the "chain of unfinished" is keeping us at the starting line.. 

Its one big catch22.. The reasons to use it won't all be explored and shown if we don't have it to try.. 

Man I shouldn't have had that extra holiday Margarita.. I'm not sure if what I just said made any sense 

oh well... post...

[andrew_faix]

Everything you wrote makes perfect sense, but it's more argumentative than helpful.  Which were you trying to accomplish?

You detailed workflows where we're already investing.  We are pursuing PMI interoperability with HSM, we're continuing to invest in sheet metal support in MBD.

Nobody is ever going to ever agree on what constitutes "fully supported" and if what we release is gaged against taking something "as far as we can", you'll simply never get updates.  What *specifically* do you want to do and how can we address that need?  Generalities about our level of support and offering up things Inventor customers might want to do make it more difficult for us to prioritize what to work on next.  

[gilsdorf_e]

I just try to export MDB to STEP 242 with Inventor 2018.3.3.

Could someone please clarify if this is only supported for ipt of if this is a bug? Seems like MDB from assemblies are not exported to the STEP file (i reviewed the STEP file with notepad). 

[mcgyvr]

---

@gilsdorf_e wrote:

I just try to export MDB to STEP 242 with Inventor 2018.3.3.

Could someone please clarify if this is only supported for ipt of if this is a bug? Seems like MDB from assemblies are not exported to the STEP file (i reviewed the STEP file with notepad). 

---

@gilsdorf_e It seems that at this time Inventor is not capable of exporting "PMI" (MDB) data on assemblies to the STEP 242 format.

2019.3 can't do it either FYI...

They do support exporting the PMI to 3d PDF though... 

[andrew_faix]

Correct, we don't support assemblies STEP AP242 PMI data export, not a bug.

IT's something that we can add, but needs to be prioritized against other translation requirements, particularly with respect to MBD/PMI.

We would certainly appreciate details on how this functionality would be used.  We have a pretty clear understanding of the workflows for PMI export for parts, but less for assemblies.  

Thanks,

-Andrew

[mcgyvr]

---

@andrew_faix wrote:

Correct, we don't support assemblies STEP AP242 PMI data export, not a bug.

IT's something that we can add, but needs to be prioritized against other translation requirements, particularly with respect to MBD/PMI.

We would certainly appreciate details on how this functionality would be used.  We have a pretty clear understanding of the workflows for PMI export for parts, but less for assemblies.  

Thanks,

-Andrew

---

I'll just repeat mine..

A vast majority of my sheet metal files are Inventor assemblies due to them having pem hardware,etc... in them..

Our sheet metal vendor works with customer supplied models that include 3d PMI information when supplied via the 242 step format.. They do not want 3d PDF as they don't import them into their cad software for programming..

As such.. I cannot implement a process today of sending them a single PMI CAD file and am still using 2d drawings and step files without PMI information..

[andrew_faix]

@mcgyvr

Thanks, understood WRT Pems and sheet metal.  Any reason why 3D PDF, 3D DWF won't solve this problem?

[gilsdorf_e]

We are also in the sheetmetal industries.

On of our current projects is to support shopfloor with 3D assembly instructions. We started using JT export to SAP (because the SAP Visual Enterprise Viewer supports JT but not STEP), but there is no MDB support in the JT translator at all. STEP 242 is also no alternative, as assembly instructions ("Mount on rack unit 12") are on assembly level.

3D PDF also has some bugs, it tends to blank out some components randomly on view representations and MDB have weird orientations (upside down, mirrored).

[mcgyvr]

---

@andrew_faix wrote:

@mcgyvr

Any reason why 3D PDF, 3D DWF won't solve this problem?

---

@andrew_faix Sure.. For 3d PDF...because they import a STEP file into their CAD software as their machines are programmed directly from that file (they use Solidworks) and the goal is a single controlled file and not a PDF and Step like we already have..

And of course as to DWF.. Thats pretty obvious.. Its a DWF.. Who uses that but you guys?..   Let it die already 

[AMontembeault]

Our company makes weldments, and uses GD&T to quantify the variation permitted due to welding distortion. Additionally, we have a number of weldment assemblies which are post-machined, creating new surfaces and features of size which need to be controlled.

In the 2018 version of the ASME standard Y14.5, direct dimensioning for tolerances of location is discouraged, with a statement that the practice will likely be removed in the next revision. I interpret this to mean that in the future, parts which are not fully constrained in a physical sense within an assembly (for example, a collar on a shaft) will have to have their location controlled with basic dimensions and positional/surface profile tolerances and their associated datums.

[Maxim-CADman77]

I see the thread is pretty old .. yet it is not marked as solved .. thus I believe nobody would protest to continue it.

OK, its 7 years later now and Inventor 2026.2.1 is the actual one..
If I use it to export part with 3DA leaders to STP-AP242 and then import it back - I do get PMIs but they all have no associativity to any edges (which is not satisfactory).

Are there any chances for import to be improved?