Level of Detail for Parts

[Curtis_Waguespack]

The ability to suppress features and create Level Of Detail representations in part files would be very useful.

Example 1:

I have a bent tube that goes into an assembly in the formed state. However, I would like to detail this part to show both the pre-formed and formed states of the part on my drawing. Currently I can not do this without creating additional files (derived parts or iParts).  Ideally I would be able to suppress the Bend Part feature as a LOD to place the pre-formed part view.

Example 2:

I have a part file with a lot of detailed edges and surfaces and I use this part over and over in my assemblies, I would like to be able to suppress features as a LOD an use the simplified version in the assembly, but still have the detailed version for my part drawing. Again we'd like to be able to do this, without having additional files to track.

[SBix26]

Curtis, you can do this now with multi-body solids.  Array the first solid (without bend) to a new solid, then add the bend to the second solid.  Set View Reps for each solid alone for detailing, push second (finished) solid out to part for assembly purposes.

 - Sam

[Curtis_Waguespack]

Hi sbixler,

Thanks for the workflow suggestion. But doesn't this still create multiple files to track? I'm not sure I see the benefit of the multi-body solution over a derived part or iPart solution. Maybe I'm missing something?

Thanks,
Curtis

[skyngu]

that is still one part file with multi-solid. It is just different view representation. I used the same method few times. It worked well.

[Anonymous]

Could this work for having simplified parts to send on to 3ds Max for rendering?  I'm designing electrical substations in Inventor.  I've got some very detailed parts.  But we often have to do renderings for local zoning requests.  The renders are all from a distance where the detail is neither visible nor required.  But it sure chokes Max. And that's just the import.  If I can get through the import, then rendering is yet another problem.  Being able to have simplfied versions of everything would really help.

[Anonymous]

Great idea. You could basically start with a piece of rough material (extrude or revolve) and record a level of detail after each removal of material (sketch and extrude or revolve or other) until you have the final part. This would also allow to open a new drawing with as many sheets as level of Detail are available and create individual work drawings within one single part drawing.

[kellings]

I'm runing into a lot more formed tubing with laser cut features. The features are cut on the straight lenth of tubuing and then the tubing is moved to the tube bender.

I would love this to work like a sheet metal part. You could have the formed and straight options. It would also help with figuring accurate tubing stretch during forming.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

I was just reviewing the Solid Body and View Representation workflow described by sbixler and jcneal, and wanted to point out that while this does come close to LOD control at the part level, it still falls short if we want to show a part with only some feature detail. Cut features for example. Hope this helps clarify the request more fully.

[ddavis]

This would be a great feature, one that I could use almost everyday in fact. When I design a hydraulic manifold, I create a solid used for the machining print. I have to then create another which removes various features such as construction plugs for use in the customer assembly. As you can imagine this creates issues with managing two files if there is need of any changes. If I could simply use the same manifold solid but select which level of detail for both the machining and assembly prints, it would be great.

[sgwilliams]

We have discussed this Idea many times in our engineering department over the years. We would like the ability to suppress any model feature from a drawing view. This would eliminate the necessity for multiple 3D models. So as each operation a component goes thru requires a new model which is very redundant. Like the old saying goes "keep it simple". Why have 3 models when all you need is one. Say you have a peice of cold rolled steel flat stock it gets a simple threaded bolt pattern on one face and a second on one of the edges and has to be ground on both faces. This would require 2-3 models for the CNC to be programmed correctly. One model for the blank steel plate, one model for the drilled & tapped threaded bolt hole patterns & then one for the finished component with ground faces. It would be way easier and less time consuming for your end users if they did not have to continue to create new files but just turn on and off the features that they need for whatever manufacturing operation the component is in. 

In a marketing sense it would make our work load way less by drastically improving our effiency.

The attached browser bar screen shot is an example of what I'm talking about. See the four features highlighted? These are in two different models. If you could right click on the feature and suppress it there would not be a need for a second model all four features could be from one model.

[jletcher]

Why would you want 3 models for one part? You would then need 3 drawings. This is not the norm.

 If you need the 3 models for CNC I would look into new CNC software I have been programming CNC for a very long time and never had 3 models..

 Something does not sound right here...

[jletcher]

You may want to look into iparts also one part with different options...

 Even ilogic may work good for you..

[sgwilliams]

No you would only need one drawing with 3 sheets. We use the finished model iproperties to populate all three sheets. The drawing sheet uses the same model to populate all three sheets we just suppress the view after it has been added to the sheet to populate the titleblock. Then add the view from what ever model operation you need.  Each operation has its own print. As the part progresses further in the manufactuiring process the more features are shown on the drawing view. But we only dimension the current items that are required at that operation. A grind operator does not need the rough machining dimensions or need to know vendor information for plating or heat treating. a components dimensions change after plating which means a finished component print will be different than the operation before it was plated.

[jletcher]

That to me is 3 drawings in one data set.. One drawing would be one sheet..

 Like I stated I would look into new cnc software..  I think this would streamline things for you better then this suppress option..

Just not sure how they would get this to work without a LOT of issues..

[sgwilliams]

The nomenclature in my discription is the same as Autodesk uses for its callouts in Inventor when you start calling it something else it confuses people. Like I said "Keep it simple".

Inventor calls its file a drawing (.idw), they call each page a sheet. Just trying to keep everyone reading this post to use the same language. 

If I explained it to a machine operator at my company I would call each page a print because that is the nomenclature they use on the shop floor.  I have never heard of a "Data Set". Where does that nomenclature come from?

We use Edgecam for our CNC programming. I sure that it is possible as other modeling software has this capability. I was told by another engineer that Solidworks is capable of this but I cannot confirm because I have never used it. Changing software is not an option as our thousands of components that we manufacture all use this file format. Trying to justify this to management  would get me laughed out of the office.

I have been programming since the NC machine when we used to punch tape to get a machine to cut steel. I do not think you fully understand how some manufacturing processes can change a component. Sure you can use one model if you like and force dimensions. That is not very smart engineering practices. We draw our components to size and pull dimensions from geometry. The old days of forcing dimensions was outlawed in our company a long time ago. Say your going to draw a shaft with 3 different ground diameters. The CNC Turning centers need geometry that shows a components that is turned to a rough dimension before it goes to heat treat. That would be a "Machine" sheet. The Model would have to have anywheres from .002" to .020" of grind material left on the diameters to be ground. That would be the machine model which is sent to the programmer for the CNC turning department. Then the part goes to heat treat and comes back and the diameters have to be ground to a finished  size which our programming department requires a model with finished diameters to grind to. That would be a finished model. Two models is one to many.

[jtylerbc]

I see uses for this (I could personally use it to remove drilled hole features from burn patterns more easily).

As for your current method involving multiple parts to document the machining process - are you using derived parts, or entirely independant part models?  If you're not already using them, derived parts might ease some of the pain of your current method.

[mikeh2]

We are believers that the model drives all IDWs and everything is automated to udpdates especially with respect to IDWs and dimensions.  We have 0 tolerance for someone modifying dimensions, other than tolerances.  If a parts is shortened 1/4" then the model is modified to drive the dimension on the IDW.  We absolutely never simply over-ride the dimension as that makes your model null and void.  You can design around it.

As far as suppressing features I'd like to take it a different direction.  What I would like to see is Feature Representations, similar to Positional Reps and View Representations.  I'd like the ability to create Feature Representations where I can create a Feautre Rep for each stage/station of manufacturing the part where we can turn features on and off.  Then you have 1 model to maintain and you can either create multiple views or mutliple sheets to represent the stages of production.  You can easily step through the Feature Reps to see the evolution of the part throught the Mfg. process.

We'd use it on parts that go through multiple machine/process parts like Castings.  We buy a raw casting and then it comes in house and we Drill Holes/machine.  Currently we create 2 models and 2 IDWs and 2 separate part numbers.  We wouldn't use it a lot, but we definately have instances where it would be useful.

[jletcher]

sgwilliams,

  Yes I have been programming since the tape days myself I even have the tape punch and reader and about 200 rolls of tape. Figured it may be worth something someday..  And it still woks.. Dusty but works.

 Data set is an IDW with more then one sheet because the sheets are numbered 1,2,3 and so on.

 Edgecam what version? I used that never liked it. I switched to Mastercam. I no longer program now.

 I consult manufactures now. Set up Inventor and teach them how to us it.. Stream line their processes and so on.. Some even have Solid Works or Pro-e, I know most of the 3d software and CNC programing software.

I never override dimensions even in autocad I could not do it. It is not a good practice.

Now mike's idea I have been asking for from Inventor 4 I called it Part Reps..

 I just really don't see how the developers would get suppress features to work and not break links or major issues..

[sgwilliams]

Mike, Your Idea is what I'm getting at exactly, you just worded it better. That is what I'm looking for. Call it what ever you want as long as we can use one model to drive all dimensions for all stages of manufacturing. We currently have to use multiple models, and the 2nd and 3rd models are derived from the 1st model but with additional features. Not only would it be less complicated it would cut our file database by approximately 1/2.

jletcher, I no longer program myself I'm stricly now all new product design. Our nich in the market is Cam follower bearings we have our standard product lines and then we have our specials which is the other half of our products. I engineer anywheres from one to 10 new bearings a week depending on how well the sales department does. When I'm not creating specials I'm maintaing and updating our old products to get them in the newer format. We have an engineer who does just that but sometimes he gets overwhelmed with orders from sales to get old archived data to be updated for our current ISO manufacturing procedures. We have looked at the MasterCAM system and have not seen any need to change. Our manufacturing uses many different CNC turning centers from Miyano's, to Fortunes to Citizens. Each with a unique Post and EdgeCam allows us to write new Post at our leisure. If we had MasterCAM I beleive we would have to wait for them to update the post and send it back to us when they are done updating it and then charged a handsome fee for doing so. EdgeCAM means a lot less down time for us. The Programmer here also does programming for a sister company and I think they use MasterCAM. He is much happier using EdgeCAM because of the open source of its Post. I did take a one week class for this company to learn post writing but was reassigned as design engineer so I never got a chance to use the software.

We try to upgrade our equipment when the old machine can no longer keep up or are outdated. Which means that new post have to be written when the new CNC arrives. It cost us a fraction to write our own compared to what say a MasterCAM would charge us to buy one. I do realize they have a fleet odf post writers where we only have one. But Our one seems to be able to keep us going with no major issues.

[jletcher]

So do you think you should remove this post and repost with the Part Rep Idea?

 This way the post would be right and they don't have to read all our back and forth to figure out what we want?

 I think it would get lots of Kudos..

 One from me and mike for sure

[mikeh2]

Maybe not a bad idea.  Only thing I'd recommend is maybe call it Feature Rep's and reason I say that cause I could see uses for it in IAMs and Weldments to supress a machining operation, so not strictly Parts (ipts). Although views in the IDWs allow control whether machining/welding, prep etc.. is visible view by view, would be easier to control if a Feature Rep was made while doing the modelling.  

One other note I like to do everything in the model cause I may spend 6 months or longer designing something then come back and detail the IDWs, or someone else may, so there's not things to remember at the detailing stage.  I like to do it and forget and let the model hold the data.  So if a detailer sees View Reps Feature reps we'll have an idea how to detail it.

Thanks