Model based definition for Fusion 360

[FusionChris]

For industry and manufacturing reasons/workflows it is pretty important to add geometric dimensioning and tolerancing annotation (GD&T) and other manufacturing information directly to the 3D model.

Furthermore it would be also pretty important to retrieve these annotations in the technical drawing. 

Model based definition example 1

Model based definition example 2

Cheers

Chris

[Anonymous]

If.one is serious about creating professional drawings for downstream manufacturing and inspections,then model based definitions is a definite must have. Design intent can be brought forward into the 2D documentation whereas detailing, if done only in the 2D document will run the risk of being dissociated from the 3D model.

[skidsolo]

Absolutely critical this information, the datum structure defines which features you should machine first and how you would hold the part. Tolerances will dictate what tool to use to achieve the required tolerance. Also very important is surface finish as this will dictate tools feed and speeds for the CAM system. We must not forget heat treatment and any surface finishes that will also impact how the component is manufactured. Including these features will ensure inspection and manufacturing are on the same page.

[mika.takalo]

How about updating the 2d definitions first? First things first? 

[pd700]

I would also agree that 2D drawings definitions as first things first, and this would include drawing and model revisions.  Similarly with 3D model definitions.  They should include everything to define the component or assembly including dimensions, notes, and revisions.

[kb9ydn]

Ultimately all of the information required to manufacture the model should be stored in the model itself.  The 2D drawing (or 3D pdf with dimensions) is really just a representation of the model.  The model should drive the 2D drawing, not the other way around.  From this perspective the model based definition should come first.  But in reality the MBD and the 2D or 3D representations of such ought to be developed in tandem, as a system.

C|

[jasiekk7]

I think enough is if I will be able to "turn on" the sketch with dimensions visible. And it should be also visible on workshop "setup sheet". Many times (or better: always) I need manually put how deep is stock in vise, how far from corner, etc. Additionaly you could make note (insert text) on sketch with GD&T (if you really need, in this point I agree with others: 2d drawing is mandatory). It could be switch in "Document settings" (like threads: cosmetic/modeled)

[skidsolo]

Its possible to insert Tolerances ,datum's and GD&T  into Inventor models right now. When creating a 2D drawing you can optionally extract this info into the part print.  If Fusion were to use this methodology then the data can be used for CAM and inspection data including programs for NC and CMM machines. 

[Anonymous]

I am in agreement.
Thanks

[SolubleSpork]

It sounds like I'm with the bulk of people on here.  2D drawings are still a must have, and I would put them as a priority over MBD.  That being said, MBD has been brought up before in many other posts and would be great to have.  I myself have not dealt with MBD much, and the few times that I have worked with MBD models in my profession, there were still some struggles in working with it.  Part of this is my lack of experience with MBD, part of it is the viewer/software being used and how not-user-friendly it was.  Customers that send us models with MBD included don't often understand GD&T or the ISO GPS system well enough which also leads to problems.  But, as I've said before, if there was one company that would be able to make a good version of MBD and have it be user friendly and nicely integrated, Fusion 360's team would definitely be the team to hit it out of the park.

[Anonymous]

Very well put! Kudos!

[Anonymous]

The 2D-Drawing is still a must have in terms of juridical documentation of any product. 

It is also a must have to get the 3D- MBD and annotaion  completely and automatically into the drawing. Nobody likes to do this work twice!!!

Mike H.

[cbales]

MBD is imperative. Especially since the Fusion team seems to have ignored many glaring errors and lack of capabilities in the 2D drawing portion of Fusion.

[Anonymous]

It is very interesting to see the Fusion 360 team put so much effort into, collaboration, cloud and team integration features(I get that its a 360 product), but I dont see how customers can have their design teams use a tool that doesn't solidly support basic features like 3D Dimensioning annotations that enable collaboration.  Imagine trying to collaborate on a design that requires you to click on every edge and intersection to get a feeling of overall dimensions or a quick sanity check.

[RNDinov8r]

i have been discussing this with my machine shop. They actually said, if they had this data in the model, they would not need a 2-D drawing in most cases. Since we use Fusion 360 to create CNC tool paths, they rely on the geometry being correct, and need only the information on critical fits and dimensions. 

I did a quick analysis of our in-house costs. And these are rough numbers, but we design custom automated work cells, so most machines are a one off, meaning we'll never make the same thing again. That said, I spend about 60 hours detailing...and about 40 of that is for parts specifically. Now we ship 20 - 25 machines per year, that's an annual cost of between $50,000 and $70,000 that potentially could be saved. Not sure why people aren't doing this, at least the folks that make alot of one-offs. 

[bkjensenBRLWR]

I agree with that 3D MBD should be the priority here.  Support for creating 3D GD&T and exporting STEP 242 files (which support MBD) should be a high priority.  I would also love ot see tools on the MFG side that allow you to link toolpath strategies to these callouts.