Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
Yes drawing process is time consuming activity but with out drawing one cannot go to production.
Any way you can make templates for solid parts, assemblies, drawings as per your requirements and also formats which can use the parameters defined in model, assy templates, this will reduce the time consumed on the Bill of material portion of your drawing
Comning from a primarily 2D background, I feel that a product as powerful as ProE should have a MUCH MUCH MUCH better 2D drawing package. The interface is the least user friendly I've ever seen for drawings.
Yes - but they are largely for inspection purposes and documentation - since the company i work for ISO. We send out electronic files of drawings and to some suppliers IGES surface files.
I tend to produce fully dimensioned drawings for simple parts because it's relatively easy and quick to do so. For more complicated parts I would put all the necessary views, notes and critical dimensions/tolerances down on a drawing and provide the 3D data to the supplier.
drawing is time consuming but while creating drawing of assembly if there is any problem,some time in assembly we may neglect some of the parts to check interferance, but while preparing drawing you can check & changes can be done
While 95% of our suppliers have the capability of working from our native pro-e part file, we create reduced information drawings that act as an inspection tool and a vehicle to annotate materials, finish, marking requirements, allowable tolerances and a visual aid for quoting purposes.
We are now creating Manufacturing Assembly Instructions using PTC Product View from the Engineers 3d Models. The Mfg Engineers create their MAI concurrently with the design engineer. This is giving us an opportunity to eliminate engineering assembly drawings.
Has anyone else expereinced success without assembly drawings? I wouldn't think that we are the only one in industry to pioneer this effort.
Mark
what branch of tac systems do you deal with? I work for BAE Systems building Bradley Fighting Vehicles... many parts including the sight unit are furnished by DRS.
I work for DRS Tactical Systems( www.DRS-TS.com) in Florida and we are sole source hardware supplier for FBCB2 and dual supplier for DVE displays, all of which are install on the Bradley.
We still produce fully dimensioned drawings for sheet metal parts, but limited dimensions for others.
Drawings are so straightforward as a communication tool, it's hard to imagine not using them. They are universal, requiring no special software (other than acrobat reader, which is ubiquitous) and can be easily printed to take to the shop floor with no computer. It's universal language that's been around forever. Anything you do in 3D will require a lot more effort to ensure good transfer of non 3D info like material, color, finish, rev history, tolerances, etc.
I wish PTC had placed more effort on getting drawings dirt simple to produce rather than trying to push drawing-less 3D model definitions. Frankly, their 3D definition implementation is the same amount of work and harder to share with folks who don't ahve PTC products.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.