Tool for people on the floor to pull dimensions off part files? Edrawingsisn't quite enough.

We just starting using Solidworks here at my work
and we installed E-Drawings out on the floor for
our guys in tooling to pull dimensions that we may
not have supplied them in the print drawings,
everyone has there own way of measuring things and
building tools.

The problem we are having is that Edrawings does
not allow them to pull dimenions off of
X-sections, and also it doesn't allow them to
place the X-section at a defined distance from a
0,0 origin.

Is there any tools that anyone is aware of that
can be easily used and provide this functionality?

Thanks in advance,
Ryan

 

I know this is not your answer, but may I express a thought.

The closer the designers are to the machinists, the worse the drawings are.
Build a big tall wall, and smear peanut butter all over it. Make either have
to climb over it every time they want to talk to each other. The harder you
make the two get together, the better the drawings are.

If one draws an item, and something is not clear. Then the designer is
buzzed, he comes down and explains the issue to the fitter. Next thing you
know, that info is lost, it does not end up on the drawings. It is just
verbal.

G

 

One company's experience is not another's. I've worked in several
companies where there was always a war going on between engineering and
the shop, and sometimes QA is a dissatisfied 3rd party at war with both
the others. The best working solution that was ever found was not
separation -- it was liaison. Specifically one person, the "expert"
(who was also the drawing checker), was tasked to make sure the shop
and/or QA interpreted the drawing correctly, and that the
drafters/engineers were spelling it our correctly. He made sure that
any changes were rolled back into the drawings so that misunderstandings
would not occur again. It worked extremely well, and helped all parties
become more productive . . . not just more efficient, but also more
effective (see Peter F. Drucker for definitions of "efficient" and
"effective").

'Sporky'

 

If you Edrawings Professional the engineers could save each file off as a
Edrawing (eprt, easm, edrw). While saving you will get a option box in the
save as dialog box. Check mark "Enable measure" and save the file. Then the
Floor users could measure that edrawing file.

Regards,

 

I may have been a bit aggressive in my opinion. I have seen quite a few
bad drawings. And now I see a trend were they send solids to tool shops, and
say "Make it". That might be a final solution I guess. But for now, what I
have observed is that if the Engineer has a close connection to the tool
shop, he tends not to put all the info on the drawing. He/She can't help but
passing some info verbaly.

The other things that has been invaluable for me is being there when it
is built. (This might sound conflicting to start) An engineer should feel
the pain of assembling his work. That is the only way to learn the results
of fastening guards with nuts and bolts so you need one hand for the screw
one for the nut another to hold the guard in place and one more for the tool
to tighten it

G

 

Thanks everyone for their ideas and thoughts.

From what I can tell so far, we are not your
typical user base for solidworks. Our tools are
hand made out of plywood and 2x4's with other
various types of wood framing methods. We don't
actually make the drawings for the tooling
department to make the tools from, we just provide
them a drawing of the finished product for them to
make the tools, it would be too time consuming and
redundant for us to provide an assembly type
drawing with "instructions" on how to build the
tools. Each person in tooling has their own
techniques to building a tool.

So now that we have a few guys that have a slight
grasp on basic ACAD functions to give them
dimensions and measurements that they want or
need, that are not included in our drawings,
example a X-section of a part in a certain area
for tooling to build a profile off of, they are
pressuring us to find a program that they can do
this with.

Someone mentioned enabling the measure function in
the edrawing. We have tried this and it would
work except there is no functionality to place a
X-section a precise distance from a point inthe
model. And also no way to measure a cross section.

As it is now, we have the tooling guys coming into
us to get these dimensions and it is distracting
and pulls us off of what we need to do and keeps
them in transit from department to department.

Thanks again, and I hope this might shed a little
more light on the issue and lead to some suggestions,

 

I hear ya, and respect your opinion. And I totally agree about the need
for the designer or engineer to understand ALL the ramifications of the
way they design, dimension and tolerance a part. To see the
difficulties and conundrums my mistakes have caused in the past has been
invaluable experience.

 

It doesn't sound like precision work. Why not just place a linear
scale on your drawing to allow the shop to allow them to pull
dimensions that way. For instance, create a rectangular protrusion,
similar to a ruler, yard stick, or whatever best fits the size of your
part. Cut small grooves to mark your increments. Save, and insert a
view of this part into every drawing (be sure the scale of the view is
the same as the rest of the sheet). Be sure to label the units with a
feature (or a simple note in the drawing).

I hope this is not too stupid a suggestion, but it did not sound like
the shop needs precision dimensions.

 

No, not at all, maybe I'm dumb for not thinking
about that.

They like to be able to rotate the parts and "get
into" what they are looking at.
Plus then we are in the position to think for
them, and maybe where I think they need a
X-section they may not. Plus our part are usually
over 15 feet long. With various transitions
throughout.

We are new to using Solidworks, so any suggestions
are appreciated.

This sounds like it may work.

I was hoping for a viewer like E-Drawings that
they can open up the solid and get whatever they
need off of it.

Thanks.

 

Another thing I keep in the forefront of my mind:

"Who is my audience?"

There is often a very wide chasm between what a
parts-by-the-hundreds-machinists and one-off-toolmakers find workable.
I have made part prints for both and find that the requirements are
very different. In one case, I might tell a toolmaker "3/8 oversize
c'bore" while I might tell a machinist "dia 13/32 thru, c'bore dia
..593 x .406 deep, 45deg x .02 chamfer both ends".

Having anyone intentionally isloated from the process for which they
are designing is (in my mind) self-defeating to the highest degree.
What passes for a "good" part print here may not be so nice over
there. Knowing the context for ones work is extremely important.

The thing that I always ask myself: "What is the user of this part
print (or even data file) responsible to know?", then I act
accordingly. A toolmaker should know that "block A" needs to be a
light slip fit into the opening in "block B", so tolerancing it for
him is a waste of time. He has a CONTEXT for the part and an
understanding of its function, therefore he does not need a tolerance.
On the other hand, if you outsourced the same blocks to a vendor, you
might need to specify what was needed with tolerance, or if you
intended to make 100 pcs that need to be interchangeable, you might
need to define the part print differently.

My 2 cents.

SMA

 

That is so true what you wrote. Toolmaker want to see the whole assembly and
make it fit and work. Machinists want every thing called out with tolerances
and sizes. They could care less what it fits into. And of course there is a
third situation, our "in-house" prints are less stringent, less toleranced,
than anything going to the outside.

I was a toolmaker (stamping dies and plastic injection molds) for 22 years.
Now I am on the designing end. I always tend to put too much info on a print
than not enough. I might tolerance the part AND put a note to fit it to such
and such detail. If the machinist chooses to ignore the fitting part of the
note, at least you tried to communicate what was trying to be accomplished.

Dan Bovinich

 

In our shop, we generate a set of drawings called the "Control Copy". The toolmakers are responsible for redlining this
copy with any and all changes/deviations. When the job is finished, the control copy comes back to me and I incorporate
those changes to the drawing file. The result is called a "Final As Built" copy. All subsequent repairs are built from
the FAB copy.

M.T.

 

I like this control copy idea, the problem is we
usually have the guys in tooling building the tool
off of part drawings, we don;t make the whole
assembly for the tool in the drawing department
because of the nature of the tools/molds we make,
they are all wood, for laying up dry fiberglass
and a lid os closed and it is filled with
flotation foam.

So alot of the time while I am working on the
drawings of the parts they are off building off a
handdrawn sketch or redlined drawing that was
previously made of just the part. And in the end
I usually end up having to go out and check their
work to make sure my drawing matches up in the
end. IMHO, it is an ass backwards sytem, but the
only solution I have is to get the modeled part
into their hands so they can get the right
dimension when they need them, so the part that
comes out of their tool is correct.

Again we are a semi-small company that is starting
to cross the bridge into more and more 3D modeling
type work, and the system just isn't organized
like it should be. Many times we have three
different departments working on the same part all
with different information, and it isn't until the
very end when we ship out a prototype that all of
us get together and inspect the part, and then it
turns into a finger pointing, and everyone
interprets the drawings different for some reason.

Sorry for the long explanation, I;m just curious
if anyone had crossed this road before.
I was just trying to find a solution for them to
pull dims off, but its turned into a better
discussion with some great ideas from you guys,
I appreciate it,
Thanks
Ryan

 

I work at a theater, and we have just started the transition from
AutoCAD to Solidworks. I continually wrestle with the issue of
putting too much information vs. not enough. If I add too much, I
think there is a tendency to overlook things. Also, the guys that
weld the metal understructure have different dimensioning need, while
the guys that add wood or fiberglass have another.

In my case, the shop is about 30' away from my desk, so I am easily
accessable. Also, almost everything we make is a one-of-a-kind. The
time spent producing higher-quality drawings and different sets of
drawings for each department doesn't generate as much payback as it
would if we were producing many of the same thing (because a drawing
would be used many times).

The final result is a compromise. For the wood framers, I often put
a set of dimensions showing where the 4'x8'x3/4" plywood flooring
sits. This is because I have located structural members where I know
there will be seams in the wood. If I omit this detail, they have to
figgure out how I planned for them to cover the floor, and sometimes
they don't figgure it out correctly.

On some items, that have a lot of curves, I decided to just say
"full-sized templates will be provided" dimensioning instead of
dimensioning them. The I use a 36" wide ink-jet plotter to give them
a full-sized print. I will tape the output together to form pieces as
large as 15' x 10'.

The challenge is finding where the man-hours are. For me to spend 1
hr doing life-size plots has to take less man-hours than having me
dimension in detail and having the shop guy cut metal to my
dimensions. The other factor is just hassle-factor.


Joe Dunfee