The End of 2D Drawings

The true Zen challenge is to convey one's concepts in 1-D drawings. This ain't easy.

it has been done. (and well done too.)

http://cmuarch2013.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/inca_quipu.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu

Chris

... or those who are unwilling or unknowning...

Most people would be willing, if not for the ungodly expense to acquire technology that may not help them do a better job anyway.

The unknowing are a lost cause.

In many US industries, there are so many legacy designs that it is almost impossible to change over until those go obsolete (or, possibly, the industry goes bankrupt). But, there is also the question of knowledge and skill about 3D.

I worked not long ago on a project where I did 3D models, the tooling people required 3D models, and the customer employed a design firm that worked in 3D. Yet, all official drawings were changed over to 2D (even better, in a non-linked format) and (often) then changed to pdf. The industry, a world leader in its field, did not know how to store, or exchange, 3D models.

Even young engineers who often have 3D modeling skills often don't know how to manage those models. And, there are not enough competent instructors in the universities.

This is true. We are a small company yet we have a legacy of perhaps 7000 2D drawings. Many of these will never be used again but some are used regularly. In addition to this many of our suppliers are small companies, some are 1 man businesses, who have no CAD facility or any means of using 3D data. Most of our drawings go out as PDFs by e-mail, some flat components go as DXFs & it is quite rare for our parts to be made from 3D data.

My last comment about some designers mistakes is not directed to anyone in this discussion. P.S. through not though.

What is a dimension?

If you understand that 2d or 3d is really far more, then you know that this is a silly discussion. (imho)

First of all, we are talking about what can possibly be represented, and what can possibly be represented on paper (typically) or on a flat viewing surface.

From an absolute non-newtonian (paper space - art theory) point of view:

1 dimension is a dot. (b&w)
2 dimensions is a line (b&w)
3 dimensions is planar (b&w)
4 dimensions is volumetric (b&w)
5 dimensions varies the intensity of the image (greyscale/tone)
6 dimensions adds color to the line/tone
7 dimensions is adding a timeline (animation)
8 dimensions is sound.

and these are just for scribbles... no information... no representation. Remember that a picture of something is Not that something.

9 dimensions is representation of some real thing or idea.
10 dimensions is smell
11 dimensions is taste
12 dimensions is temperature
13 dimensions is pressure
14 dimensions is texture (surface finish)
15 dimensions is material properties (strength, elasticity, reluctance, conductivity, tc)

or perhaps each property with it's own units is a dimension in itself? at any rate.. there are many more.. testing methods, machining and construction methods and tools to be used, part numbers and engineering data for parts in assemblies, on and on.

so when you realize all the views, GD&T and material tables, title blocks, revisions, etc. that goes on a professional engineering drawing, you realize there are dozens or hundreds of dimensions being represented.

The design goal of the drawing is to provide all the necessary information, but not more, necessary to the purpose and type of the drawing.

It should also consider the medium of communications. Perhaps the drawing is being presented on a computer as a native cad file, or e-drawing or pdf, or multimedia animation on tv...

2D vs 3D is a design choice based on which is best able to represent the information, in an expedient and economical fashion. what are the trade-offs in time, quality, and reusability?

just my 2 cents...

Chris

How did we ever get to the moon with just T-squares and slide rules?

by having excellent interpretive skills.. (the ability to see things that are not provided in the image.. )

I had a tour of the Bank of Canada support building, and had a description of some of the technology put into the 'paper' money to keep it from being duplicated. There is an extensive list of different materials and technologies put into the design and manufacture of it. these guys understand 'dimensions' as I've described it. After all, money is just.... well I haven't figured out what it is.

chris

As always an industry shift will come down to the finances. It is the accountants who will decide when that happens.

The designers, the machinists, the engineers will all have their input and provide 'tradition' resistance, but the accountants will determine where the focus is put.

Cheaper is not necessarily better. However, corporations are looking at your bottom line. CYA and learn, be adaptable or when the change comes you will find yourself extinct.

I work for a large Corporation. I design in 3D, but the shop and assembly line is still using 2D drawings to do their job. Not every worker has a PC on their workbench and they can not build or manufacture a part just by looking at a 3D picture on the screen.

I started designing when there were no calculators. All we had was slide rules and templates, compasses and scales. If you did not know your Trigonometry very well, let me tell you, you were in deep trouble.

3D is good for starting your solids. 2D renderings are derived from the 3D model.

Not too many shops have 3D facilities.

Was that in the UK?

Germany was no different, when the accounts people all got their own computer (386's), many switched on it the morning and off at night, nothing more, nothing less!!!

No, it was in the Cleveland, Ohio area of the US.

Yeah, I remember the transition to computers in the workplace. If I recall correctly, the Admin side got terminals connected to a HP JobScope Mainframe and Engineering got either 286's or 386's and 15" monitors.

The one engineering secretary would rather us a typewriter than her terminal... and absolutly deplored her first non-wysiwyg word processor.

There was a bit of ironly when I had to run mimeograph copies of a dot-matrix printout of a Bill of Material for my CAD assemblies.

JavaHead

It seems that we old time designers are being overshadowed by these College Kids being hired by the hundreds, taking the old farts positions showing off their shinny certificates. Just because they are fast at typing and knowing how to handle a joystick. Lots of them don't know to draw a straight line. Some don't even know how to read a sketch. I wonder if you hand them a pencil, a T square, a triangle or any of the tool we used for drafting, and ask them to draw a cube, they would not know where to start even know how to use these tools.

3D is a great tool for visualization and presentation and for some parts they can be programmed to be sent to the N/C Machine, but in a large assembly this requires a lot of time. You have to program every detail of each assembly on it's own.

I am not putting all this Wiz Kids down. Some of them are pretty smart, but to do good design and engineering, you have to know the basics.

I am glad I picked up on the 3D world and have learned enough to keep my job. With these new technologies it is hard to keep up...and I'm not getting any younger.

I think the problem lies in the institutions that teach engineering. As some in this forum have commented time and time again, they do not emphasize as much critical thinking as they should. But i do not think its the students fault. Of course, things depend on where you are and who is doing the teaching, but all the same, I think it wouldn't be a gross generalization on my part to say that nowadays, if you know how to use a computer program (CAD tools, specifically) and you know how to draw pretty 3D drawings, people think your are pretty darn smart and you are held in high esteem among your peers, even if you do not have a firm grasp of the basic engineering principles behind your design.

Especially, a lot of old timers, who are too reluctant to learn the latest gadgets, not out of any laziness, but perhaps because they are so set in their ways and find it easier to do certain tasks on paper than on a computer, find talent in using 3D cad tools among young professionals very impressive.

I agree the schools can do more… but it is not all their fault. Think of what you learned in school, then account for all the technological advances that have occurred since you went. Assuming that you would like to see today's grads have current and relevant knowledge related the latest technology and science, something has to be cut… otherwise they would have to go to school for 6 to 8 years to get a B.S.

So, you get grads that did not get the opportunity to learn some of the things you did… and their first employer only owns CNC machines and in these lean times can't afford to pay a fresh engineering grad to 'play' in the shop for a month to learn manufacturing limitations.

Certainly, the schools should focus more on critical thinking, logical design process, manual application of math, design for manufacturing, GD&T. But, in the end, all a school will ever be able to do is provide a foundation. It is still up to the employer and the fresh grad's peers to help them build his house.

I dislike cliché, but it's a catch 22.

Quote: "as I am a huge proponent of any 'tool' that can make the work faster and easier" Cad definitely makes the job faster and easier, but easy at the expense of intuitive thinking. Pressing a key on a CAD work station, doesn't convey any idea to the screen. It's all done for you inside the computer. Using a scale on a piece of paper, allows one to visualize space in real time. Cad doesn't do this. When I'm designing anything on CAD, I'm always using tape measures, rulers, even a 48x48 ceiling tile for spatial reference before I can enter it into the computer. I love my computer and I love CAD, but I still have to rely on my space for reference.

Let me compare it to a musical score. It is only a two dimensional representation of something that is then translated to different instruments and if the players can handle their "tool" it will all fall into place and become something worth while listening to. Only a good score will enable a player to work for or within the bigger picture.

One of the reasons to apply 3D imaging is to make whatever is to be represented understandable to people who have no idea of technology. The bean counters for example or investors who have no idea what one is talking about when trying to explain functions (All the dimensions thrown in by Chris) with a 2D drawing.

It helps to bring an idea to the not comprehending third party, whoever they might be. With out a CAD it would be very hard to translate a 2D drawing to a lay person. It would be a waste of time and time is something that should be saved in any process.

In the injection molding industry CAD has become a huge time saver although it still requires a very knowledgeable operator to include all other variants and tolerances etc. to get it right. Never the first time, as we know, but still it saves time and money to start with a CAD.

CAD is a good tool, visual aid, for the uninitiated and only the cracks may play at will.

Just my 0.001mm's worth, Ky.

"Just my 0.001mm's worth"

See, that's that new-fangled ISO stuff. In good ole ANSI, we'd say, "Just my .00003937 inch worth." Them leading zeros will surely lead you down the road to ruin.

I like your point about knowledgeable operators. I knew a company that sent their draftsmen to a two day course on Pro-E. After a couple weeks of work afterwards, none of them were turning out decent models, so the company said it had been a failure.

it is disheartening to hear...

I had the privilege of being involved in a start-up team that knew it had severe challenges in complex, tiny, close tolerance/fit parts. We chose Silicon Graphics work stations and the highest level design software available.

Four years later we had dual processor PCs and Solidworks to do the same projects.

I watched our engineers struggle to conquer the software, which I have to say they did, not with ease, but with eventual total competence. The complex fits and paths involved required the 3d software at its best.

We started with the designs coming from earlier drawings, then originated in 3D. We created 2D for our high level machinists, but before long, their CAM software and their talents got so good that they wanted to work from the Solid Models.

This group become known for rapid DESIGN/BUILD/TEST loops and highly productive work that enabled rapid progress to building of finished new products of high quality and usability.

There was never a drawing board in the building.

When a young man visited our office to see, "drafting," in process, I took him to one of our mechanical engineers and let him be shown how the design process is really being done. This young man had been in early drafting (CAD) classes and was being told that he had a great future if he could do CAD. He chose another career, as he had no engineering background or interest.

Our company, by all standards, was a major success, in large part due to our rapid prototyping capability and our dedication to making a product that would help our patients. 3D and great engineers were the key.

Hi NtS (BTW, I think you should change your moniker ... it doesn't quite fit ).

This is a wonderful example of planning from the ground up, and maybe the cause (reading between the lines) why my experiences, and other, have met with some failure.

One of the most sorry 'excuses' I run into is, "that's the way we've always done it", which translates into, "I don't want to try any new ways".

By starting from the ground up, you avoided all that, and created something for 'tomorrow', with contemporary technologies.

While I and others can bemoan the problems we have endured, such as you have described will own the future.

Thanks for your testimony that this CAN work, given the right circumstances.

Kind regards ...

3D modeling is a great tool, although I was brought up on a drawing board I really appreciate it's usefulness. We make a lot of custom 1-off assemblies, some of these sell for £30-150k & we don't have the luxury of prototyping to check the assembly. 3D modelling gives a fair degree of confidence that parts will fit.

Regarding the comments about the new kids, we have school leavers coming in for work experience & they often can use CAD fairly well but will draw components that would be difficult to make because they have no idea about machining processes.

Yes, I said it myself, 3D is great in a good engineer's hand. I use 3D every day, in fact that is my job. (I am not saying that I am that "good Engineer") but I try to do a good job.

"Regarding the comments about the new kids" you are right. Schooling is very important. These new Cad users may be good showing impressive renderings but lacking the accuracy. As far as being machine shop or shop tools knowledgeable, I think there is lack of it, some of them would not even know what a lathe or an NC machine is, moreover put their hands on one. Again the problem like you said is the schools fault. I always try to be helpful when some of these new hires come around asking for help. I take pleasure doing that, I feel good showing them the little things I know.

I don't entirely agree that the schools are at fault, they are limited by resources. Companies like Autodesk will virtually give away CAD software to educational establishments but getting lathes etc for the students to use will cost thousands of whatever currency you use.

What we have lost is the new engineers spending a little time in a production environment to learn the basic skills.

Sorry, if I said something wrong about the schools. What I am trying to point out is the lack of responsibility in the part of the people running this institutions, either public schools, state & private colleges. They all want the easy way out, the kids are getting lazy and do not care about their education. They spend their time playing computer games and waste hours in their cell phones. Their parents do not push their limits, they want them out of the home and get a job. Sad to say but, I hope someone will agree with me.

Maybe I am going overboard about all this and maybe out of topic but, when I go to work in the morning, I see kids on the street at 2:30 AM. What are doing? Drugs?

I do not know. It is sad.

The college I attended had a machine shop, weld shop, auto repair, welding. We had classes in almost everything. All we had to do was make time out of our curriculum and sign up for this extra skills.

Not dragging but I took most of this classes and this has helped me a lot during my life. I can almost do all this things, I can fix my car, I can weld stuff, I can draft, do my own plans if I want build something. I very seldom have to pay somebody when something brakes around the house.

Completely agree… but the root of the issue here is culture. And culture is like physical fitness… it doesn't take long to get out of shape, but it takes a lot of hard work and determination to get in shape.

A solution is to address a secondary skill set similar to what I encountered when I first started going to college for Theatre and Dance. If you were a Theatre major you had to take Intro to Classical Voice and Intro to Ballet. Not the same classes as a Vocal or Dance major would take, but just enough to teach you the basics.

One could do the same with Mechanical Engineering, as an example. If you major in Mechanical Engineering then you have to take Intro to Machining, Intro to Welding, etc. If you majored in Automotive Engineering… Intro to Auto Mechanics, Intro to Diesel Repair, etc…

The issue would be that the University would have to partner up with Vocational/Technical schools to sponsor these 'Intro' courses. Because to put on a course you would need a decent shop set-up and a University would not be able to justify the expenses simply to hold 'Intro' courses to augment their engineering students skill set.

Another option would be to require a new collage applicant into an engineering discipline to have a 1 or 2-year Vocational Certificate in the related field. Want to apply for Architectural Engineering? Let me see you 2-Year Carpentry or Masonry Vocational Certificate.

Then, that percentage of student that drop out would have a skill set to fall back on until they figured out what their next attempted major is going to be.

The one thing I do hold schools 100% accountable for is bending to pressure to 'pass' those that do not meet the requirements.

I'm inclined to agree, as I find it increasingly rare that modelers can 'see' the 3D object in a 2D drawing. Mind you, I still sketch in a modeling program the same way I draw, which I am told is "slow" - until it all fits, works, and can be made, and theirs don't/can't.

So to spend a semester or so learning to draw on paper, for say tool room hand operated machines, (and therefore something of how machines work and things are made) would be a useful 'benefit'.

CAD and CNC are great for numbers, or stuff a bit complex, or developing a high accuracy part, without human inconsistency (like prototype cams or valve spindles)

But it's a terrible waste of time when they lack the ability to do a 5 minute sketch of a simple thing, with the relevant dimensions to the operations required, on the relevant views, and hand it to a machinist to make 1 or 10.

(further bitches on modeling programs / modelers, ideas of dimensioning withheld)

I think too much emphasis is put on making it "easy". If a student doesn't understand a math principal, the electronic calculator makes it "easy" for him to deal with, but he doesn't understand it. As one poster said, CAD makes it fast and "easy" to do your job. Again the word,"easy" implies understanding is not necessary for the job to be done. In the interest of getting a job done cheaply and quickly, industry is not interested whether you can analyze and understand a problem; only production. When I was designing systems, I would ask questions as to how and why something worked. I was told not to concern myself with such matters; just work to get the job done and quickly. Although this is not 100% true, there are enough employers around who subscribe to the quick and "easy" way.

As far as 2D vs 3D is concerned, I feel there will always be a need for both; 2D for details and manufacturing and 3D for visualization. I have always done this way back before CAD.

We still walk...........

You are right, it seems. Been there done that, haven't we? Never mind my brilliant 2D rendering.

Now, how are you going to get that coffee off your keyboard Chris? Tolerance will not help now, will it?

Gosh I love it here, Ky.

Thanks Chris,

YES, this is the technical extension of "a picture is worth a thousand words", which ends up with the desired response, "Oh, THAT'S what you meant" .

In manufacturing, we often do APQP or SOP documents that offer a pictorial and text description of what is to be done at that workstation. It's the best way I know, and often it prevents a lot of mistakes.

Kind regards ...

Again Chris, to the point. Well explained contribution, Ky.

thank you both.

Chris,

I concur with DCaD and Ky, your responces are always well though out, detailed, and provide a benifit to any who read them.

JavaHead

Thank you Javahead...

although it is only when I'm being serious that my posts are like that.. Don't forget I'm a tinfoil hat member and can be extreme too... lol.

Chris

I hope that I was not the cause.....(Tinfoil hatz)

I would feel SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad if I was!!

For a minute or three.....

you can soothe your concerns here.... _{^{(2 year old thread)}}

Wow, real config management. Whoda thunk.

Personally, with the state of American business, I'm surprised anybody still does it.

Very nice, Chris!!!

Hooker

thank you Hooker.

2D Drawing on 2D displays, be on paper or on monitor, is 'natural'

3D Drawing on 2D displays, be on paper or on monitor, is 'artificial'

In the second statement 'Drawing', doesn't sit well for 3D as it did for 2D.