Digital drawings in the shop

We are a small manufacturer of waste water treatment systems that started up about 3 years ago. Our work is mostly designing and modifying what we build to job requirements then assembling, plumbing and wiring skids. We only make inhouse a handful of special parts that make our products unique.
We use SolidWorks for design and have it integrated with our ERP program so we get costing, automated ordering, recieving, and distribution of materials right to the job and subassembly. The guys are asking me why we aren't simply working from the SolidWorks models in the shop instead of paper. I have actually tried this once before about 15 years ago but the results at that time were not encouraging.
Some of the reasons I have given are first that even an HD computer screen with 2 megapixels pales in comparison with the B size drawings we are using. To this day we are still peeping through a keyhole at digital drawings. Next is that you can't work from a 3d model directly because it doesn't have dimensions, tolerances, notes, callouts etc. So if you have to make drawing views you might as well print them out. Drawings collect data too. Markups, notes, punching time on the drawing margins are all important to the process. You don't really want anyone changing drawings, that requires at the very least an engineering review. Also when someone tells me they know how to use a program I always suspect they think they do but don't. In the past I have had to wade through tons of garbage done by people with a casual knowledge of a program.
So are any of you doing this kind of thing in the shop? Remember our drawings are not of something you can hold in your hand with a dozen features. We build skids 10 feet on a side with 50 sub-assemblies and hundreds of parts.

Gary, I think your reasoning for maintaining paper drawings is valid, but there is a good reason for also allowing shop-floor digital access (read only). When it comes to complex assemblies being able to selectively hide/show parts of it can improve clarity and reduce errors. Even a single part, when it can be shown as a solid and rotated, sectioned, etc. can be a major help.

There's dozens of reasonably cheap 4K TV's that can function as computer monitors, one or two of them served by a decent computer and graphics card could make life a lot easier for the shop guys. Just make sure to lock out games and only greenlist a few work related websites (like McMaster). Or keep it off the internet entirely.

garyhlucas said:

We are a small manufacturer of waste water treatment systems that started up about 3 years ago. Our work is mostly designing and modifying what we build to job requirements then assembling, plumbing and wiring skids. We only make inhouse a handful of special parts that make our products unique.
We use SolidWorks for design and have it integrated with our ERP program so we get costing, automated ordering, recieving, and distribution of materials right to the job and subassembly. The guys are asking me why we aren't simply working from the SolidWorks models in the shop instead of paper. I have actually tried this once before about 15 years ago but the results at that time were not encouraging.
Some of the reasons I have given are first that even an HD computer screen with 2 megapixels pales in comparison with the B size drawings we are using. To this day we are still peeping through a keyhole at digital drawings. Next is that you can't work from a 3d model directly because it doesn't have dimensions, tolerances, notes, callouts etc. So if you have to make drawing views you might as well print them out. Drawings collect data too. Markups, notes, punching time on the drawing margins are all important to the process. You don't really want anyone changing drawings, that requires at the very least an engineering review. Also when someone tells me they know how to use a program I always suspect they think they do but don't. In the past I have had to wade through tons of garbage done by people with a casual knowledge of a program.
So are any of you doing this kind of thing in the shop? Remember our drawings are not of something you can hold in your hand with a dozen features. We build skids 10 feet on a side with 50 sub-assemblies and hundreds of parts.

Click to expand...

.
.
my previous job i was a maintenance machinist and one of the machines was a 3 story tall by over 150 foot long gravure printing press.
.
i often took digital Solidworks files and designed equipment upgrades per Engineer requests. i also often did virtual disassembly by making parts of assembly model semi transparent to give a sort of xray vision so mechanic could see how assembly works or parts works on the computer. also made slowly exploding view animations to show how parts go together. stopping a production machine effecting 100 peoples jobs it was not allowed to shutdown for mechanic to see how parts work together covered by other parts blocking view. it was done on computer that is virtual dissasembly
.
i always made backup files and often used filename_2016Dec25a so date was in filename to keep track of versions. basically had 10,000's of old file versions in old folders
.
a difficult problem i had to solve was machine oscillating or motion not steady. it was caused by steel bar used to guide motion of another assembly that was deflecting under load unevenly. static or non moving it looked ok, i actually bolted on a rotary table and precision level to zero out and could easily see the oscillating motion with the precision level. the tools used i modeled ahead of time to show how measuring tools would work to the Engineer.
.
sure i made paper drawings often and often showed views of model made semi transparent to show and explain to others. preparing ahead of time CAD views is much faster. it might take 30 to 60 minutes to prepare a 5 minute power point presentation. far better to not keep others waiting. hugh CAD models are slow. i often could not have the whole machine open in Solidworks. if i moved model slightly it could easily take 5 minutes to recalculate 100,000 parts to .0001".. i always worked with subassemblies of say only 10,000 parts to save time.
.
so i used CAD program AND i used drawings. there are times for both

as a machinist taking CAD models to model new parts for machinist to make in the shop i often did. my CAD models and drawings i used, made parts, did equipment upgrades often
.
i never in 6 years got approval to update CAD models on the main computer network CAD storage systems. as time went on the old originals became more and more out of date. did not really matter i had my own copy of newest and most accurate CAD models. eventually so few engineers were left working there was no one more qualified to understand machine design left. did not matter old guard was so into protecting their jobs that even when nobody was left system still prevented machinist from using the main CAD file system
.
my job as maintenance machinist was to keep equipment running and i often did equipment upgrades. when company went bankrupt (not from my machines) boss said if not for me they would have closed the building at least a year or 2 earlier. basically my work helped keep my job a extra few years.

We're in the same boat. We tend to model 75% of our stuff in solidworks before it goes to mastercam and it will often get printed because the operators need to mark it up. That means post-op paperwork updating the drawings with their notes. Going all paperless is a longterm goal, but first we need to have non-solidworks access to the files, such as saving them in pdf print format, and then seting up digital notes that remain linked to the parts. We don't have a dedicated cad-jocky to do this stuff unfortinatly, so we keep printing and filing papers until we get our act together.

I will say, in all our discussion about improving part quality and production time, we first talk about getting better faster machines, but conclude in the end that improving the process/paper-trail will lead to the best results.
Its like realizing you can't just buy a fitness machine, you actually have to diet and workout.

We live in a quickly changing world. 15 years ago there were movie rental stores, maps as the gas station to find your way around, and almost no cell phones.

Profit margins are slim and it doesnt make sense for many shops to plunk down $5k for Solidworks. The free version of E drawings doesnt allow export to dxf and it doesnt have the best measuring features.

Gotta go, keep thinking of ideas...

Sent from my VS500 using Tapatalk

Honestly, I think you're doing the right thing in using paper drawings. I would suggest being a bit "official" about it (making sure correct revisions are used, changes noted in red, etc.) but I just can't envision it being any better (and likely worse) digitally. I look at it this way. Say I'm in a new city and I want to "figure out" how to kind of plan a route around where I'm going (and maybe I don't even know where I want to go yet). Nothing would be nice than to have a nice fold-out paper map that I could make notes on, see "points of interest" and maybe draw a little route. I might whip out the smart phone to learn the exact route I should take or read some reviews but in order to see the overall "picture" best, it would still be nice to see it on paper.

Having said that, I did experiment around successfully with an Android App that would view PDF's (i.e. drawings) on a tablet and the IT guy on this forum suggested using a table PC as well. I think that could work well for zooming in and seeing detail in certain cases.

Good luck,
The Dude

i still like paper drawings but i would avoid creating E size biggest size drawings.
.
i designed to be readable on C size drawings letters numbers then the greater chance you can read it on a 27 to 40" computer monitor. if letters and numbers small and barely see on E size piece of paper no way will you see on a computer
.
i make A or B drawings often and they are readable on 20" monitor. just saying got to make drawing with goal of being readable on a computer monitor
.
a lot like making stuff readable on a 7 to 9" tablet like kindle or ipad. if letters barely big enough to read on full size 8.5 by 11 paper then its harder on a smaller tablet

I have tried to use a program called SolidVIEW. It is supposed to read SolidWorks part and assembly files directly, no need to make an E drawing. For $99 bucks a copy I bought it to try. However we just moved to SW2017 and that version was in beta and try as I might I could not get it to open our files. Anyone else here using it? If it works I am going to park a computer and a 4K large screen tv in the shop to see if we can build faster with a large 3D view available and the ability to measure things directly off the model. We are often changing the model as we are building and this should give us almost real time interaction with the shop.

Have you looked into Solidworks MBD?

We are switching to that to get away from paper drawings here.

I just took a look at it. Another $1995 on top of SolidWorks and $495 yearly maintenance. Not gonna happen here.
They show all these spiffy dimensions and stuff. What we need are the ones I forgot! I am not trying to eliminate the paper drawing that is an integral part of our data COLLECTION system. I am trying to augment them with 3D views and the ability to grab missing dimensions or dimensions that might help verify something is correct.
I love the claim that a 3rd to 1/2 of engineering time goes to creating 2d drawings. That might be the true percentage of the Drafting time, but drafting is NOT engineering. Engineering involves a huge amount of other activities and drawings are only the very last step. I spend weeks on actual engineering of products, and blow out drawings in just a couple days at the end.

Drawings are a good communication tool between machinist and engineer because they have tolerances, revision notes, and thread callouts. Redlines are a great form of communication from machinist to engineer and it would be hard to find something that encourages communication as much. PDFs are nonproprietary and are unlikely to become obsolete. I think you all are wise to stick with drawings for making parts, but when the day comes, a good digital drawing should have tolerances, hole callouts, and revision notes. It should encourage communication both ways.

A good subject for debate would be assembly drawings, since it is difficult to show all of the detail needed to solve mechanical problems in a 2d drawing, since the engineer cant anticipate every view required to solve last minute issues.

Sent from my VS500 using Tapatalk

No SW model will give you manufacturing tolerances. For that you must convert the model to a drawing. In order for it to contain all the necessary information in useful form it can take as much time to create as the model because it requires engineering judgement, such as fit, that is not required to run SW. It takes longer to teach decent drafting skills than it does to teach modeling.

As for the vaunted timesaving, moneysaving, etc. of the "paperless" shop floor, an easily-reproduced inspection drawing represents a lot less vulnerability to chips and coolant immersion than a monitor, keyboard or mouse. And you don't need to screw around with zooming onscreen to see detail if your drawings are worth a damn.

Because a computer screen is 89 dots per inch and a printout is between 600 and 1200 dpi depending on the printer. Also printouts are larger than computer screens.

If employees are complaining about paper, it is possible there is some inconvenient aspect of getting printouts. Make sure it is easy to print stuff out.

Oldwrench said:

No SW model will give you manufacturing tolerances.

Click to expand...

That hasn't been true for a while, now.
Example: http://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworksblog/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/MBD.png

I have no experience in these practices with Solidworks specifically, but I have had success in machinists and assembly folk using our NX/UG models which were subsequently exported to JT models. JT models are Siemen's own read-only model used for communicating 3d data, PMI (product and manufacturing information. same premise as model-based-definition more or less) and such information via their JT2Go software. You can even get JT viewers on the Okuma controllers nowadays so that you can quickly open up a 3d model of your tombstone all loaded up if needed, for reference, or something like that.

It requires a decent jump in how to do things that some people don't acclimate to very well. I'm a big fan from a designer standpoint and from a CNC machinist standpoint, so long as both sides of the system are in good communication and set reasonable standards all around.

I'm most familiar with NX PRT/JT files and somewhat with CATIA (out of necessity, not desire...) Such as these googled images below:
http://www.okino.com/images/nx_turbocharger_snapshot_650_for_press_release.jpg
https://siemensplm.i.lithium.com/t5...7649121B97/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1

I've also gotten 3D PDFs from customers and 3dXML docs and they're "meh" but doable.

jscpm said:

Because a computer screen is 89 dots per inch and a printout is between 600 and 1200 dpi

Click to expand...

1) Technology has changed a lot: 4K Monitors and 2K Monitors - Newegg.com Many are 150px/in
and
2) You can zoom a computer display to get more pixels-per-FEATURE which is more important than pixels-per-inch in the end. Magnifying glass over paper is not as good as zooming in on a CAD display.
3) The ability to re-orient the view is impossible on paper. You either create gobs of auxiliary views until you have gobs of paper... or you open the model, spin it a bit and go "Oh... I see, now"

Gosh, however did they manage to build all the engineering marvels of the 20th century without being able to zoom in on their .024 dot-pitch monitors? I'll tell you, they were smart enough to draw so you didn't need a magnifying glass. And come to think of it, their media has proven pretty durable. A hundred years from now I'd bet on ink-on-linen (or, for that matter, toner-on-paper) over a jump drive.

Oldwrench said:

Gosh, however did they manage to build all the engineering marvels of the 20th century without being able to zoom in on their .024 dot-pitch monitors? I'll tell you, they were smart enough to draw so you didn't need a magnifying glass. And come to think of it, their media has proven pretty durable. A hundred years from now I'd bet on ink-on-linen (or, for that matter, toner-on-paper) over a jump drive.

Click to expand...

I didn't say there were any problems with how it was done before.

I just said there are improvements.

JNieman said:

That hasn't been true for a while, now.
Example: http://blogs.solidworks.com/solidworksblog/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/MBD.png

I have no experience in these practices with Solidworks specifically, but I have had success in machinists and assembly folk using our NX/UG models which were subsequently exported to JT models. JT models are Siemen's own read-only model used for communicating 3d data, PMI (product and manufacturing information. same premise as model-based-definition more or less) and such information via their JT2Go software. You can even get JT viewers on the Okuma controllers nowadays so that you can quickly open up a 3d model of your tombstone all loaded up if needed, for reference, or something like that.

It requires a decent jump in how to do things that some people don't acclimate to very well. I'm a big fan from a designer standpoint and from a CNC machinist standpoint, so long as both sides of the system are in good communication and set reasonable standards all around.

I'm most familiar with NX PRT/JT files and somewhat with CATIA (out of necessity, not desire...) Such as these googled images below:
http://www.okino.com/images/nx_turbocharger_snapshot_650_for_press_release.jpg
https://siemensplm.i.lithium.com/t5...7649121B97/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1

I've also gotten 3D PDFs from customers and 3dXML docs and they're "meh" but doable.

Click to expand...

PMI/MBD/Whatever-you-want-to-call-it systems are pretty immature, but to imagine that they are not the inevitable future is pretty naive. The practical advantages are clear to anyone that's bothered to look and learn about it. PMI in NX is certainly functional and usable. There is a disconnect in Solidworks with the integrated-but-not-native cam systems, and some cam softwares can import and display the data but not use it intelligently for advanced feature recognition etc. As these systems are developed further standards will develop and it will become the default method.

JNieman said:

1) Technology has changed a lot: 4K Monitors and 2K Monitors - Newegg.com Many are 150px/in

Click to expand...

It won't be long before screens match parity with print for dot pitch/pixel density. Phone screens are basically there already.

Oldwrench said:

Gosh, however did they manage to build all the engineering marvels of the 20th century without being able to zoom in on their .024 dot-pitch monitors? I'll tell you, they were smart enough to draw so you didn't need a magnifying glass. And come to think of it, their media has proven pretty durable. A hundred years from now I'd bet on ink-on-linen (or, for that matter, toner-on-paper) over a jump drive.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Data retention/longevity abstract of physical media is pretty much done and dusted at this stage. If in 100 years that is no longer true there will probably be bigger issues to argue about.

I have a couple aerospace customers' internal company standards for MBD design requirements which were pretty interesting. (Before reinventing wheels, I like to look at other wheel designers)

Then there is ASME Y14.41-xxxx The American Society of Mechanical Engineers which is still very much in-development. It's immature like you said, @gregormarwick, and the board knows it and are working on it. It's a very big topic that has to be very carefully approached. Most of the big industry companies have representatives on the development of it so it hopefully gets all the attention it needs to mature, along with software supplier support for implementation.

I'm decently pleased with NX's PMI. I think it has all the tools, so far, but the concept itself is what needs full definition and refinement.

One particular helicopter company has a truly abysmal system, imo. Their deliverable product, once design is complete, is to create a PDF (Note, I did not say 3D PDF) with all drawing views as screenshots. They typically all have the default gradient blue/grey background, even. All their GD&T and Notes are view-based, able to be turned on/off in each view, and isolated by view. One particular casting, not terribly complex in features, had a few dozen views. What's the point of MBD if you force suppliers to work from a stripped down STP model (lacking PMI) and a dumb PDF? There went all the design intelligence...

Luckily that department is an exception. Boeing has a good system, imo. We are a tooling supplier and sub-tier flight-parts supplier. The stuff we get through another supplier and direct from Boeing, when it's a MBD design, is complete, clear, and easy to work with.

There will always be sectors better served by avoiding this methodology, of course. I don't have any thoughts that there is one method to rule everyone - no one does. But the more 'computer controlled' your processes are, I think the more this makes sense.

WHICH.... to bring it back around

Is why I think monitors/TVs on the shop floor will become an integral part of things. I think touch screen will be extra handy. An intranet site with basic GUI for navigating to shop documents sounds like a simple product if you want an application that is purely for use 'at the machine'. Someone might've already cracked that nut.