How can we make drawing dimensioning and annotations awesome?

devon_sowell · March 2015

Using SW I like that the ISO or ANSI Standards & 1st angle projection or 3rd angle projection can all be set globally in the Drawing templates. That means I never have to think about Line Weights, Fonts, and Arrow Head Sizes, pleeeezze

Emm · March 2015

If dimensioning 2D then I wish I could drag over line to dimension, in order not to aim always so precisely to select line or edge.

Regarding dimensioning in general you will hopefully have 3D dimensioning of model that can be easily converted to 2D views if needed.
Simple brainstorms will reinvent Solidworks's 2008 DimXpert functionality.

berne · March 2015

How about one properties table the both the drawing and model share.... SW has either option and some times it gets confusing if someone in the collaboration chain populates the drawing properties and another team member populates the model properties table and one or both get linked into the drawing... one table would simplify the whole thing...

anyone feeling what I am throwing down?

Mechanical_Dog · March 2015

I prefer Solid Edge's drafting over SolidWorks, as does most of the group I work with (we recently switched over). Each program has strengths.

Most time spent would be dimensioning and tolerancing, followed by intelligent, planned-out layout of views and sheets. I would like an easy way to number welds for weld maps (but that is just a side comment).

Part lists (BOM) are generally a big pain. Setting up what needs to be included, then adding the data to each file individually. It be nice to edit directly from the list and in the part. Being able to control what items show on the parts list, what items are shown in sub-assemblies and what items have and have not been called out is important.

An auto check that checks for missing dimensions (and double dimensions) would be super nice... but it would take me a long time to trust it.

Spell Checker is needed.

Adding symbols to text with a simple menu that has your commonly used ones first.

3dcad · March 2015

Good points about BOM's @Mechanical_Dog, here is some more:

1. Possibility to check option for assembly "Show as part in BOM" (for factory assembled components)
2. Add certain dimensions (for example cut dimensions and thickness for panel), I would like to create templates which would automate things to bring correct information from part/assembly.
3. Part properties (material, weight, etc.)
4. Thumbnail of part/assy
5. Perfect control for the table (create headers and sub-headers, colors, frames, dividers, etc.)
6. Show BOM view in part/assembly properties to be able to easily learn to create BOM ready designs. I mean editable fields where you can see how current part or assembly will show in BOM. Maybe this would be the place where you set up pos. 1 and 2.

devon_sowell · March 2015

@Andy Morris I watched the Onshape Drawing demo. Very impressive. It seemed to have most of the features required for creating good Drawings.

giacomo_ardesi · March 2015

Ability to toggle on and off some sort of auto center snap the dim value.

jon_mcintyre · March 2015

So much good feedback this week! We'll be reading all of it. I'm a couple days behind so forgive me for the lateness of my question,
for @Devon_Sowell .
Some people say layers are essential. What aspects of layers makes you not want them? Usability, perhaps? Can you give examples of better ways to accomplish the same goals that layers achieve?

jon_mcintyre · March 2015

@Kevin Quigley , back in November, you made several suggestions, one of which was "make it easier to update drawing title blocks".
Which information in a title block do you most often update?
At what point in your process do you update it, and how frequently?

If it's possible to automate the update, and we do that, would you still need some level of manual control of whether and when it updates?

devon_sowell · March 2015

Hello @Jon McIntyre Layers add confusion, IMO, to the information on Drawings. There is no "Standard" for the definition of Layers regarding the "Naming" of Layers, for example, and what exactly they are supposed to "do". So what I've encountered is a mishmash of Drawings that abuse Layers, like 25 Layers(!) with names like "Bob's Layer", seen it LOL.

Drawings convey information, not hide it like Layers do. Just think if all 25 Layers were "on" in a Drawing displaying all that information at one time, crazy. So when I get a Drawing with all these confusing Layers, I have to Interrogate each Layer, by hiding and then un-hiding each one, trying to figure out what's going on.

Layers contain information and then you can "hide" that information, What??? Below this sentence is another sentence that has information, but it's on a "hidden" Layer.

Word documents convey information. There are no Layers in Word docs that I'm aware of.

During the past 15+ years, thousands of Drawings and Designs, I've never found the need to add Layers to my Drawings. That's my experience. What is the "goal" of Layers? I have no idea

I understand that other Users want Layers, I'm OK with that, but perhaps an obvious notification could be displayed on the Drawing showing that Layers are being used.

Thanks for asking.

brucebartlett · March 2015

As far as I can see you don't need layers when creating a drawing from 3d model's, I never use layers in SW's. However in SW's I do hide dimension's if they are referenced into an annotation somewhere and use the show/hide tool to find hidden bits me or colleges have hidden on drawings.

In a AutoCAD 2d cad system you kinda need layers to hide show stuff, therefore I think if you are going to be able to open legacy dwg's in Onshape (as stated in video) layers will have to be there.

John_Carver · March 2015

I would think the following would be baller (some of these may have been mentioned earlier):

1. Layers that allows for application of dimensions for a tol stack/drafting/etc (then i could turn layers on and off between drafting and analysis dimensions)
2. Ability to have pre-made export button that you can set exactly which file formats you want exported when you hit the export button:

for eg. i set PDF, DXF, and DWG as the formats i want generated with a single click
you could also have this as check boxes in a save as menu

3. Have collaborative mode between different functions where my tooling guy can line item dims and the such and add notes to what the tolerances may need to be changed to in order to accommodate a given process
4. It would be cool to have an interactive mode relating a given process to make a part vs the tolerances that are applied for that process (standard tolerance for things like machining, laser cutting, drawing, etc....):

I would think that is would be nice that i could apply a tolerance to a feature (after a tol stack of course ) then based on the process picked for the model for manufacture, it would flag it based on accepted/common tolerances for said tolerance (like if i applied a tolerance of +-.0001mm, a flag would pop up saying ...."are you sure? the standard tolerance for said process is +-XXX" ...lets say machining is 0.2mm or the such...call is TOLWIZ or the like). This could lead one to go back and reavaluate where they could loosen a tolerance so they would not incur crazy costs/quotes due to overly tight tolerance that are not feasible (this would save a ton of time in quote process and back and forth when working with any proto house or shop)

ill think of more eventually...

berne · March 2015

Make dimensions easy to control... SW is always forcing some situation on me that just doesnt work for the page layout. For instance... I want the darn radius call out to go where I want it, not where SW wants it... seems like it is always on the wrong side of the line. Give us the ability to control leaders and locations on the fly...

berne · March 2015

Would it be possible to have some standard comments stored within our profile so we could quickly drop in a text box onto a drawing page with predefined info... example Heat Treat instructions for special conditions or materials... or, Finish notes for a given type cosmetic requirement. I find myself typing the same notes over and over. Would be nice to have a table of canned notes that could just be selected and dropped on the page where needed.

berne · March 2015

How about a box you could click in the dimensioning dialog that suppresses the auto dimensioning characteristics when you need to put things where and how you want it not where the software wants it... I hate it when I correct something in SW only to have the program put it right back where it was... is it just me?

pete_yodis · March 2015

I've been thinking on some ideas & wanted to put it out here, b/c its related to workflow with models & 2D drawings, specifically dims & tolerances. Let me know if this is diverging from the conversation here & I'll create a new thread for it.

I think we don't currently treat models as first class citizens in 3D design & modeling programs relative to drawings & because of that it creates inefficiencies & inconsistencies in the process of creating both. I wish we could define things on the model better & either forego the need to create 2D drawings &/OR leverage that method to more quickly & efficiently create 2D drawings while keeping information between the two types of documentation consistent.

In the current method we use 2D drawings with various tolerance blocks that say things like. "Unless Otherwise Specified". These tolerance blocks change for 2D drawings based on manufacturing methods, ie general machining, sheet metal, die cast, injection mold, sand cast, weldment. Why not be able to apply tolerance blocks & other controls to the 3D models & let dimensioned drawings automatically pick up the general tolerance scheme? I can see several advantages.

Explicit tolerancing of dimensioned drawings could become automatic based on the tolerance scheme applied to the model &where the feature faces were selected for the dimension, because it could be allowed to be driven based on the rules tied to the model. For a lot of our casting drawings, in my day job, our company has moved to creating explicitly toleranced dimensions. Casting drawings have numerous considerations when adding up a tolerance - size of the tool to create the part, size of feature, draft of the wall, does the dimension straddle faces created by two different halves of the tool, is a side action or core involved in the feature, etc. We found after many years that vendors, inspectors, designers were all interpreting the rules a little differently (sometimes very differently - yikes). Explicit tolerances calculated once by correct interpretation & captured & displayed on the drawing makes it extremely clear to all involved. Since the purchase contract is tied to the drawing - no one can later argue about the tolerances being interpreted incorrectly. The rules applied to tolerances are accepted industry standards & or norms. I can list an example of this if needed for clarification... let me know. It would be a huge time saver if the tolerances could be automatically handled in a scenario like this.
For the case of ordinate dimension schemes in current 3D packages you have to define the XYZ 0-0-0 origin for each & every view in the 2D drawing because there is no global setting tied back to the model. It would be extremely nice to setup up the dimension style on the model & for the drawing to automatically obey those rules. Again, allowing better definition of a model & then leveraging that to more efficiently define a drawing if needed. Information could be defined in one central location - the model (shown on the 2D drawing too if needed), & not duplicated in various places because the information exchange between the two documents is not better architected. An ordinate dimension scheme on the model could reduce time spent on drawings. CMM machines would be looking for a 0-0-0, this could parlay nicely with the model.
For the case of when CAM is used for tool path creation (when is it not used anymore?), we could actually enforce on the model that the geometry displayed is the nominal & that tolerances be treated as symmetric. Its a big problem when we create models & then 2D drawings with tolerances shifted to one side. What is a user of CAM supposed to do with that model? If the tolerance scheme applied to the model dictated the model was at nominal & that all tolerances were symmetric about the nominal model, then tolerances shown on drawings could automatically fall in line with this needed practice IF drawing-displayed dimension tolerances were dictated by the model. CAM could then confidently use the model knowing that the drawing practices fit with this method.

pete_yodis · March 2015

cont'd...

Applying a tolerance scheme to the model could allow tolerance deviations to be generated automatically (think tolerance analysis studies). Onshape is sitting atop a massive compute platform. Let's leverage this ability to understand the permissible deviations in the part or assemblies we are designing in an automatic way based on the rules we apply to the model. I'm even thinking about something like a point cloud being created (or not a point cloud) based on the tolerances applied to the model with the tolerance block & even overriding tolerances to features. The point cloud generated could be tied to the probability density function we choose (Gaussian might be the default one). Thus the closer in we get to the theoretically perfect part (nominal model) the greater the density in the point cloud. It would be cool if we could graphically see the simulated point cloud laid overtop the perfect nominal model. Inspection platforms (both scan based & non-scan based) can output their "hits" on part surfaces in point cloud form. Overtime we could accumulate the inspected point clouds & compare these to the simulated point clouds to see if they are trending. We could then maybe tweak the tolerances or probability density function to pull them into alignment for a better match of defined & then simulated tolerances to real world measure tolerances. This way of working might jive nicely with statistical process control methods. To see the accumulated inspection clouds laid overtop the simulated permissable cloud ( in different colors) could show a lot information very quickly & tie inspection/manufacturing/intended design all together in a single 3D graphical location.
Defining dimensions & tolerances on a model would allow us to check & see if every single face of the model was covered by a defined dimension. I'm thinking of a way to visually see that, like in sketches when elements are fully defined the color changes. In models we could see when faces change colors we would know they are full described by a dimension & or GDT scheme. This color view could be a toggled setting in case we don't want to see that, & see pretty colored & textured faces instead.
IF we can fully define a model such as in ASME Y14.41, then why not have dimensioned 2D drawings just automatically reflect what was done on the model? (MBD has trended that way, drawings can leverage what was done on the model view to be quickly created) I'm thinking of single annotation tool on the drawing that just selects a face or two faces & then automatically displays the dimension & tolerance that was defined on the model - that way they can't be different. This could tie in with the tool mentioned above. The drawing dimension could be counted off against the model dimension so that we know the drawing is fully accounted for. This sets out a path for MBD, while still having 2D drawings supported in an efficient manner.

Does this make sense? Did I explain it well enough? Do you see the disconnect between drawings & models? Can't we better define models & leverage that on drawings automatically & take advantage of a new compute platform in the process to give us far better views into our designs & the manufacturing of designs? There has to be a better way. Please add to it or pick it apart as needed.

julian_leland · March 2015

In response to @Pete Yodis:

I think that Pete's idea of leveraging OS's cloud backend and generating tolerance point clouds for use with tolerance stackup calcs, process validation, etc. is extremely powerful - while I'm sure it's multiple years away, +1 for this.
Re: your point about enforcing that a solid model dimension is the nominal dimension - I agree that this is an important issue to work out, and I wanted to bring up one confounding factor that we've wrestled with at my office. Especially in cases where I'm specifying a mechanically important fit (e.g. slip/transition/press) between two parts, I find it useful to model both parts at the correct nominal dimension (capturing the design intent that these parts fit together with a defined fit), and then describe the fit in the tolerances I show on the drawing (capturing the manufacturing requirement that these parts fit together with a XX/XX ISO/whatever fit).

Maybe a better way to capture this information would be 1) capture the tolerance information for a given feature during sketching (for example, define a circle that will be used in a press-fit interface as 20.00 H7/s6); 2) have that tolerance information translate to any features generated by that sketch, and subsequently be visible to the user in both the solid model (maybe have a "show fits" view mode, or show different colors for fit types in section views?) and drawings; 3) finally, when preparing models for CAM, give the programmer an easy method of switching "fit" geometry between its defined dimension and median dimension.

devon_sowell · March 2015

Bravo! @Julian Leland for using the Hole/Shaft fit standards. It seems like every time I've used them I've had to show/explain/teach them to clients. Have you ever tried annotating (Fits, Tolerances, GD&T) the 3D files in SolidWorks? Clunky but for OK for simple parts IMO. We did this for Hewlett Packard many years ago.

lowjack · March 2015

May seem a minor thing, but line weights in SW are all the same - dimensions, parts, you name it. A complicated drawing with lots of dimensions starts very quickly to obstruct the part itself, and is very hard to read. Way back in the day when I learned drafting with pencil, paper, and straight edge I had to vary my line weights to ensure that the drawing was readable. Would love to see some options with that in OS.

devon_sowell · March 2015

@lowjack Line fonts/style/thickness can be defined in SolidWorks, Tools, Options, Document Properties. Set the line fonts/style/thickness then save it as a Template. Go to Line Font to set the line thickness for each line font. And notice the statement about "printed" thick thickness under Line Thickness. Hope this helps.

lowjack · March 2015

@Devon_Sowell - Thank you! I have been looking around for that for over two years. Typical of SW to bury something like that so many layers down it can't be found.

jon_mcintyre · March 2015

I've been enjoying reading all of the ideas here. We'll definitely be using your comments to guide us as we improve drawings long-term, but first we need to get you something basic. The first version of drawings will be very minimal, just enough to get the job done, so we can get something more than "zero" as soon as possible. Don't be discouraged by how minimal they are at the start. We plan to improve them fast and make them awesome while using your input (here and elsewhere) to guide us.

I'm quite familiar with the idea of putting more information into the 3D model, and allowing for semi-automation of drawing creation as much as possible, as per ASME Y14.41, and Pete's discussion of tolerances above. I'm looking forward to getting to the point where we can start discussing those ideas more in depth, but we're not ready for that yet. Still, keep the feedback coming, whether we're ready for it or not!

julian_leland · April 2015

...does that mean drawings are coming soon?

If this is an April Fools' joke, I'll cry.

pete_yodis · April 2015

Jon McIntyre said:

I've been enjoying reading all of the ideas here. We'll definitely be using your comments to guide us as we improve drawings long-term, but first we need to get you something basic. The first version of drawings will be very minimal, just enough to get the job done, so we can get something more than "zero" as soon as possible. Don't be discouraged by how minimal they are at the start. We plan to improve them fast and make them awesome while using your input (here and elsewhere) to guide us.

I'm quite familiar with the idea of putting more information into the 3D model, and allowing for semi-automation of drawing creation as much as possible, as per ASME Y14.41, and Pete's discussion of tolerances above. I'm looking forward to getting to the point where we can start discussing those ideas more in depth, but we're not ready for that yet. Still, keep the feedback coming, whether we're ready for it or not!

Onshape is doing great @Jon McIntyre Drawings soon will help all the more. Amazing what has been accomplished in a short period of time. We're comparing what we want in Onshape to software that's been under development for 20+yrs. We'll definitely keep pushing as you have asked us to do. Can't wait to see what get's cooked up.

daryntaylor · April 2015

I'm currently estimating for a new contract that I would love to undertake in OS, however drawings are going to be critical to this project's success.
The work is probably a few months away from starting, but it would be great if the guys at OS could provide a hint as to when drawings can be expected to be rolled out.

brenden_monahan · April 2015

Andy Morris said:

Which attributes of dimensions or annotations do you create or edit most frequently?
What drives you crazy or slows you down when you're doing this?

Most common dimension tools I use are are the SW "Smart Dimension" and "Hole Callout" feature. "Hole Callout" is a huge time saver because it pulls info directly from "Hole Wizard".

Things that slow me down are refining the tolerances and fiddling with overall look and fit of the drawing sheet, adding notes, choosing the correct # Flag Squ 1.-99. to put in my note. Having to open every sheet of a document to change the revision display also slows me down if it's not a linked document property.

Please no "Layers" - AutoCAD artifact.

A big concern I have about Onshape drawing creation is configuration management and document control. Once a pdf is created it is immediately disassociated from the files used to create it. Will the pdf's be stored on Onshape's server? Or will pdf's be automatically downloaded when the request to publish is made? Will the drawing feature be another tab just like "part studio" and "assembly" or will drawings stand alone? or both? From a document control perspective pdf's are nice because they're something 'tangible' and standalone that can be locked away for posterity. Maybe pdf's are old technology and Onshape is on the verge of creating a better way to share drawings. The only other people besides the engineers and drafters that see the drawings are the fabricators. If the fabricators had an Onshape acct and access to the drawing and model files, would we even need pdf's? With that said, we would still require snapshot of a drawing to lock down as a "released" configuration but maybe "Manage versions" is the answer to that.

Excited to see the Drawings beta.

Someone mentioned an Onshape Drawing Demo in an earlier post. I searched and couldn't find anything related to drawings under videos or tutorials. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Would appreciate if someone could point me to that.

Thanks,

Brenden