Research Rap: Going 3D with Design
A quick peek into some research on …
moving to 3D design software points 
out
the need to plan for more than just the purchase of the new CAD
software. The research highlights some of the key challenges and
success factors in making with switch from 2D to 3D
design.
Why Switch, Isn’t Everybody
Already 3D?
If you have been reading articles and looking in from the outside,
you might think that all products are being designed in three
dimensional form, and that the only things being developed in flat
representations are architectural designs. But for those that are
“in the business” of design, it’s clear there is still a lot of 2D
around. But that is changing, and more people are focused on “solid
modeling” or “virtual prototyping” instead of 2D design.
Why Go 3D?
Designing in 3D has some inherent advantages.Being able to easily
visualize the product in it’s true form is just one of them,
although it is also an important one. We live in a 3D world, and
engineers are taught early on to draft 3D forms onto paper. OK,
maybe when you did it you drafted it on a computer, but for me it
was paper. So when an engineer designs a product, they have
envisioned it in 3D and then translated their mental image (or
sketches) into 2D. That’s hard, but as I said every engineer I know
was trained to do that. I was never very good at it, which is why I
am writing a blog instead of designing the next new product. But
most practicing engineers are pretty good at making the mental
translation. What what’s the problem?
- First, 2D drawings leave room for
interpretation. The way one engineer sees the object in 3D
might be different than the other. And the manufacturer may see it
a different way yet. - Second, the rest of the world wasn’t trained to see 3D in 2D.
We all grew up in a 3D world, and that’s the way we interact with
things. So when we share ideas with non-engineers, a 3D
model is a much better way to communicate. - Third, we can interact with it. Turn it, twist
it, maybe even cut it open to see what it looks like from the
inside (cross-section). It’s just more natural. - Fourth, we can see how it takes up space. This
is particularly important in assemblies, where different parts need
to nest or where there is the potential for interference. - Fifth (and I am not the expert here, I am sure others might
have a “top ten” instead of five), is that 3D opens up
opportunities for all sorts of analysis on the design, including
finite element analysis or other forms of analysis that can be used
to validate the design without physical
prototypes.
In short, 3D is a better design medium, and also a better design
communication medium.
So Why not 3D?
The Aberdeen report points out some specific challenges in
transitioning to 3D. The top challenges in the Aberdeen study
are:
- Cultural resistance to change
- Software cost
- Training engineers on 3D
- Lack resources to train personnel
- Leveraging legacy 2D drawing data
When it came to whether companies chose to make the transition,
the report uncovered a large number of companies that felt they
didn’t need 3D. A section in the report asked if 3D was
overkill for those companies, but then concluded that it
may be more of a perception than the reality. The
report goes on to demonstrate significant value achieved through
the effective use of 3D, including significant savings in the
reduction of costly prototypes to the tune of tens
to hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings over a year for
Best-in-Class companies. It also identified the potential for time
savings in the range of 36% improvement in cycle time from
concept to release. Companies that implement 3D, and
implement it well, are gaining advantages.
Recommendations
The report concludes with a series of recommendations to help
companies make the transition from 2D to 3D. Among the conclusions
are people-oriented recommendations, hardware
considerations, and productivity aids like start parts and
templates.
So that was a quick peek into some recent research on moving to 3D,
I hope you found it interesting. There is value in 3D, but
to succeed it takes more than acquiring some new CAD
software. Does the research reflect reality? Do you see it
differently? Let us know what it looks like from your
perspective.
sgtachat commented:
Michelle- you have covered many aspects of complexity in your
study. From my experience, I would like to add a couple more.
-Complexity of shape- for example, an aircraft wing surface. 3D can
read co-ordinates off the model for generation of CNC machining
data, whereas the same model represented in 2D requires a lot of
interpretation into machining input. Structural analysis of complex
shaped components are quicker and more accurate with FEA methods
which again benefit from the availability of 3D shapes in most
cases. True, there are not many industries which have components
with very complex surfaces and shapes, but the very fact that these
are the industries which have pioneered the development and use of
3D CAD and FEA show that they do add value there. Now that the
technology has developed, these tools are more accessible to other
industries too, and I believe its good thing helping companies
leverage 'virtual' prototyping to cut development costs.
Michelle Boucher commented:
Yes, complexity is also a very interesting question. One of the top
reasons 2D users cited for not using 3D was that they felt 3D was
overkill for their product line. So, with that in mind, we took a
look at the complexity of products designed in 2D and compared that
to products designed in 3D. The report discusses this in detail and
contains a series of graphs that compare the number of parts in a
product, the length of the development cycle, and the number of
product configurations offered per product line. We found that
while some of the products designed in 2D are simpler, overall,
they are very similar in terms of complexity. Also interesting, 2D
users came from the same wide variety of industries that 3D users
come from including industrial equipment, A&D, general
manufacturing, computer equipment, and automotive. There are more
2D users in the Construction / architecture, as expected.
sgtachat commented:
Thanks for your comments, Michelle. Yes I can imagine the effort
needed to convert to 3D if you have been working with 2D for a
substantial number of years. This also implies that the user is
bound to have a very good idea about interpretation of 2D to real
life form. Now, the ease with which this interpretation can be made
also depends on the complexity of the products you are dealing
with. Perhaps you could share some information on the industry
segments that these die hard 2D users come from. Considering the
basic 3D capability, (where you are making 3D models to generate 2D
drawings) I suspect that there will be a threshold of complexity
below which it wouldnt make sense to replace 2D with 3D(it would be
a differnt case if you are starting afresh and are yet to decide
between 2D and 3D, in which case, 3D should still win, subject to
cost) But once you get into the area of advanced 3D capabilities, I
think there should be no question in terms of whos the winner. And
as far learning them for the first time, I think it takes the same
effort to master 2D as it takes 3D. I have trained many "freshers"
in 3D and the biggest challenge for them is in interpreting a 2D
drawing to 3D, and not in mastering the software.
Michelle Boucher commented:
Thank you for your interest in the study. You pose some interesting
questions around 2D users. Since we were looking at best practices
for leveraging 3D CAD, we did not seek to capture how many are
still using 2D so, the survey was more likely to capture a 3D
audience. However, even with the 3D focus, 24% had just started
using 3D within the last year or were not even considering it. What
was very interesting was the profile of the 2D users. Most of them
have been proficiently using it for years and do not see a reason
to make a change. 73% of the 2D users surveyed had been using it
for more than 15 years and 64% had been using it for more than 20.
Imagine using the same tool for over 20 years, without any issue,
and then being asked to completely change the way you design
products with a new 3D tool. Designing in 3D does require a change
in thought process and not everyone views this as a positive
change. I began my career designing in 2D, but when I made the
switch to 3D, shared thoughts similar to yours and thought everyone
would instantly see the benefits of 3D. However, after providing
technical support for a 3D CAD tool, I can tell you there are many
who find the associated frustration of making the change overweighs
the benefits. In the study, when 2D survey respondents were asked
if they thought their company would benefit from 3D, their
responses were also enlightening. The following is a snapshot of a
few of their comments: “Don’t like 3D because it takes
too long to reuse the drawings and takes too much time to
create.” “3D is only good as a sales tool.”
“The company may be willing to use 3D, but I am not sold on
it for our needs.” “2D is sufficient” “No,
most of the work we do is based around 2D design, 3D would
complicate the work load, slow down design Time Our engineering
department would have to be alot bigger to warrant the
change.” “Being able to spin a wireframe [model]
doesn't buy us much. Our experience has been that as "Wow!"
features are added, it becomes more difficult to do mundane things
like draw lines and place text.” “Retire the 'old
guard' and bring in fresh ideas.” And my personal favorite:
“No, we can't get the management to agree that it is needed.
We could do it the old way; line the managers up before a wall and
execute them for treason, but I digress.” So, you can see,
while there are many who are using 3D, there are still many 2D
users who do not view 3D as beneficial.
sgtachat commented:
Thanks Jim. You have a point there when you say that many who have
moved to 3D still dont leverage it effectively. But considering
that the report says that there is still a substantial 2D community
its easy to understand the reason. The culture resistance to change
and the lack of proper training/awareness on the true capabilities
of 3D software could be the reason that they are underutilized.
Moreover the large scale adoption is probably just still happening
organisations are getting used to the basic "modules" of 3D tools
before they invest in advanced capabilities/licences which can be
added on. Viewing the models in 3D is a great capability but thats
just a start and organisations will realise this sooner than later.
Jim Brown commented:
Thank you for your response, and the addition to the top 5. It
sounds like you have some good experience in working with 3D. I
agree with the reasons you state for companies not moving to 3D,
and I believe the study backs those up. But I also believe the
report is very relavent, because there are still a lot of companies
that have been left behind in the 2D world. And a number that have
moved to 3D, but not taken advantage of a lot that 3D can offer.
I'll invite Chad or Michelle from Aberdeen to provide their
thoughts. Thanks for your comment.
sgtachat commented:
Having been brought up on 3D design software and still worked
extensively on 2D, I find it difficult to think that there could be
people out there who dont yet realise its benefits over 2D. Cost of
software and the associated costs of the hardware required to run
it effectively and the training required to get productive on 3D
are the only things that I see preventing whatever minor 2D
community from shifting. I would like to add one more important
point to your top 5, which is that 3D software can also generate 2D
drawings which have all the benefits of the output from a 2D
software. Like taking a print and carrying to the shopfloor. Not to
mention other aspects like generation of manufacturing information,
BOM creation etc. I really find it surprising that such a survey
was done this year at all. Should've been a decade back.
