Made programming error this week, looking for feedback

[Newbeeee™]

That is just friggin' insane

 

SW's IS a full detail CAD system.....stupidity reigns SUPREME!!!

I felt it needed a little adding to

[SledGeek]

If companies understood it a little more, they would realise they could cut a ton of time out of the whole process.

Model up a part and use this as the master (obviously with all features on nominal - are you jockey boys listening ).

 

Ah, the truth comes out. Why is this such a mystery to people !

 

One of our own people needed a form die altered. Came and talked to me about it , and when I asked him for cad data or model he gave me a 2d ortho that wasn't even designed right.....in ACAD.....Lite !! All he wanted from me was to prgrm and machine it. I laughed out loud in his face, I couldn't help it. I'm usually professional but I really thought he was joking! I explained to him that this form was 3d and couldn't be done in a timely fashion without a model. He turned quite a few shades of pink. I guess since he had the word engineer in his title I assumed he had a bit more of a clue about the process and could at least give me a print and request that I model it , too. All in all , we wasted at least an hour from telling him why it wouldn't work and then discussing what he wanted. And now I still have to draw it......

[?Mark]

I programmed a fairly complex part this week and QA found some features out of tolerance at 1st pc inspection. It turns out the customer supplied solid cad file does not match their print. The print has 350ish dimensions. How many of you verify cad matches print before applying cutter paths?

I check every dimension against the model. Never got burned, but see discrepancies all the time. Our prints get very complex too. My last part has 4 sheets of 2ft by 6.5ft prints that hangs on my wall...

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

I've had prints that not only didn't match the model, but were physically impossible, with contradictory tolerance zones. I hate "+/+" and "-/-" tolerances.

[Newbeeee™]

I've had prints that not only didn't match the model, but were physically impossible, with contradictory tolerance zones. I hate "+/+" and "-/-" tolerances.

Matt - what are you like at toolmaking then when sizes have to be 'c0ck on'

[Guyinthedesert]

I programmed a fairly complex part this week and QA found some features out of tolerance at 1st pc inspection. It turns out the customer supplied solid cad file does not match their print. The print has 350ish dimensions. How many of you verify cad matches print before applying cutter paths?

 

Unless the PO specifically states to program off the model, I NEVER use supplied models. I've gotten bit in the a$$ every time I did.

[jeff]

I have customers that supply .dwg's of their prints that they drew themselves.

 

99% of the time they dimension their model X.XX (2 place decimal).... and it rounds either up or down, so now .625 becomes .63... then when you add up all the dimensions, hmmmm no wonder the part is f'd up.

Pure laziness.

My favorite is when they manually edit the dimension text without actually changing they model.

[Guest MTB Technical Services]

My favorite is when they manually edit the dimension text without actually changing they model.

 

That should be a firing offense for any engineer or draftsman.

[htm01]

My favorite is when they manually edit the dimension text without actually changing they model.

get them all the time, had 3 parts all similar thay used the same exact print and just changed dims.

[Tim Johnson]

I have customers that supply .dwg's of their prints that they drew themselves.

 

99% of the time they dimension their model X.XX (2 place decimal).... and it rounds either up or down, so now .625 becomes .63... then when you add up all the dimensions, hmmmm no wonder the part is f'd up.

Pure laziness.

My favorite is when they manually edit the dimension text without actually changing they model.

 

Engineering does this here also. The engineers draw to fractions or millimeters and then later deside to loosen tolerances by dropping a decimal but not having the detailers change the model. Iv'e told engineering I don't have time to be a model inspector. I've also told several engineers to not bother changing tolerances if they're not going to change the model.

 

Engineering management and our department manual say the the print takes precedence over models but some of the actual engineers will call me up and ask why I didn't make a part to the model. I keep telling them if they would make the model to match the print (the detailers make the prints) along with the detailers' permission I would.

[Joe788]

I have customers that supply .dwg's of their prints that they drew themselves.

 

99% of the time they dimension their model X.XX (2 place decimal).... and it rounds either up or down, so now .625 becomes .63... then when you add up all the dimensions, hmmmm no wonder the part is f'd up.

Pure laziness.

My favorite is when they manually edit the dimension text without actually changing they model.

 

We get that same thing from a certain worlds largest semiconductor equipment manufacturer. Except it's on holes that have true position tolerances. So the hole on the model is at .625, the print says .63, and it's a .010 true position. The customer ends up getting parts that don't fit as well as they should.

[Matthew Hajicek - Singularity]

Matt - what are you like at toolmaking then when sizes have to be 'c0ck on'

 

I don't know what you're talking about. It was in tolerance on the computer, the operator must have screwed up.

 

 

 

and it rounds either up or down, so now .625 becomes .63...

 

Personal pet peeve. Decimal places should not be truncated to indicate tolerance. I'm happy with four places on a value whether the tolerance is .0001 or .0100.

[CADCAM3D5AXIS]

I like the ones who like to cut and paste the same view on a print to show a top view and a bottom view with different features and then dimension it because its faster to cut and paste than it is to model the part. they Also are in the semi-conductor mfg , business and Joe i am sure you have seen there Handy work

[RaiderX]

If companies understood it a little more, they would realise they could cut a ton of time out of the whole process.

Model up a part and use this as the master (obviously with all features on nominal - are you jockey boys listening ).

The drawing then just needs to say part no and description, general tolerance, manufacture and inspect to model file number ###, mtl, threads, finish, and obviously any key dims that fall outside of the general tolerance limit.

This saves buckets of time on the detailing/drawing side of things and also more time on the checking (but does anyone actually do this now or do they just sign that they've checked it...)

Anyway, quicker to market parts as less time in engineering.

Quicker programming as everything is driven from the model = cheaper NRC/parts

Quicker re-engineering when parts raise in issue.

Quicker Inspection checking direct to the model.

Some of our customers do this - some of them this frightens them to death.

 

Lastly, the most important note on a drawing is 'If in doubt Ask'.

Back a while one of our customers revised their drawing templates removing this all important note.

I asked the chief drafty why did he do this.

The reply was 'to try and stop bloody subby's phoning up and questioning things all the time'.

He was crap, drawings were awful, he has now gone, and things have got better since he's gone

 

one of our customers did just this. excellent idea horrible execution. along with inconsistency of data they also required us to make dim. drawing and bubble them for inspection. ("cut a ton of time out of the whole process") ended up "now the supplier gets to do all this work and we don't want to pay extra.

 

on topic, when I get a job I review every piece of information related to the job looking for engineering discrepancy's and submit questions asap. buyers look at engineering discrepancy's as an excuse on our part for being late and do not want to hear about it into the game. It does require disseminating what information is authority or ref. engineers do not appreciate their work picked apart either and they are part of our customer. Waste their time and they are sure to tear you up.

[rocheey1]

when I get a job I review every piece of information related to the job looking for engineering discrepancy's and submit questions asap. buyers look at engineering discrepancy's as an excuse on our part for being late and do not want to hear about it into the game. It does require disseminating what information is authority or ref. engineers do not appreciate their work picked apart either and they are part of our customer. Waste their time and they are sure to tear you up.

 

We see and hear this constantly - the print was made "auto-magically", and we end up with hundreds of threads dimensioned +-.005 on thread depths, because that was the default supplied dimension. No other reason.

[Redfire427]

In this day and age, prints should be only used for reference and discussion purposes. For as long as solid modelling has been around, there is really no reason for engineers not to be up to speed. I mean, really, do we still use abacus' ?

 

Carmen

[taperlength]

A lot of rejects I see are from prints with unidirectional tolerances. The print says 1.000 +.005 -000 and the model is exactly 1.000 and then another feature is 1.000 +000 -.005 and the model is also 1.000

So if the job is programmed to the model, one of the features is out of tolerance and the operator adjusts the cutter comp and then the other feature is out of tolerance.