This feature in 2D Manufacturing drawings, would allow me to quickly override and enter a custom value to the dimension box, overriding the exact dimension.
This is especially useful when a nominal size appears with 2 or 3 decimal places after the decimal point I.e I require the dimension to be 50mm but it measures 49.794mm. Rather than redraw the component to 50mm, for manufacturing purposes I can just “ammend” the dimension to 50mm. This is possible in AutoCad LT.
This is a workflow blocker for me.
See attached screen shots.
I would like to be able to quickly and robustly create 2D manufacturing drawings with good dimensions to allow fabrication at the bench. Overriding some dimensions that need to be rounded up. I realise that I can adjust the number of decimal places after the point, but this would mean adjusting this for each dimension and it would change “all” dimensions, when only one or two may need changing.
To the person making the component, a highly accurate (with decimal places after the point) dimension on a very basic feature can be confusing and away from dimensioning protocol.
Thanks for sharing your detailed example. This is a very valid workflow and is already on our radar to support it with amending the recently released dimension editor panel (on which the tolerances can be specified) to also include the option to manually change dimensions. I can’t share the exact date of release, but it is on the list for early next year.
If the model is 49,794 you should change the model until it is 50mm…
if you override the dimensions that is fine for PDF-Drawings, but as soon as you export it as .dxf ,.dwg or something, the recipient of the file is uncertain if the shape or the dimension is true!
a 3D-file export will remain inaccurate also!
In times where data is mostly used directly to convert it to machine-data this feature request seems a little outdated. No manufacturing-company is going to program their machines according the dimensions of a drawing (in a PDF) - they will use 3d- or at least 2-d-data their system can read.
That is at least my experience from 10+ years of mechanical engineering.
Yes indeed Sir. But no not in my my case.
The drawings will be printed and given to the craftsman at his bench to fabricate the parts. He will also use a manual machine or part program a CNC machine maybe for a “one off” piece or fabrication from the printed drawing. Hacksaw, drill, grind and file manually for a one off piece, hence the printed drawing. I would not change a 3d model for example, because the length of a “flat” on the side of a cylinder measured to 2 or 3 decimal places, when actually the length of the flat was not particularly important.
PS. In my experience of 46 years of Mechanical Engineering.
Oh yes, perhaps even 3, especially if there are some accurate diameters/bores or hole centres to machine, but not all the remaining features would need to be to decimals, I would hope they would be whole numbers, but they don’t always turn out whole in the model.
That would help me anyway.
AutoCad and other 2D software offer this feature, it would be good if Shapr also offered it. For me and others I think.
My transparent answer is that this change will come later and is moved to the longer term roadmap. At the time of the question the project was on higher priority though. As much as we would love to work on all aspects of Shapr3D at the same time, in reality sometimes we need to prioritise ruthlessly.
Ah I replied to the wrong person, Sorry. Well we have that answer then.
We find it useful for the students in Design & Technology (wood work), They are only modelling on CAD so they aren’t using exact dimensions during sketches as that is advanced for them, so it would of been good for the 2D working drawings to enter numbers manually of what rough sizes they would aim for.
Yes, it’s important.
I saw Engineering Apprentices being taught the very same, “Design for Manufacture” process last week. They design their component in 3D CAD and then machine it and fabricate it in the workshop. However, the Software is Solidworks!
I mean, that must be so expensive to lease! I would love to implement something so much more flexible, intuitive, personal and cheaper as Shapr3D,especially as these people are tomorrows champions of industry.
A shame.
Yes we have Solidworks, They’ve used it here for years. Not actually teaching proper CAD, just for modelling it must be super expensive. I did learn to use Solidworks but it wasn’t great for my usage. I’ve introduced our school to Shapr3d. students can work is far easier, Staff can use it. Its great.
Bit tricky getting each student to sign up for it, but once past that stage jobs a good’n
I only have 36 years, but my experience has led me to be wary of “faked” dimensions. But they can be useful as @ricko3k says… However, can I suggest to the Shapr3D Dev team that the faked dimension value always appears in itallics on the face of the drawing? That way this shows that the draftsperson went to additional effort to state their intent to the craftsman. An NC programmer may also notice it too, but still treat the model as master.
what if we could use the 2d to drive the 3d? in other words, you define your 2d sketch, and if you want to adjust a dimension, instead of going into the 3d to do it, you can make your adjustment on the 2d drawing, which will be reflected in the 3d. this would require defined variables for the dimensions (which if this does go all the way to being parametric, that feature should be implemented). After the dimensions are defined with variables, they can be updated and driven by the 2d sketch or spreadsheet.
