Mechanical Structure vs. Layer Groups - Your Input

[chill3490]

Opinions needed on Mechanical Structure vs. Layer Groups

Mechanical Structure

How long did it take to transition and become productive with Mechanical Structure (hours, days, weeks,etc.)
Did you take formal training on Mechanical Structure?
Would you go back to pre-Mechanical Structure methods?
Layer Groups

Do any of you still use Layer Groups exclusively? Why?
Do you plan on transitioning to Mechanical Structure?
Do you feel Mechanical Structure is 'overkill'?
Mixed

How many of you use both of the above design methods?

[BrenBren]

Clint,

We just started using Mechanical in November. I still have some users on LT, so we haven't really started delving into the depths of Mechanical (my reseller gave me a great deal on a Mechanical upgrade, so we jumped at the chance). Once we get everyone working on Mechanical, I am hoping to be able to get some training on the features in Mechanical. Right now, we are only using a few features of Mechanical.

I would be interested in what you find in this survey - might help convince management to get us all upgraded and trained :D

[chill3490]

We slid into all things AutoCAD (full version) with Mechanical in 2000.

Right off the bat, we loved the :

Standard Parts Library (Uh-huh)
Layer Groups (Ahh!)
Drawing Tools (Try the rectangle routines for starters)
Shaft Generator (Ooh!)

Mechanical has been a real productivity enhancer. Mechanical (not Desktop) is our bread-and-butter software in our department.

It took a while to accept those cryptic AM series of layer names and understand how to modify the support files to work with company standard drawing borders, revision blocks, etc. I took a personal interest and was charged with setting up and ironing general AutoCAD along with Mechanical issues from its introduction.

Structure - well, I have a lot to learn. I just got to work with this functionality as it is key to taking advantage of other Mechanical tools in 2004 DX and up.

[slayer913]

Chill -

I've been at Mechanical for the two weeks solid, trying to determine if it will help out my company or not. I have found that Mechanical offers a great deal of benefits, and have been customizing the standards since day three to make it the perfect package. I am now completing fabrication and layout drawings on Mechanical after about 8 days, with a noticable time (efficiency) improvement in the areas of detailing, views, automation, BOM, ballooning & dimensioning, and drafting conventions.

I use both the layer groups and mech structure - Layer Groups for bringing together annotation entities (notes, borders, schedules, dimensions), and Structure for grouping drawing entities (parts, components, etc). Coming from a 3D modeling background, I feel Structure is just perfect, as it allows for association similar to Inventor, Pro/E, and other 3D software. And all of these titles organize in a fabrication-based method. My theory as a technician is that if we can draw and design the entire plant, we should be able to understand (somewhat) what goes into fabricating every single part therein.

I have had no formal training on Mechanical - I'm learning it at the college's open-lab in my free time. I would also like to see what you come up with, as I'm soaking up all the Mech information I can get! I can't even find any outside resources on the program or customizing it, which makes the learning curve that much steeper. Shoot over anything you find!


Thanks,
Albert

[chill3490]

Hello Albert,

Nice to hear from you....

First off, I'll help whenever possible. You just name the Mechanical issue.

I agree with you; using Structure is key to fully leveraging the advantages in Mechanical. However, this concept is a little harder to get a grip on especially since my background is mostly in 2D-based design and used to managing design content with layers/layer groups. But, I am working on it and hope to share its advantages with my colleagues. No formal training is planned; that's for sure.

A little background of my situation: Over half of our small department personnel would like to shift to Inventor, no one has significant 3D design experience, and in four years time, our supervisor hasn't even switched to AutoCAD Mechanical from our previous cad package, Anvil Express. We all still rely on 2D design (board drafting era ) techniques with the only advantage being our four seats of AutoCAD Mechanical.

In contrast, our product design dept. produces 3D-based tungsten carbide cutting tools and necessary mfg. fixturing using Unigraphics v.18. I am planning to learn UG as I understand the importance of learning 3D.

That leads me to these questions:


Is your present company designing exclusively in 2D?
Does the Browser in Mechanical have the 'touch , taste, and feel' of its 3D big brothers?
--Thanks--

[slayer913]

Clint -

This might get a little long - finally some discussion on mechanical work here, as most of the AUGI members are Arch / Civil.

I can say the following two things about switching into a 3D environment:
1) Perhaps your personnel would benefit from playing around with vanilla AutoCAD's 3D abilities first, constructing parts from the basic geometry - cubes, cylinders, etc. This is how I started out, and I believe that through this method of 3D modeling I developed an insight into how even the most complex part is really just a serious of simple geometric modifications done to a piece of (typically) rectangular or cylindrical material.
2) When you begin to model using a higher-end package, look at it as if you were the machinist doing the work. I always tell fellow CAD guys that "the quickest way to assemble a product in the computer is to first go down to the machine shop and try to assembly it in real life yourself."

To answer your questions:
1) I was brought into the company to advance us into the 3D world, and I model in 3D everything that I justifiably can. I believe in 3D because you only have to draw the part once for all data needed - and on top of that, I use vanilla AutoCAD for 99% of that modeling. We design on the larger scale - plant construction & layout, process equipment & systems, mechanical assemblies, etc - and so the basic geometry mentioned above is all I need. For complex parts, I might use Inventor every now and again [I've mainly learned the software for knowledge], but I can model just about anything in plain CAD just fine.
2) This continues on from my last point: The advantage that I find in Inventor's and Pro/E's structure system is in the final organization. Grouping together sub-assemblies and features helps in seeing what the fab shop needs to know before any work can begin - what features have the most importance (tightest tolerances), what order the assembly will be constructed in, and what machinery is necessary to reach the end result.

Relatively speaking, Mechanical's structure system is a positive step towards those of the other software, but we can't confuse each of their purposes. A 2D drawing shows relationships via dimensions and details; i.e. "where is each feature of this part located?" This is not the same as the structure systems in 3D packages, which ask: "how do these features interact, and how are they dependant on each other?" The 2D browser controls hide situations, standard parts, and other drafting related information, while the 3D browsers control dependences, features, 3D axis, and reference planes. So yes, the browser does resemble it's big-brothers', but it does not work in the same fashion.

Finally, the power of the Mech Structure is great, as I see it. It allows almost the same amount of control of the 2D design as Inventor's browser would over it's model.

Hope some of this is helpful to you. Good day,

Albert

[tommy.huckabee]

Love the layer groups it's a big help. The weld symbols are excellent. My company is trying to convert to Auto CAD Mechanical but like anything else there is always people trying to stop it.
Any way the weld symbols are just excellent! We actually went to a welding class about a year ago to learn what they meant and how to draw them. (boring) Then one day we tried out Auto CAD Mechanical and they were already there. Made the process 10 times as fast and 100 times easier.

The Layer groups have worked wonders. Never use the Mechanical Structure, but the layer groups have made large drawings a lot simpler to read and detail. This is definately one of the best things I've seen.

Tommy

[chill3490]

Glad to have you with us, Tommy.

The weld symbols (and layer groups) are indeed great time-savers.

Speaking of time-savings, Mechanical also comes to the rescue with its spring functionality to name just another one. I usually use the graphical (non-calculated) representation in my drawing mostly as it beautifully depicts a spring over a shaft with automatic trimming. You'll just have to play with the variations yourself to appreciate this functionality alone.

We've had no formal Mechanical-specific training here but have worked through Mechanical's features since release 2000 one by one. Realizing there a few shortcomings in a limited number of detailing situations, we still believe Mechanical is very much worth the extra money spent over vanilla AutoCAD.

Our small department provides the company's internal engineering support and Mechanical (now on version 2004 DX) plays second fiddle to our main product design 3D software - Unigraphics. While a believer in 3D, sometimes you just don't need the complexity of a Unigraphics to design items that are one-off designs and not a good fit for the family of parts paradigm. On the hand, I can still dream of Inventor!

But I digress: Mechanical is the best 2D mechanical application!

[bmichell]

I was glad to hear Clint's comment about going to the shop floor and seeing how the machinist would make the part before designing it. I have run across so many designers and engineers that can design great components, but they can't be manufactured because they didn't think about how to make it.

We have been using mechanical since 2000 and my technicians are extremely proficient. They can produce complex drawings in a matter of hours because of the functionality.

[clinton_hill93582]

Hello,

This is the user formerly called 'chill'.

Realigning myself with another company (which, unfortunately for me, uses another CADD software platform), I can now truly appreciate the advantages of a discipline-specific, time-efficient design software like 2D Mechanical.

The parts libraries are worth the cost alone. Believe me, I miss them.

Good luck would have me working with this software in the future. Thanks for your commments and support. Brenda, you're doing a great job!

[frank.byrne]

My company is going to transition from ACAD 2002 to Mechanical 2006. We have a small group set up to implement the change over.
One of Mechanical's attractive features seems to be STRUCTURE, but many people have 'advised' us not to use it, without (as our team sees) any really valid reasons.
I was a little disappointed to find few references to it on the AUGI boards and also the very small number of replies to the poll. Also, there seems to be no recent posts...so do I take it that the vast majority of users avoid its use? Does anyone out there have any useful information and advice,one way or the other? All will be duly appreciated- and thanks in advance.

[r2thorne]

I was working for a firm until Jan of this year as the only draftsman on site, so I was able to use structure when I thought it was useful, or just wanted to. I struggled with the tiny manual, then bought the official course-ware which was outdated when I got it. Finally went to an introductory course at the reseller. After more study the light came on. I was hooked. For mechanical assemblies it is a very useful tool, especially for re-using common parts in the same assembly or in a different project. Now I'm at a new job using plain vanilla AutoCAD 2005 & I really miss my Mechanical structure tree!

[frank.byrne]

Thanks for your reply. Did you experience any problems using 'old' blocks or naming/layer/ path-name conflicts or similar?

Does anyone else out there have any further feedback?