2D or 3D? Is a Choice Required?

While there are many design tasks that lend themselves better to a 2-D workflow, many of these traditional 2-D tasks can be performed more effectively with 3-D workflows. One example would be electrical wiring and wire harness design. While the electrical system design and schematics still reside in the domain of 2D, the connectivity designs - wire harnesses, for example, are better suited for 3D. Why? Not only are routing issues solved much faster, but there are significantly greater downstream benefits to employing these techniques. Purchasing, for example, can determine precise lengths, the gauge of wire that will be required and the amount of heat shrink tubing required.

One of the biggest benefits of working in 3D is not the model geometry itself, but rather what you can do with it. Obviously, accurate and unambiguous drawing views are beneficial, but the impact on manufacturing and structural analysis functions is far greater. Traditionally, design teams had to create or re-create geometry to meet their specific needs. Today, they can perform analysis and design tooling for components while they are still in the design phase. More importantly, the designers can make the design more structurally sound and manufacturing-friendly.

The biggest fear many have about the switch from 2D is that 3D will prove to be too complex, take too much time or lead to lost productivity. Your goal, however, should not be to move from 2D to 3D, or to replace 2D with 3D. Rather, the goal should be to successfully blend 2-D and 3-D design and engineering processes. A good way to get up to speed and successfully begin to implement 3D as an adjacent workflow is to select a small part or sub-assembly and work up from there.

As someone who got their start as a microwave engineer working on radar systems at GE Aerospace, but has spent the past seven years at Autodesk guiding the development of 3-D technologies, I have seen the benefits of both 2D and 3D in product design and development. This experience has illustrated for me that there are practical reasons to take a blended approach.

The most practical reason for using a combination of 2-D and 3-D technologies is that 2D is not going anywhere, as it remains critical to manufacturing workflows. In fact, 75 percent of design engineers at manufacturing firms continue to use 2D as part of their daily workflows. While manufacturing, MCAD and consumer products firms have very high rates of 3-D adoption, most continue to run a combination of 2D and 3D. Many of these firms use 3-D design tools, but rely on 2D for shop drawings or to collaborate with outside customers and vendors.

Click here for a larger version