2D or 3D? Is a Choice Required?

While there are many design tasks that lend themselvesbetter to a 2-D workflow, many of these traditional 2-D tasks can be performedmore effectively with 3-D workflows. One example would be electrical wiring andwire harness design. While the electrical system design and schematics stillreside in the domain of 2D, the connectivity designs - wire harnesses, for example, are better suited for 3D. Why? Not only are routing issues solvedmuch faster, but there are significantly greater downstream benefits toemploying these techniques. Purchasing, for example, can determine preciselengths, the gauge of wire that will be required and the amount of heat shrinktubing required.

One of the biggest benefits of working in 3D is not the modelgeometry 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 functionsis far greater. Traditionally, design teams had to create or re-create geometryto meet their specific needs. Today, they can perform analysis and designtooling for components while they are still in the design phase. More importantly, thedesigners can make the design more structurally sound andmanufacturing-friendly.

The biggest fear many have about the switch from 2D is that 3Dwill 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 with3D. Rather, the goal should be to successfully blend 2-D and 3-D design andengineering processes. A good way to get up to speed and successfully begin toimplement 3D as an adjacent workflow is to select a small part or sub-assemblyand work up from there.

As someone who got their start as a microwave engineer working onradar 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 productdesign and development. This experience has illustrated for me that there arepractical reasons to take a blended approach.

The most practical reason for using a combination of 2-D and 3-Dtechnologies is that 2D is not going anywhere, as it remains critical tomanufacturing workflows. In fact, 75 percent of design engineers atmanufacturing firms continue to use 2D as part of their daily workflows. Whilemanufacturing, MCAD and consumer products firms have very high rates of 3-Dadoption, most continue to run a combination of 2D and 3D. Many of these firms use 3-D design tools, butrely on 2D for shop drawings or to collaborate with outside customers andvendors.

2D or 3D? Is a Choice Required?_A