How can CAD file formats support your design workflow?

It’s important to identify when to use Neutral and Native formats within different types of work: If the goal is to share a document or file with others for viewing or printing purposes without the need for further editing or specific software requirements, a neutral format like PDF would be appropriate. On the other hand, if collaboration, advanced editing, or utilizing specialized features is essential, opting for a native format compatibility would be needed, such as working on a file within a company setting or working within a university

Pay attention to import and export tolerances (especially export) for neutral formats. The goal is to transmit viable data. Loose export tolerances yield junk data of limited value at the receiving end.

If there is complex model which is having spline lines and freeform surfaces and that part file used for manufacturing, it is advisable to use native platform for CAD and CAM which prevents data loss. On the otherhand if neutral file format may loss some data while export file mostly surfaces shape, spline lines or some time trimming line may be damaged.

Basically the Native files means the actual files in which you work in detail based on software you prefer to work. In this files all options are available for you to make any further modifications. Neutral formats means which can also support in another softwares apart from native format but the here one issue is that you never get exact same adoptability as native formats. Neutral formats can be just used for just review your design and give input to automated machines. Modifications are not so easy in neutral formats.

By using GPS UTILITY software, you can convert backup files. In this software, by opening the desired file, you can use different outputs for different purposes

I believe it's more important to choose CAD based on your needs, not suppliers or contractors. Select a CAD program that you are familiar with and want to grow with. This way, you also preserve your IP by not broadcasting your design philosophy. Granted, a good CAD user can reverse engineer any design, but don't make it easy for them by showing your feature history. Also, it maintains a level of security by freezing the design, so there is little or no chance that the supplier mistakenly changes a dimension or feature. This reduces or eliminates costly errors and disputes. In 30 years of CAD use, I only collaborated directly with a vendor once or twice with native files. The other 99.9% of the time, it was always neutral files.

Based on my experience, I agree with the statement that we need to know the purpose and scope of the process. If we are sharing with our internal team that used the same software, better to use the native format. It is more convenient to collaborate internally. In some cases, when the design will be used for a presentation or just a visual showcase that doesn't need complex detail of features included, we better use a native format. So the design can proceed with other software.

Choosing the right format is very important and intricately tied to the audience, message and media. Here is what Chat3.5 came up with :Selecting the right design format weaves an intricate dance with the audience, message, and media. Like a conductor harmonizing an orchestra, it orchestrates how the design's melody resonates with viewers. The audience's preferences and technical capabilities set the stage, while the format highlights the message's essence. Just as a painter tailors brushstrokes to canvas texture, adaptability to different platforms empowers the design's impact. Understanding this symphony, a designer crafts an artful fusion of format and design, leaving an indelible impression on hearts and minds through the chosen medium

Most clients prefer the neutral format as it allows for collaboration. However, AutoCAD's 2D format requires you to create each component of your design separately making the workflow somewhat fragmented. Since the sections are not connected, it becomes free drawing which allows for the presentation of various interpretations from the client. However, good note-taking and the presence of mind by the cad user for version control are required, as well as the utilization of other programs to aid in organizing the flow. Human error is always present.

Some of the neutral formats evolved during the years, the latest versions are able to store more data. This way though neutral formats also product manufacturing informations can be shared.

There is possibility of changing solid model to surface model during conversation of 3D model is common issue. More careful in the 3D model conversation in all CAD platforms.

There are plenty of times cad models come in from the outside sources not in a solid state when they are imported into our cad system. This can be very time consuming process to locate all of surfaces which are not stitched together and some expertise to mend these areas without altering the original design intentions.

CAD file formats support design workflows by enabling interoperability between software, facilitating collaboration among team members, preserving design data integrity, aiding visualization and analysis, and guiding manufacturing processes.

The most commonly used format is "iges". It is compatible with Fusion 360, Solidworks, Siemens UG/NX CAD, PTC Creo, Autodesk Inventor, etc. If iges is not working you can always use a CAD format convertor.

Eric Hahners comment happens very often, creating issues to anyone not experienced in healing the missing data. I always prefer sending the file that has a viewer for it.

i switch between UGNX and CATIA currently as CATIA for modelling and UGNX for CAE and CAD work. Format followed in common while switching is .stp . BUt tolerance place big role , CATIA we should keep .005 and Ugnx 0.001 . but in previous organization 0.05 is kept for CATIA as tolerance. Tolerance is important and next is format plus the LICENSE to open the format which we received. but better all the people work in CAD CAM CAE from the same company for more ACCURACY and less trouble.

the 3DEXPERIENCE CATIA CAD file format, as part of the larger platform, provides a comprehensive solution for managing and organizing your design workflow. It helps streamline collaboration, version control, data security, and integration, ultimately improving your overall design efficiency and productivity.

I would add that a common platform acting as a file bank must be defined at the early stage of the project. At the same time, there must be a kind of a manual to describe the naming/numbering. We generally suggest to our clients to always start with the date in the following format yymmdd.

Within a drawing office with multiple cad users, this becomes the main issue. The use of new features such as markup assist, or the features that make collaboration with other members easier are seen in AutoCAD 2022.

Unlike text files where it might be easier to spot the difference between two versions, CAD files pose this unique challenge in identifying the differences between two versions. Although one can see the different file size and other meta data one cannot always make out small differences. When I used to work on CAD/CAM files, I used to maintain a text log of changes in every CAD file and used to store it on the file itself even if the change was small. Not to undermine the importance of backing up the data but I think it is equally important to delete older versions which serve no purpose.

In my experience, I rarely see design engineers or drafters experimenting with newer file formats unless they are mandated to do so. This is because firms usually have a set process or format which will be followed throughout the company. It is not recommended to change them unless there is a strong business or technical reason to it. Also, while changing the file format for a model or drawing to new, the existing models and drawings would still be in older format (maintaining two different formats or converting all to single format). This would pose a challenge when opening or creating assemblies with multiple child parts and also when trying to applying constraints to the assemblies. These are the reasons why experimenting is a challenge.

In our applications, both the numerical and geometrical tolerances were important. Therefore we were producing technical drawings in addition to the 3D files of the object. Different 3D design computer programs were able to produce these drawings, directly from the 3D file. But when we tried to add tolerances and templates on these drawings, we found many difficulties. There, we found ways to solve these problems, but it is preferable to have a software, that can convert 3D file directly and paint it on tour own company template format and allows you to add numerical and geometrical tolerances and notes to be written on these sheets. This is an important issue.

I'd also be curious to see how much collaborative platforms have on the impact of CAD formats in the future. As more mobile and off desktop designs take place how will that change the way people design.

It would be interesting to see CAD formats being used more interchangeably with other 3rd party software such as sketch apps. Having the ability to create rough sketches on tablets / paper and importing them directly into CAD would see a great shift in workplace flexibility

In my experience, the best format depends on the use case, and it's usually best to stick to a similar software from end to end if you are able to. However, in the event you need to export for other services, such as 3D printing, it can depend on the capabilities of the equipment and its software more than anything.

Many times, a company will be having equipment manufactured from an outside source. If the purchasing company does not check into the CAD software that was used, there will be issues. The company discovers they can not do any changes on their own. Many years ago my company was having machinery manufactured overseas without giving any consideration to how they will be receiving and archiving the various CAD files. We were designing in a completely different CAD format. After they received the CAD data did the company realize they cannot even open the files, and the CAD file and drawings had to be linked. The my company had to spend, at the time, $20,000+ to purchase the native software and send me to training which added to the cost.