3D Scan to CAD Model to Inspection Report - A Real Part's Journey

[@EMS3D]

To learn more, schedule a virtual or on-site demonstration or have a service project quoted, fill out this quick form at bit.ly/371dkfH or contact us at 877-845-2700

[@kostiantynabramov]

You have the best video content about 3D scanning. I don't know why you have very small number of subscribers.

[@EMS3D]

We are slowly building a great following. This is a new channel so it takes a while but we appreciate you following us.

[@Mrddrichards]

I totally respect your knowledge and experience of 3D Scanning and have extracted several tips and methods from your videos. I'm convinced that you're nearly a 3D Scanning God. I'm mainly a CAD guy and I disagree pretty strongly with your belief that starting with a chunk and carving away at it is the way to go, including this particular model. There very well might be times when it is one's only option, but as far as creating a model with the greatest amount of modifiability and robustness it is almost always best to build the geometry rather than to carve it out. Carved out models can be pretty difficult to modify and are prone to a lot of feature failures when doing so. I do understand why some people believe in carving away at models, it can be simpler, but most of the time it isn't the very best method for the very best result. I'm aware of people that have actually taught that method to other people because they believed it was best, and that they were really highly skilled CAD guys, but simply didn't know and understand the subject in it's entirety. There were several things when I started off, that I believed were true, just to find later on, due to experience and learning, were actually incorrect. Some, maybe most of those early beliefs were things I had heard or been told by others. For example, people that haven't learned how to use surfacing, will claim that they can model anything that other's have done with surfaces, using solids. I have seen surface models that could have been modeled more simply as a solid, but there are many advantages to using surfaces, something they would have known if they had learned surfacing.

[@MrGuitarbike]

I agree. The carving away method, which is so often itself done poorly, can lead to feature failure very often. The biggest crime I see, and am myself guilty of, is sketching on a surface made from a previously cut feature. If I try to then change the original feature that sketch will often fail.

[@ulfrinn8783]

As someone who has been solid modeling for several years using Blender, Inventor, Fusion 360, Solid Edge, and more, you're 100% correct.

[@Shoopadawhoopa]

As a CAD guy i also agree. You can carve away, but the sketches shown in this video look fairly unconstrained which will cause issues later. Also sketching on top of existing features may collapse your model in the later stages of modelling. So i'd also approach this by building up instead of carving away. Also a good cad model will require analysis of the surrounding parts and loads applied, so the designer knows where deviation from the scanned part is ok and where it's crucial to stick to the scanned surfaces. I also believe that the reversed model isn't done great to be milled afterwards. There's a lot of freeform surfaces left, some small radii fillets and such.

[@harrywind1870]

In case of a part like this, would you suggest to fit surfaces to the freeform surfaces and extrude up to those or cut them together so they form a watertight surface body and then solidify them? Or any other way? Why would the features be more stable then? What do you do instead of scething on existing surfaces so that the new sketch and resulting features will be correctly constraint e.g. if you move relevant surface by e.g. making an extrude larger or something like that? Thanks

[@Mrddrichards]

@@harrywind1870 What do you mean with "scething"? I strongly suggest not carving a part out of a block, which he seemed to be suggesting. A lot of that specific part can be modeled as modifiable features or surfaces. Sometimes cutting away material is the only option, but it shouldn't become a person's primary method of modeling. It is referred to as parametric feature based modeling, and taking a solid block of material and carving out the part like the machining process isn't the way to build a robust and parametric, modifiable model. Regarding the portions that would most likely be replicated by creating surfaces, I would either try to get it sealed up to the rest of the body and solidify it, if that wouldn't work, I would resort to using the surfaces in a boolean type operation.

[@potatosalad5355]

You are a good TEACHER buddy, ....Like the "old school " Teacher with a lot Pasion in his work...

[@SchroedingerK]

Searched this topic to learn how to do this myself by renting a nice scanner and doing my own 3d modeling. Ended up being so impressed with the quality and integrity of this tutorial that i may just pay the extra money to have you ems3d do the work for me. Kudos to you guys.

[@EMS3D]

Thanks. Let us know if we can help. Our goal is to inform and educate.

[@ottodem1079]

The magic words "design intent". Without knowledge of how the component interfaces in the assembly it can be difficult to even get usable CMM data to reverse engineer and make a model. Furthermore, I 100% agree with your approach and unfortunately aftermarket parts manufacturers get the "wrong" type of model when paying for reverse engineering services which tends to sour them on the entire process. "Stay gold Pony Boy!"

[@EMS3D]

Thanks. Your right just following the manufactured model "as is" isn't the right approach. An understanding of manufacturing processes is key in reverse engineering any part or assembly of parts.

[@charliehade966]

Excellent video, admire the knowledge you have of this process. That scanner is brilliant too, using a Faroarm to scan recently and this is far more impressive. I learnt a lot with the GD&T and inspection reports from this video, it's packed with information so thank you for taking the time to make it, much appreciated 👍

[@EMS3D]

Arm based systems work great until you have to move them around. This is a process called "Leap frogging" and the problem is it introduces inaccuracies especially on large objects. Also keep in mind when using an arm based system the scanner base nor the part can move at any time. If this happens you lose your accuracy.

[@mikecarpenter4760]

This is seriously one of the most interesting videos that I have watched.

[@EMS3D]

Thanks. Look for more great videos in 2022

[@lavachemist]

Really good information in this video! Btw, I saw a typo in the report. You made a kuckle, which made me laugh a little.

[@EMS3D]

A kuckle is like a knuckle but is three sided :-)

[@cristiancastro2681]

this is a very detailed video and well made video, thank you for taking your time to be detail oriented with your process, this has blown my mind on how i look at 3d scans and methods of composing a model

[@MrAmansyed]

Such a clear explanation. Wonderful

[@EMS3D]

Thanks. We try and spend time educating people, not just trying to sell them something or creating "click bait" for likes and subscribes.

[@stepheng7716]

Great video - clear explanation on product and process .

[@EMS3D]

Thank you!

[@hamzamutlu645]

Very nice video !!

[@EMS3D]

Thanks.

[@franklaurent80]

Thank you, this is some quality information, great job

[@EMS3D]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Shoopadawhoopa]

All in all this video was very informative, thanks for that. I tend to disagree on a few details and approches, but still this was a valuable watch for me. Thanks for making it.

[@canozen6468]

What are those details you disagree? There are many ways to reach the same results, if you share your experiences and critics it would be good experience sharing for us

[@EMS3D]

Confucius says "Many paths lead to the same destination"

[@danhenton1978]

Great explanations, Thank you!

[@AndrewMcWinger]

One of the best videos on the subject that I've seen so far. I wish there were more videos like this one out there. Seems like, though, no one is going to make more of there, sooo... maybe... just maybe... you'll make a few more?:) Or, one, but way more detailed. I can dream, can't I?:)

[@EMS3D]

We are working on some great new videos for 2022

[@mechanicalua]

A very very very big features tree in Geomagic Dx) Great report description!

[@EMS3D]

Thanks a lot!

[@edled1026]

This is very good video. Real world. Thank you

[@EMS3D]

Glad you liked it!

[@stevesloan6775]

jaw on the ground love your work top shelf statis on youtube i have to say.

[@fpbibi]

Just bought a 3D scanner. I was shocked why I saw that scanner moving so fast in the video. Now I want that one. I hope it's less than 1k$ :D

[@EMS3D]

Hi Francis, commercial 3D scanners are going to cost a lot more that $1,000. The HandySCAN Black Elite is an ISO certified 3D scanner cable of .0005" accuracy measured to the industry standard VDI/VDE acceptance test.

[@screwf4ce1]

Incredible. Love this.

[@hansbrix2495]

Great video. I noticed you went from Design X to Polyworks Inspector, I know Polyworks has something like Design X called Modeler. Why didn't you use Modeler? What are the pros/cons of using Modeler vs Design X for reverse engineering. I'd assume there's more integration between Modeler and Inspector. What did you use to create the CAM tool paths? Did you guys do the CAM or did the machine shop do that for you. I'd think that the way the part was programmed in CAM (where it was fixtured, and tool hold down points, # and sequence of machining ops/setups) have a big effect on the end output of the part.

[@EMS3D]

Hi Hansbrix, Design X is a sketch driven solid modeling system that has a Live Transfer direct modeling interface with SolidWorks, Inventor, Siemens NX, AutoCAD and others. Modeler is not. Part was CNC programmed by us and machined under our direction.

[@ultimaevo77]

Fantastic video!

[@bewhitey]

Pretty mind blowing....seeing the real deal reverse engineering here

[@EMS3D]

Thanks. Not the "push button" people sometimes think. We just reverse engineered a single part that took 6 days to complete because it was so complicated.

[@xile6]

id love to have one of these scanners. i got a white light desktop scanner. Its not but not this fast

[@mithunchakraborty2517]

Really excellent presentation.

[@EMS3D]

Glad you liked it!

[@G.Davis67]

Great video. How can 3D scanners handle a scan of a weldment vs the cad model that doesn’t have welds?

[@EMS3D]

Hi Garth, you call tell the inspection software to ignore the 3D scan data beyond a certain distance away from the CAD model. This way the welds will not show up in the inspection data results.

[@Qadi90]

man this is amazing. Thank you for sharing this with us. Im truly impressed. One question... would you consider this method equal to taking critical measurements with a $120k CMM?

[@Qadi90]

i mean from when you start explaining at around min 22:50

[@UkraineTrain21]

Great explanation. When you export the parameterized solid file from Geomagic to another file type (like for NX, SolidWorks, etc.) does it also create a model tree that works in those programs?

[@EMS3D]

Yes if you use the Live Transfer option you will get the full history tree, dimensions, geometry, etc.

[@PK-is3di]

how do you rate the Arctec LEO scanner for scanning a car or bigger objects..

[@EMS3D]

Hi PK. The Artec LEO system could certainly 3D scan a car however the Creaform systems offer higher resolution and would be more accurate. We have done some in-depth testing against Artec and Creaform is far more accurate, especially on larger objects. People complain about having to use targets but if you look at every high-end systems like Zeiss, GOM, Creaform and others in order to control accuracy over distance you need targets. Geometry or texture based alignments are not as accurate. So the real answer is what accuracy do you want to try and hold? If accuracy is not important than Artec may be just fine for you needs. I hope that helps.

[@harrywind1870]

Thanks for your Video! I have some questions. How long did it finally take you to fully model the showed part in design x (without all the extra work for the video)? Is there a possibility to get a fully feature tree CAD File for the different CAD systems like solidworks, nx etc. out of Design x without having to install all the different CAD systems and using the live transfer tool in Design x? Would you recommend Design x as the best choice for reverse engineering from scan data over the other applications out there? Would you recommend polyworks inspektor as the best choice for inspections overall? Thanks a lot in advance and kind regards

[@EMS3D]

Hi Se, Answers below How long did it finally take you to fully model the showed part in design x About 20 hours Is there a possibility to get a fully feature tree CAD File for the different CAD systems like solidworks, nx etc. out of Design x without having to install all the different CAD systems and using the live transfer tool in Design x? - To do a "live transfer" you need to have that CAD system installed on the same computer as Design X. It's an interactive process that goes back and forth between Design X and the specific CAD system. Would you recommend Design x as the best choice for reverse engineering from scan data over the other applications out there? It is the most powerful system for reverse engineering. Some people don't need all its capabilities so it depends on the type of parts you are doing and your budget but yes its what we use for our projects. Would you recommend polyworks inspektor as the best choice for inspections overall? Like Design X, Polyworks is the most powerful and robost inspection system on the market. It is also a standard in many companies and if you want to work with them you have to use Polyworks. Hope that helps.

[@harrywind1870]

@@EMS3D Thank you very much for your quick answers. So there is no workaround/alternative for getting native CAD files out of Design X other than the live transfer to the CAD system installed on the same computer such as live transfer via Teamviewer direct to customers computer or save as another file type and use a third party tool to convert into native CAD file?

[@lupusk9productions]

now THAT is a 3d scanner. but jeez... 51k $ can't wait for the prices of this style to come down to earth.

[@EMS3D]

Hi Lupusk, Creaform's product line ranges from 7K to 100K depending on your needs. Feel free to contact us at [e-mail] for more details.

[@MrAmansyed]

I wish this guy was my teacher

[@MiscRocketVideos]

If the alignment is off a little, the results are off big amount. In my opinion, if your 3D scan measures bad, you have to go back to the granite table and do real measurements. In my experience 80% pass the granite table even though they failed the 3D scan. Tweak the alignment and magically the 3D scan matches the granite table. . . Proper training of the 3D scan technician is key and also evaluating the measurement method and how the alignment is done is key.

[@EMS3D]

In a CMM world I would agree with you but in non-contact 3D scanning its not necessary. Assuming you are using a good 3D scanner and practices the 3D scan data on a part like this will be sub 5 microns in accuracy. We aligned the data specifically to the machined holes and planes on the part. No different than a 3-2-1 or datum alignment on a CMM or taking hand measurement. We are just doing it virtually to the 3D CAD model. This is one of the powers of non-contact scanning. Fixturing becomes a non-issue.

[@MiscRocketVideos]

@@EMS3D That makes sense. Thanks for the follow-up. In my most recent case, a large die was scanned by a vendor and the left side was +0.020" from the CAD model, while the right side was -0.020" and the middle was near 0. After saying 50% of the measurements were out of tolerance, I asked if he could tweak the alignment counterclockwise and he eventually did and only one small region was out of tolerance and it was out by about 0.080" and matched the physical observations (i.e. there was a bump on the die). I guess the 'best fit' he was using was mathematically correct, but it didn't match what we were trying to learn. If the die had been manufactured with some tooling balls or some similar feature to aid in alignment, I think we would have gotten the desired result from the beginning. We didn't design the die, though, so it didn't have features we would normally include. I think the tools are very powerful and very accurate, but I still question the output whenever I see large amounts of things out of tolerance, as we generally use highly qualified manufacturers and it would be crazy for them to make a huge amount of mistakes. Thanks again for the video. It was very impressive for sure.

[@mikegriffin6340]

Nice video! The portable you're using looks very high end (128 GB main memory, 16 GB video memory?). Care to share more info on it? Are the apps your using multi-threaded? Do they tax the GPU or the CPU more? Thanks.

[@EMS3D]

We use Dell Precision laptops. Currently running the 7760's with Nvidia RTX5000 graphics, I9 processor, 64-128 gigs of memory and fast SSD. The new Creaform scanners capture so much data so fast you really need a powerful computer.

[@gogo4292]

Work very good

[@TurboV8boi]

Very cool video

[@KittyCatsQueen]

Hi what software is this.. For m9deling scanning and more..? Do need pay for this software??

[@EMS3D]

Hi Kayla, the software we used in this video is Design X for the CAD modeling and Polyworks for the inspection. These products are commercial products intended for business so yes you have to pay for them.

[@Loki-Grandmaster]

What scanner is this ? And how can I get one

[@EMS3D]

Creaform HandySCAN Black Elite. Contact us at 877-845-2700

[@huytranvan3145]

Which scanner do you use in this video ?

[@EMS3D]

Creaform HandySCAN Black Elite

[@njlayosf6949]

Please, what is the price of this scanner, how accurate is it, is there a better one, and what is the name of the device?

[@EMS3D]

Hi Njla, prices vary by country. If you are in the USA can can contact us directly for pricing. If you are located somewhere else you should contact your local Creaform dealer.

[@MrDmension3d]

If you have recommendation on how to justify the ''right'' way to a client, please do. I've been offering the ''right'' way at hourly fee and so far 90% of my client are scared by the cost. 3 hours vs 30+ hours. I'm really trying to start my local business here.

[@EMS3D]

Hi Hugues, we try to sell on value not just price. What is the customers time worth trying to do something manually or taking hand measurements only to find out his data is incorrect? If he sees no value in what you are offering then move along. Find customers who do. We don't charge by the hour we provide fixed pricing unless the scope of work changes. Hope that helps.

[@divineikegod920]

👌Bless You...

[@omonina]

Can you scan the file for me to study?

[@EMS3D]

HI MD, these parts were all real paid projects and we don't share customer's data. Sorry.

[@techiejam]

How much it cost?

[@EMS3D]

Varies by model and country. Please contact your local reseller or distributor.

[@TheTrumanZoo]

Maybe if you flatten the top view and extrude the flat center up you’re a long way.

[@edgarasvas]

In a few days I don't need all that scanning stuff and modeling. I would measure and draw from scratch in a few days

[@EMS3D]

Edgara, you can certainly do it the manual way. However, how do you ensure what your model is correct without actually machining the part? You could argue is some instances 3D scanning is not faster but it is always more accurate.

[@mohamedelfkir7873]

2:32 I like that😍💋 💝💖❤️