3D model is vastly more usable than a 2D drawing.
I am going to have to disagree with that. How did we get to were we are today? I am pretty sure that before the dawn of the PC companies were drawing with a pencil and paper (2D??)
Read what I wrote very closely, no where did I say that 2D was useless, I said 3D was more usable, and it is.
I know what was posted, I still say that I disagree. If I give one machinist a 3d model and say "build this", he will have no trouble completing this task. If I give a second machinist just the 2D and say "build this" He can do the same. The second machinist will be able to create a more accurate part because he will have all the tolerances and datums that the first guy with the 3D does not. I've seen this many times when dealing with foreign suppliers. Some just wanted 2D information because they didn't have the technology to build from the 3D.
Which one is more usable. IN THIS CASE THE 2D IS.
Now all that being said that assumes that the information given in both case was 100% accurate. Which I think is some of the dispute here. It comes down to 2 things
NEED FOR 2D OR 3D
ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION
If the 3D is accurate and it is flattened it will still be accurate
If the 3D Z axis information is inaccurate but the X Y are accurate then when flattened and overkilled the 2D will be accurate
If neither X Y or Z are accurate then toss it out and start from scratch.
I feel that the information goes hand in hand 2D-3D
frolicking lackadaisically through fields of dandyloins
As for the split of the thread, I don't think that it was a matter of "glowing praise and fawning responses without any hint of dissent" it was more a matter that of 7/8 of this post had nothing to do with Joe's program but more about the debate of 3D and 2D and there accuracy??