Customer Case Studies

First of all, we use three types of casting methods in-house: die casting, gravity casting, and sand casting. Our strength lies in being able to use the appropriate method depending on production volume and required characteristics. Furthermore, while invisible pinholes can inevitably occur inside castings, we can inject resin using an impregnation device, harden it, and even seal these unnecessary holes in-house. We also have heat treatment equipment, which, combined with machining, allows for truly integrated production.

I remember seeing it in a magazine or at an exhibition when I was looking for a 3D viewer. I compared two or three different 3D viewers.

The biggest deciding factor was the ability to convert data. Other viewers could be used for viewing and measuring, but "3DTascalX" was the only viewer that could convert data. I was also impressed with the accuracy of the data conversion. When I handed over IGES data output from the CAD I was using at the time to a client, errors such as missing surfaces occurred frequently when reading it in their software, which often led to rework. I remember that the IGES output from 3DTascalX was very helpful as no errors occurred. Until then, I had spent a whole day correcting errors in CAD myself.

In the Technology Development Department, we not only use it for data conversion, but also for creating documents for meetings with mold manufacturers and for requesting revisions. We can now cut out images of shapes and cross sections and write instructions, such as "Make this surface 0.1 mm thicker," during meetings, dramatically improving the accuracy of information transmission. It has also reduced the time it takes to create documents. Before the introduction, we had to write information in advance on 2D drawings, and it took two to three hours of meetings to ensure everything was clear. With 3D, this only takes 20 to 30 minutes.

The sales department also frequently uses it when creating estimates. For casting estimates, we calculate the maximum outer dimensions and volume, as well as the mold clamping force using the "projection plane creation function." While modern 3D CAD systems have the same function, with 3D CAD at the time, we had to cut the cross section and then select the outline in 2D CAD to calculate the projected area. It's so much easier now.
Also, when estimating machining, we use "3D ⇒ 2D drawing" to consider processes and tool paths.

In terms of functionality, I like the ease of dimensional measurement. There are some parts that 3D CAD cannot extract well, and I think that features like R detection for cylindrical shapes are particularly useful.
I also often use the "design change mode." For mass-produced parts, there are several design changes before launch, so the shape comparison and color-coding function is very helpful. This function is also available in 3D CAD, but it takes time because it performs a Boolean operation to subtract the product shape from the product shape and find the difference. Also, two processes are required to see the increase or decrease. With 3DTascalX,
the increase or decrease can be seen in one run, and I think the processing is fast.
 
 

As with any company, we struggle with recruiting. Casting, in particular, is unpopular, likely due to the on-site environment. With Japan's labor force expected to decline in the future, we believe it's necessary to invest in automation to enable production with a small number of people. While we've been automating the production line up until now, we're now focusing on automating the inspection process. Speaking of inspection, wouldn't it be interesting to be able to load data scanned with a 3D scanner into 3DTascalX and compare it with the design data? However, I'd like to avoid adding various features that increase the price (lol). It would be helpful if there were additional features that could be added at the current price. Seeset's products are also attractively priced.