Data Exchange with Support for the Neutral Processing of Formats in Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting article that can be of help to CAD users unfamiliar with neutral format merits and problems.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your time in reading our article.

We really appreciate your review of our article.

Sincerely

         Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is based on experimental analysis and introduces the performance of commonly used CAx neutral files in data exchange between heterogeneous CAx systems.

1.The main work of the paper includes introducing the current mainstream CAx systems and neutral file formats and standards, using neutral files for data exchange, and statistically analyzing the results. The content of the paper does not seem to focus on solving a scientific problem or innovative engineering applications; it appears to be more like a investigation report or a survey. The contributions and innovative aspects of this paper are limited or not well presented.

2. The experimental section lacks clear explanations of the specific evaluation criteria used and the reasons for choosing those criteria. Although the paper mentions a research plan, including the definition of evaluation criteria and determining the importance of individual criteria, no relevant content was found in the research and analysis sections. 

3.The description of the models used in the experiments is not very clear. It is not specified which models or model libraries were chosen for conducting the experiments. It is not clear whether these models have general applicability to the research question addressed in the paper. Is it possible that the use of different model selections could potentially impact the results of the experiments? 

4.Some table references in the main text are incorrect, such as in line 314, Table 5.1, and line 357, Table 6.29.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, very helpful remarks and suggestions that really helped us to improve the paper and to make it more attractive for readers, especially for the international audience. We have made substantial changes to the manuscript, taking into account all yours comments.

 

Specific Comments: 

This paper is based on experimental analysis and introduces the performance of commonly used CAx neutral files in data exchange between heterogeneous CAx systems.

1. The main work of the paper includes introducing the current mainstream CAx systems and neutral file formats and standards, using neutral files for data exchange, and statistically analyzing the results. The content of the paper does not seem to focus on solving a scientific problem or innovative engineering applications; it appears to be more like a investigation report or a survey. The contributions and innovative aspects of this paper are limited or not well presented.

Response:

This paper shows a general method for solution of potential problems that may occur when working with different formats for 2D, solid and 3D surfaces, comparing DXF, IGES, STEP, SAT and X-T formats. In this way, the paper allows to better explain and approach the efficiency of the use of these formats, and it makes the further processing of data easier to compare with each other. The models described in the paper can be generally applied to the user's needs only when using the formats described in paper.

2. The experimental section lacks clear explanations of the specific evaluation criteria used and the reasons for choosing those criteria. Although the paper mentions a research plan, including the definition of evaluation criteria and determining the importance of individual criteria, no relevant content was found in the research and analysis sections. 

Response:

A more detailed description of the evaluation criteria used and the reason for their selection was added to the text.

In the production process, we can meet with parts whose final design can be created as 2D, 3D or model with drawing documentation created in CAD system. Thus, a model created in any CAD system can find application for various applications. For the simulation of machining and the creation of toolpaths in a CAM system, for finite element analysis, or for documentation applications.

The reason for the selection of the chosen neutral formats such as DXF, IGES, STEP, SAT and X-T, which are the focus of the experiment, is their availability on the commercial market. The first reason is that they are standards developed by the standard bodies, ANSI, and ISO, and the second reason is their wide use in the industrial field, such as the automotive and aerospace industries. They are also of interest in the field of CNC manufacturing, where data conversion and working with different processing formats and data exchange between different CAD systems is frequently used.

The use of the evaluation criteria and the reason for their selection was to solve the problems of data processing between the customer and the production, which can be applied to the machining process. In the part production, a large part is related to the program in which a given company works and a given CAD model is created. However, the range of programs that can be used in the field and the consequent work with them is limited by the format in which the CAD model is saved, sent, and subsequently opened. The degree of compatibility between the chosen formats, which are most used for saving in different CAD systems, was the reason for the choice.

DXF format is the most commonly used data format of current graphics and CAD programs. The choice of comparing DXF formats was based on their use in programming on CNC machines, which make it possible to open these files and extract points and contours from it. This saves programming and testing time and the contour created will match the drawing exactly. DXF files usually contain multiple layers in which the part drawing is arranged.

When producing parts with the required dimensions and shapes, programmers in the field of CNC manufacturing often meet with a problem called data conversion, especially in the case of shaped parts of moulds, where individual surfaces need to be manually, using various tools in the CAD system to modify, stitched.  These errors are shown as missing surfaces, gaps, holes, sharp edges, surfaces that overlap, or incorrect visualization of details. The reason for this is different format in which the CAD model is saved and subsequently opened in another CAD system in which it was saved. This error is caused using different CAD systems between the different sides.

Saving CAD models in a specific format, which are the starting point for the further production process and their processing as well as the Importance of data processing conversion has its own justification. Incorrect data processing is subject to a consequent increase not only in production time, but also in the time required to make these corrections in CAD system. Only then, if the model is repaired and satisfies the necessary properties, is it ready for the next process, e.g. programming toolpaths in the CAM system and generating NC data for a specified CNC machine.

3. The description of the models used in the experiments is not very clear. It is not specified which models or model libraries were chosen for conducting the experiments. It is not clear whether these models have general applicability to the research question addressed in the paper. Is it possible that the use of different model selections could potentially impact the results of the experiments? 

Response:

This paper shows a general method for solution of potential problems that may occur when working with different formats for 2D, solid and 3D surfaces, comparing DXF, IGES, STEP, SAT and X-T formats. In this way, the paper allows to better explain and approach the efficiency of the use of these formats, and it makes the further processing of data easier to compare with each other. The models described in the paper can be generally applied to the user's needs only when using the formats described in paper. More details of the models used were added to the text.

4. Some table references in the main text are incorrect, such as in line 314, Table 5.1, and line 357, Table 6.29.

Response:

References to the tables were checked.

Sincerely

                Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The title cannot have all letters in uppercase. Furthermore, acronyms must be explained before being used: for example, what is meant by the "CAx" system? A figure of the methodology that is clear and explains the proposal in detail is missing

the paper needs a proofread

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, very helpful remarks and suggestions that really helped us to improve the paper and to make it more attractive for readers, especially for the international audience. We have made substantial changes to the manuscript, taking into account all yours comments.

 Specific Comments: 

1. The title cannot have all letters in uppercase. Furthermore, acronyms must be explained before being used: for example, what is meant by the "CAx" system? A figure of the methodology that is clear and explains the proposal in detail is missing.

Response:

The title of the paper was changed. In article a more detailed description of the initials CAx was added to the manuscript and also figures of the methodology.

Sincerely

                Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the authors' response, which addressed most of my concerns. However, I still have the following reservations:

1. It is unreasonable to cite a large number of references all at once, such as in the revised version lines 68-71: "This manuscript is a part of filling the gap in the current state of the literature and is the basis for similar object conversion incidents or testing of software that tests compatibility levels [49-89]."

2. Despite the authors' response that references to the tables were checked, I still do not understand which tables are being referred to in the revised version line 337, "Table 5.1," and in line 452, "Table 6.29." The paper only contains tables numbered from 1 to 5. And, the method of referring to tables in the main text is also inconsistent, with variations such as "Table 2" (line 435), "tab 6.29" (line 452), and "Tab.4" (line 456). Additionally, there are still some typographical errors in the paper. For instance, the font size in line 489 is clearly not consistent with the font size used in the main text. I recommend thoroughly reviewing the writing of the paper.

3. I suggest that the authors provide a more comprehensive introduction or analysis of the research background on data exchange, including various methods relying on neutral files, e.g.

"An architecture for universal CAD data exchange"

"A set of standard modeling commands for the history-based parametric approach"

As well as methods not reliant on neutral files, such as:

"Service-Oriented Feature-Based Data Exchange for Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing"

"Quantitative optimization of interoperability during feature–based data exchange"

"A method for topological entity matching in the integration of heterogeneous CAD systems"

I hope these suggestions can be helpful for further improving the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you again for your time, very helpful comments and suggestions, which have really helped us to improve the work and make it more attractive to readers, especially to an international audience. We have made changes in the manuscript, according to your substantive comments.

 Reviewer's comment: 

Thanks for the authors' response, which addressed most of my concerns. However, I still have the following reservations:

1. It is unreasonable to cite a large number of references all at once, such as in the revised version lines 68-71: "This manuscript is a part of filling the gap in the current state of the literature and is the basis for similar object conversion incidents or testing of software that tests compatibility levels [49-89]."

Response:

Thank you for the warning. The references were divided into smaller sections for a better overview. Some literature was deleted and replaced by others related to similar areas of research.

2. Despite the authors' response that references to the tables were checked, I still do not understand which tables are being referred to in the revised version line 337, "Table 5.1," and in line 452, "Table 6.29." The paper only contains tables numbered from 1 to 5. And, the method of referring to tables in the main text is also inconsistent, with variations such as "Table 2" (line 435), "tab 6.29" (line 452), and "Tab.4" (line 456). Additionally, there are still some typographical errors in the paper. For instance, the font size in line 489 is clearly not consistent with the font size used in the main text. I recommend thoroughly reviewing the writing of the paper.

Response:

Thank you for the warning. To the text was added description on Table 2 and text called Table 5.1 was deleted. It was mistake from our side. Table number 6.29 was changed to the correct number (Tab.4). In all article the entire text was checked (font size used in main text and also for the pictures)

3. I suggest that the authors provide a more comprehensive introduction or analysis of the research background on data exchange, including various methods relying on neutral files, e.g.

"An architecture for universal CAD data exchange"

"A set of standard modeling commands for the history-based parametric approach"

As well as methods not reliant on neutral files, such as:

"Service-Oriented Feature-Based Data Exchange for Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing"

"Quantitative optimization of interoperability during feature–based data exchange"

"A method for topological entity matching in the integration of heterogeneous CAD systems"

I hope these suggestions can be helpful for further improving the paper.

 Response:

Thank you for your suggestions. After studying them, they were added to the article and the literature was also supplemented based on them.

Sincerely

                Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no more question.