Partimation

A real case

A legacy part with no CAD — what the print alone will give you

Three sheets scanned to PDF in 2004, no STEP file, and a part you have to remodel. Dimensions, tolerances and GD&T come off the sheet with a confidence score per value and the source each was read from — a should-cost does not, and this page says exactly where the drawing-only path ends.

The situation

A concrete case

A legacy part number you have inherited: three sheets, scanned to PDF in 2004, no STEP file anywhere on the network and the supplier who made it long gone. The next revision is yours to draw, and before you can draw it you need to know what the print actually requires — every dimension, every tolerance, every feature control frame, and which of the three sheets is current. Two weeks to a sourcing review. Re-typing the package into a spreadsheet is a day of somebody's week, and the callout buried in general note seven is the one that sets the process.

Step by step

How it plays out

01

Put the sheets in with no model at all

A scanned print, a PDF, a raster image or a clean CAD export is enough by itself to pull dimensions, tolerances and GD&T into a structured requirements model, with no 3D file anywhere in that path. Every value comes back with a confidence score and the source it was read from — vision off a raster image, vector off the drawing's own line data, or PMI off a model. A twenty-year-old photocopy reads as a poor read on the screen instead of quietly becoming a requirement nobody questioned.

02

Establish which sheet and which revision you are working to

The revision table, the title block and the parts list are parsed straight off the drawing, a multi-sheet package is merged into one job, and sheets that disagree with each other on part number are raised as a flag rather than absorbed silently. Whichever sheet happened to be on top of the pile stops being the one that decides what you draw against.

03

Check the callouts against what a process can actually hold

A tolerance tighter than the process capability is flagged against the callout it came from. On an inherited print that is usually where the redesign brief starts: a legacy callout that was never questioned, carried forward through every revision since, quietly setting the process and the price of a part nobody has re-examined in twenty years.

04

Stop here for a price — and know exactly why

The drawing-only path ends at requirements. Dimensions, tolerances and GD&T come off the sheet; a should-cost does not come off the sheet alone. Cross-process screening and the cost curve both run from geometry, so a number needs a model on the job — that boundary is real, it is stated here rather than blurred, and anything claiming a price out of a PDF on its own is describing something this product does not do.

05

Put your remodel on the same job and check it against the print

When a drawing and a 3D model both exist, the two are cross-checked on holes, envelope and GD&T-to-face, and anywhere they disagree — or anywhere one of them is simply missing the information — is flagged for a person rather than resolved quietly in the background. Every panel mounts against the same job, so the print's requirements are already sitting there when your model lands. From that model the six process families screen with the constraint behind each verdict, and the should-cost curve across quantities follows.

What you get

Where you end up

You end up holding the print as structured requirements: every dimension, tolerance and GD&T callout with a confidence score and the source it was read from, poor reads flagged rather than absorbed into the numbers, the current revision established across all three sheets, and any tolerance tighter than the process can hold called out against the callout it came from. That is a redesign brief, and it cost an upload rather than a day of re-typing. What you do not end up holding is a price off the sheet. The should-cost curve, the cross-process screen and the crossover quantity all need geometry, so they arrive when your remodel does — and when it does, it gets checked back against the print instead of being assumed to match it. Partimation is decision support, not a guarantee: confirm the read and the requirements with your own engineering judgment before the part is re-sourced.

Already shipped

What backs this

Drawing-only quoting (no 3D model required)

Built into DocDFM.

Revision chain + multi-sheet BOM/title-block read

Built into DrawDFM.

Drawing ↔ model reconciliation

Built into PartDFM.

One upload, any file

Built into PartDFM.

Cross-process fit screening with a named reason

Built into ProcessDFM.

Should-cost curves with an exact process-crossover quantity

Built into CostDFM.

Shared-job architecture — every specialist panel mounts against one jobId (DEMO_TRUTH_AUDIT.md, LIVE)

Built into DocDFM.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Can a should-cost come from a scanned drawing when there is no 3D model?

Requirements come off the sheet; a price does not. Dimensions, tolerances and GD&T are pulled from a scanned, PDF or raster print with a confidence score per value and no 3D file anywhere in that path, but the should-cost curve and the cross-process screen both run from geometry, so a number needs a model on the job. Getting the model there is the step, and the print's requirements are waiting when it arrives.

How do I rebuild a legacy part when a scanned print is the only record left?

The sheet goes in on its own. Dimensions, tolerances and GD&T come back as a structured requirements model, each value carrying a confidence score and the source it was read from, with the revision table, title block and parts list parsed alongside them and a multi-sheet package merged into one job. That is the brief you remodel against, and it takes an upload rather than a day of re-typing.

I remodelled a part from its old print — how do I check the model against it?

Holes, envelope and GD&T-to-face are cross-checked between the drawing and the model, and anywhere the two disagree — or anywhere one of them is simply missing the information — is flagged for a person rather than resolved quietly. Put the model on the same job as the print and that comparison is a panel switch, not a second upload.

Which revision am I designing to when a legacy package spans three sheets?

The revision table, the title block and the parts list are parsed straight off the drawing, a multi-sheet package is merged into one job, and sheets that disagree with each other on part number are raised as a flag rather than absorbed silently. Whichever sheet was on top of the pile stops being the one that decides.

Where this fits

Explore further

Get started

See what this looks like on your own parts

Send a model or a drawing and book a walkthrough — or start free and run one through yourself.

Book a demo

Book a demo

Tell us about your shop and we'll set up a walkthrough on a real part.