Solutions
Manufacturability feedback that arrives after release is a change order, not a review. Partimation returns findings on every upload, before a process has been chosen, and runs a real removal simulation against the tooling you actually run to show exactly which stock a cutter cannot reach.
Where it shows up
The model was released weeks ago. The first real manufacturability feedback arrives as a phone call from a machinist standing at a spindle, and by then the change costs a schedule slot instead of an afternoon.
Casting, molding, forging, and machining each have their own reviewer and their own queue. The part gets checked once, late, by whoever was free — and only against the one process somebody had already assumed.
The pocket looked fine in CAD. On the machine the cutter bottoms out and leaves stock nobody planned for, so a job quoted at one setup quietly becomes two.
Somebody says the wall is thin or the draft is missing, but not which check caught it or where on the part it applies — so the argument about whether it matters takes longer than the fix would have.
What it costs
The same fix gets dearer every week it waits. Caught at the model, it is a fillet and an afternoon. Caught at quoting, it is a re-quote and an awkward call to the customer. Caught on the floor, it is scrap, a resequenced job, an unplanned second setup, and a delivery date that moves — and by then the part has stopped being somebody's decision and become somebody's fault.
How it plays out
An STL or STEP model, a DXF or PDF drawing, or both together on one job. The first look at the geometry happens on the file you already have, not on a file somebody still has to prepare. PartDFM.
General manufacturability issues get flagged for any uploaded part before a process has been chosen, so the geometry is questioned at the point where changing it is still a design decision rather than a change order. MFGDFM.
Casting, molding, forging, machining, sheet metal, and additive are screened together, each coming back feasible, marginal, or infeasible with the constraint that drove the verdict. An engineer can argue with a named constraint. Nobody can argue with a shrug. ProcessDFM.
Machinable features come back detected, each with a confidence, and a real voxel removal simulation runs against actual tooling to quantify and locate the stock that cannot be reached. When an undercut needs a second setup, a 3+2 setup plan is generated, gouge-checked, and priced into the quote instead of stopping at "needs 5-axis". MachDFM.
Already shipped
The removal simulation reconciles cycle time, flags unreachable features, and calls out leftover stock and gouge depth against the tooling you run. It does not model the fixture or the machine, and it will not tell you the head is about to meet a clamp. Knowing which half of that you are getting is the difference between a finding you can act on and a finding you have to go and verify again. Every finding names the check behind it, which is what makes it arguable — and a finding an engineer can argue with is one that gets resolved before the part reaches a machine.
Built into MFGDFM.
Built into MachDFM.
Built into PartDFM.
Built into ProcessDFM.
Built into MachDFM.
Built into MachDFM.
See it for your team
A 48 mm deep pocket with a 3 mm internal corner passes every CAD check and stops the job at the machine six weeks later. Upload the STEP before the design review: manufacturability findings come back before a process is picked, and a voxel removal simulation quantifies and locates the stock your tooling cannot reach.
A customer's fabrication package arrives as one multi-body STEP. Per-part manufacturability findings, a six-family process screen with the constraint behind each verdict, and a coarse clearance screen come back before you price it. Nothing joint-level does: no member schedule, no weld metres, no joints off the model.
FAQ
Move the check to the upload. Manufacturability findings come back on any uploaded part before a process has been chosen, and the six process families are screened together, each returning feasible, marginal, or infeasible with the constraint that drove it. A finding at the model costs a fillet and an afternoon. The same finding at the machine costs a date.
Reach, most often. A pocket that looks fine on screen has a floor no cutter in the crib can bottom out in, or a corner radius nothing available will hold. A real voxel removal simulation against your actual tooling quantifies and locates the stock left behind, so the problem lands on a report rather than at a spindle with a job already loaded.
Each finding names the check that caught it and where on the part it applies, so the conversation is about one feature and one rule instead of a general worry. A process ruled infeasible comes back with the constraint that ruled it out. Naming the rule is what lets an engineer either fix the geometry or make the case that the rule does not apply here.
Fixture and machine collisions, for one — the removal simulation models the cut, not the clamps, and that boundary is stated rather than glossed over. Tolerance stack-up and mating behaviour sit outside it too. What you get is decision support with the rule named on every finding, to be checked against your own shop's practice before tooling is committed.
Get started
Send a model or a drawing and book a walkthrough — or start free and run one through yourself.
Book a demo
Tell us about your shop and we'll set up a walkthrough on a real part.