There was a plugin for Solidworks that did something similar for machining. You essentially had a side bar that estimated cost in real time as you designed.
Feasibility I think can be done by rules checking / constraints but cost has a lot to do with the specific supplier capabilities in several dimensions.
As a machinist , yes, let's have AI do drawings, please. Getting rid of professional drafters was a huge mistake. Modern GD&T is complicated - which brings up an inherent problem. Our system of drafting a6GD&T doesn't have an explicit mathematical model - it's just based on practice. Therefore, you need some form of systemic approximation. There's one from Arizona University that NIST seems to prefer.
The other problem with automatic drawings is design intent. Consider that you may have several ways to dimension a hole, but one of them may more clearly express design intent. Pretend we drill a hole in a cube block. For the centerline of the hole, we have two different surfaces to dimension from in each direction. Depending on how the component assembles, it can make a difference given the assumption that the machining is done correctly.
If the dimensions go left - down, when the part is in the machine, it should be setup and programmed with the references on top and left. Correctly done, the tolerancing constrains not only the size of the component but also the best practice machining strategy. Tolerancing for manufacturability isn't something I hear discussed but should be. The other question is - can that tolerance be directly measured, or will it need to be calculated on the shop floor?
I think it's feasible for someone to do this, and quite possibly the software you described, because these things are so standardized. There's a given spacing for studs of a given size, etc.
I've thought about this for decks, because they are so often so poorly done, yet the design space is almost entirely constrained by code that essentially boils down to looking things up in a table.
My experience kinda dovetails with what other folks have said. I've been a machinist for about 15 years. The early career stuff is low pay, rough conditions. In the middle things get a little better but the hours are long. I'm doing a temp gig to cover for a 60 year old guy who needs some surgery for some work related wear on his joints. Realistically, he's not coming back to work after surgery.
Most of the men in my dad's family were plasterers. Fifty is about the real limit.
"In May 2023, the median annual wages for machinists in the top industries in which they worked were as follows:"
I.e. we're only looking at the top paying jobs. Then, look at that we're taking a yearly pay to calculate an hourly rate. Fifty hour weeks are more the norm.
I was a CNC machinist, manager, etc. I went back to school for computer science because I believe CNC machining is about to take a big leap and the industry is going to dramatically shift.
I think there are absolutely some applications of CV. Keep in mind a lot of feedback loops in the CNC process aren't there yet, but you decide how a part is oriented in a CNC machine when you write the program to make the part. The machine can skew the axis, but this doesn't happen very often. Usually someone aligns everything to the machines physical axiis. However, the machines often have a probe that could be used to find the orientation of the part, but you have to program that, too.
So, why not use CV to find the rough orientation of the part, generate an orientation routine, then probe it.
Very often the purpose of the person at the machine is to watch ( where is the part? Is the tool broken? Do the chips look right? ) and listen ( does it sound good, or is it making a horrible sound) as a process control. The parameters of milling could probably be controlled automatically with answering the bad sound and good chip shape questions.
I'm a machinist who got a CS degree in large part because I am also passionate about manufacturing in the US. Perhaps we should chat. I think my email address is in my profile here.
These things don't live in a vacuum. Those big skeleton crew shops open the door to innovation at higher levels of abstraction in the supply chain.
Namely, it requires more of a model basis - materials and tolerances in the 3D model. That enables better design automation and things like defined mechanical interfaces in a machine readable format. Think DARPA FANG/AVM. It also includes a mathematically sound definition or approximation of GD&T.
End result is fewer firms, fewer employees, more productivity and lower lot sizes. That means more efficiency and adaptability with higher wages and more intense training.
It also means that designing, making and selling things becomes less capital intensive. In theory every mechanically inclined person can be creating solutions. Hardware gets a little closer to looking like software because open source can be a real thing. Etc.
This is only true with the current level of technology adoption. The economic lot size will trend towards a single unit as technology adoption improves.
This is actually going to go the other way. Too many people did this. The median job shop size in the US is 9 people. The capital equipment is very inefficiently utilized and the industry is generally technologically behind. It will soon consolidate around the firms that can apply technology effectively.
We import a lot but we make a lot. I made a living supervising the manufacturing of the rolls used to roll steel in mill. We weren't exporting even the majority of the product.
Feasibility I think can be done by rules checking / constraints but cost has a lot to do with the specific supplier capabilities in several dimensions.
As a machinist , yes, let's have AI do drawings, please. Getting rid of professional drafters was a huge mistake. Modern GD&T is complicated - which brings up an inherent problem. Our system of drafting a6GD&T doesn't have an explicit mathematical model - it's just based on practice. Therefore, you need some form of systemic approximation. There's one from Arizona University that NIST seems to prefer.
The other problem with automatic drawings is design intent. Consider that you may have several ways to dimension a hole, but one of them may more clearly express design intent. Pretend we drill a hole in a cube block. For the centerline of the hole, we have two different surfaces to dimension from in each direction. Depending on how the component assembles, it can make a difference given the assumption that the machining is done correctly.
If the dimensions go left - down, when the part is in the machine, it should be setup and programmed with the references on top and left. Correctly done, the tolerancing constrains not only the size of the component but also the best practice machining strategy. Tolerancing for manufacturability isn't something I hear discussed but should be. The other question is - can that tolerance be directly measured, or will it need to be calculated on the shop floor?