Formats

What are the recommended formats for exchanges between CAD software and 3D software

Computer-aided design (CAD) is an indispensable technology for engineers and designers to create 3D models for a variety of projects. However, there are plenty of proprietary 3D software out there, each with their own file format. This can pose a major challenge for interoperability between different software and can lead to compatibility issues between different file formats in the most common scenarios:

Conversion or migration between native CAD formats
Conversion or archiving with neutral formats
Conversion to mesh formats for visualization or simulation
Point cloud exploitation resulting from digitization (scan)

A bit of definition: What is a data format

In computing, data format refers to the way data is organized and represented in an information carrier, using a standardized convention to encode data types as a sequence of bits. This data format allows data to be placed in specific locations in a template so that IT tools can find it easily. Data formats can include information representing text, pages, images, sounds, executable files, etc., and they allow the exchange of data between various computer programs and software. When this data is stored in a file, it is called a file format. This possibility of exchanging data between different software is called interoperability.

The data format facilitates interoperability between different software and allows users to share data without encountering compatibility issues.

Proprietary formats used for CAD

There are many proprietary formats for CAD, but some of the most common are:

CATIA: is a proprietary CAD software developed by Dassault Systèmes and used in the aerospace, automotive and other industries for the design of complex products.
Creo: formerly known as Pro/ENGINEER, is another proprietary CAD software developed by PTC and used in various industries for product design.
NX: is proprietary CAD software developed by Siemens and used in the aerospace, automotive and other industries for the design of complex products.
SolidWorks: is a proprietary CAD software developed by Dassault Systèmes and used in various industries for product design.
AutoCAD: is a proprietary CAD software developed by Autodesk and used in architecture, construction and engineering.

Neutral formats used for CAD interoperability

To address interoperability issues, neutral file formats have been developed to allow different CAD software to communicate with each other. The most common neutral file formats are:

STEP: is a standard file format for exchanging data between different CAD software. It supports geometry, topology, and material property information.
IGES: is a neutral file format that supports the exchange of data between different CAD software, including geometry, topology and material property information.
JT: is a neutral file format developed by Siemens PLM Software for viewing and exchanging 3D product data.

Mesh formats used for CAD-to-simulation or visualization interoperability

Mesh formats are used to store 3D models as a grid of points, which are connected together to form a surface. The most common mesh formats are:

FBX: is a mesh file format developed by Autodesk for 3D models, animation, and textures.
GlTF: is a mesh file format for 3D models used primarily for virtual and augmented reality applications.
OBJ: is a standard mesh file format used to store 3D models, including geometry, texture, and color information.

Point cloud formats used for viewing and digitizing

Point cloud formats are used to store sets of three-dimensional points, which can be used to represent physical objects. The most common point cloud formats are:

E57: is a point cloud file format developed to store 3D scan data from different types of laser scanners.
LAS: is a point cloud file format developed to store 3D scan data from airborne laser scanners.
PCD: is a point cloud file format developed

Technical guide to solving interoperability issues

Interopérabilité CAO

Conversion données 3D

Visualisation immersive

Introduction to the challenges of 3D point cloud interoperability

The explosion of 3D scanning technologies in manufacturing has generated a proliferation of point cloud file formats, creating major interoperability challenges between CAD systems. Companies face the need to process data from multiple sources—terrestrial laser scanners, mobile lidar systems, photogrammetric sensors—each generating its own proprietary formats.

Current technical challenges

Implementation variations between manufacturers, metadata loss during conversions, and encoding issues are the three main sources of friction in point cloud interoperability workflows.

This fragmentation directly impacts technical productivity, lengthening processing cycles and generating significant hidden costs. Engineering teams spend a disproportionate amount of time on conversion and validation tasks, to the detriment of high-value analysis and design activities.

Overview of formats by data structure

ASCII text formats

XYZ: Minimalist structure and variations
OBJ: Geometric versatility
PTX (Leica): Industry-specific features
ASC: Topographic standard

Advantages: Human readability, easy debugging

Optimized binary formats

LAS: Lidar and geomatics reference
PCD: Point Cloud Library ecosystem
FLS (Faro): Hardware-software integration

Advantages: Performance, compression, extended metadata

The fundamental distinction between ASCII and binary formats largely determines performance and functional capabilities. ASCII formats favor accessibility and universal compatibility, while binary formats optimize file size and processing times for large datasets.

ASCII formats: accessibility and limitations

The XYZ format represents the purest approach to storing three-dimensional coordinates. Its simple structure—one line per point with X, Y, Z coordinates separated by spaces or tabs—makes it a preferred choice for quick exchanges and prototyping. This simplicity is both its main strength and weakness.

Format	File size	Metadata	CAD compatibility
XYZ ASCII	High	Limited	Universal
OBJ	Medium	Extended	Excellent
PTX	High	Specialized	Limited

ASCII limitations

Large file sizes
High read times
Loss of numerical precision

The OBJ format offers remarkable versatility by supporting not only point coordinates, but also surface normals, texture coordinates, and material information. This functional richness explains its massive adoption in the 3D modeling ecosystem, especially for integration with traditional CAD software.

Binary formats: performance and rich metadata

The LAS format stands as the industry reference for lidar data thanks to its open specification maintained by the ASPRS (American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing). Its compact binary structure efficiently stores coordinates, return intensity, RGB values, and point classifications according to recognized industry standards.

Comparative performance of binary formats

LAS

90%

Optimal compression

PCD

75%

Structural flexibility

FLS

85%

Hardware integration

Proprietary binary formats like FLS (Faro) or PTG (Leica) incorporate optimizations specific to their respective scanner manufacturers. This approach ensures maximum preservation of native data and optimal performance, but at the cost of dependence on proprietary software ecosystems.

Universal interoperability standards

PLY format

Versatility and robustness

ASCII and binary capabilities
Extended metadata support
CAD ecosystem adoption

E57 format

ASTM E2807 industrial standard

ASTM E2807 standardization
Management of complex metadata
Multi-vendor compatibility

FBX format

3D workflow integration

Versatility for geometric data
Immersive environment integration
Animation and texture support

E57 format: reference industrial standard

Developed under the auspices of the ASTM E57 committee and formalized in the ASTM E2807 standard, the E57 format represents the culmination of standardization efforts in the field of point clouds. Its hybrid XML-binary structure combines the descriptive flexibility of XML for metadata and the efficiency of binary for large data.

E57 Version 2.0 innovation

The E57 Version 2.0 initiative, currently in development, aims to natively integrate mesh support, better BIM/IFC integration, and advanced compression mechanisms for progressive display.

How to choose the right format for the CAD workflow

Selecting the optimal format depends on three critical factors: the volume of data to be processed, metadata requirements, and compatibility with the existing software ecosystem. A methodical analysis of these parameters guides the choice best suited to operational constraints.

Technical decision criteria

Data volume Priority 1
Metadata richness Priority 2
Software compatibility Priority 3

Recommendation matrix

Context	Recommended format
Quick exchange	XYZ
Long-term archiving	E57
Immersive visualization	FBX
Geospatial analysis	LAS

For projects requiring immersive visualization, the FBX format offers a decisive advantage with its native support for animations, textures, and materials. This functional richness is particularly relevant for virtual reality training applications or interactive client presentations.

Concrete industrial use cases

Quality inspection workflow

An aerospace equipment supplier implemented a quality inspection workflow based on laser scanning of critical parts. Data acquired in native PTX (Leica) format is converted to E57 for archiving and to PLY for comparative analysis in CAD software.

Challenge: Preservation of micrometric precision
Solution: Optimized E57 → PLY pipeline
Result: 60% reduction in validation time

Virtual reality integration

An engineering company developed an immersive training system using point clouds of industrial facilities. Conversion from XYZ to FBX via SimLab enables direct integration into Unity VR environments.

Challenge: VR performance optimization
Solution: Simplified XYZ → FBX pipeline
Result: Stable 90 FPS experiences

These industrial implementations demonstrate the crucial importance of a format strategy adapted to operational constraints. Technical selection cannot be limited to performance alone, but must integrate traceability, archiving, and solution scalability aspects.

Best practices and recommendations

Workflow optimization strategies

Developing a coherent interoperability strategy requires a systemic approach integrating internal standardization, quality validation, and process documentation. This methodology ensures the reproducibility and traceability of conversion operations.

Internal format standardization
Define a pivot format for internal exchanges (recommendation: E57)
Post-conversion quality validation
Implement automatic geometric consistency checks
Interoperability process documentation
Maintain an up-to-date compatibility matrix

Key recommendations

Favor E57 for archiving
Use PLY for CAD analysis
Reserve FBX for visualization
Systematically validate conversions

Technological evolutions and outlook

The move towards next-generation formats such as E57 Version 2.0 and the progressive integration of IFC standards for architectural scan data open up new interoperability prospects. These developments anticipate growing needs for interactive visualization and cloud exploitation of large datasets.

Cloud-native

Progressive streaming

Integrated AI

Automated analysis

Mobility

Nomadic access

Collaboration

Distributed workflows

Table of Contents

Introduction
Understanding CAD Data Formats
Proprietary CAD Formats
Neutral Formats for Interoperability
Mesh and Visualization Formats
Point Cloud Formats
How to Choose the Right Format
Why Some Exchanges Fail
Technical Standards and Norms
Practical Recommendations

CAD data interoperability represents a major technical challenge in multi-system industrial environments. CAD engineers and technicians face daily challenges in converting between proprietary formats, neutral formats, mesh formats, and 3D digitization data.

This technical problem manifests in four main scenarios: migration between native CAD systems, archiving with standardized neutral formats, conversion to mesh formats for simulation and visualization, and exploitation of point clouds from laser scanning technologies.

Understanding CAD Data Formats

Technical Definition of Formats

A CAD data format defines the organizational and representation structure of geometric, topological, and business information in a digital medium. This normalized convention encodes geometric data types as binary or ASCII sequences, allowing computer tools to locate and interpret each element precisely.

CAD data formats encapsulate various information: BREP geometry (Boundary Representation), tessellated meshes, PMI annotations (Product Manufacturing Information), material properties, and assembly structure. Interoperability refers to the technical ability to exchange this structured data between different software without critical information loss.

Technical Classification of Formats

CAD formats are divided into four distinct technical categories:

Proprietary formats optimized for specific CAD systems
Neutral formats compliant with international standards
Mesh formats for visualization and numerical simulation
Point cloud formats for 3D digitization data

Proprietary CAD Formats

Technical Characteristics of Native Formats

Proprietary formats optimize performance and functionalities specific to each CAD system. CATIA V5 uses .CATpart and .CATproduct extensions for parts and assemblies, supporting versions V5 R8 to V5-6 R2024. Creo ProEngineer employs .prt and .asm formats, compatible from ProE 2001 to Creo 11.0.

NX relies on the unique .prt extension for parts and assemblies, covering versions UG11 to NX 2406. SolidWorks uses .sldprt and .sldasm, supporting versions 98 to 2025. AutoCAD employs .dwg and .dxf for 2D/3D geometry, compatible from versions 9 to 2025.

Geometric Engines and Interoperability

Several CAD systems share common geometric engines, facilitating interoperability. Parasolid equips NX, SolidWorks, and Solid Edge, supporting versions 9 to 37.0. ACIS powers various CAD systems with versions R1 to 2024 1.0.1 R34. This common architecture enables direct exchanges without geometric translation.

Neutral Formats for Interoperability

STEP: International Reference Standard

STEP (Standard for the Exchange of Product Data) constitutes the most comprehensive neutral format according to ISO 10303 standard. Application protocols AP203, AP214, and AP242 cover basic geometry, automotive, and aerospace with advanced PMI respectively.

STEP AP242 integrates semantic PMI annotations, saved views, and validation properties, meeting current industrial requirements. This format ensures complete modification traceability and maintains geometric integrity during inter-system exchanges.

IGES: Stabilized Historical Format

IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification) remains used for basic geometric exchanges, supporting versions 1.0 to 5.3. Although less rich in metadata than STEP, IGES guarantees extended compatibility with legacy systems and specialized applications.

JT: Optimization for Visualization

JT (Jupiter Tessellation) developed by Siemens PLM optimizes exchanges for visualization and collaboration. Compatible from versions 6.4 to 11.5, JT combines BREP geometry and faceted representation, enabling efficient rendering of large industrial assemblies.

Mesh and Visualization Formats

Formats Optimized for 3D Display

Mesh formats transform BREP geometry into faceted representation for visualization and simulation. STL remains the standard for rapid prototyping and 3D printing, supporting only triangulated geometry without colors or textures.

OBJ offers more richness with texture, color, and normal support, suitable for architectural visualization applications. Autodesk's FBX integrates animations and complex materials, with version 7.5 commonly supported.

glTF: Emerging Web Standard

glTF (GL Transmission Format) version 2.0 is establishing itself for web applications and virtual/augmented reality. This format optimizes loading times and display quality for web browsers and mobile platforms, with support for animations and PBR materials (Physically Based Rendering).

Point Cloud Formats

Standards for Digitization Data

E57 constitutes the ASTM standardized format for multi-sensor point clouds, ensuring interoperability between different laser scanning systems. PLY offers a flexible alternative supporting coordinates, colors, and normals for precise 3D modeling.

LAS and LAZ (compressed) dominate topographic and airborne LIDAR applications. These formats include classification metadata, return intensity, and temporal information essential for geospatial analyses.

Specialized Proprietary Formats

Manufacturers develop optimized formats: Faro FLS, Leica PTX, Trimble for their respective ecosystems. Conversion to standard formats like E57 or PLY guarantees interoperability with third-party CAD software.

How to Choose the Right Format

Technical Selection Criteria

Format choice depends on several technical factors: type of use (exchange, archiving, visualization), required level of detail, target system compatibility, and file size constraints. For inter-CAD exchanges, STEP AP242 offers the best completeness.

For visualization only, faceted formats (STL, OBJ, glTF) suffice with lighter files. Common geometric engines (Parasolid, ACIS) allow direct exchanges without information loss.

Comparative Table of Main Formats

Format	Type	Geometry	PMI	Animations	Size	Recommended Usage
STEP AP242	Neutral	BREP + Facets	Yes	No	Medium	Industrial exchange
Parasolid	Engine	BREP	Limited	No	Small	Compatible inter-systems
JT	Neutral	BREP + Facets	Partial	No	Optimized	Collaborative visualization
glTF	Mesh	Facets	No	Yes	Small	Web/VR applications
STL	Mesh	Facets	No	No	Small	Prototyping/3D Printing
E57	Point cloud	Points	No	No	Variable	Laser scanning

Why Some Exchanges Fail

Common Geometric Problems

Interoperability failures often result from geometric limitations: complex non-NURBS surfaces, different tolerances between systems, degenerate geometry (null edges, invalid faces), and unit differences. Validation tools like CADIQ detect these defects before exchange.

Version Incompatibilities

Format evolutions create incompatibilities: CATIA V5 R2024 may generate files unreadable by earlier versions, STEP formats with non-standardized proprietary extensions, incompatible JT versions between systems. Version compatibility verification proves crucial.

Technical Standards and Norms

Applicable ISO Standards

ISO 10303 (STEP) defines the normative framework for product data exchanges. Specialized application protocols cover different sectors: AP203 for general design, AP214 automotive, AP242 aerospace and defense with complete PMI.

ISO 14306 standardizes JT for industrial visualization. ASTM E2807 specifies E57 for point clouds. These standards guarantee interoperability and technical data sustainability.

Certifications and Compliance

Certified solutions ensure compliance with industrial standards. CADfix has Daimler certifications for JT v10.5 exchanges. STEP conformity tests guarantee adherence to geometric and PMI specifications.

Practical Recommendations

Exchange Best Practices

To optimize CAD data exchanges, prioritize STEP AP242 for complete industrial exchanges with PMI. Use native geometric engines (Parasolid, ACIS) when possible to avoid translations. Systematically validate geometry before and after conversion.

Archive in standardized neutral formats for long-term sustainability. Document conversion parameters and software versions used. Establish quality validation protocols with precise geometric criteria.

Faceted 3D PDF formats constitute an interesting alternative for read-only sharing, combining 3D visualization and universal compatibility. This approach meets technical communication needs without requiring specialized CAD software.

Successful CAD data interoperability relies on understanding the technical specificities of each format and adapting to operational constraints. The optimal format choice depends on the usage context, involved systems, and required fidelity level for exchanged technical data.

CAD interoperability challenges affect daily industrial production workflows. This technical analysis examines the most widespread exchange formats and presents proven solutions to resolve conversion problems between heterogeneous systems.

Introduction
Native vs neutral formats
STEP: The universal standard
IGES and its limitations
Geometric engines
Visualization formats

Interoperability issues
Technical solutions
Validation and quality
Practical recommendations
Conclusion

In today's industrial ecosystem, the diversity of CAD systems generates major interoperability challenges. Statistics reveal that approximately 30% of digital models contain anomalies that could hinder manufacturing processes. Mastering exchange formats therefore becomes crucial for maintaining data integrity throughout the design chain.

CAD exchange formats are divided into two main categories: proprietary native formats and standardized neutral formats. This distinction directly influences CAD translation quality and the preservation of design information during transfers between different environments.

How to distinguish native from neutral formats?

Native Formats

✓ Complete preservation of construction history
✓ Maintenance of parametrization
✓ Conservation of advanced features
✗ Limited compatibility between systems

Neutral Formats

✓ Universal interoperability
✓ ISO standardization
✓ Data sustainability
✗ Potential loss of business information

Native formats offer maximum fidelity within the same software environment, while neutral formats prioritize interoperability at the expense of certain specialized functionalities. The choice between these approaches depends on operational constraints and collaboration requirements.

STEP: The Universal Standard for CAD Exchange

STEP Format - Key Points

The STEP format (Standard for the Exchange of Product Data) currently constitutes the reference standard for CAD interoperability, supporting more than 30 specialized application protocols.

The STEP format establishes itself as the preferred solution for CAD data exchange thanks to its robustness and extensive functional coverage. Defined by ISO 10303 standard, it offers several application protocols adapted to sectoral needs:

AP203: Configuration controlled 3D design - oriented mechanical design
AP214: Core data for automotive mechanical design - specialized automotive
AP242: Managed model based 3D engineering - new generation with PMI

Modern interoperability solutions support all these protocols, ensuring reliable conversion between heterogeneous systems while preserving BREP geometry and technical annotations.

Why do IGES limitations persist?

Despite its age, the IGES format (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification) remains used in certain industrial contexts. However, its structural limitations generate recurring interoperability problems:

Geometry

Precision loss on complex surfaces

Topology

Difficulties with multi-body solids

Annotations

Limited support for semantic PMI

Migration from IGES to STEP represents a major challenge for modernizing exchange processes. Validation tools allow identifying potential problems before conversion and optimizing the quality of transferred data.

Geometric Engines: Parasolid vs ACIS

Geometric engines constitute the technical foundation of modern CAD systems. Understanding them allows optimizing interoperability strategies according to the software architecture used.

Based on our experience of more than 25 years, CAD Interop recommends below the most relevant CAD formats for converting your data between the main CAD systems. To date, the most common exchange format is the STEP format, the most complete and available for the majority of CAD software. But, when possible, it is preferable to use the format of the geometric engine of the software (such as Parasolid for NX, SolidWorks or Solid Edge) which will allow reading the geometry without translation. If you want to give access to your CAD data only in read-only mode for users who do not have a viewer or other CAD software, we recommend using the 3D PDF format in its faceted version (lighter).

CAD System	Kernel	Import ⁽¹⁾	Export ⁽¹⁾
CADDS	Proprietary	IGES*, DXF	IGES*, DXF
I-DEAS	Proprietary	IGES, STEP*, Parasolid	IGES, STEP*, Parasolid, JT
Catia V4	Proprietary	IGES, DXF, STEP*	IGES, DXF, STEP*
Catia V5/V6	Proprietary	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP*	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP*
UG NX	Parasolid	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, JT*, Parasolid, STL	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, JT*, Parasolid, STL
Pro-Engineer Wildfire	Granite	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, ACIS, Parasolid, Granite*, STL, VDA	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, PDF, ACIS, Parasolid, Granite*, STL, VDA
Pro-Engineer Creo	CreoDirect	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP*, ACIS, Parasolid, Granite, STL, VDA	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP*, PDF, ACIS, Parasolid, Granite, STL, VDA
SolidWorks	Parasolid	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, ACIS, STL, Parasolid*, PDF, VDA	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, ACIS, STL, Parasolid*, PDF, VDA
Inventor	ACIS	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, ACIS*, STL, Parasolid, Granite, PDF, VDA	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, ACIS*, STL, Parasolid, Granite, PDF, VDA
Solid Edge	Parasolid	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, JT, ACIS, Parasolid*, STL	IGES, DXF, DWG, STEP, JT, ACIS, Parasolid*, STL, PDF
AutoCAD	ACIS	IGES, DXF, DWG, ACIS*	IGES, DXF, DWG, ACIS*

(*) Recommended CAD format for 3D geometry interoperability
(1) Only the main neutral file formats are listed. Some CAD systems may have certain limitations for a specific format.

This direct compatibility between systems sharing the same geometric engine eliminates degradation risks related to conversion, preserving topological integrity and dimensional precision of 3D models.

Which formats to prioritize for visualization?

The evolution of collaboration needs has generated increased demand for optimized visualization formats. These solutions enable secure sharing of CAD data without revealing complete intellectual property.

3D PDF

Universal Adobe format, PMI annotations integration

Recommended

JT Open

Siemens standard, optimized for large assemblies

Industrial

glTF

3D web format, optimized real-time rendering

Emerging

Modern visualization platforms support more than 15 different formats, including emerging standards like USD and 3MF for additive manufacturing applications. This diversity allows adapting the technical solution to specific operational constraints.

How to identify interoperability problems?

Interoperability challenges manifest through various defect categories, each requiring specialized corrective approaches. Statistical analysis reveals that geometric problems represent 60% of detected anomalies.

Free edges: Unconnected edges disrupting topology
Large gaps: Dimensional deviations exceeding tolerances
Degenerate surfaces: Invalid geometric elements
Excessive curvatures: Radii incompatible with manufacturing processes

Non-associated dimensions: Dimensions losing their geometric link
Missing tolerances: Incomplete quality information
Invalid datums: Incorrect measurement references
Non-standard symbols: Annotations non-compliant with standards

Inconsistent units: Mixed metric systems
Missing properties: Absent materials and specifications
Corrupted hierarchy: Invalid assembly structure
Duplicate names: Component identification conflicts

Early detection of these anomalies requires specialized tools capable of analyzing more than 200 different types of defects according to established industrial standards.

Technical Solutions for Exchange Automation

Automation of interoperability processes relies on several complementary technologies, enabling efficient processing of large volumes of CAD data in industrial environments.

Automated Batch Conversion

Server solutions enable parallel processing of thousands of files, with conversion parameter configuration according to defined quality standards. API integration facilitates complete automation of exchange workflows.

Simultaneous multi-format processing
Automatic quality validation
Detailed statistical reporting
Native PLM integration

Intelligent Geometric Repair

Advanced algorithms automatically detect and correct the majority of geometric defects, optimizing model robustness for downstream applications.

Gap and overlap correction
Degenerate surface repair
Faceted mesh optimization
Complex geometry simplification

⚠️ Point of Attention

Automatic repair may modify the original geometry. Systematic validation of results is required before production use.

Why is quality validation crucial?

Systematic validation of CAD conversions constitutes an essential prerequisite for guaranteeing data integrity in critical processes. Industrial statistics demonstrate that insufficient validation generates non-quality costs representing up to 15% of development budgets.

Essential Validation Metrics

±0.01mm

Standard geometric tolerance

99.5%

Surface reconstruction fidelity

100%

Semantic annotation preservation

<1%

Allowable volume/mass variation

Modern qualification tools automatically analyze these criteria, generating detailed reports with precise identification of deviations and corrective recommendations. This approach allows maintaining quality traceability required by aerospace and automotive standards.

Practical Recommendations by Application Sector

Optimization of interoperability strategies requires an approach adapted to specific sectoral constraints. Each industry develops particular requirements regarding formats and data quality.

🛩️ Aerospace & Defense

Preferred format: STEP AP242 with complete PMI
Validation: Mandatory mass/center of gravity control
Traceability: Complete history of modifications
Standards: EN9100 compliance required

🚗 Automotive

Preferred format: Optimized STEP AP214
Performance: Large assemblies (>10k parts)
Workflow: Native ERP integration
Cycle: Fast validation for time-to-market

🏭 Additive Manufacturing

Preferred format: 3MF with integrated supports
Preparation: Orientation/support optimization
Quality: Model watertightness validation
Post-processing: Automatic mesh repair

⚙️ CNC Machining

Preferred format: STEP AP203 pure geometry
Precision: Machinability tolerance validation
Simplification: Removal of non-machinable details
Export: Automatic IGES generation if required

Summary and Perspectives

Modern CAD interoperability requires a methodical approach combining adapted technological choices and rigorous validation processes. Exchange formats are evolving toward increased standardization, with STEP AP242 gradually establishing itself as a universal reference.

Key Points

STEP remains the reference standard
Systematic validation indispensable
Automation of critical processes
Sector-by-sector adaptation

Measured Benefits

70% reduction in conversion time
95% elimination of manual errors
Improved data quality
Complete traceability ensured

Technical Evolutions

Integrated artificial intelligence
Native cloud computing
Collaborative virtual reality
Industrial IoT standards

Mastering these technical challenges constitutes a determining competitive advantage for industrial organizations. A well-designed interoperability strategy generates measurable productivity gains while reducing operational risks related to data transfers.

To deepen these technical subjects and evaluate solutions adapted to your environment, our CAD interoperability experts remain at your disposal for a personalized diagnosis of your specific needs.

Technical solutions to optimize 3D data exchange between heterogeneous CAD systems

The challenges of interoperability in the modern CAD ecosystem

Computer-Aided Design has transformed the design world by enabling rapid definition of 3D models, simplified updates, and transmission to applications such as simulation or manufacturing. An optimal CAD model includes not only product geometry but also critical information such as materials, PMI annotations, and manufacturing metadata.

Central issue: Each CAD software has its own proprietary format. CATIA, NX, Creo, SolidWorks, and Autodesk Inventor all generate native files readable only by their respective systems, creating costly interoperability barriers.

This fragmentation significantly slows down collaborative design processes. A client sending a CATIA V5 file cannot use it directly in SolidWorks without prior conversion. The industry has therefore developed neutral CAD formats to facilitate interoperability between systems and optimize technical data flows.

30%

of engineering time lost to manual rework

150+

types of geometric defects

80%

possible reduction in conversion time

Overview of essential neutral CAD formats

Neutral CAD formats enable 3D data exchange between heterogeneous platforms by overcoming proprietary limitations. Each format has specific characteristics that determine its optimal application domain.

Universal formats

STEP (AP203, AP214, AP242) – ISO standard for complex models
IGES (version 5.3) – Historical format optimized for 2D/3D

Specialized formats

PDF 3D – Universal collaborative visualization
JT – Automotive industry standard
STL – Optimized for additive manufacturing

Geometric kernels such as Parasolid (used by NX, SolidWorks, Solid Edge) and ACIS offer a high-performance alternative by preserving exact geometry when exchanging between systems sharing the same kernel.

STEP: The reference standard for data exchange

Developed in 1984, the STEP format (Standard for the Exchange of Product model data) is now the global reference for exchanging complex CAD models. This ISO standard addresses IGES limitations by optimizing the representation of 3D solid entities and associated data.

STEP Version	Main Application	Specific Capabilities
AP203	Basic geometry	Solid models, surfaces, wireframe
AP214	Automotive industry	Vehicle data, complex assemblies
AP242	Advanced data	PMI, annotations, assembly structures

STEP AP242 is the most advanced evolution, integrating manufacturing information (PMI), semantic annotations, and assembly data. This version ensures maximum preservation of critical metadata for downstream processes.

Industrial adoption: STEP has been chosen as the long-term archiving format in aerospace (LOTAR standard) thanks to its robustness and ISO-guaranteed durability.

IGES: The historical pioneer of neutral formats

Created by the US Air Force in the early 1980s, IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification) was the first neutral format developed to resolve incompatibilities between CAD systems. Officially approved by the National Bureau of Standards in 1980, IGES version 5.3 remains widely used for specific applications.

IGES Advantages

Universal support by all CAD systems
Optimized for 2D geometries and surfaces
Legacy systems compatibility
Readable and debuggable text format

Technical limitations

Limited representation of 3D solid entities
Frequent loss of parametric links
Large file sizes
No PMI standardization

Although declining compared to STEP, IGES remains relevant for simple exchanges, compatibility with legacy systems, and some specialized applications requiring optimized curve and surface representation.

Specialized neutral formats: PDF 3D, JT, STL and geometric kernels

Beyond universal standards, the CAD ecosystem offers specialized formats optimized for specific uses. These solutions meet visualization, collaboration, and manufacturing needs in targeted industrial contexts.

PDF 3D revolutionizes technical collaboration by embedding interactive 3D models in standard Adobe Reader documents. This approach eliminates software barriers while maintaining the security of sensitive data.

Visualization without CAD license required
Granular access rights control
Full document integration
Real-time collaborative annotations

Developed by Siemens, the JT format has become the reference in the automotive industry for managing complex assemblies. Its ability to handle multi-level models optimizes PLM performance.

Optimized for large assemblies (1M+ components)
Native support for PLM structures
Advanced lossless compression
Native Teamcenter integration

The STL format (STereoLithography) converts exact geometry into a triangulated mesh optimized for 3D printing. This tessellation preserves shape while simplifying representation for additive manufacturing systems.

Universal 3D printing standard
Mesh optimization according to resolution
Full slicer compatibility
Simplified manufacturing workflow

How to identify and resolve interoperability issues

CAD interoperability issues manifest as various geometric and topological anomalies that compromise the integrity of converted models. Early identification of these defects helps optimize conversion workflows.

Geometric defects

• Gaps between adjacent surfaces
• Overlaps of duplicated faces
• Free edges not connected
• Incorrect topologies

Data loss

• Deleted PMI annotations
• Lost manufacturing metadata
• Destroyed parametric history
• Erased material properties

Watertightness issues

• Open volumes not manufacturable
• Unstitched surfaces
• Inverted normals
• Degenerate geometries

Automated validation of converted models is the most effective approach to identify these anomalies. Specialized tools can detect over 150 different types of defects and generate detailed quality reports to optimize correction processes.

Strategies for validation and conversion of CAD models

Implementing a robust validation workflow transforms interoperability challenges into controlled and repeatable processes. This systematic approach ensures the quality of exchanged models while optimizing operational performance.

Recommended validation workflow

Pre-conversion analysis: Complete diagnosis of the source model
Controlled conversion: Select the optimal format according to use
Post-processing validation: Check geometric integrity
Quality report: Traceable documentation of operations

Best conversion practices

Precision configuration according to final use
Systematic validation tests
Backup of source models
Documentation of applied parameters
Verification of mass properties

Automation and integration

Batch processing for large volumes
PLM command line interface
Real-time conversion monitoring
Automatic quality alerts
Complete traceability of changes

Frequently asked questions about neutral formats

STEP AP242 is the optimal choice for long-term archiving. Its ISO standardization guarantees durability, while its support for PMI metadata preserves all design information. Adoption by the LOTAR aerospace standard confirms its reliability for long-term preservation.

Preserving PMI annotations requires using formats that support semantic data, such as STEP AP242 or PDF 3D. Advanced conversion tools can automatically map annotations between systems while maintaining their geometric references.

Geometric precision depends on the format and configuration. STEP and Parasolid maintain exact geometry (BREP), while STL uses an approximate tessellation. For critical applications, post-conversion validation with mass property comparison ensures integrity.

Conversion validation relies on automated comparison of before/after models. Specialized tools analyze geometric deviations, check mass properties (volume, surface, center of gravity), and identify topological changes to ensure compliance.

Summary: Choosing the right format for your context

The choice of the optimal neutral CAD format depends on multiple technical and operational factors. This strategic decision directly impacts the quality of exchanged data and the efficiency of collaborative processes.

Main use	Recommended format	Key advantages	Limitations
Universal exchange	STEP AP242	Complete metadata, ISO standardization	Large file size
Collaborative visualization	PDF 3D	Universal accessibility, security	Read-only, limited precision
Legacy systems	IGES 5.3	Extended compatibility, robustness	Solid entity limitations
Additive manufacturing	STL	3D printing optimization	Approximate geometry
Same geometric kernel	Native format	Maximum data preservation	Limited portability

Evolution perspective

The evolution towards unified standards such as STEP AP242 and the increasing integration of artificial intelligence in validation processes promise a progressive convergence of neutral formats. The goal: seamless interoperability fully preserving design intelligence.

Successful implementation of a CAD interoperability strategy requires a comprehensive approach combining appropriate technological choices, rigorous validation processes, and high-performance conversion tools. This approach transforms exchange constraints into sustainable competitive advantages.

Complete technical guide to optimize your conversion workflows and solve interoperability challenges

4. How to choose the right format?
5. Solving interoperability problems
6. Best practices and recommendations
Conclusion

3D data interoperability represents a major technical challenge in modern industrial workflows. 3D mesh formats, which define the geometric representation of objects through triangulation, form the foundation of numerous applications ranging from real-time visualization to 3D printing. The proliferation of software and technological ecosystems generates compatibility issues that directly impact the productivity of technical teams.

This diversity of formats results from specific application needs: web optimization, metadata preservation, data compression, or animation support. Each format presents distinct advantages depending on the usage context, but this specialization creates technological silos. CAD engineers and technicians must navigate between these different standards while preserving the integrity of geometric data.

🔓 Open formats and standards

STL: The 3D printing standard

The STL (STereoLithography) format remains the reference for 3D printing since 1987. Its structural simplicity - storing triangles as coordinates and normals - guarantees universal compatibility. Data shows that CADfix supports STL import/export in ASCII and binary versions, confirming its massive adoption in the industry.

✅ Technical advantages

• Structure and parsing simplicity
• Universal support by all software
• Binary format optimized for large files
• Ideal for 3D printing workflows

⚠️ Identified limitations

• Absence of colors and textures
• No object hierarchy
• Large uncompressed files
• No material information

OBJ: Versatility and simplicity

The Wavefront OBJ format combines simplicity and versatility since the 1990s. Interoperability solutions like 3DViewStation and CADfix natively integrate OBJ support, testifying to its relevance in modern workflows. Its plain text structure facilitates debugging and manual modifications.

OBJ handles UV texture coordinates and per-vertex normals, enabling quality rendering. The associated MTL file defines material properties, creating a complete ecosystem for 3D visualization. This modular approach explains its adoption in 3D content creation pipelines.

glTF: The future of web 3D

The GL Transmission Format (glTF) 2.0 revolutionizes 3D content distribution on the web. Developed by the Khronos Group, it optimizes real-time rendering performance while preserving visual fidelity. Its JSON architecture facilitates integration into modern web applications.

🎯 Preferred use cases

WebGL applications, mobile augmented reality, e-commerce visualization, interactive prototyping, and distribution on social platforms.

USD: The future of collaborative pipelines

Universal Scene Description (USD), developed by Pixar, emerges as a standard for complex collaborative workflows. Its ability to manage scene compositions and temporal variations addresses the needs of industrial and audiovisual productions. Adoption by major visualization solutions confirms its disruptive potential.

🏢 Dominant proprietary formats

Proprietary formats maintain their position through native integration in their respective ecosystems and advanced functionalities not available in open standards.

FBX: The Autodesk ecosystem

The FBX (Filmbox) format version 7.5 dominates exchanges between Autodesk software and third-party applications. Its native support for animations, complex hierarchies, and metadata makes it an essential choice for integrated workflows. Technical data confirms its extended compatibility in interoperability solutions.

Animation: Keyframes, curves, deformations

Materials: PBR, textures, shaders

Metadata: Custom properties

🔬 Specialized and emerging formats

Specific sectoral needs have generated formats optimized for particular applications, offering technical advantages in niche domains.

3MF: Microsoft 3D Manufacturing Format

The 3MF format version 1.2.3 addresses STL limitations for modern 3D printing. It integrates colors, materials, and manufacturing information in an optimized ZIP container. Its adoption by the Windows ecosystem and professional 3D printers makes it an emerging standard.

VRML: Web 3D precursors

Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) versions 1.0 and 2.0 remain supported by interoperability solutions for compatibility with historical archives. Although superseded by more modern technologies, it retains relevance in certain heritage contexts.

🎯 How to choose the right format according to usage?

Optimal format selection requires a multi-criteria analysis taking into account technical constraints, quality requirements, and application objectives.

🔍 Technical decision matrix

Application	Recommended format	Determining criteria	Alternatives
3D Printing	STL, 3MF	Slicer compatibility, resolution	OBJ
Web/Mobile	glTF 2.0	Performance, compression, streaming	OBJ, FBX
Collaborative pipeline	USD, FBX	Versioning, metadata, hierarchy	glTF
Scientific visualization	OBJ, STL	Geometric precision, simplicity	PLY

🏗️ Use case: Architectural pipeline

An architecture firm working on a shopping center project must optimize its exchanges between Revit, rendering software, and virtual reality platform. The typical workflow combines IFC export from Revit, conversion to FBX for material adjustments, then to glTF for web distribution. This chain preserves BIM metadata while optimizing final performance.

🔧 Solving interoperability problems

Interoperability challenges generally result from differences in specification interpretation, coordinate systems, or tessellation methods. A methodical approach allows identifying and correcting these issues.

⚠️ Frequently encountered problems

🔄 Geometric data loss

• Tessellation degradation
• Surface normal removal
• UV coordinate modification
• Numerical precision loss

🎨 Material alteration

• Colors not preserved
• Missing or deformed textures
• Unsupported PBR properties
• Incorrect UV mapping

🛠️ Diagnostic and correction methods

Specialized tools like CADIQ allow precise identification of interoperability defects. Automated diagnosis detects topology, geometry, and annotation problems, facilitating targeted data correction.

🔍 Step 1: Validation

Comparative analysis of source and target models to identify geometric and topological deviations.

⚙️ Step 2: Optimization

Adjustment of conversion parameters according to quality requirements and performance constraints.

✅ Step 3: Control

Final verification of data integrity and functional validation in the target application.

💡 Optimized conversion strategies

Conversion efficiency depends on understanding the specificities of each format and applying an adapted strategy. Solutions like CADfix offer programmable interfaces enabling automation of complex conversion workflows.

🎯 Usage-oriented conversion

Tessellation adaptation according to destination
Texture optimization for memory constraints
Selective preservation of relevant metadata
Intelligent compression according to required performance

🔄 Iterative process

Short-loop validation tests
Progressive parameter adjustment
Documentation of optimal configurations
Automation of validated workflows

📋 Best practices and recommendations

Interoperability workflow optimization relies on adopting proven methodologies and implementing rigorous quality control processes.

🏗️ Why structure your conversion workflows?

Structuring conversion processes reduces error risks and improves result reproducibility. Technical teams benefit from a standardized approach that facilitates skill development and configuration maintenance.

🎯 Recommended workflow for quality validation

1. Preparation
Source data cleaning, supported format validation

2. Conversion
Application of optimized parameters, operation traceability

3. Validation
Automated comparison, critical property verification

4. Delivery
Modification documentation, configuration archiving

📊 Metadata management and quality control

Preserving critical metadata requires prior identification of essential information for the target application. Analysis solutions like CADIQ allow quantifying conversion fidelity and identifying acceptable deviations.

✅ Metadata to preserve

• Geometric: Dimensions, tolerances, mass properties
• Visual: Colors, textures, material properties
• Functional: Hierarchy, assemblies, constraints
• Process: Annotations, PMI, saved views

📏 Quality metrics

• Geometric: Volume deviation < 0.1%
• Topological: Face/edge preservation
• Visual: Chromatic fidelity > 95%
• Performance: Optimal compression ratio

🎯 Summary and perspectives

Mastering 3D mesh formats and their interoperability constitutes a competitive advantage in the modern industrial ecosystem. Open formats like STL, OBJ, and glTF offer extended compatibility, while proprietary solutions like FBX preserve advanced functionalities. Emerging formats like USD and 3MF address specialized needs of collaborative workflows and 3D printing.

🚀 Key points for optimization

🎯 Strategy

• Application needs analysis
• Optimal format/usage selection
• Standardized workflow

🔧 Technical

• Automated validation
• Rigorous quality control
• Process documentation

📈 Performance

• Task automation
• Continuous optimization
• Team skill development

Continuous technological evolution requires active monitoring of new standards and improvements in interoperability solutions. Investment in specialized tools and team training constitute the foundations of an efficient and sustainable interoperability strategy.


demo	support	meeting	sitemap