## 7 Analysis of Import/Export of 2D and 3D Objects in Neutral Data Exchange Formats
### Import/Export of 3D Surface Objects  
By analyzing the results of data exchange in the form of surface object entries in IGES, STEP, SAT, and X_T formats between systems from the CAx family, an attempt was made to select the translator that performed best in the tests conducted.  
As can be seen in Table 4, the IGES standard proved to be better than STEP this time. The translation of the type of object, its topological compliance, and a sketch could be performed more accurately using this standard. The data transferred to the Ansys Design Space system did not contain sketches. If this were not the case, the percentage of this type of transferred entries would not be 71% but 83%, as is shown in Table 4.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Solid Object**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**IGES**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**STEP**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Correct** & **Possible** & **Percentage Value** & **Correct** & **Possible** & **Percentage Value** \\ \hline Object type & 45.8 & 56 & 82\% & 36 & 36 & 100\% \\ Topological compliance & 55.2 & 56 & 98\% & 36 & 36 & 100\% \\ Division into integers & 5 & 56 & 9\% & 4,5 & 36 & 13\% \\ Sketches & 21 & 56 & 38\% & 6 & 36 & 17\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison of the obtained results for a solid object (IGES and STEP).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Solid Object**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SAT**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**PARASOLID**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Correct** & **Possible** & **Percentage Value** & **Correct** & **Possible** & **Percentage Value** \\ \hline Object type & 2 & 2 & 100\% & 12 & 12 & 100\% \\ Topological compliance & 2 & 2 & 100\% & 12 & 12 & 100\% \\ Division into integers & 0 & 2 & 0\% & 0 & 12 & 0\% \\ Sketches & 0 & 2 & 0\% & 0 & 12 & 0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison of the obtained results for a solid object (SAT and PARASOLID).  
The division of a surface object into integers depends on many factors and is less important here than in the case of solid objects. Unstitched surfaces always retain their division. By using the appropriate stitching sequence, it is possible to achieve the desired effect without major problems. As a result, we often achieve 100% compliance with the assessed parameter. The number of analyses performed in both formats is also worth considering. Typically, the higher the number of tests, the higher the probability of encountering a misinterpreted case, thus lowering the overall number of points obtained. As Table 4 shows, despite the greater number of analyses, the IGES format produced better results than STEP.  
An analysis of the research results presented in Table 5 also reveals the relatively low number of tests performed. The systems tested often had limited licenses and did not always allow for this type of replacement. The results obtained with the SAT and X_T translators are very good; they would be even better if these formats also supported sketch import/export. To fully reveal the advantages and disadvantages of the SAT and X_T translators, a much larger number of tests should be carried out.