## 8 Conclusions  
This paper presents detailed information and research results on computer systems supporting the work of an engineer-designer and provides a general method of solving the potential problems that may arise when working with different formats for 2D, solid, and 3D surfaces, comparing DXF, IGES, STEP, SAT, and X-T formats. In this way, this study allows for a better explanation of and approach to the efficiency of using these formats and makes the further processing of data easier to compare with each other. The models described in this paper can be generally applied to the user's needs only when using the formats outlined in the paper. We conducted several data exchange studies to identify a neutral format that ensures the least data loss for a specific type of transferred geometry. The analysis was based on a carefully prepared experiment and defined evaluation criteria. All tests were carried out with great care and attention to avoid errors. The obtained results were presented in the form of tables and comparative graphs. The following propositions can be suggested: \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Surface Object**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**IGES**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**STEP**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Correct** & **Possible** & **Percentage Value** & **Correct** & **Possible** & **Percentage Value** \\ \hline Object type & 48 & 48 & 100\% & 34 & 36 & 94\% \\ Topological compliance & 46 & 48 & 96\% & 31,6 & 36 & 88\% \\ Division into integers & 48 & 48 & 100\% & 36 & 36 & 100\% \\ Sketches & 34 (40) & 48 (42) & 71\% (83) & 24 & 36 & 67\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of the obtained results for the surface object (IGES and STEP). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Surface Object**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SAT**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**X\_T**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Correct** & **Possible** & **Percentage Value** & **Correct** & **Possible** & **Percentage Value** \\ \hline Object type & 2 & 2 & 100\% & 6 & 6 & 100\% \\ Topological compliance & 2 & 2 & 100\% & 6 & 6 & 100\% \\ Division into integers & 2 & 2 & 100\% & 6 & 6 & 100\% \\ Sketches & 0 & 2 & 0\% & 0 & 6 & 0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of the obtained results for the surface object (SAT and X_T). For the conversion of data in the form of geometric elements of a CAD model, the STEP file format is the most suitable. It can better recognize the type of object as well as its topological correspondence at a higher level compared with the IGES format. On the other hand, for 2D drawing formats, the IGES format is better. 2. Comparing the ACIS (*.sat) and Parasolid type translators, it can be stated that their main disadvantage is the insufficient export of the object division and the CAD model to integers or sketches. However, they are very good at defining the object type and topological correspondence, which plays a very important role when working with systems in which the main part of the project is meshing the model, i.e., the object. These are, for example, the Moldflow Plastic Insight systems or Simufact Additive, designed for metal additive manufacturing, where the CAD file is imported in Parasolid format, and the imported file is then used to generate a surface mesh of the model, containing data on the number of elements and the number of nodes, which is later important for the creation of the voxel mesh. Therefore, the correct choice of format is also important in this production process. 3. In the case of modeling surfaces, which are most often used in the field of automotive production or mold manufacturing, the IGES format proved to be better than the STEP format, which better handled the parameters of the project in the form of sketches, topological correspondence, object type, etc.