Design approach help

Martin,

I have a reccomendation,,,,,, STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!! back away from the computer! Take a deep breath,,,,,,, ahhhh, that's better.

First off, Solidworks doesn't work anything like ACAD. Importing sketches from ACAD is a mistake, and will cause you nothing but problems. It's much better to start from scratch in SW, and do it the SW way.

To this end, I suggest you go through some of the online tutorials. Pay special attention to sketching and linear "feature" arrays (not the sketch array variety).

Take two aspirin

Call me in the mornin

Regards

Mark

Martin,

To me, it sounds like you have the Acad to SW order mixed up. If anything, you should start in SW. I'm kind of curious how you can do the 2D design in Acad and now get ready for more design in 3D.

DXF layers... you can explode layers in SW if you just import the whole dxf, but take Mark's advice and learn to work in SW and try to forget Acad. There are several ways of getting Acad data into SW sketches, but none of them is really something I'm fond of. Be careful of the imported 2D data, make sure it's really what it seems. Add relations and dimensions to it to fully define the sketch.

As for getting an offset cut outs around your buttons, there are lots of ways of doing this, but I would use intersection curve or might even try the new Indent function. Other possibilities include cavity, join or convert entities. Look the functions up in the help, and it should become clear to you whether it will help you get where you need or not. Most of these functions will depend on whether you are doing all of this in a part or in an assembly.

Use equations for the variable heights, or check out global variables or even link values.

It's good that you're taking training to get things figured out. Sounds like you want information faster than they can give it to you, though.

Good luck,

matt

"Martin" wrote in news:L9eNd.826$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

"First off, Solidworks doesn't work anything like ACAD. Importing sketches from ACAD is a mistake, and will cause you nothing but problems. It's much better to start from scratch in SW, and do it the SW way."

What a massive waste of time !!!!

The SolidWorks way means you have to redraw everything from scratch because SolidWorks is a program that hates non-native imported geometry.

Lets compare starting from scratch with SolidWorks to VX :

In VX you import the Autocad wireframe (dxf or dwg) and use it ! It doesn't even import into the skectcher... comes right into the model / assembly environment.

All you do in VX is extrude the wireframe AutoCAD geometry to a solid. If you need to rotate a section of the wireframe geometry to do a revolve no problem, etc....

Why use a program that hates non-native geometry ????

Forget the asprin:

Dump SolidWorks and get a program that doesn't treat non-native geometry like some sort of illegal alien.

jon

To me it sounds like just another case of how SolidWorks can't cope with real world conditions / data from other modelers.

Why use a CAD/CAM product that is so limited in it's approach ?

jon

Mark Mossberg wrote;

OK. Done.

I've been using ACAD since version 1.2 (can you say 8in floppies and CP/M system?). So, I am used to using it as a thinking tool. In this particular case I've simply used it to play with layouts, 2D clearances and general ideas. Sort of like paper and pencil. Now, with that out of the way, I need to graduate the design to s solid model to submit to the fabricator. This is simple enough that starting from scratch with SW is not a problem whatsoever.

I am sort of taking this as a learning opportunity as well, and so, I wanted to figure out if it makes sense to, at the very least, import button outlines (front view) via DXF/DWG. Of course, the first thing that happens is that the sketch comes in with no constraints or relationships whatsoever. With more complex sketches there would be a non-trivial amount of work in constraining the sketch.

Unless I'm missing something, the simple rounded rectangles and circles for my particular excercise do not suffer from being imported and hand-constrained this way vs. being created from scratch within SW. Correct?

To address your first statement, yes, absolutely, SW does not work anything like ACAD and one shouldn't even think the ACAD way when using it. I'm progressively getting better at this and the questions I asked (and those that I will undoubtedly ask in the near future) are a reflection of the fact that I am trying to better understand how to do it the SW way.

I'll lookup feature arrays. Not sure I remember that. I've done all the online tutorials as well as going to the class and going through most of the sheetmetal coursebook. Now I have information overload. The new mission is about connecting the dots and making it work under fire without taking rounds.

Thanks for the pointers,

-Martin

"Martin" wrote in news:qJfNd.1176$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

Don't hand constrain all the unconstrained imported Acad data. Use Tools, Relations, Constrain All. This will only work if there are no relations in the sketch. It may be advantageous to delete any existing relations, and use this to recreate them all automatically.

See my prior post regarding this. It's about being a nearly 20-year ACAD user two months into a new tool. I can run ACAD without thinking about the mechanics of the program. As is evidenced by my questions, I'm not there yet with SW (only a couple of months on it) and so, it is much easier for me to doodle in ACAD than in SW.

BTW, I've read through most of your site. Thanks for taking the time to post such useful material.

I'll look these up. I'm looking for the solution that will have the assembly and related parts automatically adjust to design changes. For example, if my vendor tells me that the buttons need to be 0.010in wider, I want the holes cut in bezel to change when I change the part and do so according to the clearance rule I specified.

I just have to get work done. I can't be in learn-and-no-work mode forever. I'm willing to accept making mistakes as I go. Make enough of them and you become an expert! :-)

One of the problems with the SW training (all manufacturer training, for that matter) is that the folks who teach are not always accomplished practitioners. Sometimes they are not even good teachers. I've seen the worst and the best. The SW class I took was good, but not the best by a longshot. The material is there, in the book, but the instructor would have been better positioned in front of a kindergarden class.

That's real life, I guess.

Thanks again,

-Martin

Jon,

While I appreciate your comments, I don't --and I say this with the utmost respect-- have any use for them. Engineers have to learn to live in a non-idea world. If I had it my way, I'd be off on a dive boat in the Caribean and someone else would be duking it out with whatever CAD system to get this design done over a weekend.

When I first started to use ACAD nearly twenty years ago you had to load and unload modules from memory; convert DWG's to DXF and edit them with WordStar just to get the damn thing to be usable for real-world designs. We made it work and it served its purpose. Now, for me, it's about adding a new tool to the arsenal: SW. It matters not that it might be the best or the worst out there, it's what I have to work with.

By all means, if you have anything to contribute that could help understand (me and others) how to approach SW at my level I'll humbly listen and learn.

Thanks,

-Martin

The sketch where I tested this is a simple rounded rectangle. 0.210in to the side and 0.03125in radiuses on all corners.

I displayed all relations and deleted all my hand-applied relations. Then I used the "Constrain All" function.

This just added tangent, vertical and horizontal relations. The sketch remained under-defined. In order to fully define it I still have to add dimensions and a relationship to the origin.

Which brings-up another question:

To fully define the sketch dimensions and additional relations are needed:

- The you dimension one arc and tell the other arcs that they are equal to the first.

- Horizontal and vertical relations from one vertical and one horizontal side to the origin.

When it comes to the sides, you can dimension this sketch three ways (maybe more):

My gut feeling is that [2] might be the most appropriate (whatever that means) way of doing this. Correct?

-Martin

Understand that driving SolidWorks can be like showing up for Indy 500 on a moped and expecting to be competitive. It doesn't matter how good you are, without the right tool sometimes one can't be productive.

The FACT is that what SolidWorks makes you go through by having to start all over again by drawing everything from scratch is an insane limitation.

VX can easily work with imported wireframe. SolidWorks can't. Start asking yourself why SolidWorks should not be able to work with imported wireframe. Does this severe limitation of SolidWorks make ANY sense ??? How can this limitation be justified ???

Throw SolidWorks in the garbage and get a real CAD/CAM tool.

Or :

Stop accepting the massive limitations of SolidWorks and demand more from a CAD/CAM product. This is a typical real world problem that SolidWorks falls apart on.

VX handles this kind of thing with ease.

jon

I apologize for my ignorance, what's "VX"?

-Martin

Esk im for the drawin and sho im how good it wurks jon. Then yu kin stert tha secund thred on the new VX forum. Or maybe yu already been banned.

Martin,

Take a good look at the videos posted showing how VX works with imported wireframe data and easily turns that imported wireframe data into a parametric solid.

It's very important to understand what SolidWorks should be able to do but can't.

Take it another step and download VX and try doing it yourself. VX makes it very easy.

jon

Martin,

I can appreciate your frustration transitioning from AutoCAD to 3D modeling. But it is more painful to be stuck somewhere in between the two. You will waste more time (i.e. not getting work done) if you continue to use AutoCAD as a crutch and then import. Other than what the others have suggested, might call up your VAR have them stop by and walk you through the AutoCAD to SW steps and best practices.

Kman

I have done some of these sorts of things and some other experienced SWks users are on track.

It sounds like you have not really gone through the SWks Tutorial or taken an introductory class that covers that material as a first step. Once you go through those basic operations in the tutorial, which was maybe 80 pages when I did it, you will get your mindset for how SolidWorks functions for basic things. That is essential, but easy.

The logic of certain design methods will start to become apparent as you start designing with draft, versus adding draft later, and there is no "Right" way to do this. The nature of the part and the way the tooling HAS to be built often determines which way is best or required.

Other construction details can likewise be done several ways, and this initial openminded experiment and learning phase of a few days to a week will set you in good stead for quickly determining the methods to try in your project.

For me, I must admit, I sometimes make 3-4 designs of a particularly complicated part, with sometimes 2 different initial starting points.

Some parts just have no chance of parallel walls, so "Shell" doesn't work, or can work only in a limited area, which gets drawn first or drawn as a separate solid and shelled and then connected to the rest of the part design. I've actually cut out a part of a solid as a separate piece to accomplish this once.

Some part constructions are totally determinined by the need for specific locations of parting lines, so that I can't just "Loft a cut" through an area where 2 cores split.

In the "old days" this sort of expertise was called "having time on the board", meaning the drafting table. Now its similar in "screentime in Solidworks". Shouldn't take you too long to fly.

Bo

Indeed, Kman has a good point about seeking help from one of one of your VAR's 'experienced' guys. He can probably help with the construction plan process for your solid that suits your need.

I just have not had much luck in speeding things up by taking 2D layouts into SolidWorks. What I do is to keep my 2D layouts on 1 screen and then reconstruct the solid model the way I want it to start in SolidWorks on a 2nd screen, when I have 2D data layouts.

Unlike Jon, I use SolidWorks every day, and I really do not find practical limitations with most of my plastic part designs, though I do NOT use surfacing much at all. Most of the curved solids things I do are handled with Lofts and sweeps & work quite well (unlike Jon).

If I had to do airplanes or auto body design, I am sure I would go straight to the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, and watch what the students there use and buy that, but I don't.

SolidWorks was conceived and designed by an experienced team of CAD designers with 20 years of prior design team experience in 2 or 3 prior

Jon talks about things, and particularly VX, but SolidWorks is heading toward 1/2 million installed seats of SWks for a good reason!

Bo

While Bo is making excuse after excuse for SolidWorks as he always does, consider that some people are smart enough to use a *complete* CAD/CAM system that does not suffer from the severe limitaions that SolidWorks does.

The inability to use legacy wireframe data in a useful manner is just one of *many* of SolidWorks severe limitations.

Notice how Bo forgets to mention CAM. Just CAD. Notice how Bo forgets to mention that VX has many more years of experience building hybrid CAD/CAM modeling systems than SolidWorks. Notice how Bo forgets to mention that VX builds their own kernel where SolidWorks has to lease theirs.

How many other *severe* limitaions in SolidWorks would you like me to list before you find out how bad these limitations are going to bite you in the ass ???

jon

He will waste more time redrawing data that he instead could be reusing in a better designed modeler that works well with legacy wireframe data rather than rejecting this legacy data as some sort of illegal alien.

What's painful is not being able to use legacy wireframe data in SolidWorks because of yet another limitation of SolidWorks.

VX has no such limitation and one can mix wireframe, surfaces and solids easily. Converting old wireframe legacy data to solid models is no problem with VX.

jon

Martin,

My original "knee-jerk" response was the result of having to convert a whole design company from ACAD to SW. This consisted of 13 engineers and designers of various ages. The young engineers picked it up almost instantly, with a complete understanding of parametrics and how to use them. The designers (all fairly young) were able to construct complex shapes fairly quickly, but didn't have a clue about how to use parametrics. The older engineers, some with 15-20 years of ACAD, had the hardest time. One had to be threatened with termination to even get him to try.

One of the hardest concepts for them to grasp, was to stop thinking in lines arcs and circles, and start thinking in "features". This problem would manifest itself in incredibly complex skecthes. This is "not" the way to do things in SW, or any other features based modeler. You want to use simple sketches (for a base shape) and "build" your model using features. Complex sketches are dificult to define with any kind of intelligent intent.

The fact that SW includes tools, like 2D to 3D, 2D emulator, the ACAD style "sketch array", and others, only teaches new (ex ACAD) users bad habits. Their inclusion was a marketing decision. Their perception that they would be a usefull stepping stone was totally misguided (in my opinion)

After re-reading your original post, it pretty clear you have a fair grasp of parametrics and how they're used.

Whether or not your parametric constructs work depends allot on how you go about creating geometry. SW (with the exeption of surfacing) is totally open, and will let you do things any way you want, there are many ways to do the same thing. Whether or not the way you choose to do a particular thing is right or wrong, depends on what your end goal is. This can only be learned from experience, and experience takes time.

Regards

Mark