"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."
"Totally open" to me means the modeler will let you mix surfaces, solids and wirefame in the model / assembly.
Using this measure SolidWorks is about as closed as one can get.
After all these years isn't it about time that long time SolidWorks users stopped making lame excuses for SolidWorks's severe limitations and started demanding more ?
I think you hit it right on the head. What I've been burning most of my time with is in trying to figure out the the most SW-esque(?) approach to a problem rather than thinking ACAD. I've done a lot of 3D work in ACAD. It's painful. I know I don't want to do it that way.
It's interesting what you mentioned about the team you converted to SW. When I took the SW class it was very clear that some of the folks in the class were going to have to struggle to shift their thinking.
As far as my current project, the approach I took to my keypad array was to define a sketch for button placement within the assembly. This allows me to draw construction lines to locate asseblies precisely. As much as some might want to not have to deal with other CAD systems, the fact is that the circuit board design is done with another tool and it is critical that a common layer exist between the mechanical design in SW and the circuit board design. This alignment sketch, once translated to DXF, becomes the glue between the two worlds. I can now place my buttons with the approprate mates --to the front plane and the construction lines in the alignment sketch-- and know that it will all work on the other side.
Still, I don't know if this is the most SW-esque way to approach this. But I have to get work out the door, so this will do for now until I discover a more elegant approach.
"As much as some might want to not have to deal with other CAD systems, the fact is that the circuit board design is done with another tool and it is critical that a common layer exist between the mechanical design in SW and the circuit board design."
I don't do circuit board design but I do understand what you saying. Your situation is at least somewhat similar to a small machining job shop.
In many small machining job shops the ability to work with wireframe data
*very quickly* is just as critical as what you describe above.
We do the same thing, except a little differently. A complex layout sketch doesn't really help unless it's defined in such a way as to allow probable, predictable, changes. Also, SW can only create DXF files from drawings. You'll have to bring your sketch into a 1:1 drawing in order to convert it. No big deal really, but we take a more direct approach.
You can have the PCB drive the envelope, or visa versa. Depends on how much stuff your trying to cram onto the board. Typically, a PCB for a membrane keyboard doesn't have much on it, we've designed several custom ones.
What I would do is design the PCB with all of the mounting points (holes) and contact pads and other mechanical features. The pads can be several feature arrays of raised .002" bosses. You would be amazed at how few features it takes to do this, and the result can be predictably modified by changing a few numbers.
If I assume that form is more important in this case (it always seems to be with us). So I would tie the main pieces together,( housing, membrane, button array, PCB) so that the housing drives everything else.
We then make 1:1 drawings of the PCB "part" for the electronics guys.
Beyond the issue of SWx using data from other CAD packages (which you correctly point out is real-world, and all that is left to debate is how magnificently/piss-poorly/somewhere-in-between SWx handles it per each CAD vendor )...
I think that matt's suggestion is excellent. Martin might find some real time savings in considering a change in his general approach and use SWx for his initial layout instead of laying out in ACAD and trying to port that data over - to SWx, VX, or whatever.
Initial layout is probably where I get the greatest benefit from a parametric modeler - I input intelligence about the 'keys' shape and distribution (or whatever I am working on) and get the array for free (there are things that I know probably are never going to change - the size of the ends of peoples fingers, material thicknesses on the keypad, the web of hard plastic separating keys, stuff like that ). My modifications are fast and loose and AUTOMATED, allowing me to be creative because all of the engineering restrictions are already captured... then I can build solids, find issues that I might have missed in a pure 2D layout, and fix everything on the fly because I was in one workspace the entire time.
Martin makes a good point - it IS a big deal to take the plunge and learn a new environment, so he resorted to what he was familiar with. But we all agree that some day he will take the plunge and get to know his new CAD, whether that be SWx or VX (if he listens to you) or whatever. Matt's suggestion that he can save time by taking the inevitable plunge early is terrific advise because it WILL save him time immediately in the scenario that he proposes, and lets face it ... that is what we should focus on if we're going to help the dude out.
Think about your design intent and how thing will change as you change parameters. You probably want your button to be a certain width and height, no matter what the corner radii are. That means 1 is a very bad idea. Both 2 and 3 give you the right result, so it doesn't matter a whole lot which one you use.
Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"
The intersection curves that Matt suggested will work fine for this. Be sure when using in-context relations like this to not build in circular references. Try to keep one part as the driver and other parts as the driven. If you end up with some of the driven parts also driving, you're headed for a bad wreck!
A layout sketch might be a better approach. Put the button shapes as well as the clearance holes in a sketch which is in your assembly. Then convert edges off of that sketch to make new sketches in your keypad and your bezel. Now you can go to one sketch to change both. The down side is that you don't have driving dimensions that come automatically into your drawings for the keypad and bezel. I think you can get around this by adding driven dimensions in the feature sketches and marking them for the drawing.
I would be inclined to make the layout sketch with only one button of each shape, then use feature patterns in your keypad to get the multiples. You can do patterns in a sketch, but they tend to be much slower to rebuild.
Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"
I would put a plane in the keypad that is located where you expect the top of the panel to be. I would use that plane to sketch the buttons on, extruding them up to the right heights above the panel and down to base.
Does the part actually have to include the graphics? I would use a separate artwork drawing to show the graphics. This is especially helpful if you are going to have multiple models with different graphics.
If you must have the graphics on the part, then make your basic button shapes, pattern them to populate the keypad, then add the graphics as the last step. The Wrap command might be the best one to use. As I recall, you will have to do the keys one at a time, as I don't think you can do multiple faces at once.
I would make each button with enough of the matt to overlap the other buttons, without interfering with the recess under the surrounding buttons. If the button spacing varies too much to allow that, you might have to generate a kind of egg-crate to tie the small buttons together. As an alternative, you could make the full matt, then offset curves from your buttons to remove enough material to clear the undersides.
You talk about an assembly here, but it's all one big keypad, a single part, isn't it? Now that we have multi-body parts, you don't have to make an assembly and then join the parts into one part.
As mentioned in other posts, in-context design is very powerful, and also very dangerous. Approach it with caution.
taken the one-week "SW
How comfortable are you with what you learned in the first course? You might not want to wait six months.
Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"
If a company has thousands of legacy wireframe drawings and wishes to convert those drawings to hybrid models do you feel they should have to redraw all their legacy drawings from scratch or do you feel that they should be able to reuse the massive amount of wireframe data that exists and that they have spent enourmous sums of money to create / edit / refine ?
I don't think Martin is going to buy VX. That's not what I'm after anyway. I'm not in software sales or support. Never have been.
I would like to see more vocal VX users but based on decisions that VX made in the past, it's going to take awhile. VX (then Varimetrix) always developed for a large client. That business model worked well for them. Samsung probably paid some huge sum to develop what use to be known as Varimetrix (company) Vision (product) and is now just known as VX. (company and product)
What I'm really after is trying to get SolidWorks users to download VX and try it to see how in the darkages they are with SolidWorks. This restrictive world is forced on them because of how SolidWorks was conceived and has been developed.
Ed, I highly suggest you try VX to see what I mean first hand. Was I wrong when I said in the past that the closed solid limitaton was stupid and needed to be removed ? If I was right and you have not tried VX believe me when I say your in for one hell of an eye opening experience. IMO, it's not about workaround after workaround, Ed. It's about a CAD/CAM product being designed properly from day one. VX was always hybrid, Ed. SolidWorks was not and in many, many ways still isn't truly hyrbrid in it's approach. Limited hybrid is more like it... very limited. : (
It's also about how much more powerful VX is because they have always developed their own kernel and are not reliant on UGS Parasolid.
VX is a true hybrid modeler and is very different from the closed restrictive limited hybrid modeler that is SolidWorks.
Remember the closed solids restriction in SolidWorks ? Removing that restriction was only the first step to creating a true hybrid modeler. That's all it was...just the first step.
Why not try VX and find out what real hybrid modeling is all about ? I don't think it will take you long to see how different an approach VX has and how much better integrated wireframe, surfaces and solids are than the SolidWorks approach to modeling.
VX might also help you with refineing your current approach(s) to getting around the many limitations in SolidWorks.
This is the sort of SW thinking that I need to develop. Thanks for a good tip. Of course, it'll just take time to build familiarity and model creation skills/techniques. I'm just trying to get some real work done in the context of learning. This thread has been quite useful. Thank you, all.
I say the following without being an expert user, of course. I could be wrong. I wish SW had better text and graphics functions. It seems that putting non-extruded text on surfaces is simply impossible or convoluted, at best.
I now understand that, if you mentally detatch from the idea of zero thickness text you can simply create very thin extruded or extrude-cut text on just about any surface. Still, it feels like I should be able to very simply and quickly add "painted" text to parts. The same applies to graphics.
I'll look into this as an excersice. Perhaps another VB program to take button names/coordinates and apply the right text and/or graphic to the top of the keycap at the assembly level. It would surely make for significantly lighter-weight button part files and the approach could be much more flexible and easier to use. Gotta think about this one.
Sounds like another job for VB!
More reading for me to do. I also thought that this is not unlike a single injection molded part (it IS an injection molded part, isn't it!). So, what approach do people take to complex IM parts? Do you design bits and pieces of the part and then glue it together in an assembly or do you do it all in one shot?
I've alredy had assemblies self-destruct. I learned my lesson years and years ago. I never edit the same file more than a couple of times. Before I sit down for a new session, the current working directory gets a full backup. Disk storage is cheap these days.
Well, it's more about a practical consideration, I have to get a design out within the next couple of months. That means mechanical, electronic and software design. Then, hopefully, a couple of months later, I'll have the time to go away for a week and learn what I've been doing wrong! :-)
The problem with long posts... its easy to miss a critical line: My post started- Beyond the issue of SWx using data from other CAD packages (which you correctly point out is real-world, and all that is left to debate is how magnificently/piss-poorly/somewhere-in-between SWx handles it per each CAD vendor )...
Martin, as I read it, is designing something new, and matt made a great point that he might not want to start in one package and transition to another when it could all be done faster in a single environment. To be fair to the origin of the thread, we should wait for someone to post about a legacy problem before opening that can of worms (and I won't be commenting on that thread if it should happen, because I am hired to make new stuff, not transtion legacy data... as a matter of courtesy I try to keep quiet when I have nothing constructive to add)
No, you were not wrong (sorry Cliff), and I am grateful for that contribution that you made to the dialog here - frankly, I would not be capable of what I am currently able to do had you not challenged me to get outside of my comfort zone. That nudge, after an eye opening API presentation by Cholly from SWx that showed me how it all worked behind the scenes, really forced me to push my understanding of how mainstream CAD works and what I could do with it if I just changed my methodolgy and mindset. That is what I like about this NG over the eng-tips one - I like the theory discussions (learn how to fish -vs- "here's the fish")
Good question, but my answer will not satisfy an idealist. I work in SolidWorks because that is the predominant modeler in my marketplace, and what I can get paid to work in.
I bet you would agree that, ultimatley, I am a designer, not a CAD driver. I'm actually pretty darn good at the design part (that distant sound is my own horn tooting) - the getting-good-at-CAD part is incidental and, I hope, temporary based on the era that I live in. 20 years from now we will all have a good laugh about the primative CAD we were forced to use. I bet you would also agree that it is a shame that driving CAD is part of any of our jobs... our talents should be 100% focused on making products, without having any of our time spent learning new software or beating the limitations of legacy systems. I welcome your thoughts on either of those statements if I am missing something.
Right now, SWx provides me a HUGE customer base... if people start asking for VX, I will definatley look at it, but I have never heard a single request for it. I have the responsibility of doing design work in my customers CAD package so they can continue to work on the products I design for them and make changes without having to hire me again or invest in a whole new infrastructure just to change the data they paid for. So, I am not the one to convince.. it is everyone else For now, I have to put VX in the same category as Rhino... it might be great if I worked in a vacuum, but I don't. I had the pleasure of meeting Bob McNeel (one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet) and even he was gracious enough to understand that I couldn't use his product based in my business. However, I have recommended Rhino to companies who are not restricted by my business's model, based on the force of the glowing reponse from other Rhino users (and the folks I suggested test Rhino have come back and said they LOVE it) - and if given a blank-page company looking for a recomendation, I will probably recommend at least a peek at VX based on your endorsement. But for me to try VX would be a waste of time... the best that could happen is I would love it and STILL couldn't use it, so the learning curve investment just doesn't make any sense for me.
However, I am glad that you have found something fantastic for you that gives you a competitive advantage over the other guy, and look forward to you making so much money that the entire industry has to shift to your way of operating or crumble into dust (actually not meant to be a facetious statement... I am a Darwinist through-and-through, and hope that the best package squashes the inferior ones so we can all be designers again and forget about this other crap once and for all)
Elequently and succinctly put. I think it's safe to say this applies to most of us.
There's alot more to a business than what CAD system you use, but using the wrong one can be costly . With the pace of product development, and the inherent real time collaboration between client and contractor, you both have to be on the exact same page. The CAD system is what drives this process in the design and engineering world. It would be foolish to use something that didn't expose you to the largest market. No matter how much better it was at some things.
Very well put. One night, a couple of years ago, I was very frustrated with decidedly inferior electronics hardware design tools. Tools costing $10K that are not much more than refined manure. Anyhow, I typed and printed a short line that hung on the wall and try to refer to as often as possible for guidance: "We need better tools". That's the secret. Now, in that case, I spent two months writing code to make this bad tool usable. We couldn't just dump it.
As an amateur musician I also refer to that world for analogies. I've been known to say that CAD tools must be designed from the stanpoint that design can be approached as a performing art. You are trying to express your vision and ideas --or your clients'-- and get this from mind to paper (or model) as fluidly as possible. If you have to spend a significant amount of time preoccupied with the mechanics of the program (memory issue, types of entities to use to avoid problems, shortcuts, tricks, etc.) rather than have your mind in the creative "zone" the tool has failed to deliver what we truly need. Most CAD tools I know do fail miserably at this.
Tool authors need to understand that we don't go to Home Depot to buy a 1/2 inch drill bit, we really want a 1/2 inch hole. :-)
Why do you think I'm spending so much time with MasterCAM, Mark ?
In the next few years I believe CNC Software will dominate like they never have before and this will open up a lot of oportunities for me. Lots of companies had a huge head start (DP Technology, etc) and blew it cause they never learned how to market. With the realease of MasterCAM X they are going to find themselves loseing market share... slowly and then quickly.
Thankfully I waited until now but I have got a lot of learning to do on something I have tried to shy away from for a long time.... MasterCAM's post langauge.
Timing is everything and I do see the handwriting on the wall.
I skipped alot of the messages in this thread, but assuming that I am not missing something I would suggest the following with graphics:
DO NOT put graphics on your part models UNLESS it is going to be a molded feature! I have done similar things, and it will only leed to sweat and tears, and not help you meet your deadline.
2 If the graphics are going to be printed on the parts, then the best and most useful way is to use the part file to create a 2D line layout for use in a graphics program, where you can layout the graphics accurately. Ideally this is in Illustrator, and your output is an EPS or PDF file for the printer. In manufacturing it is useful to have a drawing with the buttons and graphics together for control, but the printer has no use for a 3D cad model with graphics on it. Also, as you mentioned somewhere, you will only make your parts more complex adding
3D graphics features.
3 If you MUST have graphics as 3D features, and your buttons have fairly simple top surfaces (flat, slightly domed etc.), I would suggest creating the sketch with the graphic on a plane that projects normal to the face you want the graphic. I think it is different in SW2005, but you may only be able to do one character at a time - but you can cut the surface with this sketch. Or... if you need a 3D version where the character is embossed, you can offset the surface, and then extrude the character using the surface and offset surface of the button as the starting and ending surface for the extrude feature. I would then do a parting line draft around each character. If you try and extrud the text with draft, and the surface is not a plane, your characters will become more deformed than is desirable.
If you want to only show the graphics for visualization / 3D rendering, then the way to do it is to apply the graphics in photoworks and render. That is another can of worms.... Again, if you are looking for speed, I often simply take a screenshot of the top view (or whatever view) and use that image in photoshop / illustrator or other graphic package where I can add the artwork. fast and relatively painless.
I think that will get you into enough trouble for now I think.... :-)
Another thing I would strongly suggest, as you seem to be going through a steep learning curve with SW, is to learn from existing parts / assemblies.
I found that one of the fastest ways to understand construction strategies and techniques is to look at existing part file histories. The beauty of parametric history is you can actually follow the step by step process someone used to make a part simply by rolling back the history.
I am sure you can get someone here who has an exhisting keypad part, to send you the file so that you can see their process and logic. You would learn very quickly that way. I have learned many very useful techniques this way. If they were not mentioned before in the thread, there are some very proficient users with parts you can download. Just a few from my list:
formatting link
You will also start to quickly see good / efficient technique verses, shall we say, less than ideal solutions....
If you want to get philosophical and a little off-topic (or...maybe not) I am of the opinion that software is partly at fault for some of the outsourcing issues some industries have seen. What do I mean?
The gadgets being designed today are orders of magnitude more complex than just a few years ago. At every step of the way there has to be heavy reliance on software-based design and management tools as necessary and indispensable tools with which to do the work. As these tools fail to deliver performance and reliability --or fail the address that I want a 10mm hole, not a drill bit-- the cost of getting to market grows, perhaps exponentially at large organizations. So, what do you do? You take your crummy software infrastructure and move it somewhere where you can afford engineers burning hours upon hours dealing with tool issues rather than getting work done. In other words, crappy software may very well have been behind some of you loosing your jobs to other markets.
It's a gross oversimplification and a myopic look at the problem, so, please, don't jump down my throat, I know that the whole affair is much more complex and subtle than this. But, this is a plausible explanation I can humbly offer from first hand experience with tools that should allow you to do the work in hours but require days due to their inadequacies. I couldn't imagine teams of dozens of engineers at high wages being allowed to function in this manner.
How timely this is. I spent last night having a gargantuan battle with SW. It involved many C4-ladden explosions of assemblies, hanging, strange behavior, closing part/assembly files by itself and SW generally being a real bitch to deal with.
As a new user, I can't say that I am impressed, you end up mentally so far away from what you originally got into the swamp to for...
Anyhow, I have now given up on the idea of having these nice intelligently defined buttons that have a configuration-per legend, etc. To me this would have been the most elegant approach to the problem. Very much self-documenting. Easy to maintain. However, I've come to the realization that SW gives you the tools but does not guarantee that the head is attached to the handle solidly enough. So, you choose to use the tools at your own risk and, at any given point in time, a sharp blade might just fly off the handle. Unfortunate.
I want the text in the model/assembly because...well, it's a damn CAD system and I want all my documentation to travel with these files. I can do this with ACAD in 2D or 3D. No problems there. It's just text.
In the end I might discover that the only sensible approach might very well be to do as you suggest and either document the key-top (yes, they are flat) text in ACAD, Photoshop or Illustrator. I'll ask my vendor what they might prefer. This might save me from a lot of pain and aggravation. BTW, the legends will be laser-etched, and so, the idea of extrude-cutting the key-tops with text was very appealing because it would make it look like the final product.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.