..has anyone made the transition other than me only to find that SW sheetmetal seems to have far fewer tools - particularly with regard to the rip functionality. Pro/E, as well as having an edge rip function allowed for 'rip connects' (and sketch rips on surfaces) plus much more advanced 'extended walls' functionality (in SW you just about close a corner - even then it has to be a specific corner type). Even though I am new to SW, it is apparent that its sheetmetal module is not as feature rich as I was first led to believe. Would like to know if anyone is aware of what's coming up in future release(s) that might address some of these issues.
No real background in PROE, other than the files/dwgs I've received in the past, but I have been generating SM parts w/swx since 98+. I do have experience w/ IV, SE, IC and ProCAM. They all do SM a bit differently, but SWX has the edge imo. Given the SM capabilities, it still baffles me why people haven't taken the time to learn them. Often, the explantion I receive is that "Pro did it this way" or "It doesn't work, I can't get it to unfold.....". As a result of this mentality, I frequently receive models that can not be fabricated as designed and require me to start from a paper drawing. THat works, but the savings in time (money) from creating the part correctly in the first place will never be realized.
I mention this because I suspect that sheet metal would likely get more attention if more people used its capabilities and submitted more enhancement requests. Unfortunately, it's easier in the short run to keep making shelled and ripped sm parts. The truth is that if you can't make the part in swx, it is likely that the part can not be fabricated as designed.
With the exception of the simplest flat part, I model everything we do. I've yet to find a part that can't be modeled, documented and flattened. THere are shortfalls atm. Worst (for me) are intersecting bend reliefs. Closed Corners are a great addition, but I set back corners for material >.048 by 1/2 MT for weld penetration and that is not an option in CC.
It's not pro and you are likely at a disadvantage to take pro tecniques and force them into swx. Hang in there, despite the bashing the program takes in this ng, I have not seen anything but improvement in the sm aspect of the program. Keep sending in the er's, but give the program a chance. Take some time and go through the tutorial, check out the docs for sm features, forget what you know about pro.
Sorry for the rant. Short answer to your question: No, I don't. But, I suspect constant improvement from release to release that is primarily driven by requests.
Dave thanks - appreciate your comments. Surprised there aren't more people out there with views on the subject though. Going to have to hang on in there and be patient i guess!
Hi, I would like to take this opportunity to mention my brief experience with Solid Edge. In my opinion Solid Edge has the best sheet metal tools than any other program in their price range. I can't say that I'm an expert, I only played with Solid Edge for a short time, but some of the things that I remember that I wish SW could provide are: the way Solid Edge places their forming tools, like louvers, they are so easy to place and change. Another feature is Contour Flange Options; the ability to change a flange's ends from square to miter, and the Corner Relief feature that allows to trim: Bend, Bend, and face and Bend and face chain, these are very handy tools that allows you to change the notches either "inside" or "outside" and the material will be trimmed accordingly. These are just a few of the features that I noticed and thought that they could be a nice addition to SW.
I agree with Dave that you are better to start a sheet metal part with the Base Flange feature instead of ripping a solid shelled box. If you have very complex corners, try these steps:
Make a C shape for your first feature.
Utilize unfold to flatten (not flat pattern)
Sketch the complex profile on the bends. Utilize Extruded Cut and link to thickness.
Fold and collect all bends.
Next add your side wall. Utilize convert entities in the sketch. Drag the sketch back until it clears the complex profile area.
Extrude the sketch and you should be able to complete your complex corner.
If you want a simple model, send me your email address to snipped-for-privacy@massbay.edu and I will send it to you.
There are no longer green and white sides - but give SW a chance by starting with the Base Flange feature first. I think you will like the time you will save in the other areas.
Add to that their (solidedge) equivalent to sheetmetal edgebreak can even do INTERNAL corners. Can Solidworks edgebreak do internal corners? No, Nyet, Nada, Nein, Nay . . . I guess punches do not break down on internal corners and therefore do not need to be broken(?) . . . the punches just know that the corner is internal . . .
And when adding the edgebreaks with SE, a very nifty filter will only let you select edges that are material thickness - which means - you don't (!) have to perform a million zoom-in/outs to get your tiny corners filleted. This was there at least in 1998 . . .
And to speak of pro-e: Pro has a sheet metal twist - when could we ever hope for this?
We have no hope of unfoldable simple contour draws, which are extremely easy to cheat, but why not have a feature that unfolds - not that hard in my mind?
I get the impression that they are not sure what else is needed or they think the tools are great as is - solidworks sheet metal is good, but some big holes are there.
Let's mention the bizarre and unmanufacturable corner reliefs of miter flange which have no hope of being configured or the self intersecting unfold on an internal corner on a miter or . . . co-planar flanges that will not unfold (needing a .001 gap) . . . or hems that will intersect the part base wildly without reporting an error . . . or edge flanges that fail to unfold when welded to other coplanar edgeflanges . . . or the strange flange sketch projection that happens when offsettig an edge flange . . . or the inablilty to create "wall"s in the base-flange method . . . or the offset jog that will not correct for projection when going past 90 degrees . . . or . . . or . . .
(Secretly I love this stuff, but there are lot of little got-yas that make many of the supposedly helpful features things to avoid & yes I am a model-to-sheet-metal advocate - base flanges are not mature in my mind - no region features - no walls - no in process multi-body . . . wasn't until 2003 that you could even configure all your bend allowances independently with k-factor).
An approach that I like better is to make the base flange just the rectangular base, and do a miter flange to make the 4 sides. This makes it easier to control the overall outside dimensions of the box and makes nicer looking corners, as far as I'm concerned.
Then there's always the "trim side bends" and "closed corner" options, which look good, but take more steps.
matt
snipped-for-privacy@massbay.edu ( snipped-for-privacy@massbay.edu) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
This approach works very nicely and in fact if one wants to have high detail panels on the sides of the box, edgeflanges might be substituted as well. I personally believe that the most "well behaved" box can and should be created using 5 sketches (1 bottom & 4 sides) with the corner reliefs and closed corners sketched in by the user as desired in the 5 sketches. Even further the model to sheet metal will behave quite nicely and even outperform the base-flange method. In both cases though, bend reliefs will need some tweaking, but less so with the first method.
In swx I find the fastest stable way to create a box is to create a solid block, shell it, rip the 4 corners (have it in wireframe mode so you dont even ahve to rotate it) and the convert to sheetmetal. It is very fast and reliable.
snipped-for-privacy@lycos.com (Brian Bahr) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
That method knocks out the corners, so you have to do the closed corner bit if you don't want big ugly holes in the corners.
Also, it's the "old school" way of doing it, not that that really matters. In terms of number of steps, the rectangular base flange with a miter flange is way faster, only two sketches, two features.
Actually I agree your method is superior but I have had some stability issues using miter flanges (but I admit that some of this problem is my own doing as I use some non typical settings with sheetmetal for our special use.)
Another thing with miter flanges is that they seem to have an underpowered treatment of form/corner relief (can't prorperly clear corners as squares and can't turn corners that have been "pre-relieved" in anticipation). And if you need any side detail in the panels, you will have to resort to a cut.
On the other hand, the miter flange can be a really neat way to have a top flange on the box and still have the two feature tree. I like how the miter flange addes the picture frame cuts, but you always have to deal with the miter flange "minimum gap" which applies to the whole miter and may not be needed everywhere (i.e. its worst case).
Lucky for us there are lots of ways to get this right.
I also heard the (shelled or otherwise) model to sheet metal method refered to as the "old" way as if it were not preferred. I prefer to think of it as the "original" way and the "new" way as the imperfect way (can't do multi-body, profile & region extrudes, walls, "new" features sketch planes project strangly when past 90 degrees, etc). I wish they would finish/refine the features they have implemented to merge both methods and truly make the distinction moot. In my feeble mind, many of the new features require too many incremental steps in too many places to make then what they hope to be. Unless one needs fastener patterns (holewiz) I'm still in love with the 6 feature cube with all the needed detail added to the sketches.
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.