Mold Design Help

I am trying to design a four cavity mold that has a cavity and core. I
used the mold tools to generate the tooling split. Can I use the model
that has the tooling split to cut the cavities?
Thank you.
Reply to
Jack Husted
Loading thread data ...
Are you talking about CNC'ing the cavities based off the model with the surface split?
Sure you can.
Personally I dont use the SW mold creation tools as I do it by other means but you should be able to STEP or Parasolid it out for yer toolpath generation.
HTH Bing
Reply to
Bing
"Personally I dont use the SW mold creation tools as I do it by other means."
I will say in advance that I have not tried the new mold tools in SW04. However, it has amused me in the past to see others' attempts at providing solutions for core & cavity creation. People keep trying to provide an `automatic mold design button' . I suppose the purpose of all that effort is so that non mold designers can feel like there is a way to do something that they really don't understand. They won't really have to learn what REAL mold designers do if somebody is selling them an automatic way to do it.
If mold design were easy then any asshole could do it. I assure you, I am not just ANY asshole............
-end of rant-
jk
Reply to
John Kreutzberger
I hear ya on that! And according to to what you stated, then they will NEVER learn.
Sometimes I wonder where they get these ideas for automatic core/cavity/slide generators from. All of the ones that I have seen so far are so cumbersome to work with, have really no legitimate logic behind them and in no way resemble how I split my tools of which I think I am following basic engineering guidelines. The same ones engineers have folowed for years. I really do wonder where SW Corp came up with these so called tools from cause they surely are wasting their time in that department.
You dont sound like one although I have been called that on numerous occasions. :)
Luckily not for my designs. Not yet anyways.
Bing
Reply to
Bing
I am very curious if SW04 put in a "mold" tool feature to allow me to put a zero thickness "shutoff" on holes in parts where core pins shut off on the opposite side of the mold so I can generate both sides of the cavity from one scaled up part without using configurations and manually generated 'plugs' for each cut configuration?
Anyone tried the mold features yet? Anyone have a feature list?
Later - Bo
Reply to
Bo Clawson
Haven't tried SW's latest as I said before. What others have done about the (common) situation you describe is collect surfaces that represent either side of the tool. Then for all of those openings you refer to, the user needs to put in a planar surface or use the fill surface routine. Some packages will do this semi-automatically. I too would be interested to hear what other mold designers have to say about the new mold tools in 04.
jk
Reply to
John Kreutzberger
"John Kreutzberger" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
Your elitist feathers are showing. The mold design automation tools some companies are selling are being used to speed up mold design, not to raise your IQ. If you don't know how to design mold tools, automation will not help you much. These tools automate tasks, they do not make design automatic, and yes, they really do work.
That's a beautiful sentiment.
Tools like MoldWorks/SplitWorks (and others like Faceworks, IMold, etc) are used by real world mold designers to make real world molds faster than you can do it manually.
The new mold tools in SolidWorks are disappointing. I think here their philosophy of introducing half baked features with the intention of making them useful later on just diminishes their credibility over the short run. They say they have not attempted to recreate any of the partner products, but the new functions at least in intention do exactly what Splitworks and FaceWorks are supposed to do. The good news for the partners is that these tools are not useful for production mold design (they simply don't work for the intended purpose). I haven't used the new tools on anything complex because I didn't have luck with even the simple things.
matt
Reply to
matt
Yeah, upon re-reading I can see some of those feathers you refer to. I happen to have a pet peave about people looking to software to "raise their IQ" as you said so well.
"If you don't know how to design mold tools, automation will not help you much. "
I think that was the point I was trying to make.
I use MoldWorks and will agree that it has improved my productivity. I have spent some time with different versions of SplitWorks and have had mixed results. I think my major problem is that I had to buy it direct from R&B because my VAR wasn't able to support it or interested in becoming able to. (No real slam against them- there aren't too many mold designers out here and I can understand focussing their resources on what they know. ) I have had to learn SplitWorks on my own for that reason. I have a fairly quick manual method that is difficult to explain but makes it very easy for me to incorporate part revisions as they arise. I can get up to half a dozen revs to a model before I am done. Especially with imported geometry- a surfaces based solution to core/cavity split (like SplitWorks and FaceWorks) has not worked for me. I always seem to have to start over with each new file that I get. It has been explained to me that these add-ins are so fast that starting over with each rev is still faster than a manual method. I disagree with that.
Also, every time I post something about surfaces being difficult to up-date I get an e-mail from a guy at R&B who says that SplitWorks can indeed solve this problem for me. Some day perhaps I can get somebody to show me how that works. I keep trying and something always causes my surfaces not to knit back up after bringing in the new version. I have spent hours trying to chase down problems like that and in the end have to go back and use my manual method. How productive is that?
I see that the 2004 versions of MoldWorks/SplitWorks have just been released. I may be an elitist, but I still try to keep an open mind. I'll give SplitWorks another whirl. If I ever figure out how to use it AND keep up with my customers' revisions , I'll post a retraction to what I just said.
more long-winded than I intended................
jk
Reply to
John Kreutzberger
"Also, every time I post something about surfaces being difficult to up-date I get an e-mail from a guy at R&B who says that SplitWorks can indeed solve this problem for me. Some day perhaps I can get somebody to show me how that works. I keep trying and something always causes my surfaces not to knit back up after bringing in the new version. I have spent hours trying to chase down problems like that and in the end have to go back and use my manual method. How productive is that?"
It sounds so unproductive that I would get someone like VX, Cocreate or think3 to come out and demo how they would do it in their package and then post here exactly where the problem lies in SolidWorks.
Don't you think that after all these years that you should be able to do this easily and in an intuitive manner if SolidWorks / SplitWorks could do it ? How come others using SplitWorks don't post that this is no problem ?
Something seems very wrong to me... then again I could just blame you... but at this point even I can't do that. ;>)
Elitist ??? The king of hack and whack ???
LOL
jon
Reply to
jon banquer
Again, clueless, you don't even have a clue what the subject is, much less the problem/issue.
Perhaps someday someone will teach you about something ... but I doubt it.
Take the pretty pills ...
Reply to
Cliff Huprich
How about Alibre? I got alot of their cd's lately.
Have you ever designed a mold? Do you even know what they are?
Yea something seems wrong to me too. That the home let you out on yer own so early.
That says it all!
Bing
Reply to
Bing
jk:
How are you updating the customer data? Are you using the "edit definition" on the imported feature? That's probably the method they're talking about, and in theory it should work. I've found that the associativity works nice on changes to native parts, but haven't done it on imported parts.
matt.
Reply to
matt
We have been using SplitWorks to do benchmarks and help customers with there parts for the past year - and (subjectively speaking, since we develop the software) - I have been able to complete every project given. This doesn't mean that the software is perfect or that it can solve any splitting project - however - if you send us a part to be split (not just some pathological case) then we will split it for you and show you the results. Try us!
Reply to
GNB
"This doesn't mean that the software is perfect or that it can solve any splitting project - however - if you send us a part to be split (not just some pathological case) then we will split it for you and show you the results."
"doesn't mean the software is prefect" sure seems to me like a euphemism for:
SolidWorks has *glaring core fundamental problems* with how it handles imported non native geometry.
Sorry, but what you wrote above just does not make a lot of sense to me and I don't think one has to be a moldmaker to understand that something is very wrong with this picture.
If what I wrote above is not the case, why would sending you files or expecting a user to jump through tons of hoops to get the needed results be necessary ???
SolidWorks is suppose to be intuitive easy to use software isn't it ? Does what your suggesting sound like it's easy and intuitive to do ?
Should a SolidWorks user count on a third party vendor like RMB to straighten out core SolidWorks problems like how SolidWorks treats imported non native geometry ???
jon
Reply to
jon banquer
Matt, thanks for the reply.
I have had a difficult time understanding how to use the "edit definition" method with brand new models. From what I can remember, I was having problems with surfaces that had to be split. SplitWorks would analyze these as being "both direction" (or whatever they called it) and they would be dealt with in the initial split. SplitWorks does a nice job with this the first time around. Then when the new model would come in from my customer, I seemed to get lost when re-doing that split. Seemed like I would have to start over from the beginning with the new model.
As far as what you say about associativity with native parts ; are you talking about making the changes in-house and then having your split up-date? I can see how that would work nicely. Problems I have been having are when I get a new SWX model in my e-mail in the morning with myriad revisions. Incorporating that new model is different than editing definition of features in the original part and having the split up-date.
I have been told that this is solvable with the existing SplitWorks and that even there is a way with imported parts. It would probably be one of those head-slapping `duh' moments if I could just have a day or so with somebody who knew how to do it, and could work with me on a couple of my REAL jobs. I appreciate what George said elsewhere in this thread about taking in models and splitting them and sending them back. I have no doubt at all that they can do it. That's not really the answer though. I am under major time constraints and quickly lose patience trying a new technique, and I have to be able to do it here. The temptation is always to go back to a `tried and true' method.
I like the people at R&B. I am a big fan of MoldWorks and I keep trying each version of SplitWorks. When I eventually figure out a way over the hurdle I just described, I will be immensely pleased to say so to anybody who cares to listen. Meanwhile I am not really having problems doing my job with the tools that I understand.
jk
Reply to
John Kreutzberger
What is up with you with yer non-native geometry crap lately? You spew this junk here and in other forums.
So what? You cant even take a native model and do anything with it much less a non-native model. Designed any molds lately JB?
I been splitting molds for years now in SW and I dont have a problem at all with either native or non- native models.
The only issue I have is that their splitting tools are not what I would use. But, I can split whatever I want with the *core* SW functions. I dont need all the extra functions, but some may. You obviously do not have a need for them as you are not a mold designer so why dont you just shut the hell up and let people talk about what they know and do for a living!
I thought we were commenting on SW mold creation tools not some BS about non-native geometry.
I've used Splitworks and I think its a good start but I split my molds a different way. I've even talked to them and they are nice people.
You are on another PR offensive. You and yer non-native geometry BS buzzwords!
And I thought you were getting better.
Bing
Reply to
Bing
Tell "him" what you really think, Bing . Almost everyone else that posts here has, at one time or another.
Reply to
Cliff Huprich
Don't you have any clues yet?
Reply to
Cliff Huprich
He just doesnt know when to keep his mouth shut about things he doesnt even have a clue about.
Bing
Reply to
Bing
"I think here their philosophy of introducing half baked features with the intention of making them useful later on just diminishes their credibility over the short run."
What choice does Solidworks Corp. have as SolidWorks was incorrectly conceived as just a solid modeler from day one. Compare this with the hybrid approach adopted from day one by think3, VX, UG, etc.
The amount of changes need in SolidWorks to now become a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler are massive and are made more so by the fact that SolidWorks Corp. waited too long to allow something as basic as disjoint solids. At this point, many more people are now seeing how much more work really needs to be done to SolidWorks. This is especially true as SolidWorks Corp. is now attempting to increase market share to a much broader user base than their ill-conceived concept of being a just a tool for "main stream" designers.
"They say they have not attempted to recreate any of the partner products, but the new functions at least in intention do exactly what Splitworks and FaceWorks are supposed to do."
Based on this and more perhaps the real question one should be asking is *why* is SolidWorks Corp. doing this ???
IMO it's because:
Imported non-native surface geometry are still being treated like illegal aliens without the rights that native surface geometry have. More than even this is now a glaring major problem with SolidWorks. As a stop gap measure, SolidWorks Corp. is trying to come up with half baked solutions because it's much easier to do this than fix what needs to really be fixed. Imported surface geometry needs to be given full citizen status in SolidWorks. Until this happens all we will see are tools that are not intuitive and don't work very well because the real problem lies in the core approach to how imported non-native geometry is dealt with by SolidWorks. IMO, this should have been the major focus of SolidWorks 2004 just like disjoint solids should have been dealt with many years before they were finally supported by SolidWorks 2003.
Similarly, even with prismatic solids, FeatureWorks should not be the only tool given to a SolidWorks user to deal with "dumb" imported solids. This one tool approach does not work for many, many users and in many, many situations in the real world.
SolidEdge made some radical changes and now clearly leads SolidWorks at surfacing. Perhaps what we need is for EDS PLM Solutions to show the same kind of leadership in dealing with non-native geometry because it's more than obvious after all these years that SolidWorks Corp. in unwilling to do what is necessary until they are motivated to do so by another competitor.
I'd suggest that if Autodesk wanted to restore some of their completely lost credibility that they take the lead in this area with Inventor.
jon
Reply to
jon banquer

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.