Solidworks : powerful enough to design bottles ?

Really Nice. Thank you.

ok well I take a slightly different approach - I pay attention to what I know works quite well and quickly in SW - if I know a particular solution takes many hours to set up and many to refine and is liable to break if there are revisions I don't go there. - I think I can still produce something quite pleasing without fussing and pampering it to death as a 'designer' - I am not sure that in the end the customer really benefits or indeed notices anyway....they soon become aware of any functional or technical deficiencies after the eye candy stage passes. Indeed some people are resistant to over designed products and 'organic' forms... and not just salt of the earth 'engineers' either. For instance a cell phone may appeal to someone's visual taste and it may come in a very smart box but any savvy customer these days will be looking on the internet for reviews and opinions before they buy...and despite that if they go to the shop and find they can't press the little buttons easily on the demo well it really doesn't matter about the finer points of shape and texture or the studio shots on the glossy advertising circular... I use common sense to screen out stupid notions before they even get onto paper as concepts - I don't see the point of exploring 50 options if you are aware only 5 are actually going to be practical from past experience - an amusement for me is to look at car designers sketches and know almost all of their doodles are never going to see the light of day.... Perhaps I am unusual here in this I just think it is a mistake to force a design onto a product merely because it is important for a 'designer' to have defined everything about it. So I do compromise what I do as a matter of course and let the tools limit my designs - you have to actually know if a machine tool can make something that is on the screen....

Neil,

I fear you completely missed my point.

We create products using many tools. Our entire design team is involved in product creation. Every team member has an important role in developing the product. We design products using tools that have enough freedom to capture the design intent. Could be a pencil, could be a CAD tool. Once we come up with a strong concept we refine that concept into something that can be manufactured. This is all part of the design stage. Normally before CAD is ever involved. When we have a good Idea of what the products look, feel, and function is then we do our best to maintain those ideas throughout the engineering process. The CAD tool cannot limit your design!!! Manufacturing processes however do define design parameters that have to be followed. For example; We don't build a part without draft because the designer wants it straight. We build the part with the minimum required draft for the finish. Or we change our mfg process or pull direction. There are certain things we have to follow, but we should always ask why, or we will never evolve those mfg processes.

I do not fuss or pamper a model to death to capture the required design intent. The iterative process I spoke about was in CAD after the design intent has been defined. I might start heading down one path then realize I need to go a different direction. My point was that many people maintain their current heading even when the path is gone. They either forge ahead creating a patchwork model or call it good enough. I find it better to take a step or two back and create something that actually captures the original design intent in a straight forward robust model.

Cadguru

hmmmm...I always try to work through available CAD tools rather than replicate a pre defined 'design intent'....once I get the idea onto the pc it assumes a life/character of its own and I am happy with that. I confess I find terms like design intent a bit fuzzy and idealised/abstract....maybe my methods are wrong....possibly my thinking is more 'engineering' orientated.... This is quite an interesting divide and probably one a lot of folks find challenging. It will be interesting to see what Ed Eaton has to say in his SWW presentation. thanks for sharing your methods and view point.

Thank you for your input as well, I think this further establishes the idea that no single tool will work the same for everyone. If you have time I would like for you to attend my two part presentation at SWW as well.

Art to Part 1 and 2

Cadguru