Disqus - Latest Comments for SWPriest

Re: Stop Poking the Screen. It’s Only a Configuration Publisher.

SWPriest — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:41:14 -0000

Oh yeah!
But I'd like the old way : DT + XML for 3DCC. For complex models with virtual millions of possible configs, with parameters depending on other previous 3 or 4, with variable boxes visibility (some options/boxes must be hidden for some parameters combinations) the CP is a nightmare. Not to mention that you have to made a lot of updates in DT also - CP require a column in DT for each parameter.
CP work in a pyramidal way and it's ergonomics is really bad. For example, if I have a model with a DT with 5 columns (5 parameters), each column with 6 possible values, for the fifth box you should fill in 1296 boxes with ranges of values from DT! How you will check this??? And we have some models with 42 parameters, some of them with 20-22 possible values, depending on previous 4-6 parameters!!!
For simple models it's just fine, you don't have to know XML,ASP or JS, the DT is simple. But for DT's with many vlookup's and with 2 sheets full of formulas....

So, yes is a step forward, but it need sooooo many improvements that I will recommend it just for simple models with few configs or just for training purpose.

Re: Ask the Reader: What Kind of 3D Model Check Process Do You Have?

SWPriest — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:18:46 -0000

These models are good too, for something - show the other guys how to do NOT. I have some, specially prepared for newbies and beginners.

Re: Ask the Reader: What Kind of 3D Model Check Process Do You Have?

SWPriest — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:16:49 -0000

Yeah!
I don't think I've seen a program to capture all these stuff, I don't think is possible and I DON'T WANT TO! I mean, where's the fun if the computer made all these things without us? :-)

Re: Ask the Reader: What Kind of 3D Model Check Process Do You Have?

SWPriest — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:33:28 -0000

Well, depending on the project type you can go through the following:
- check the model and the drawing against the blueprint or best practice rules with SW design checker (the right start part, the right drawing format, fully defined sketches, interferences in assemblies, use of right symbols, etc),
- for those rules that cannot be checked with DC, check with a checklist,
- use draft check for molded/forged parts,
- use zebra stripes or other tools for surface analysis, if needed (better export to UG NX and made some surfaces analysis there),
- use Tolanalyst for tolerances, if needed (as a guidance),
- use DFM analysis for manufacturability, if needed (as a guidance),
- use COSMOS stress/thermal/flow/motion analysis for some design problems (or other FEA tools outside SW),
- use some add-ins for RapidPrototyping analysis, if needed,
- best of all: use a PDM/ERP/SAP system with automatic checking capabilities and put all involved guys (Tol, FEA, electrical, tehnol, production, etc) in the loop.

For Bruce - you can define drawing templates with all Custom Props embedded and start parts with those Custom Props embedded also. I think you can find on youtube some video about these.

My 2 pence.

Re: 8 Fiery Guidelines to Ignite Feature-based Modeling in SolidWorks

SWPriest — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:44:40 -0000

Josh,

Sorry for my aggressive comments. Even in my culture they said that I'm too direct, if not rude.
We are working especially for big American clients, so I'm familiar with ANSI, ASME and clients specs and needs. Because such a diversity of projects and CAD platforms : from simple conversion 2D to 3D few years ago, to entire industrial programs with few years duration, from Inventor,CATIA, SolidWorks,UG-NX to Pro/E, learning each from other, we have established some internal best practices for each platform and project type. And my comments are in line with these practices.

But, of course, I would like too see others comments, especially from those who doesn't work in a mechanical area: sculptors, RP artists, designers, etc.

Again, my apologies for the comments tone.
I think you made a great job here. I would like to be in your skin :-)

Re: 8 Fiery Guidelines to Ignite Feature-based Modeling in SolidWorks

SWPriest — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:40:43 -0000

Josh,
I agree with first two guidelines, but not sure about the rest of them.
Let me see:

Using features and faces (3,4,5) to define other features or boundary conditions for them might be a very quick way to build models, but a certain one to the headaches, especially for complex parts or for parts with many configs. I've learned to rely on equations,relations and layouts, for both assemblies and parts. Sooner or later, your model will be shared with an mate/colleague or with other guy, even on different CAD system and updating such model will be a nightmare. We frequently receive CAD models from suppliers or from clients build as you said and the update/change process is a difficult and time consuming one.

But, as exercise for beginners, for simple models or for models that will never go to the FEA analysis and will never be exported in another CAD format to be used by others, it's fine.

6. This is a tricky one since you will never guess the future of anything.

7. Useful for sheetmetal or for die cores, but useless (for me at least) for other, since you can use the plane itself as reference, or "Intersection Curve" (between that plane and desired surfaces) inside of the sketch, without making another feature (the split line).

8. This is tricky also. You should be so careful with these! And they are difficult to change if you use constrains instead of dimensions. For intensive usage of the same body, I would made an user Library feature part. It's a little work to do Library parts but it's worth.

Re: 6 Ways to Improve the Heck Out of This SolidWorks Parts

SWPriest — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:58:57 -0000

Josh,
Agree with all points with a condition: there is no restricting rebuilding time requirement. I mean, for models posted on web sites (web2cad, partserver, 3dcontentcentral, etc) all models should be highly configurable, yet simpler and lighter as possible - chamfers instead fillets, no internal geometry, less details.

I would add :
7. Link values for similar dimensions if constrains between sketches are not allowed.
8. Use of equations with comments.
9. Imported 3D geometry parts (from suppliers with other CAD platform) - heal geometry -> reposition it on the origin -> export it again -> imported -> add configs and params -> save as SoWo parts.
10. Imported 3D geometry assemblies : similar with above, but export the assy as a multibody part - in that way in resulting part some configs could be added.
11. Name the features,planes and axis.
12. Group features used for a technological step in a folder.
13. Group assy mates in folders.
14. Put fillets and chamfers at the end of the geometry to avoid wrong constrains or relation to major features.

What you feel about all of these?

Re: Ask the Reader: Does 3D CAD Make You Dream in 3D?

SWPriest — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:24:08 -0000

As Ocell says, when I'm under deadline pressure I have such nightmares. But I can have nice 3D dreams too :-)
And like Ocell I try to rotate 2D things on my PC - this could be quite annoying...

Re: SpaceClaim, SolidEdge, Inventor: User Interface A-Go-Go

SWPriest — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:48:34 -0000

Insane indeed... I hardly wait an article about this...
There are many other problems with different SP’s than installing. For example did you noticed that “Close” and “Help” buttons on “What’s wrong” window displayed after an unsuccessful rebuild are in a position on SW2005 and switched between them on SW2006 and later?

Regarding project management: of course I have to set paths and folders for each project with access rules for each user and user groups.

Re: SpaceClaim, SolidEdge, Inventor: User Interface A-Go-Go

SWPriest — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:04:32 -0000

No Matt, they are different customers, each working on its own or customized PDM.
With some we use a thin web client to reach their PDM and basically we work with their servers. Each has its own spec and standard for models, assemblies and drawings and I have to set Design Checker, start parts, paths to symbols, notes, color swatches, etc, etc. I've found an excel table with macros on web to get and set all SW hidden params, but this work only for one SP. I have to play with registries and that's really painful, because I am Mechanical Engineer, not an IT guru.
We work with many shared spreadsheets for projects management, but this is nit error free method.
Anyway, how do you manage to work with 07, 08, and 09 for projects? Do you have a tool, a method, a public secret :-)?

Re: SpaceClaim, SolidEdge, Inventor: User Interface A-Go-Go

SWPriest — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:14:38 -0000

Matt,
I jump over the fence.
You're right partially: I'm using a lot of macros to simplify my work but there are so many project types that I have to open sometimes too many toolbars. I prefer to "assemble" personalized toolbars instead of using CM although. But, when you have to work on long term projects (6-24 moths) I think a toolbar with many macros and assigned hotkeys is better than CM. Or if you spent more time on Excel configs and functions than on modeling CM is useless.

I would like to play with 08 and 09, but I already have headache because of using 05, 06, and 07 with different SP’s on the same PC... a real nightmare. This is off topic but how do you manage when you have to work on different projects, with different SW releases, on the same PC? I didn't find any PDM capable to work with SW2005 Off Pro SP3.1 and SP5.0, SW2006 Off Pro SP3.1 and SP4.1, SW2007 Off Pro SP1.0 and SP3.1 simultaneously. Any idea?

Re: SpaceClaim, SolidEdge, Inventor: User Interface A-Go-Go

SWPriest — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:56:00 -0000

Well, I'm not a fan of any "space eater" ribbon or toolbar, CAD, Office, or other apps. I used a lot my fingers - there are so many advantages using fingers... errr... shortcut keys...and so painful sometimes :-). I need more additional keys on my keyboard.
Really, how they measure the "productivity" factor? They used "ergonomics" specialists to "design" this ribbon? They used their own employee for this?

And, yes, Marijn's idea about mouse gestures is a great one.
3D CAD and Linux? He, he, he, he - good joke. I have dreams about that, but one SW Europe's HQ trainer reply when I asked about SW migration from windoze to Linux "SW will make this step when Linux will make money, real money.” So...

Matt, you are my favorite SW Guru but I disagree with you: Command Manager is waste of time and space. Touch screens, VR, data gloves, trackballs, mouse gestures, shortcut keys, anything but CM.

Regarding differences between different 3D CAD interfaces, I don't know I feel that lately they tend to have "suchlike" toolbars and icons. I mean, 10 years ago was such differences between SW and Pro/E interfaces, but now WF4's interface is quite familiar to me.