Design approach help

[Bo]

Indeed, Kman has a good point about seeking help from one of one of
your VAR's 'experienced' guys. He can probably help with the
construction plan process for your solid that suits your need.

I just have not had much luck in speeding things up by taking 2D
layouts into SolidWorks. What I do is to keep my 2D layouts on 1
screen and then reconstruct the solid model the way I want it to start
in SolidWorks on a 2nd screen, when I have 2D data layouts.

Unlike Jon, I use SolidWorks every day, and I really do not find
practical limitations with most of my plastic part designs, though I do
NOT use surfacing much at all. Most of the curved solids things I do
are handled with Lofts and sweeps & work quite well (unlike Jon).

If I had to do airplanes or auto body design, I am sure I would go
straight to the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, and watch
what the students there use and buy that, but I don't.

SolidWorks was conceived and designed by an experienced team of CAD
designers with 20 years of prior design team experience in 2 or 3 prior
3D solids CAD packages headed by the founder, McElneny. They picked
and chose carefully to let the widest range of design methods be used,
and I think they succeeded.

Jon talks about things, and particularly VX, but SolidWorks is heading
toward 1/2 million installed seats of SWks for a good reason!

Bo

 

[jon banquer]

Indeed, Kman has a good point about seeking help from one of one of
your VAR's 'experienced' guys. He can probably help with the
construction plan process for your solid that suits your need.

I just have not had much luck in speeding things up by taking 2D
layouts into SolidWorks. What I do is to keep my 2D layouts on 1
screen and then reconstruct the solid model the way I want it to start
in SolidWorks on a 2nd screen, when I have 2D data layouts.

Unlike Jon, I use SolidWorks every day, and I really do not find
practical limitations with most of my plastic part designs, though I do
NOT use surfacing much at all. Most of the curved solids things I do
are handled with Lofts and sweeps & work quite well (unlike Jon).

If I had to do airplanes or auto body design, I am sure I would go
straight to the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, and watch
what the students there use and buy that, but I don't.

SolidWorks was conceived and designed by an experienced team of CAD
designers with 20 years of prior design team experience in 2 or 3 prior
3D solids CAD packages headed by the founder, McElneny. They picked
and chose carefully to let the widest range of design methods be used,
and I think they succeeded.

Jon talks about things, and particularly VX, but SolidWorks is heading
toward 1/2 million installed seats of SWks for a good reason!

Bo



Unlike Jon, I use SolidWorks every day, and I really do not find
practical limitations with most of my plastic part designs, though I do
NOT use surfacing much at all. Most of the curved solids things I do
are handled with Lofts and sweeps & work quite well (unlike Jon).

While Bo is making excuse after excuse for SolidWorks as he always
does, consider that some people are smart enough to use a *complete*
CAD/CAM system that does not suffer from the severe limitaions that
SolidWorks does.

The inability to use legacy wireframe data in a useful manner is just
one of *many* of SolidWorks severe limitations.

SolidWorks was conceived and designed by an experienced team of CAD
designers with 20 years of prior design team experience in 2 or 3 prior
3D solids CAD packages headed by the founder, McElneny. They picked
and chose carefully to let the widest range of design methods be used,
and I think they succeeded.

Notice how Bo forgets to mention CAM. Just CAD. Notice how Bo forgets
to mention that VX has many more years of experience building hybrid CAD/CAM
modeling systems than SolidWorks. Notice how Bo forgets to mention that VX
builds their own kernel where SolidWorks has to lease theirs.

How many other *severe* limitaions in SolidWorks would you like me to list
before you find out how bad these limitations are going to bite you in the
ass ???

jon

 

[jon banquer]

Martin,

I can appreciate your frustration transitioning from AutoCAD to 3D modeling.
But it is more painful to be stuck somewhere in between the two. You will
waste more time (i.e. not getting work done) if you continue to use AutoCAD
as a crutch and then import. Other than what the others have suggested,
might call up your VAR have them stop by and walk you through the AutoCAD to
SW steps and best practices.

Kman

He will waste more time redrawing data that he instead could be reusing in a
better designed modeler that works well with legacy wireframe data rather
than rejecting this legacy data as some sort of illegal alien.


What's painful is not being able to use legacy wireframe data in SolidWorks
because of yet another limitation of SolidWorks.

VX has no such limitation and one can mix wireframe, surfaces and solids
easily. Converting old wireframe legacy data to solid models is no problem
with VX.

jon

 

[Mark Mossberg]

Martin,

My original "knee-jerk" response was the result of having to convert a whole
design company from ACAD to SW. This consisted of 13 engineers and designers
of various ages. The young engineers picked it up almost instantly, with a
complete understanding of parametrics and how to use them. The designers
(all fairly young) were able to construct complex shapes fairly quickly, but
didn't have a clue about how to use parametrics. The older engineers, some
with 15-20 years of ACAD, had the hardest time. One had to be threatened
with termination to even get him to try.

One of the hardest concepts for them to grasp, was to stop thinking in lines
arcs and circles, and start thinking in "features". This problem would
manifest itself in incredibly complex skecthes. This is "not" the way to do
things in SW, or any other features based modeler. You want to use simple
sketches (for a base shape) and "build" your model using features. Complex
sketches are dificult to define with any kind of intelligent intent.

The fact that SW includes tools, like 2D to 3D, 2D emulator, the ACAD style
"sketch array", and others, only teaches new (ex ACAD) users bad habits.
Their inclusion was a marketing decision. Their perception that they would
be a usefull stepping stone was totally misguided (in my opinion)

After re-reading your original post, it pretty clear you have a fair grasp
of parametrics and how they're used.

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. Whether or not the way you choose to do a particular thing
is right or wrong, depends on what your end goal is. This can only be
learned from experience, and experience takes time.


Regards


Mark

 

[jon banquer]

Martin,

My original "knee-jerk" response was the result of having to convert a whole
design company from ACAD to SW. This consisted of 13 engineers and designers
of various ages. The young engineers picked it up almost instantly, with a
complete understanding of parametrics and how to use them. The designers
(all fairly young) were able to construct complex shapes fairly quickly, but
didn't have a clue about how to use parametrics. The older engineers, some
with 15-20 years of ACAD, had the hardest time. One had to be threatened
with termination to even get him to try.

One of the hardest concepts for them to grasp, was to stop thinking in lines
arcs and circles, and start thinking in "features". This problem would
manifest itself in incredibly complex skecthes. This is "not" the way to do
things in SW, or any other features based modeler. You want to use simple
sketches (for a base shape) and "build" your model using features. Complex
sketches are dificult to define with any kind of intelligent intent.

The fact that SW includes tools, like 2D to 3D, 2D emulator, the ACAD style
"sketch array", and others, only teaches new (ex ACAD) users bad habits.
Their inclusion was a marketing decision. Their perception that they would
be a usefull stepping stone was totally misguided (in my opinion)

After re-reading your original post, it pretty clear you have a fair grasp
of parametrics and how they're used.

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. Whether or not the way you choose to do a particular thing
is right or wrong, depends on what your end goal is. This can only be
learned from experience, and experience takes time.


Regards


Mark

"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 ?

jon

 

[Martin]

Whether or not your parametric constructs work depends allot on how you go
about creating geometry.

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.

-Martin

 

[Cliff]

SolidWorks users

That's a key point, is it not?
YOU don't use it.

What are you hyping this week? It's clearly not clues.

 

[Cliff]

If I had to do airplanes or auto body design, I am sure I would go
straight to the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, and watch
what the students there use and buy that, but I don't.

Don't be too hasty there.
Often anything done in such places has to be redone 100%
to actually be a working engineering design.
They want "look & feel", not "You cannot put that decorative
engine cover so that it intersects both the hood & the block."

Cans of worms usually .... I assure you.
OTOH Actual engineers do the aircraft stuff ... form & function.
Mrs. Banquer is unlikely to purchase a jet.

 

[jon banquer]

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.

-Martin

"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.

jon

 

[Cliff]

Notice how Bo forgets to mention that VX
builds their own kernel where SolidWorks has to lease theirs.

Notice how jb was totally unable to follow up on his clueless
VX claims <GGG>.
As usual, with the flavor of the day, buzzwords & ads .....

BTW, SW Uses the same kernel as UG, right?
So UG would have the exact same *claimed* problems, right?

LOL .... jb's kernel is about to pop again !!!

 

[Cliff]

I don't do circuit board design but I do understand what you saying.

<snicker>

 

[Mark Mossberg]

Martin,

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.

Anyway, looks like you've got a handle on it.

Regards

Mark

 

[Edward T Eaton]

To me it sounds like just another case of how SolidWorks can't cope
with real world conditions / data from other modelers.

Why use a CAD/CAM product that is so limited in it's approach ?

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.

-Ed

 

[Cliff]

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.

-Ed

You seem too sane to be giving jb free clues <G>.

 

[Jerry Steiger]

When it comes to the sides, you can dimension this sketch three ways (maybe > more):

1- Length of each linear segment
2- Inside distance from side to side
3- Inside distance from the intersection of an arc and a line to the same
point on the opposite side

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"

 

[Jerry Steiger]

I'll look these up. I'm looking for the solution that will have the
assembly and related parts automatically adjust to design changes. For
example, if my vendor tells me that the buttons need to be 0.010in wider, I
want the holes cut in bezel to change when I change the part and do so
according to the clearance rule I specified.

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"

 

[Jerry Steiger]

(1) The height of the buttons is dependant on the thickness of the panel
that they will protrude through. This is not yet known but assumed to be
0.125in. at the moment. This may very well be half that by the time it is
actually made.

How do I create a part and/or assembly that can take the panel thickess as a
parameter for extruding the buttons? The formula would be something like
"height = panel_thickenss + button_protrusion". The "button_protrusion"
parameter will be different for various buttons and might range from 0.000in
to 0.100in.

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.

(2) Each button will have a different legend or graphic laser cut onto the
top.

How do I design a part that I can then replicate many times within an
assembly yet change the legend sketch during assembly creation time?

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.

As I get into the assembly there are other considerations. One is that the
buttons are joined at the bottom by a silicon rubber matt about 0.050in
thick. The easiest way to model this is a simple 0.050in rectangular
extrusion. However, each button has an underlying structure that cannot be
filled in by this matt. My thinking is that the model for each button will
be designed with a small square section of matt, enough to allow for the
underlying structure and also to aid in mating. How do I get the button to
cut a hole in the solid matt when placed into the overall assembly?

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.

I've been reading a lot on the archives about issues with incontext mates
and related assembly matters. As a new user (about two months) some of this
is confusing/daunting in that there's great fear of making assemblies that
self-destruct (I've already had that happen). The worst of it is not
knowing whether it is a "free SW feature" or an aspect of the approach taken
in building either the parts or the assembly.

As mentioned in other posts, in-context design is very powerful, and also
very dangerous. Approach it with caution.

I've taken the one-week "SW
Essentials" course and will probably follow-up with the Advanced version
after I get about six months' experience. For now, I could use a shove in
the right direction.

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"

 

[jon banquer]

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.

-Ed

Ed,

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.


jon

 

[Cliff]

If a company has thousands of legacy wireframe drawings and wishes to
convert those drawings to hybrid models

What part of "wireframe" don't you begin to grasp?
The 2D bits or the 3D bits or any of it?

What about "drawings"? Have any clues there? Nope.

Just another few buzzwords to hype, right?

Silly clueless ....

 

[Cliff]

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.

We KNOW that. Either one would have to have a small clue
after a week. You are not qualified.