from Pro/E sheetmetal to SW sheetmetal...

...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.

Steve S

 

Hi Steve,

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

 

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!

S

 

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.

 

Have you tried the 'RIP' command in SolidWorks? You'll find that while you
do not use it the same way it performs very similar to the one in pro.

 

Steve,

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:

1. Make a C shape for your first feature.
2. Utilize unfold to flatten (not flat pattern)
3. Sketch the complex profile on the bends. Utilize Extruded Cut and
link to thickness.
4. Fold and collect all bends.
5. Next add your side wall. Utilize convert entities in the sketch.
Drag the sketch back until it clears the complex profile area.
6. 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
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.

Regards, Marie

 

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).

. . . BOOM! (he exploded)

SMA

 

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


() wrote in

 

An approach that I like better is to make the base flange just the

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.

Regards,

SMA

 

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.

 

(Brian Bahr) wrote in

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.

matt

 

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.

In any case, the tools seem to get the job done.

Model and let model!

Regards,

SMA