Why use "Draft View"

[bnemec]

noob question here, we're still finding our way with SW. I've had a bunch of drawing "issue" questions come to me and most are fixed by not using "Draft Quality" views. The main ones I remember are showing lines of a buried component in an assembly drawing and more recently terrible zoom/pan performance. Both were resolved by switching the view (all of them on the sheet for the zoom/pan) to High Quality.

The zoom/pan slowness investigation lead me to believe that the draft quality is a raster image where high quality is a vector graphic. I thought zooming on a vector graphic would be slower than zooming a raster as the vector graphic "code" needs to be run each time the view is refreshed. But, then I noticed that the lines would scale on the raster, well that cannot happen unless the raster is generated at some zoom thresholds so that the lines weights appear to be scaling. I assume that it takes much longer to generate the raster image with new line weights than it does to just redraw the vector graphic?

So, if some wouldn't mind saving me a several day witch hunt about when and why to use each type. Can we just avoid using draft quality drawing views altogether? Or is that going to have some ripple effect that I should have been prepared for?

Thank you.

[DanPihlaja]

Some very complex things will not show up unless your view is in draft quality. Edges of a part that has thread on it or edges of a spring come to mind. Not always....but I have had to switch to draft quality to fix display issues on those views with those parts in them


This is the only thing that I can think of.

[AlexLachance]

Draft View is often caused by surfaces, it is supposed to make things smoother on the drawing side, but for some reason it does the complete opposite for me. Not only that, but it makes the "printing" completely unacceptable. The view quality is so bad, the lines so thick, it's just not worth it.

Edit: That and special shapes. For instance, we were able to exceed the limits set by SolidWorks for a radius, but that caused us the issue of having "draft quality" appear.

[Jaylin Hochstetler]

I asked my VAR about it a while back and he said, "It's supposed to increase performance but he has noticed it can cause weird issues." So he recommended to only use High Quality. I also noticed sometimes switching from Draft Quality to High Quality makes it possible to attach balloons to exploded DVs. See this thread https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=184

[mike miller]

I randomly toggle it on or off depending if the view type is HLV or Shaded with Edges, as well as the level of detail required.

I'm lazy like that...whatever floats the boat.

[bnemec]

Draft View is often caused by surfaces, it is supposed to make things smoother on the drawing side, but for some reason it does the complete opposite for me. Not only that, but it makes the "printing" completely unacceptable. The view quality is so bad, the lines so thick, it's just not worth it.

Edit: That and special shapes. For instance, we were able to exceed the limits set by SolidWorks for a radius, but that caused us the issue of having "draft quality" appear.

Are you saying that Solidworks will switch view(s) over to draft automatically if certain cases are met? Or am I misunderstanding?

[AlexLachance]

Draft View is often caused by surfaces, it is supposed to make things smoother on the drawing side, but for some reason it does the complete opposite for me. Not only that, but it makes the "printing" completely unacceptable. The view quality is so bad, the lines so thick, it's just not worth it.

Edit: That and special shapes. For instance, we were able to exceed the limits set by SolidWorks for a radius, but that caused us the issue of having "draft quality" appear.

Are you saying that Solidworks will switch view(s) over to draft automatically if certain cases are met? Or am I misunderstanding?

You are correct sir. It generally happens on detail views. Isometric views will also be set to draft in general and when the ''ressourced exceeded'' message pops-up, sometimes they flicker. Sometimes you can't switch 'em back and you simply need to restart.

[bnemec]

Draft View is often caused by surfaces, it is supposed to make things smoother on the drawing side, but for some reason it does the complete opposite for me. Not only that, but it makes the "printing" completely unacceptable. The view quality is so bad, the lines so thick, it's just not worth it.

Edit: That and special shapes. For instance, we were able to exceed the limits set by SolidWorks for a radius, but that caused us the issue of having "draft quality" appear.

Are you saying that Solidworks will switch view(s) over to draft automatically if certain cases are met? Or am I misunderstanding?

You are correct sir. It generally happens on detail views. Isometric views will also be set to draft in general and when the ''ressourced exceeded'' message pops-up, sometimes they flicker. Sometimes you can't switch 'em back and you simply need to restart.

So Solidworks is "helping" by not quite randomly switching views from High Quality to Draft Quality even though some VARs suggest avoiding Draft Quality for reasons including performance issues with Draft Quality. Furthermore when this happens the user may need to restart SW.


I'm going to need more emojis.

[bnemec]

I randomly toggle it on or off depending if the view type is HLV or Shaded with Edges, as well as the level of detail required.

I'm lazy like that...whatever floats the boat.

So it is safe to toggle the setting back and forth, it's sort of up to the user for the moment? Has switching back and forth been known to cause problems with annotations or balloons, etc?

[DanPihlaja]

I randomly toggle it on or off depending if the view type is HLV or Shaded with Edges, as well as the level of detail required.

I'm lazy like that...whatever floats the boat.

So it is safe to toggle the setting back and forth, it's sort of up to the user for the moment? Has switching back and forth been known to cause problems with annotations or balloons, etc?

Not that I have ever seen.

The only time I have seen issues with switching back and forth is when a spline surface is shown with a silhouette edge (i.e., the "edge" that you see when you look sideways at it....like the top of a round hill), then it can mess with that.

[AlexLachance]

So Solidworks is "helping" by not quite randomly switching views from High Quality to Draft Quality even though some VARs suggest avoiding Draft Quality for reasons including performance issues with Draft Quality. Furthermore when this happens the user may need to restart SW.


I'm going to need more emojis.

Sounds to me like you're just starting the trip

[bnemec]

So Solidworks is "helping" by not quite randomly switching views from High Quality to Draft Quality even though some VARs suggest avoiding Draft Quality for reasons including performance issues with Draft Quality. Furthermore when this happens the user may need to restart SW.


I'm going to need more emojis.

Sounds to me like you're just starting the trip

We're getting on the Solidworks Train while we still have one foot on the Solid Edge Train.
I thought we were going to a CAD system that didn't have all kinds of idiosyncrasies.

[bnemec]

I randomly toggle it on or off depending if the view type is HLV or Shaded with Edges, as well as the level of detail required.

I'm lazy like that...whatever floats the boat.

So it is safe to toggle the setting back and forth, it's sort of up to the user for the moment? Has switching back and forth been known to cause problems with annotations or balloons, etc?

Not that I have ever seen.

The only time I have seen issues with switching back and forth is when a spline surface is shown with a silhouette edge (i.e., the "edge" that you see when you look sideways at it....like the top of a round hill), then it can mess with that.

Oh, those things we are used to dimensioning to in Solid Edge but cannot dimension to in Solidworks?

[AlexLachance]

So it is safe to toggle the setting back and forth, it's sort of up to the user for the moment? Has switching back and forth been known to cause problems with annotations or balloons, etc?

Not that I have ever seen.

The only time I have seen issues with switching back and forth is when a spline surface is shown with a silhouette edge (i.e., the "edge" that you see when you look sideways at it....like the top of a round hill), then it can mess with that.

Oh, those things we are used to dimensioning to in Solid Edge but cannot dimension to in Solidworks?

Just gotta know all the work-arounds! Add a sketch dot and put it coincident, works most of the time.

[bnemec]

Not that I have ever seen.

The only time I have seen issues with switching back and forth is when a spline surface is shown with a silhouette edge (i.e., the "edge" that you see when you look sideways at it....like the top of a round hill), then it can mess with that.

Oh, those things we are used to dimensioning to in Solid Edge but cannot dimension to in Solidworks?

Just gotta know all the work-arounds! Add a sketch dot and put it coincident, works most of the time.

(thanks for the new emoji @matt )
We need these on drawings, lots of them. Edge was iffy on holding sketch relations on a drawing after model updates, is Solidworks rock solid at maintaining sketch relations in drawings after model updates?
Also, most of these are to the tangent points on the silhouette edge spline to dimension over all width of cushion or from mounting plane up to top of backrest, etc. So I'm not confident I have a good way to hold that sketch point in the correct spot along the spline.

[AlexLachance]

(thanks for the new emoji @matt )
We need these on drawings, lots of them. Edge was iffy on holding sketch relations on a drawing after model updates, is Solidworks rock solid at maintaining sketch relations in drawings after model updates?
Also, most of these are to the tangent points on the silhouette edge spline to dimension over all width of cushion or from mounting plane up to top of backrest, etc. So I'm not confident I have a good way to hold that sketch point in the correct spot along the spline.

It depends what the geometry is and how it alters, but it's not really good at maintaining relations to be honest.

Sometimes you can draw a line from an edge and have it be tangent to it and then you can also use that line as a "dimensiong" tool for your work arounds. Sketch entities are easier to reattach then simple dimensions, and dimensions will not lose their "relations" with sketch entities.

So it's like a work-around, but a work-around that you also have to watch out for.

[bnemec]

It depends what the geometry is and how it alters, but it's not really good at maintaining relations to be honest.

Sometimes you can draw a line from an edge and have it be tangent to it and then you can also use that line as a "dimensiong" tool for your work arounds. Sketch entities are easier to reattach then simple dimensions, and dimensions will not lose their "relations" with sketch entities.

So it's like a work-around, but a work-around that you also have to watch out for.

Are you talking about using sketch entities (for something to dimension to) in the part or on the drawing?

[AlexLachance]

It depends what the geometry is and how it alters, but it's not really good at maintaining relations to be honest.

Sometimes you can draw a line from an edge and have it be tangent to it and then you can also use that line as a "dimensiong" tool for your work arounds. Sketch entities are easier to reattach then simple dimensions, and dimensions will not lose their "relations" with sketch entities.

So it's like a work-around, but a work-around that you also have to watch out for.

Are you talking about using sketch entities (for something to dimension to) in the part or on the drawing?

Sketch entities created inside the drawing.
Or
References that can be created in parts assemblies such as planes.

For example, image 1 and 2 show a dimension inside a drawing, made using 2 sketch entities created inside the drawing view.

Image 3 shows a dimension linked to a referenced geometry(plane). In this case it is used with a distance from one plane to another to create it, but in your case, your plane could be tangent to faces and what-not.

image.png (4.96 KiB) Viewed 2502 times

[bnemec]

It depends what the geometry is and how it alters, but it's not really good at maintaining relations to be honest.

Sometimes you can draw a line from an edge and have it be tangent to it and then you can also use that line as a "dimensiong" tool for your work arounds. Sketch entities are easier to reattach then simple dimensions, and dimensions will not lose their "relations" with sketch entities.

So it's like a work-around, but a work-around that you also have to watch out for.

Are you talking about using sketch entities (for something to dimension to) in the part or on the drawing?

Sketch entities created inside the drawing.
Or
References that can be created in parts assemblies such as planes.

For example, image 1 and 2 show a dimension inside a drawing, made using 2 sketch entities created inside the drawing view.

Image 3 shows a dimension linked to a referenced geometry(plane). In this case it is used with a distance from one plane to another to create it, but in your case, your plane could be tangent to faces and what-not.


image.png

image.png

image.png

I wish this was part of the SW Training Essentials Book curriculum. Or maybe a class between Essentials and Advanced titled "Solidworkarounds You'll Need To Know" That's not a dig, just a component of the software that majority of users will run into and should be aware of.

[AlexLachance]

I wish this was part of the SW Training Essentials Book curriculum. Or maybe a class between Essentials and Advanced titled "Solidworkarounds You'll Need To Know" That's not a dig, just a component of the software that majority of users will run into and should be aware of.

A lot of my co-workers hate sketch entities used in drawings because they do not turn green, like a dimension would. It is the mate that turns green and you need to either have all relations shown or click on the entity to have it be shown. I like them because they can be reattached, contrary to dimensions in certain contexts.

[bnemec]

I wish this was part of the SW Training Essentials Book curriculum. Or maybe a class between Essentials and Advanced titled "Solidworkarounds You'll Need To Know" That's not a dig, just a component of the software that majority of users will run into and should be aware of.

A lot of my co-workers hate sketch entities used in drawings because they do not turn green, like a dimension would. It is the mate that turns green and you need to either have all relations shown or click on the entity to have it be shown. I like them because they can be reattached, contrary to dimensions in certain contexts.

turn green? like when a dimension becomes unconnected or "dangling" Yes, that can be dangerous as there's nothing telling the user that the dim is bad. Because technically the dim is good, it's the construction that is bad.

How do we know the relations on the sketch entity did not update? would be nice if there was an alarm system. Maybe there is I just don't know what it looks like. Yet. You mention the "mate" that turns green, you mean in the drawing?

[AlexLachance]

turn green? like when a dimension becomes unconnected or "dangling" Yes, that can be dangerous as there's nothing telling the user that the dim is bad. Because technically the dim is good, it's the construction that is bad.

How do we know the relations on the sketch entity did not update? would be nice if there was an alarm system. Maybe there is I just don't know what it looks like. Yet. You mention the "mate" that turns green, you mean in the drawing?

Indeed. Never found anything though, so we agreed to use them only in specific cases, so that users know when to watch out for them.

I think I have an E.R. sent in about having something more evident to show the lost relation, but I'm not sure it ever got turned into an SPR.

[bnemec]

turn green? like when a dimension becomes unconnected or "dangling" Yes, that can be dangerous as there's nothing telling the user that the dim is bad. Because technically the dim is good, it's the construction that is bad.

How do we know the relations on the sketch entity did not update? would be nice if there was an alarm system. Maybe there is I just don't know what it looks like. Yet. You mention the "mate" that turns green, you mean in the drawing?

Indeed. Never found anything though, so we agreed to use them only in specific cases, so that users know when to watch out for them.

I think I have an E.R. sent in about having something more evident to show the lost relation, but I'm not sure it ever got turned into an SPR.

@matt is there a "huge sigh" emoji? Something that conveys acceptance of defeat? It would need to have drooping shoulders I think.
edit: Matt is awesome! here it is.

[AlexLachance]

turn green? like when a dimension becomes unconnected or "dangling" Yes, that can be dangerous as there's nothing telling the user that the dim is bad. Because technically the dim is good, it's the construction that is bad.

How do we know the relations on the sketch entity did not update? would be nice if there was an alarm system. Maybe there is I just don't know what it looks like. Yet. You mention the "mate" that turns green, you mean in the drawing?

Indeed. Never found anything though, so we agreed to use them only in specific cases, so that users know when to watch out for them.

I think I have an E.R. sent in about having something more evident to show the lost relation, but I'm not sure it ever got turned into an SPR.

@matt is there a "huge sigh" emoji? Something that conveys acceptance of defeat? It would need to have drooping shoulders I think.

SolidWorks Users:

SolidWorks programmers :

[Frederick_Law]

We're getting on the Solidworks Train while we still have one foot on the Solid Edge Train.
I thought we were going to a CAD system that didn't have all kinds of idiosyncrasies.

Turn around before SE train get away.
Try to add ordinate to an edge. SW complain its not parallel.
Add a normal dimension and its parallel.
Start a new ordinate on that edge and its parallel to other.

Of course just put ordinate to the end point works.

[bnemec]

We're getting on the Solidworks Train while we still have one foot on the Solid Edge Train.
I thought we were going to a CAD system that didn't have all kinds of idiosyncrasies.

Turn around before SE train get away.
Try to add ordinate to an edge. SW complain its not parallel.
Add a normal dimension and its parallel.
Start a new ordinate on that edge and its parallel to other.

Of course just put ordinate to the end point works.

My reply is what Alex said: https://www.cadforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=3793#p3793
It's a trade off, SW drawings are like operating with one arm cut off at the shoulder right now, we need to learn the workarounds and fast. The workarounds that all the long time SW users have been using so long they forgot that are work arounds. We also need to consciously forget the engrained work around practices from Solid Edge.

Solid Edge is missing some things we are already using in SW, configurations for example. I don't know that one is any better/worse than the other overall, they're just different. "Use with Caution" should be on the splash screen of the installation manager for both of them.

[Jaylin Hochstetler]

We're getting on the Solidworks Train while we still have one foot on the Solid Edge Train.
I thought we were going to a CAD system that didn't have all kinds of idiosyncrasies.

Turn around before SE train get away.
Try to add ordinate to an edge. SW complain its not parallel.
Add a normal dimension and its parallel.
Start a new ordinate on that edge and its parallel to other.

Of course just put ordinate to the end point works.

Solid Edge is missing some things we are already using in SW, configurations for example. I don't know that one is any better/worse than the other overall, they're just different. "Use with Caution" should be on the splash screen of the installation manager for both of them.

SE doesn't have configs????

[matt]

SE doesn't have configs????

They call them "family of parts"

[Jaylin Hochstetler]

SE doesn't have configs????

They call them "family of parts"

Do they have anything similar to SW design tables?

[bnemec]

SE doesn't have configs????

They call them "family of parts"

I was kind of hoping Matt or some SE guru would correct me on that.

We only used Family of Parts a couple times, in the long run they hurt.

Family of Assemblies are a different animal and hurt just as bad. But it's possible we were just "doing it wrong" Maybe they work great for others.

[Merovingien]

this can help for ASM mates :

[bnemec]

this can help for ASM mates :

Capture.png

Sorry, I'm not following.

[AlexLachance]

Treat missing references as errors. It's a setting that I love, but my collegues hate it.

It shows you errors when there's a missing reference, rather then leave it missing and have the component not be entirely mated.

[Merovingien]

they were talking for SW should say when there's a problem :
with that feature, SW "say" for ASM mate problem (mate lost reference).

[bnemec]

they were talking for SW should say when there's a problem :
with that feature, SW "say" for ASM mate problem (mate lost reference).

I see now, thank you. First off I was in the wrong settings tab, then with added context I got to the correct one.

Sounds like this only applies to assembly mates and no effect on sketch relations in a drawing?

[AlexLachance]

they were talking for SW should say when there's a problem :
with that feature, SW "say" for ASM mate problem (mate lost reference).

I see now, thank you. First off I was in the wrong settings tab, then with added context I got to the correct one.

Sounds like this only applies to assembly mates and no effect on sketch relations in a drawing?

image.png

You are correct sir.

[Merovingien]

and for dangling sketch relation :

it's possible to repair them (that can avoid to reattach dims, or delete and add new dims)

and for the dims, it exists the "reattach" feature, but SolidDoesntWork