Which Way To Go?

[fdroot]

Asking for a friend...

It's time to consider moving on. So many problems with SolidWorks 2019, so many lost hours, days, ... , and from what I read it's only getting work. This tool is no longer a viable CAD software for medium to large assembly projects, period!

With that said, which CAD software to go to? Creo, NX, other... ? We need something that will just do what SolidWorks says it will, efficiently, with stability, without the need for hundreds of work-arounds and data integrity, ... and not crash all the time! Anybody venturing out beyond SolidWorks? Suggestions? Experiences, good and bad? Please help. Thanks in advance...

Thanks

[matt]

Asking for a friend...

It's time to consider moving on. So many problems with SolidWorks 2019, so many lost hours, days, ... , and from what I read it's only getting work. This tool is no longer a viable CAD software for medium to large assembly projects, period!

With that said, which CAD software to go to? Creo, NX, other... ? We need something that will just do what SolidWorks says it will, efficiently, with stability, without the need for hundreds of work-arounds and data integrity, ... and not crash all the time! Anybody venturing out beyond SolidWorks? Suggestions? Experiences, good and bad? Please help. Thanks in advance...

Thanks

I personally would go to NX if I could afford it. Otherwise, Solid Edge is a great option, particularly if you do machine design, sheet metal, drawings, and work with imported data.

[Jaylin Hochstetler]

Asking for a friend...

It's time to consider moving on. So many problems with SolidWorks 2019, so many lost hours, days, ... , and from what I read it's only getting work. This tool is no longer a viable CAD software for medium to large assembly projects, period!

With that said, which CAD software to go to? Creo, NX, other... ? We need something that will just do what SolidWorks says it will, efficiently, with stability, without the need for hundreds of work-arounds and data integrity, ... and not crash all the time! Anybody venturing out beyond SolidWorks? Suggestions? Experiences, good and bad? Please help. Thanks in advance...

Thanks

We are at the same point. We are currently looking at SolidEdge. Check this thread viewtopic.php?f=4&t=70&sid=11b5229d3144 ... 9331ee082a for more info on SE.

[DennisD]

FWIW, I am looking at Onshape with strong appeal. I love the not having to have a hot box or special graphics card, not having to install ANYTHING, and not having version issues. I work with clients twelve time zones away and the ability for us to work on the same files, even at the same time, is incredible. They use "branching" so you can explore different ideas. I have also been impressed with their reception and solicitation of user requests. They add new updates/capabilities every three weeks and have very rapidly come up to speed. Their primary target customer is SWX users so they know they have to match/beat it and already there is very little it cannot do at this point The price is right as well. An annual subscription is about the same as the annual maintenance for my seat of SWX. Full disclosure - I am still just watching Onshape closely and only dabbling in it because I still have a couple of years left on my SWX subscription.

[mike miller]

FWIW, I am looking at Onshape with strong appeal. I love the not having to have a hot box or special graphics card, not having to install ANYTHING, and not having version issues. I work with clients twelve time zones away and the ability for us to work on the same files, even at the same time, is incredible. They use "branching" so you can explore different ideas. I have also been impressed with their reception and solicitation of user requests. They add new updates/capabilities every three weeks and have very rapidly come up to speed. Their primary target customer is SWX users so they know they have to match/beat it and already there is very little it cannot do at this point The price is right as well. An annual subscription is about the same as the annual maintenance for my seat of SWX. Full disclosure - I am still just watching Onshape closely and only dabbling in it because I still have a couple of years left on my SWX subscription.

@DennisD , how is the data migration?
Does it use the Pararsolid kernel?
Are your CAD files stored locally or "held hostage" in the cloud?

Also, sorry for the deluge of questions

[matt]

FWIW, I am looking at Onshape ...

If you go that way, I'd be very interested in your impressions as you go along. I think others here would be as well.

[DennisD]

FWIW, I am looking at Onshape with strong appeal. I love the not having to have a hot box or special graphics card, not having to install ANYTHING, and not having version issues. I work with clients twelve time zones away and the ability for us to work on the same files, even at the same time, is incredible. They use "branching" so you can explore different ideas. I have also been impressed with their reception and solicitation of user requests. They add new updates/capabilities every three weeks and have very rapidly come up to speed. Their primary target customer is SWX users so they know they have to match/beat it and already there is very little it cannot do at this point The price is right as well. An annual subscription is about the same as the annual maintenance for my seat of SWX. Full disclosure - I am still just watching Onshape closely and only dabbling in it because I still have a couple of years left on my SWX subscription.

@DennisD , how is the data migration?
Does it use the Pararsolid kernel?
Are your CAD files stored locally or "held hostage" in the cloud?

Also, sorry for the deluge of questions

Onshape is totally in the cloud so you don't have files to manipulate as you do with SWX. The only thing you need is a computer connected to the internet since you are doing everything through a browser. It does not rely on your CPU, graphics card, or hard drive. You can always make dumb solid exports of your stuff to your computer. I do not know what their modelling kernel is, nor do I care so long as it does what I need it to do.

For all of you that are interested I recommend you get an account. It is no more difficult than setting up a userid on this forum. Onshape's learning resources are very very well done and it is all free. I think you are limited to five free and private files (maybe they call them workspaces). After that all of your files/workspaces must be public if you want to only use the free version. This is my recommendation for someone kicking the tires and trying to learn it. If you need to keep your work private then you would need to sign up and pay. I haven't logged in in a quite a while, but it felt and acted much much more like SWX than any other system I've touched (Fusion360 and Creo (UGHH!!)).

I think it is definitely worth a look.

[Jaylin Hochstetler]

What's the $$$ of private files w/ Onshape?
Having your files on a cloud always sort'a scared me 'cause what if they decide to raise the price to some outrageous price. Sure, you can quit paying but tough luck getting your files.

[Frederick_Law]

Yeap, tried and failed. This time.
https://www.inputmag.com/style/cricut-g ... y-backlash

Over the weekend, the Cricut company announced it was releasing an update that would limit how often Cricut owners could use their machines’ personal upload feature. The update would make users pay a monthly subscription fee in order to upload more than 20 personal images a month — a feature that had previously been unlimited, and free. Now, after backlash from the Cricut community, the company has apologized and postponed this update.

[AlexLachance]

Yeap, tried and failed. This time.
https://www.inputmag.com/style/cricut-g ... y-backlash

Over the weekend, the Cricut company announced it was releasing an update that would limit how often Cricut owners could use their machines’ personal upload feature. The update would make users pay a monthly subscription fee in order to upload more than 20 personal images a month — a feature that had previously been unlimited, and free. Now, after backlash from the Cricut community, the company has apologized and postponed this update.

Yup,

Postponed implies that it'll be back later lol

[Frederick_Law]

And I told wife she can buy one the week before. Not anymore.

Problem is, they try to get money from their own cutting patterns.
So anyone who can draw and design pattern is their enemy.
Which is 90% of their customer

[mike miller]

And I told wife she can buy one the week before. Not anymore.

Problem is, they try to get money from their own cutting patterns.
So anyone who can draw and design pattern is their enemy.
Which is 90% of their customer

Wife? Are you old enuf? (sorry, Fred, I couldn't resist...)

[Frederick_Law]

Physically, yes.
Mentally, probably not

[SPerman]

I personally would go to NX if I could afford it. Otherwise, Solid Edge is a great option, particularly if you do machine design, sheet metal, drawings, and work with imported data.

I feel the exact same way. But the price tag is a bit shocking.

[jcapriotti]

I used NX many years ago (NX4) and couldn't stand it. Maybe its better now but it was missing so many basic things SolidWorks had like sketch relation types and mate types. I hated messing with layers in models but that was the only way to control visibility. Assemblies and file managing were worse as well. Again, that was 15 years ago so.....It was mega expensive back then....like 3-4 times as much.

With that said, it is more similar to SolidWorks, IMO, than any other CAD tool. More freeform and not forcing you down a single path to create stuff.....I picked it up rather quick, I just didn't like it because of the archaic interface in places.

[zwei]

I would say it really depend on what u need....

I had been using CREO for a while now (1year +) and it still pain me everyday with almost everything (also their drawing capability kind of meh and i had been having performance issue for the entire time)...

More and more people are jumping to OnShape / SE from what i observed

[SPerman]

NX has come a long way. I started using NX9 and it was vastly superior to SW in most ways. There are some things SW does better, or at least compared to the last time I used NX in early 2017, but those are miniscule compared to the robustness of NX.

[deleted a long rant about SW]

It is probably easier to build and maintain robust software when you charge a minimum of 5x more. If you use extra features, like sheetmetal, surfacing, simulation, etc the price tag goes through the roof.

[Roasted By John]

I totally get the "Looking over to the other side of the fence for greener grass", by the time you get there it'll be the same color as where you just came from...

Not everything, but a lot is the modeling approach, modeling habits and the big one "Design Intent" - if you got those three wrong, there is no software that will fix it.

Yeah I can (female dog) and moan at times using SW, but I know it was me not following a Design Intent protocol, every software has it's limits, however if you need to use Custom Properties, I don't think that SW understands that the Custom Properties is the most undersold feature in SW.

"User Input" is the crutch...

[matt]

...
Not everything, but a lot is the modeling approach, modeling habits and the big one "Design Intent" - if you got those three wrong, there is no software that will fix it.

I've had a bit of an epiphany in the writing and reading and modeling I've done around the whole idea of design intent. First, I call it "design for change" because the word "intent" is just too non-specific. And second, the design for change is itself what winds up changing most of the time. Design for change is baked into the history/parametrics relationship, and it can be very difficult to undo or change. It's like ripping the backbone out of a patient.

Here's the part that a lot of people don't get about synchronous - the "design intent" is determined on the fly, with each change. So you aren't locked into some scheme, and to change the scheme, just involves making a different selection. There is no set of relationships to re-attach. Design intent is determined at the time of the change. This is why order doesn't matter, features don't matter. All that matters is the geometry. There is no messing around with replaying the programming-like set of commands. You don't really want your parts to work like programs, all you want is the geometry. How many times have you made a change to your history-based model and something changed that you didn't expect? Be honest. It happens all the time.

Do you remember when you learned how to do history/feature based CAD? It took a while for it to click, right? It also takes some time to be able to let go of that. You don't really care about the sketch, you care about the geometry. It's all about the geometry, not the sketches or the order or the features.

But the thing is, there are times when you need that, like for extruded text or for fillets or maybe shell features, and synch allows you to do that too. So with Solid Edge, it's not sync OR history. You can use both. In the same assembly. In the same part. It's like having an imported model that you add features to, but with Edge you can also edit the imported model.

I don't get why people resist this stuff. It adds so much power. Plus now they can do subd. If I did machine design, I'd be all over this stuff. Really, it's worth keeping an open mind.

[Roasted By John]

...
Not everything, but a lot is the modeling approach, modeling habits and the big one "Design Intent" - if you got those three wrong, there is no software that will fix it.

Design for change is baked into the history/parametrics relationship, and it can be very difficult to undo or change. It's like ripping the backbone out of a patient.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but I'm talking SolidWorks, not SolidEdge and Design Intent or Design For Change are terms that can be manipulated for a personal understanding of the what you want it to say.

I don't think that you fully grasp how I work the SSP, changes are Simple, not at all like "ripping the backbone...." Again - I'm talking SolidWorks

[matt]

I think I get what you're trying to say, but I'm talking SolidWorks,...

I don't think that you fully grasp how I work the SSP, changes are Simple, not at all like "ripping the backbone...." Again - I'm talking SolidWorks

I'm talking about SW. I get the changes you're talking about are simple, but that's all they can handle. The process works for a narrow band of products. You couldn't apply that to an assembly that has more 3D interfaces between parts.

There are other processes too, that aren't based on 2D sketches that can handle more geometrically complex products.

But just so you know, your parts would really be perfect for ST. Also, have you considered something like Driveworks?

There are a lot of different ways to approach structured design methods, and when you're dealing with hard relations in features in a tree, they are all extremely limited to the forms they were baked into. You can't change the design intent on the fly.

[mike miller]

Fun, fun. <we need a popcorn emoji>

[matt]

Done.

[Frederick_Law]

You can minimize "history" even when using tree.
The feature "tree" is not really a tree. Tree has branches. The feature list doesn't.

The "history" can be called "dependent". A feature depends on another feature so it cannot exist before.
Like you cannot cut a hole before you have something. History based or not.
Planned correctly, most features can move up and down the "tree" without breaking anything.

SSP, Master Sketch is kind of "reduction of dependents". Everything depends on a single Master instead of the parts beside it.
I don't have broken mates. Most parts are fix to origin. They all designed in the right place.

Mate broken in SW has nothing to do with design changes.
It is SW unable to keep track of entities. Add a line in a sketch and SW shuffle the entity list changing all entity ID, changing profile, contour, feature, face, mate. Breaking everything.

Of course if there are less "restriction" from the program, it will be easier to design.
On the other side, user could design an unorganized mess.
Like someone just use direct edit in SW.

[matt]

You can minimize "history" even when using tree.
The feature "tree" is not really a tree. Tree has branches. The feature list doesn't.

Dependencies, brother. Dependencies. Parent-child. These are big branches.

The "history" can be called "dependent". A feature depends on another feature so it cannot exist before.
Like you cannot cut a hole before you have something. History based or not.
Planned correctly, most features can move up and down the "tree" without breaking anything.

In theory yes, and in a demo yes, but I've never seen anyone actually do this aside to prove it can be done. When modeling, people take the fastest route possible. They sketch on faces, not planes. They allow dimensions to reference edges, not sketches or planes or the origin. SW teaches ease of use, not robust practices.

When you have a machined part sitting on the table in front of you, you can't tell which face came first. IN fact, you can drill holes in a piece of stock before you cut the outline of the part. Feature order is a figment.

In a real design, the thing you know first is the location of holes for fasteners or joints between parts. Everything else is based off the holes. The holes should come first.

SSP, Master Sketch is kind of "reduction of dependents". Everything depends on a single Master instead of the parts beside it.
I don't have broken mates. Most parts are fix to origin. They all designed in the right place.

Not all products can use this method. And you can't use this method even with a type of product that can use it until the design is well established.

Mate broken in SW has nothing to do with design changes.
It is SW unable to keep track of entities. Add a line in a sketch and SW shuffle the entity list changing all entity ID, changing profile, contour, feature, face, mate. Breaking everything.

Solidworks has always allowed you to assign entity ID, and lately allows you to swap a line for an arc without busting some things, but face-to-face coincident relations and mates will be broken if you change the topological type. SW broken references within the part are the single biggest time suck on my daily activities. With a lot of products, I never even make it to the assemblies because the individual parts are so complex.

Of course if there are less "restriction" from the program, it will be easier to design.
On the other side, user could design an unorganized mess.
Like someone just use direct edit in SW.

Yeah, that's a mess. I've got some parts I should post here. Amazing mess.

[Alin]

One of the reasons you are stating for abandoning SW is related to slowdowns encountered when working with large assemblies. Before transitioning to a different CAD system, I suggest spending a few hours together to ensure that there is really no solution and no hope for improving your performance in SW.
This is a friendly offer, no charge whatsoever.

[Alin]

Mate broken in SW has nothing to do with design changes.
It is SW unable to keep track of entities.

Not only that. SW is very "forgiving" to the way mates are applied. It allows the user to add a ton of redundant mates. That was made possible by implementing a genial mate parsing procedure to simplify and optimize the actual mate scheme which will ultimately be resolved during the rebuild operation. That being said, if the users are really diligent in adding a lot of mates with no regard to best practices, they can overwhelm even this internal procedure.

For example, one of the things I hear everywhere is users complaining about the impact of flexible sub-assemblies on assembly performance. And then, when you open such a sub-assembly you discover that it has 240 mates, only 3 of which are describing motion. The rest are mates between components that are moving together. A simple assembly restructuring on functional subassemblies solves the problem in 5 minutes.

And there are many examples like that.

[Jaylin Hochstetler]

Here's what really sold me on ST;
Here's a simple sheetmetal part with a edge flange.

2021-03-19 14_48_10-Window.jpg

Now what if I want to make the flange narrower and move it in like this?

2021-03-19 14_50_48-Window.jpg

In SW the only way to do that is delete the edge flange (which can really suck if you have an elaborate sketch), edit the base flange SK and add a notch to inset the flange, and then make a new flange and attach it to the edge in the notch.

With ST you simply click on the edge of the flange and drag it. And if want to move it a specified distance you can use the dimension tool. @matt correct me if I am wrong.
If you don't believe me see this video https://solidedge.siemens.com/en/resour ... al-design/

[matt]

Here's what really sold me on ST;
...

Yeah, synchronous for machined parts is cool, but synchronous sheet metal is amazing.

[Alin]

In SW the only way to do that is delete the edge flange (which can really suck if you have an elaborate sketch), edit the base flange SK and add a notch to inset the flange, and then make a new flange and attach it to the edge in the notch.

There is no need to delete any edge-flange in SW. Just edit its sketch.
Even if the flange was defined as a "Blind", when you hit the "Edit Sketch" it changes its definition to a nice sketch that you can edit as you need. Including dragging the edges as you described.

Watch this video for more information:

[Frederick_Law]

In theory yes, and in a demo yes, but I've never seen anyone actually do this aside to prove it can be done.

Well you're talking to at least two of them here

In a real design, the thing you know first is the location of holes for fasteners or joints between parts. Everything else is based off the holes. The holes should come first.

You're limiting yourself. Got nothing to do with software.

Not all products can use this method. And you can't use this method even with a type of product that can use it until the design is well established.

I start every design in Master Sketch. From simple parts to conveyor with over 8 different setup/config.
I design fixtures, jigs for machining and welding.
I have no idea what the result is when I start. Only customer part.
Start a new part, save it as Master Sketch.
Start a new assembly, insert the Master Sketch at origin. Save it as Master Assembly.
Insert customer part in Master Assembly. Again fix at origin.
Start throwing stop, support, clamp at customer part and see which one looks better.
Once I can see what I need, edit Master Sketch (which is still empty) in assembly.
Create plane using customer part. Project edge into sketch. I still haven't draw anything.
Now start adding sketch to connect all those locating pins, clamps, support etc.
I don't need to "fix" any of them. I can sketch and mate them to the Master Sketch.
I could project a pin and use that in sketch so moving the pin will change the sketch.
This will go on for a while without a single part get modeled.

And I can model which ever part I want "first". I can put it in a new assembly, guess what? Fix at origin.
Keep going for the rest of the parts.

[Frederick_Law]

Currently reworking customer parts to fix weld prep.
Same workflow.
Instead of redraw with dimension, project/convert from customer assembly.
All the parts "assemble" to customer assembly just by insert.
"Mate" angle is 154.3348 degree. Not my problem ;P

[Craig Schultz]

In SW the only way to do that is delete the edge flange (which can really suck if you have an elaborate sketch), edit the base flange SK and add a notch to inset the flange, and then make a new flange and attach it to the edge in the notch.

There is no need to delete any edge-flange in SW. Just edit its sketch.
Even if the flange was defined as a "Blind", when you hit the "Edit Sketch" it changes its definition to a nice sketch that you can edit as you need. Including dragging the edges as you described.

Watch this video for more information:

Yep just edit sketch, and in the feature properties enable an offset.

[matt]

And I can model which ever part I want "first". I can put it in a new assembly, guess what? Fix at origin.
Keep going for the rest of the parts.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Not everyone does machine design, or straight edged furniture. Nice flat faces, straight edges.

Sometimes my assemblies are only a couple of parts, but neither of them has a flat face or a straight line anywhere. My references are photographs, actual parts to measure or scan, and a point cloud.

SSP is great for what it was designed to do, but you couldn't even get started with it for other types of design. This is why there are so many different ways to work that have existed for decades.

https://forum.solidworks.com/thread/220700

...mentions a couple. I tend to use master model, where sometimes I start from a 3D shape, and then cut it up and build individual parts. Sometimes there are other considerations, like rebuild time. This is where I wish I had something non-history based.

Here's the Performance Evaluation and FeatureManager of a recent part before I renamed key features and sorted into folders - almost 1000 features and 11 minutes to rebuild. In this one, I built parts individually for performance reasons.

image.png

[Frederick_Law]

My references are photographs, actual parts to measure or scan, and a point cloud.

Been there, done that.
Fixture for car body parts, bumper.
Bottle transfer.
CMM point scan.
3D Scan.

Bumper Canard

IMG_20171126_193319.jpg

IMG_20171126_151134.jpg

IMG_20171128_003312.jpg

SSP/Master Sketch just connect everything together.
I believe it'll work in history-less.

Of course it don't need to be the only thing you use.

[matt]

One of the great things about synchronous assemblies is that it eliminates the parent-child relationships. The relationships only exist at the time of the edit. For example, move these faces of these models up to this face of that model. In SW that would require a bunch of in-context relations, but in synchronous, it's just a single edit, and you're not burdened with those on-going relationships and dependencies between parts.

[Frederick_Law]

I use direct edit a lot.
Easier to move face for material allowance.

Usually it's designer who need "history".
What have I done?
Was it 0.2 before I move it?
Did I move it 0.3?

That's why I like equation: = 10 + 0.3
Oh yea, I moved it 0.3 last week.

SW can be "less" history. Export to STEP and Import it back ;p

[matt]

Move features add history based features to the tree. A bit of a diaster.

[AlexLachance]

My references are photographs, actual parts to measure or scan, and a point cloud.

Been there, done that.
Fixture for car body parts, bumper.
Bottle transfer.
CMM point scan.
3D Scan.
SSP/Master Sketch just connect everything together.
I believe it'll work in history-less.

Of course it don't need to be the only thing you use.

That's pretty friggin awesome Mr FLaw.

[mattpeneguy]

One of the great things about synchronous assemblies is that it eliminates the parent-child relationships. The relationships only exist at the time of the edit. For example, move these faces of these models up to this face of that model. In SW that would require a bunch of in-context relations, but in synchronous, it's just a single edit, and you're not burdened with those on-going relationships and dependencies between parts.

Thanks for adding it definitely applies here.
So, I demoed SE and was impressed with it, but I didn't get under the hood enough to really see where it shines and where the flaws are. I'm pretty sure I know some of that about SW.
Here's the thing though, for what I do, I want the external relationships....I agree with you @matt if I'm spitballing a simple part MAYBE I won't SSP it. But even in those cases if there's more than one part I make it with an SSP. It just makes changes that update in all the parts sooo much easier. At this point I just don't know how ST would help me...maybe I'm just a little dense, and haven't seen the light.

And, to bring back @Alin , the DS version of this is available in xDesign, correct? What's your take on this?

And look, I'm definitely not a person with their head stuck in the sand, if this ST works with or is better than SSP and saves us headache, and you can show me how that'd work for our group, I'd be very interested...I may even start the process to switch...

As an aside though Autodesk has directly targeted the bridge industry to compete with Bentley and I'm in the process of getting our structural to consider Civil3D, which may or may not tie into IV.
So, to be fair, even if you convince me...we may switch to IV for convenience.

TL:DR: SSP works for me, show me how ST would be better for me?

[mike miller]

In SW the only way to do that is delete the edge flange (which can really suck if you have an elaborate sketch), edit the base flange SK and add a notch to inset the flange, and then make a new flange and attach it to the edge in the notch.

There is no need to delete any edge-flange in SW. Just edit its sketch.
Even if the flange was defined as a "Blind", when you hit the "Edit Sketch" it changes its definition to a nice sketch that you can edit as you need. Including dragging the edges as you described.

Well no, that's not what he meant. What he intended to say was; if you create an elaborate sketch for an edge flange (using Edit Profile) and need to change the reference line that it was created on, good luck. The best you can do is "offset", which is hokey if you need to move it 2" back.

[Alin]

Well no, that's not what he meant. What he intended to say was; if you create an elaborate sketch for an edge flange (using Edit Profile) and need to change the reference line that it was created on, good luck. The best you can do is "offset", which is hokey if you need to move it 2" back.

Sorry, I do not understand.

[KevinC]

This thread reminds me of a lament from the earlier days of cell phones (and it probably still rings true now): [EDIT: pardon the pun.]
"The only thing worse than your current cell phone service provider is your next provider."

Kevin C.

[KevinC]

Back in late January 2021, I saw an SE 3D link for the edu.
It was from Siemens, but still didn't believe I'd get the 3D (I already have the free 2D), but I was able to download it.
I only have this link bookmarked at work. I've emailed myself as a reminder to add it here, but I don't know if it's still valid.

EDIT:
https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/ ... /community

And I don't know whether anyone else will get a permanent edu seat like I was able to.

Non-commercial usage of course, but at least you can take it for a spin without worrying about the trial running out.

I just installed it today:

image.png

Kevin

[Jaylin Hochstetler]

In SW the only way to do that is delete the edge flange (which can really suck if you have an elaborate sketch), edit the base flange SK and add a notch to inset the flange, and then make a new flange and attach it to the edge in the notch.

There is no need to delete any edge-flange in SW. Just edit its sketch.
Even if the flange was defined as a "Blind", when you hit the "Edit Sketch" it changes its definition to a nice sketch that you can edit as you need. Including dragging the edges as you described.

Well no, that's not what he meant. What he intended to say was; if you create an elaborate sketch for an edge flange (using Edit Profile) and need to change the reference line that it was created on, good luck. The best you can do is "offset", which is hokey if you need to move it 2" back.

Yea, that's what I was trying to get across! Thanks for clearing it up for me @mike miller!

[Roasted By John]

And I can model which ever part I want "first". I can put it in a new assembly, guess what? Fix at origin.
Keep going for the rest of the parts.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Not everyone does machine design, or straight edged furniture. Nice flat faces, straight edges.

Sometimes my assemblies are only a couple of parts, but neither of them has a flat face or a straight line anywhere. My references are photographs, actual parts to measure or scan, and a point cloud.

SSP is great for what it was designed to do, but you couldn't even get started with it for other types of design. This is why there are so many different ways to work that have existed for decades.

https://forum.solidworks.com/thread/220700

...mentions a couple. I tend to use master model, where sometimes I start from a 3D shape, and then cut it up and build individual parts. Sometimes there are other considerations, like rebuild time. This is where I wish I had something non-history based.

Here's the Performance Evaluation and FeatureManager of a recent part before I renamed key features and sorted into folders - almost 1000 features and 11 minutes to rebuild. In this one, I built parts individually for performance reasons.
image.png

I'm totally convinced that we are on a different page... The term SSP is a figure of speech that I put out quite a few years ago on the old Forum and it kind of stuck. It can be what @Frederick_Law implies as a "Master Sketch" or other people call it a "Master Part" it don't matter.

Totally respect you as a professional SolidWorks user, possibly over a lot of us when it comes to SW knowledge, however, I'm thinking that you might not totally get the term. It doesn't matter what you need to model in SW, I would still recommend placing an anchor in the assemblies to sustain balance, (that anchor is what I call the SSP), and to eliminate the assembly or parts from blowing up. You get the feeling that all I did was build furniture or machines, I've done a few plastic parts, free forming and some other non-basic modeling techniques, so don't for a second think I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not near as proficient in Plastic Components or organic shapes such as what Paul Salvador does, though, I'll muddle things up in a hurry.

My favorite story is from a guy that used to work for SW and had a master model that he uploaded on the SW Forum, I asked him to take a look at one of my first presentations of the SSP, within 10 minutes he emailed me back and said that will never work, (I'm really convinced that he never even looked or tried what I sent), in return he said that his Master Part procedure is the only thing that works for any parametric design and he attached the model in his email. Ok...... So I opened up his the main model and then opened up his Master Part and edited the first sketch, changed a dimension just a little bit, it was "Sketch 6" btw, I hit enter and the entire model broke and then I knew that he had no idea what he was talking about........

The SSP process is all about design processes using SolidWorks, not anything else., it's all about providing an anchor for design assistance and feature tree free of Forest Fires.... It is also about control and parametric movements...

This isn't tainted to get in your face reply, I think it's a dialog to debate with intensity, but at the same time being respectful, all I'm looking at is to help people learn a better way to use SW and not start where I started, limited knowledge and bad modeling habits, if my way isn't the best way, then help us find the best way
Cheers..

[Roasted By John]

Here's what really sold me on ST;
Here's a simple sheetmetal part with a edge flange.
2021-03-19 14_48_10-Window.jpg
Now what if I want to make the flange narrower and move it in like this?
2021-03-19 14_50_48-Window.jpg
In SW the only way to do that is delete the edge flange (which can really suck if you have an elaborate sketch), edit the base flange SK and add a notch to inset the flange, and then make a new flange and attach it to the edge in the notch.

With ST you simply click on the edge of the flange and drag it. And if want to move it a specified distance you can use the dimension tool. @matt correct me if I am wrong.
If you don't believe me see this video https://solidedge.siemens.com/en/resour ... al-design/

Really... You would abandon SW just so you can make the Sheet Metal Flange modifications... Don't forget to include other features or processes to get the Apples to Apples comparison, btw our family loves to play Apples to Apples :0

[matt]

I'm totally convinced that we are on a different page... The term SSP is a figure of speech that I put out quite a few years ago on the old Forum and it kind of stuck. It can be what @Frederick_Law implies as a "Master Sketch" or other people call it a "Master Part" it don't matter.

I think I know what you're talking about. It's a 2D sketch that represents dimensions of parts of the assembly.

Let's say you have parts and the boundary between them is something you can't extrude. There are some products where you have to use a 3D construct instead of 2D. So the 2D sketch bit doesn't work for everything. That's all I'm saying.

[mike miller]

Really... You would abandon SW just so you can make the Sheet Metal Flange modifications... Don't forget to include other features or processes to get the Apples to Apples comparison, btw our family loves to play Apples to Apples :0

Noooooo............

That's just one example of SE added functionality. And not counting the SWX "unintended functionality" and the "hmmmm....not working right again functionality". We haven't made a decision yet. It will take a lot of testing, comparison, and "break-the-beta" sessions. (Oh...I forgot....SE doesn't sell Beta to customers...)

[Roasted By John]

I'm totally convinced that we are on a different page... The term SSP is a figure of speech that I put out quite a few years ago on the old Forum and it kind of stuck. It can be what @Frederick_Law implies as a "Master Sketch" or other people call it a "Master Part" it don't matter.

I think I know what you're talking about. It's a 2D sketch that represents dimensions of parts of the assembly.

Let's say you have parts and the boundary between them is something you can't extrude. There are some products where you have to use a 3D construct instead of 2D. So the 2D sketch bit doesn't work for everything. That's all I'm saying.

That is why the SSP term is confusing, it isn't restricted to 2D sketches only, just for clarification to whoever would have an interest, the SSP can include Solids, Surfaces, 3D sketches etc..