CAD Forum

TTevolve wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:48 pm lol, I had a part I was modifying earlier this week, extruded one direction 2in and 6in in the other direction, totally nuts why someone would do that.

To some people, blind end conditions with a big number are the same as "through all" and it hurts my brain

AlexB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:57 pm To some people, blind end conditions with a big number are the same as "through all" and it hurts my brain

I've heard an argument that through all end condition requires a little more computation on rebuild as it needs to check vs just knowing how far to go. I don't know if it's worth making them all blind with big number though. It does bother me when people are too lazy or oblivious to use "link to thickness" when making a simple cut in a sheet metal body.

TTevolve wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:48 pm lol, I had a part I was modifying earlier this week, extruded one direction 2in and 6in in the other direction, totally nuts why someone would do that.

What was odd about it? Sorry, I am missing something.

TTevolve wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:48 pm lol, I had a part I was modifying earlier this week, extruded one direction 2in and 6in in the other direction, totally nuts why someone would do that.

I do something similar with threaded rod that will be secured in concrete with epoxy. If it needs 6" embedment in the concrete I'll model it with the Top Plane at 6" from the bottom face. When I mate it in the Assembly its Top Plane gets mated to the surface of the concrete.

If the material thickness of the steel plate changes, or the hardware doesn't fit, I go back into the Part and edit the dimension that defines the part above the concrete surface.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:36 pm I do something similar with threaded rod that will be secured in concrete with epoxy. If it needs 6" embedment in the concrete I'll model it with the Top Plane at 6" from the bottom face. When I mate it in the Assembly its Top Plane gets mated to the surface of the concrete.

If the material thickness of the steel plate changes, or the hardware doesn't fit, I go back into the Part and edit the dimension that defines the part above the concrete surface.

I've had a couple of cases where using uneven extrude directions did a good job with design intent or future revisions; as you mentioned. I have not had a time where both sides happened to be the same length to a 1/16". This was a goof just doing stuff until it worked. Instead of a tiny bit more effort and a bit of intuition to try the midplane option.

Yeap, depends on where the master sketch lead me to.
Sometimes it's because of the drawing I start with.
Making parts from customer drawings.
Easier to check dimensions if I use the same to sketch.

Dwight wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:16 pm What was odd about it? Sorry, I am missing something.

It was a shaft that should have just been a single extrude, no need for the plane to be offset from an end. I can see extruding both whys when needed or a part is getting relations and you need the extra variable, but on simple parts do a single direction.

Got it. Yes, I agree that the extrude-from plane should be something relatively stable in the design, not something arbitrary or something likely to get edited.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:36 pm I do something similar with threaded rod that will be secured in concrete with epoxy. If it needs 6" embedment in the concrete I'll model it with the Top Plane at 6" from the bottom face. When I mate it in the Assembly its Top Plane gets mated to the surface of the concrete.

If the material thickness of the steel plate changes, or the hardware doesn't fit, I go back into the Part and edit the dimension that defines the part above the concrete surface.

Great example of modelling with "design intent". Unfortunately, a lot of CAD folk do not get this.

bnemec wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:19 pm Things like in the screen shot. It really shouldn't bother me so, but the amount of "Mindless Modeling" I run across when doing revisions or trying to use existing parts. It's not that it's a bad model per se. Its just that I wonder if the user's brain was even engaged in what they were doing. Like they try every single way to do something and leave it in our data set for fun, just to see what all errors might come of it down stream.

image.png

Training?

We had this a bit many years ago from former Catia v4 users since there was no such thing a midplane or end condition extrude. You always extruded by a value IIRC.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:31 am Training?

We had this a bit many years ago from former Catia v4 users since there was no such thing a midplane or end condition extrude. You always extruded by a value IIRC.

Are you suggesting lack of training and need more to fix the problem? Or are you suggesting it's caused by the boiler plate, caned, lacking context training that comes from a box, youtube vid, or an online professor? And not to forget the "quickest 60 tips in 60 minutes" speeches.

Because I've sat through a few these things of various types in my life and I feel that's where it comes from. They show "here's what you >can< do." But there's very little if anything about the "HOW" going on. pick profile or region? Oh whatever is faster. Usually, the methods in training are more to showcase the what's new than what's best. So the notion of what should or should not is left up to the individual and usually not even thought of.

I get that, many "best practices" are dependent on use case and product type etc. so they cannot really be taught in a mixed audience. But there are some universal best practices in modeling that can be applied nearly anywhere. Off the top of my head, one might be, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

@bnemec That's why I've done the training here myself for "Essentials" and "Sheet Metal". I can tailor it to our processes and fill in the gaps in the training materials on the "why" do it this way. And also leave out the features and functions I don't want users using. I try to reinforce it by asking questions as we go along when repeating previous features on the "why".

Can't add a configuration with the measure dialog open.

1. I'm adding a distance mate to a component, using one of its faces or planes.
2. The surface or plane isn't parallel to the surface or plane on the other component involved in the mate (but there are no other mates keeping them from being parallel, so no errors will be created by the new mate).
3. When I hit the Okay icon it will switch to the opposite side from where I had it placed, EVERY STINKING TIME.
4. It doesn't do this if they are parallel prior to creating the mate.

I know it's an easy fix, since they have that icon you can click on to switch sides, but still, I shouldn't have to.

Imported Geometry vs Imported
Smh at this
TIL that SOLIDWORKS has TWO different Imported function
Imported Geometry -- unable to search via command search, but could be placed on the Command Manager
Imported -- can be searched via command search, but could NOT be placed on the Command Manager

"With thread callout" in the hole wizard drives me insane. I have to assume it is a holdover from before the "hole callout" was available in drafting. You would think after all of these years I would be in the habit of unchecking it when creating a threaded hole, but no. Art one time I managed to save my template with this unchecked, but I haven't been able to get that to stick since upgrading to 2022.

It could be a useful feature if it used the same info as the "hole callout."

SPerman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:49 am "With thread callout" in the hole wizard drives me insane. I have to assume it is a holdover from before the "hole callout" was available in drafting. You would think after all of these years I would be in the habit of unchecking it when creating a threaded hole, but no. Art one time I managed to save my template with this unchecked, but I haven't been able to get that to stick since upgrading to 2022.

It could be a useful feature if it used the same info as the "hole callout."

image.png

Totally agree!!! I hate that check box!! And absolutely no way to set it to be unchecked by default.

Try:
Export SW setting.
Open the files in text editor (Notepad++ is pretty good).
Search for "callout" and see if you can find it.

You could search registry also.

I am pretty sure that setting lives in the part template.

SPerman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:48 am I am pretty sure that setting lives in the part template.

If you have multiple files open, assemblies and parts, and you change a setting in the Hole Wizard during editing a part, it keeps this changed setting if you go over to an other file, both part and assembly. So I would guess it's not saved in the part template.

SPerman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:48 am I am pretty sure that setting lives in the part template.

Holy crap you are right!!

Here is what I did:

Create a new part. Add a boss extrude. Then add a tapped hole and unchecked that checkbox and hit the green check.

Then deleted the Tapped hole and the Boss extrude (and sketch) to go back to a blank part.

Then saved that part as my part template.

Viola!! New parts that check is unchecked by default!!!

I might have mentioned this before, but for every crash test we run I (or someone) creates a drawing showing the test installation. It shows the vehicle in three places; approaching the installation, leaving the installation, and the final resting place. I use a sketch in the Assembly to mate the vehicle models in the correct positions.

When I get to the drawing I show the assembly sketch and attach two dimensions, each one referencing the model and the same sketch point on the drawing. These dimensions are driven, of course. Then I hide the sketch. One of those two dimensions (and almost always just one instead of both) will also be hidden. So I have to find the sketch in the tree, right-click on it, and select "Show dimensions."

Surely no one that programs this software thought "Hey, if someone attaches dimensions to a model sketch and then hides it of course he or she won't want all of those dimensions to stay visible."

One day. Just one day. All I want is one day of using solidworks without a crash. Is that really too much to ask?

SPerman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:54 pm One day. Just one day. All I want is one day of using solidworks without a crash. Is that really too much to ask?

It always happens to when you are in a hurry to get a model/drawing done to meet a deadline. I can be stable all day but then crash right when I am at the end of something.

Why does the offset tool not allow you to use Global Equations during creation?
Once you green check the offset you can immediately double click the offset dim and change it to an Equation.

tsmith wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:10 am Why does the offset tool not allow you to use Global Equations during creation?
Once you green check the offset you can immediately double click the offset dim and change it to an Equation.

Same reason why the plane offset function doesn't allow it. Because different people programmed different areas of Solidworks without any communication between the people and then they jammed it all together without any checking to make sure core functionality was usable.

I vaguely remember a thread from the old forum where one of the old timers said they (SW) considered this low priority since you could use the workaround you found. It was supposed to be implemented across the board, "as time permits."

It's not so much of a "workaround" as it is just the normal way. In the beginning, none of the "during creation" Property Manager Pages allowed equation entry or any other sort of linking. Everything had to be linked after creation. They started several releases ago to implement it in some of the PMPs, the function just has to be added individually to each PMP.

Not really a pet-peeve but when Solidworks goes into "closed session" for so long that when it comes back to ask me something I don't remember what we were talking about. Why are you asking me which template to use?

If I change an assembly component to a different configuration, I am peeved that Solidworks flags the component as changed.

Dwight wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:58 am If I change an assembly component to a different configuration, I am peeved that Solidworks flags the component as changed.

What do you mean by "flag as changed"? But, that said, you changed it. Why would it not flag as changed?

josh wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:13 am What do you mean by "flag as changed"? But, that said, you changed it. Why would it not flag as changed?

How would changing which config of a component is being used change the component? Unless that config was not rebuilt on last save.

Dwight wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:58 am If I change an assembly component to a different configuration, I am peeved that Solidworks flags the component as changed.

Switching Configurations will run a rebuild if the circumstances call for it. Which flags the component as changed.

If you see a green check, that means that the rebuild data for that configuration is already inside the part. And when you swap to a configuration that already has a green check, then it is NOT flagged as modified. However, if you see the -, that means that rebuild data for that config is not in the model and the model will need to be rebuilt in order to switch to that configuration.

However....if you add "Rebuild on Save Mark" for each configuration, then afterward, when you save the model, all the rebuild data for each configuration with that mark will be saved with the part (making the file size larger).

Now, when you switch to a configuration with the Rebuild on save mark, then no rebuild is called for and the part is NOT listed as "modified" and it will not need to be saved.

Prior to 2022, solidworks would suggest flipping mates if it thought it would help eliminate mating conflicts. With 2022, you no longer get the option to say "no." It just flips the mates because it knows better than you what needs to happen in your assembly.

SPerman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:06 am Prior to 2022, solidworks would suggest flipping mates if it thought it would help eliminate mating conflicts. With 2022, you no longer get the option to say "no." It just flips the mates because it knows better than you what needs to happen in your assembly.

image.png

They changed it from a checkbox to prompt to 3 options now:

Thanks, Jason. I didn't even look to see if it was controlled by a setting.

bnemec wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:02 pm I've heard an argument that through all end condition requires a little more computation on rebuild as it needs to check vs just knowing how far to go.

I must say.. This is indeed interesting. It makes good sense too, when one condsiders it.

I must look into this as I literally use the through all end condition almost all the time when I do not have a specific need to stop at a given depth.

Is there any documentation anywhere that supports this.

Well, it was a nice thought.

That setting works for me. I've always vehemently hated that auto-flipping function. Maybe you need to check this box too?
I can’t imagine a scenario where this flipping would be a beneficial function for anyone.

I have an assembly that’s right
I’m adding a new mate on a new component.
“Oh, I guess all that stuff that was already there was upside down after all!”

When they first introduced it, it was indeed automatic, and if I recall correctly there wasn’t even a dialog. It would just booger up your whole assembly.

It either works beautifully or is a catastrophic failure.

josh wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 2:48 pm That setting works for me. I've always vehemently hated that auto-flipping function. Maybe you need to check this box too?

image.png

I have that turned on too. Like you, I wish SW would just leave it to me to fix.

In this case, I was using "replace component" to replace a fastener with a longer one. They were both McMaster downloads, but from different base models, so the geometry was different. Flipping the mate was the correct thing to do, but I've seen it flip things completely unrelated, so I would prefer it mind its own business.

Geez.. active feature that use suppressed sketch without any error or warning.
Even force rebuild does not make it fail

Zhen-Wei Tee wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 2:21 am Geez.. active feature that use suppressed sketch without any error or warning.
Even force rebuild does not make it fail
image.png

Interesting... can you share the file?

SPerman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:54 pm One day. Just one day. All I want is one day of using solidworks without a crash. Is that really too much to ask?

I'll bet most Sundays Solidworks doesn't crash on your system. Or maybe Christmas Day.....

Here a beautiful pet peeve I just discovered while administering our PDM:

SOME SolidWorks internal variables are freaking LANGUAGE DEPENDANT!!!

Here the two I discovered:

• SW-Last Saved Date (German version:

  Code: Select all

  SW-Datum der letzten Speicherung

  )
• SW-Total Sheets (German version:

  Code: Select all

  SW-Gesamtzahl der Blätter

  )

I only found out because I knew it should work, because I already did this while everything was set to the English language.

You can self-test this if you insert an annotation into a drawing and select the appropriate property link:
@AlexLachance , can you confirm the same for french, s'il vous plaît? Just so that I know that I am not totally going crazy here. I spent 2 hours at least on this!

sometimes the solidworks appearance is just driving me nuts

only one appearance apply at part level, but it is not showing in graphic

(seem to happen most frequently on part save from assembly, aka Save as Part from assembly)

Zhen-Wei Tee wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:42 pm sometimes the solidworks appearance is just driving me nuts

only one appearance apply at part level, but it is not showing in graphic

(seem to happen most frequently on part save from assembly, aka Save as Part from assembly)
image.png

Can you attach it here?

Does this help at all?


Understanding Hierarchy of SOLIDWORKS Appearances

Zhen-Wei Tee wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:42 pm sometimes the solidworks appearance is just driving me nuts

only one appearance apply at part level, but it is not showing in graphic

(seem to happen most frequently on part save from assembly, aka Save as Part from assembly)
image.png

This is what happens when they add features/behavior for everybody and their brother. The behavior becomes so complicated with so many various setting overriding each other it's like a game of Plinko. Sometimes it's best to just relax and let it have it's way, don't fight it.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 8:32 am Can you attach it here?

Attached below.

SPerman wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 8:55 am Does this help at all?


Understanding Hierarchy of SOLIDWORKS Appearances

Sorry not really
I am aware of the hierarchy (in fact it is showing the appearance at hierarchy level). It is a part file and only has one part appearance without any other appearance