Structure System

[Frederick_Law]

Got some time to play with it.

First it is a pain to learn how the UI and command behave.
Get it done in one go is ok. If you need to edit after, good luck. Spend a day playing with it first before use it in production.

Primary and secondary Member:
If you used weldment using sketch for member, everything is Primary. You can have multiple Primary.

Secondary is whatever you want to go between any Primary member.
It is "powerful".
You can see I got a few "random" between different members. No sketch, nothing. Just pick the members and it'll add a member in between.
Its fun but the fun stop here.
Haven't find a way to "dimension" those members. Like angle to another member. You can change distance from the "pierce Point". You can rotate the profile align to other face plane.

If I want an art piece with random tube/beam across some members, its perfect. Like a bird nest.
I better find a place to hide before I release it to the shop.

Anyone else played with it?

[MJuric]

Got some time to play with it.
Structure-01.jpg

First it is a pain to learn how the UI and command behave.
Get it done in one go is ok. If you need to edit after, good luck. Spend a day playing with it first before use it in production.

Primary and secondary Member:
If you used weldment using sketch for member, everything is Primary. You can have multiple Primary.

Secondary is whatever you want to go between any Primary member.
It is "powerful".
You can see I got a few "random" between different members. No sketch, nothing. Just pick the members and it'll add a member in between.
Its fun but the fun stop here.
Haven't find a way to "dimension" those members. Like angle to another member. You can change distance from the "pierce Point". You can rotate the profile align to other face plane.

If I want an art piece with random tube/beam across some members, its perfect. Like a bird nest.
I better find a place to hide before I release it to the shop.

Anyone else played with it?

Don't have it yet, still on 2018, but would be interested to see a breakdown of advantage of structure over weldments. What you describe sounds a lot like I would do the same thing in weldments using structural members. Everything except the "Secondary" parts without a sketch....which sounds sketchy to me. How do control where the ends of the secondary members are?

[Glenn Schroeder]

Regular weldments have generally been working well for me for a long time, so unless someone convinces me that the new thing will be better for what I do I'm going to stick with it. I rarely deal with anything very complex, with most of my models having fewer than 6 bodies (and often just 2), so I'm not at all sure I'd benefit from it.

[Frederick_Law]

Everything except the "Secondary" parts without a sketch....which sounds sketchy to me. How do control where the ends of the secondary members are?

Distance of the start or end of the members it attach to which is useless for parametric. Unless you put them in a design table afterward.
Just crashed it changing from tube to Z.

[mike miller]

Pretty hard to beat this, Solidworks. Gonna need to upgrade to 3Dspearience to compete.

Everything is handled inside a special "frame" assembly environment with each body in its own part. No Save Bodies, no external references, IT JUST WORKS!

Also, did I mention that SE's 3D sketching works really well?

[mattpeneguy]

Distance of the start or end of the members it attach to which is useless for parametric. Unless you put them in a design table afterward.
Just crashed it changing from tube to Z.

That's how you know SW has deemed it ready for production use...

[MJuric]

Pretty hard to beat this, Solidworks. Gonna need to upgrade to 3Dspearience to compete.

2021-06-02 16_14_23.jpg

Everything is handled inside a special "frame" assembly environment with each body in its own part. No Save Bodies, no external references, IT JUST WORKS!

Also, did I mention that SE's 3D sketching works really well?

Which is essentially what is done with weldments and structural members. If I'm doing a welded tube or other structural item I make a 3D sketch and just start placing Structural members. Weldments has multiple methods of end trims etc. All the bodies are contained in a single part but can also be pulled out into cut lists or individual item drawings.

Modify the 3D sketch and the entire thing updates. Essentially this is what I did in Inventor for years and what I do in SW. One would assume, maybe incorrectly, that "Structures" adds some new neat functionality, but I've not played with it enough to know.

We have 2020 installed on a machine here so I did play with it for a while. As Frederick pointed out the UI is less than intuitive so I really didn't get anywhere so I didn't find any "Magic sauce"

[Frederick_Law]

No 3D sketch. A few 2D sketches. For SW and IV.

SW keep crashing with Z-section in SS.

[MJuric]

Regular weldments have generally been working well for me for a long time, so unless someone convinces me that the new thing will be better for what I do I'm going to stick with it. I rarely deal with anything very complex, with most of my models having fewer than 6 bodies (and often just 2), so I'm not at all sure I'd benefit from it.

I'm actually curious as to what the benefits where. I read one article and walked away from it more confused than bedazzled.

From what I understand there is little to be gained for anyone that is weldments for plate structured items like machine bases and typical machine weldments. Supposedly all the awesomness is in the structural part of it and I'm not quite sure what that is. I have seen one thing with patterning that was touted as "amazing", but unless you're doing a massive singular steel structure I would think you would want to break things like that down into S/A's anyway rather than one single massive weldment.

[Frederick_Law]

I think I crashed the license server with structure system.

If the frame is weld only, it could work. As long as you're not the one cutting.
It is fun to throw random section at random spot to make a frame.
If I can finish my art, I'll post it.

[mike miller]

I think I crashed the license server with structure system.

If the frame is weld only, it could work. As long as you're not the one cutting.
It is fun to throw random section at random spot to make a frame.
If I can finish my art, I'll post it.

Knowing you, it will look like a bomb exploded in a noodle factory.

[Frederick_Law]

Looks like IT working on the network and firewall got reset back to default.
Blocking Solidworks

[bnemec]

I'm actually curious as to what the benefits where. I read one article and walked away from it more confused than bedazzled.

That's how I feel just about every time I try to digest a "what's new in ..." or marketing article. I'm not sure but I think we are more confused than bedazzled because the bedazzlers are confused themselves. I just apply the typical response of "You're doing it wrong" to my own questions and then things clear up.

[Tom G]

Is there any internal benefit for purposes of Simulation to use Structure System over Weldments? Weldments already mesh pretty well when needed in Simulation, and can be some of the easiest large items to simulate. I would hope that Structure Systems mesh equally well.

[Frederick_Law]

I don't see any possible different. Once a "tube" is modeled, it is the same. Mesh don't care how the "tube" was modeled.

But then we're using SW.

[TRKemp]

Like Frederick, I messed around with it after installing 2020 and reading the "what's new". Like most things related to modeling, your own personal creativity and ingenuity often dictate how successful you are at using some of these tools as they were designed to be used, but yeah, with structural systems it seems to be all about the planning. I did think that in the example they used to promote the tool showed an instance where it could really be a powerful option, but I believe standard weldments will still work just fine for the majority of users.

I've got a structural platform project coming up with some handrails.. etc... I might see if I can use the combination of the (2) to make life any easier. As long as they don't lose their minds and remove weldment's in the future - I'll be okay with continued development of the structure systems.

[Frederick_Law]

SS supposed to replace weldment. Scary.

All SW presentation should stop at some point, save the files. Close SW. Restart and edit what they were doing.

[Frederick_Law]

SW crash corrupted license files. Delete them and I can login again.

[Frederick_Law]

Don't ask me to make any of them vertical. Only 2 sketch, splite circle and a center line for array.

Maybe good for pen holder.

[matt]

Out of curiosity, how do people currently do bolted structures, like big beams in architectural structures? Is there a special software for that?

[TRKemp]

Out of curiosity, how do people currently do bolted structures, like big beams in architectural structures? Is there a special software for that?

There is a program out there called "Tekla" for handling projects like those, developed by Trimble.

https://www.tekla.com/us

[MJuric]

There is a program out there called "Tekla" for handling projects like those, developed by Trimble.

https://www.tekla.com/us

I would guess that there is "Specialized" software either for or being developed for just about anything that is done alot by many people.

For instance creating a full enclosure for a machine using extruded AL in SW is a PIA. Extrusions, fasteners, panels, hinges, blah blah blah. It's a ton of work to design on correctly with all the bits and pieces in SW. So a few companies that sell extruded AL made CAD system specific for their product use. Using one of those I probably save 80% of the time I would have spend attempting to do it in SW.

I'd guess the same thing applies here. If you're a company that happens to do "Bolted Structures" as part of their larger product, you're probably going to just do it in SW or whatever CAD system you have. For instance I've done a number of mezzanines for large production lines, machines etc. We always just drew them up in whatever CAD system we were using because they were a fraction of a fraction of the total project. But if I were drawing up Mezzanines or bolted structures all day long every day, I'd probably look for a software more specific to that.

[TRKemp]

SS supposed to replace weldment. Scary.

All SW presentation should stop at some point, save the files. Close SW. Restart and edit what they were doing.

What I can't understand about that logic, is what are companies that have 20+ years of incorporating the weldment function into their workflow supposed to do when it just disappears altogether? The tendency of this software to eliminate things has always annoyed me the most, things that people have established into the workflow just suddenly are moved or have become obsolete. Stop tinkering just to tinker...

[Frederick_Law]

Good old AutoCAD.
Copy a view and make it TYP. Reuse it10000 times.

[Frederick_Law]

What I can't understand about that logic, is what are companies that have 20+ years of incorporating the weldment function into their workflow supposed to do when it just disappears altogether? The tendency of this software to eliminate things has always annoyed me the most, things that people have established into the workflow just suddenly are moved or have become obsolete. Stop tinkering just to tinker...

Count down of SW desktop already started.

[Merovingien]

it's very easy with SW to create an "optimized Library" for repetitive things.
(bolt, fance, Alu struture, also special fittings for alu structure, etc...)
and you can also advanced features (switch lef-right by config, auto-family-mate, etc...)

that mean to know how to manage "a good 3D Library"
(just a remind, it contains a few, up to zero imported files, because of all the usual problems with...)
and of course when creating "new Library files" before sketching anything,
you must think-anticipate :
what level of 3D detail you will really need,
what you will need to show in the DRW drawing,
what you will need to have in BOM,
what you will need when inserting into ASM, etc....

Smart-Optimized-Library is always one big key for cad-project.

[MJuric]

you must think-anticipate :
what level of 3D detail you will really need,
what you will need to show in the DRW drawing,
what you will need to have in BOM,
what you will need when inserting into ASM, etc....

Smart-Optimized-Library is always one big key for cad-project.

I agree. Also what you must anticipate will change depending on a bunch of things like company process, product, standards and on and on and on. One companies "Best library" might a complete and utter nightmare for another company in many cases even if they are using the same parts.

I think this is one reason that SW ends up being so malleable and to some degree, so fragile. Solidworks and similar systems ends up being the "31 Flavors" of CAD.

[Merovingien]

i was trying to say : i think the total opposite way than yours

a full enclosure for a machine using extruded AL in SW is a PIA. Extrusions, fasteners, panels, hinges, blah blah blah

be oblige to use another software for small thing like fence, or alu, etc...
for me it's absolutely not,

SW is enough, and it can be better, because you can optimize-adjust 3D-detail level, to the final degree of assembly.

also, if not clear, i'm talking about the use of "PRT-Excel" Library files...

working with external-software, then 3D imported will result with no-needed 3D details,
and make final assembly running slower. and after the same for the DRW.

[MJuric]

i was trying to say : i think the total opposite way than yours



be oblige to use another software for small thing like fence, or alu, etc...
for me it's absolutely not,

SW is enough, and it can be better, because you can optimize-adjust 3D-detail level, to the final degree of assembly.

also, if not clear, i'm talking about the use of "PRT-Excel" Library files...

working with external-software, then 3D imported will result with no-needed 3D details,
and make final assembly running slower. and after the same for the DRW.

"Small thing like fence"....seems like a complete and utter understatement of an enclosure design. The software I use doesn't just place extruded pieces of aluminum but also automatically places all the connectors, does the machining for the connectors allows dynamic update of the placement and machining of the connectors all at the same time of dynamic update of the size, form etc of the extrusion. That is the simple part of the program.

In addition to that you can add panels of multiple material types, inserted, exterior etc etc that also automatically adds all the notches connection hardware, spacers, anti-vibration and on and on. Insert complete door assemblies with latches, panels, hinges and handles again with all connectors, hardware etc again all dynamically updateable.

So yes, I'm sure one could do all that in SW with a combination of PRT-Excel, macro's, API's and on and on. However the time spent to create the system, debug the system, maintain the system all for 20-40hours of use a year? Waste of time.

I can download the software, do my design, export it to solidworks, get a BOM sent to my vendor with prices and drawings and create an in house spec drawing for a relatively complex machine enclosure in a couple hours and be done. If I'm doing 4-5 machines a year it's simply not worth it to attempt to develop a system in SW that's going to take me 100hours to develop.

[Frederick_Law]

If I'm doing 4-5 machines a year it's simply not worth it to attempt to develop a system in SW that's going to take me 100hours to develop.

If you could develop a system like that, you shouldn't be working on SW.

[MJuric]

If you could develop a system like that, you shouldn't be working on SW.

I have no doubt that it could be done, but who would do it unless they are doing it almost as a sole focus. If you're doing it as a sole focus then you're going to develop something other than SW....you know, like all the AL extrusion companies have

[SPerman]

I can download the software, do my design, export it to solidworks, get a BOM sent to my vendor with prices and drawings and create an in house spec drawing for a relatively complex machine enclosure in a couple hours and be done. If I'm doing 4-5 machines a year it's simply not worth it to attempt to develop a system in SW that's going to take me 100hours to develop.

What is that software? I need enclosures from time to time and would like something better than SW.

[Merovingien]

So yes, I'm sure one could do all that in SW with a combination of PRT-Excel, macro's, API's and on and on. However the time spent to create the system, debug the system, maintain the system all for 20-40hours of use a year? Waste of time.

i never talked about macro or API.....
just a simple use of "PRT-Excel"

attempt to develop a system in SW that's going to take me 100hours to develop.

creating "PRT-Excel" when mastering that technic, doesn't need that amount of time, you can divide by 10 or 20, or less...

I can download the software, do my design, export it to solidworks, get a BOM sent to my vendor with prices and drawings and create an in house spec drawing for a relatively complex machine enclosure in a couple hours and be done. If I'm doing 4-5 machines a year it's simply not worth it to attempt to develop a system in SW that's going to take me 100hours to develop.

if you find what you need with that workflow, no problem.

you can not optimize-manage the whole "3D level of detail, geometric triangles, etc...
for example loosing 5h to create a "smart optimized PRT-Excel" (but that require to have habbit working with it, mastered it)
to save the double of the triple of time while working with the "big assembly" or during the DRW of the big-assembly.
by doing that, you can save that amount of time, each time for each project,
and you keep the homogeneity in "3D optimized details" of your cad environment, you don't pollute it with "imported files".

[MJuric]

i never talked about macro or API.....
just a simple use of "PRT-Excel"


creating "PRT-Excel" when mastering that technic, doesn't need that amount of time, you can divide by 10 or 20, or less...



if you find what you need with that workflow, no problem.

you can not optimize-manage the whole "3D level of detail, geometric triangles, etc...
for example loosing 5h to create a "smart optimized PRT-Excel" (but that require to have habbit working with it, mastered it)
to save the double of the triple of time while working with the "big assembly" or during the DRW of the big-assembly.
by doing that, you can save that amount of time, each time for each project,
and you keep the homogeneity in "3D optimized details" of your cad environment, you don't pollute it with "imported files".

I'm really not sure what to say here. What you're saying seems "Fantastical" or you're simply not understanding the complexity of the software I'm using. There are programs that exist to do the type of thing you are talking about, Driveworks and similar. I've spent a considerably amount of time with drive works and I can say in no uncertain terms that I could infact duplicate the software I use, however in the end, it would be far less functional, far less stable, far more difficult to update etc etc and would take 100'S of hours to even come close to creating a system anywhere near the capabilities that this software has.

If indeed you have some working method where upon you can create large assemblies automatically, dynamically, editable on the fly etc etc that are better than Driveworks, can be developed faster than Driveworks then you should be selling this as a product. I've not seen anything that comes anywhere near this level of functionality, and that includes driveworks, design tables, API, Macro's etc.

[Frederick_Law]

You're look for "routing" for frame.
No way you can drop an "elbow" with "PRT-Excel" and it connect to the frame.
PRT-Excel could create a "template" frame and sub-frame. Maybe able to setup mate reference also.

[Merovingien]

if you know far enough with the use of "PRT-Excel" and far enough with "some special advanced feature of SW"
you can easily combine them togeter, and more...

without any use of : drivework, api, macro, addins, etc... absolutely NOT.

Automate is just a basic, creating Auto-family-mate is way more powerful for "Library" parts.
Autosize is NOT a feature only available with ToolBox, you can add it to many parts of your "Library".

it's not a "software", it's simply some good-use of SW... like some workflow

if your "Library" is made with majority of imported files, i have nothing to sad to that, except it make run SW very slowly with big ASM and DRW, and lose of time...
compare to "PRT-Excel Library" files...

for the "Routing", if you master "PRT-Excel" and what i said before, and if you really understand how "Ext-Ref" works.
Yes it's possible to create a workflow more capable than "Routing" because you know how to optimize the calculation within the "Ext-Ref"
it will result of being able to do bigger assembly, with more parts, and less running slow of SW in 3D or DRW.

when i read people saying "the software can not do it" just because they ignore some feature, or how to use wisely-smartly the software.
i totally diseagree with that.

if others users read it, they will think "it's the best way how to use the software (working with majority of imported Library)" and it's totally wrong.

[MJuric]

if you know far enough with the use of "PRT-Excel" and far enough with "some special advanced feature of SW"
you can easily combine them togeter, and more...

without any use of : drivework, api, macro, addins, etc... absolutely NOT.

Again, not sure what to say here. What you're saying is that you know how to do something in SW that others either do not and or are simply ignoring. We have entire companies, Driveworks for instance, that are based on developing an "Add-in" that it, at least sounds to me, that you are saying "Can be done better and easier natively to SW.

Now that may be true, but I have a hard time believing that the entirety of the SW community somehow does not know how to do this, but you do.

So right now I know of several programs that are specialized to do specific things, Driveworks, Frame programs, specific construction programs all based on creating systems that are specific and efficient to the project at hand in a way that SW is not. If indeed it was possible to create the same efficient systems in SW, easily, effectively and cost effectively....why are so many people creating these systems at great expense and why are so many people using, even buying, some of these systems?

[Merovingien]

without : Drivework, API, Macro, Addins...

only ; smart PRT-Excel Library

example : auto-size

(deleted file)

example : auto-family-mate (with fitting-type, fitting-gender recognisation, etc...
so weld can't go with thread, NPT can't go with BSP, force Male-Female no Female-Female, etc...)

(deleted file)

[Frederick_Law]

Now we need a course on how to set that up.

[Merovingien]

it's very hold features, more 10 years ago... (it was during the Happy days" of SW)

Happy Days.jpg (15.5 KiB) Viewed 4030 times

PRT-Excel (with advanced SW features, if you know them, and master them) is a powerful tools...
one big key to success with "Big Assembly"...

that's why when i'm talking about "Routing", i prefer to use "my personnal created Routing" also because i can "optimize" how it calculate Ext-Ref.
so you will save a lot of "slowness" with SW-Routing...
and yes my "personnal routing" is not matching 100% the official routing, but my optimization with Ext-Ref make it a tools way more powerfull than official-Routing

with the videos i posted, you can have a preview how you can create a "personnal optimized Library" that can contain near zero imported files, so you can also optimized detail, 3D triangles for PRT, etc...
and also add "smart" into the files....

i will not spend my energy creating tutorial, etc...
people in forum seems to praise for deepgutka, and others, like they are "SW gods"

but others powerful users exist, and maybe some are more powerful in some branchs than the name of "SW gods we can regulary read here"
but maybe some of this unknow-powerful-users simply don't make advertisings for that.

also i would like to add something :
people who know how to write macro, addins, etc... in SW doesn't mean "he know deep and correctly some branchs of the software"

i can just say, if people want to explore and understand (need some informatic loggical) how some features works,

and i will end with a feeling i have that the forum seems not very neutral-worldwide, but more "America-oriented".

[MJuric]

without : Drivework, API, Macro, Addins...

only ; smart PRT-Excel Library

example : auto-size

SOLIDWORKS 2019 SP5.0 - [Assemblage1.SLDASM] 2021-06-11 11-51-20.mp4


example : auto-family-mate (with fitting-type, fitting-gender recognisation, etc...
so weld can't go with thread, NPT can't go with BSP, force Male-Female no Female-Female, etc...)

SOLIDWORKS 2019 SP5.0 - [Assemblage2.SLDASM _] 2021-06-11 16-03-50.mp4

Maybe I'm not communicating correctly or something. I'm not saying that this CAN'T be done. Of course it can. What I'm saying is "Why would you do it?"

What you're showing is pretty basic stuff in comparison to what I'm talking about and I would still bet it took more hours to do what you are showing than the time I use the software I show below in a year. To get something even close to what I'm showing would take 100's of hours....so why?

MayTech.mp4

(4.51 MiB) Downloaded 126 times

[Frederick_Law]

i will not spend my energy creating tutorial, etc...

But can you share the files?

[Merovingien]

i can't share,
i can give "paths of branchs features" if you want to explore...
(just think some files are 10 years old... or more...)

PRT-Excel : have different ways ot be used,
but if you practiced it enough, creating, or using in ASM, and after DRW with BOM,
then only "one best way" on how to use it, and it will be always the best (Excel drive all, block the reverse SW-to-Excel)
so in SW-Excel-Panel setting you will have : source (it depend...) / controle : mode 2 / options : 0-0-1-0
(0 = off / 1 = on)
mastering the "SW internal identifier" to really understand how BOM works, needs some time to master...
and the Derived-Config is a little more complcated with "SW internal identifier" plus some $PRP have a child-parent behavior... it's very interesting to explore, to practice and understand...

that's why, even if i know how to correctly use derivated-configs, i prefer avoid to overuse them...
it need high-level of concentration to use it correctly.

i too ooften saw people using derivedt-config without knowing they made it half-fonctionnal.
one way to check that, with the "configure Dims" (internal SW table) show alls the dims in that panel,
if you see a lot of "yellow" where it's not needed, that mean you broke the derivated-configs,
repared this is a lot fo work.
that why a lot of time, mono-level PRT-configs is best and simplier way...

https://help.solidworks.com/2019/french ... 6d5f15#Pg0

https://help.solidworks.com/2019/french ... rt_bom.htm

https://help.solidworks.com/2019/french ... onents.htm

https://help.solidworks.com/2019/french ... _group.htm

the last one, if you study that feature, read the help, you will see it doesn't work as it intend to be...
but i created my personnal use of it based on a "trick" (need some loggical-mind to find it)
maybe others people have find the same trick...

of course that feature could be a way more powerful, if it was well good programmed, and be working as it said in the help...
but you know, we are using "Bugidworks"...

EDIT :

and in "Library" it's possible to have ASM, for pre-assembly things for repetitive tasks...
without the need to explode them after, with the correct "settings "
example : ASM of screw, washer, nut
example : ASM of all the bolting for ASME or ISO flange

etc... etc....