SolidWorks Sucks...
in [SolidWorks]
|
Prev: swApp Events and C#
Next: AddControl with bitmaps
From: Dale Dunn on 5 Apr 2007 11:05 Ok, the BOM issue has been pretty well thrashed, I think. About the weldments: It sounds like you have a raw weldment with in-context features to the assembly. The raw weldment is inserted into the machined part file, which also has features in-context to the same assembly? Ouch. Every rebuild of the assembly rebuilds the in-context raw weldment, and finished weldment, then marks the finished weldment as needing a requild? Or does it begin another round of assembly rebuild to bring the machined weldment up to date? Either way, that sounds like some nasty multipass rebuilding there, and a great change for circular refernces to sneak in. Is there a better way? I'm thinking... Would your document process allow this: Do the whole weldment in raw and finished configurations of the same part. Insert the weldment configuration into a blank part file to satisfy the filing system. That would get the weldment done in one rebuild pass on the assembly, vs. two or more. The raw weldment would only get rebuilt when working on the drawing. I can't help with drawings of weldments. Last I checked, that just sucked, no matter how it compares to the competition. There's a lot of room for improvement there. Welds... don't get me started on weld models and annotations. I'm not sure I correctly grasp your weldments situation, but I hope I at least gave you an idea or two for making things incrementally better. It's a constant struggle, figuring out how to structure parts and assemblies to achieve efficient rebuilds. Some say that we shouldn't have to be thinking about this. I'm not sure I agree. All tools have right and wrong ways to be used. The tools in CAD systems are no different on that point. Having said all that, we know from other systems that SW could be faster by quite a large margin. I totally get being frustrated with that. There's a lot that could be done, and not much sign of progress.
From: devlin on 5 Apr 2007 14:27 On Apr 5, 9:05 am, Dale Dunn <daled...(a)atjamestool.com> wrote: > Ok, the BOM issue has been pretty well thrashed, I think. About the > weldments: It sounds like you have a raw weldment with in-context > features to the assembly. The raw weldment is inserted into the machined > part file, which also has features in-context to the same assembly? Ouch. > Every rebuild of the assembly rebuilds the in-context raw weldment, and > finished weldment, then marks the finished weldment as needing a requild? > Or does it begin another round of assembly rebuild to bring the machined > weldment up to date? Either way, that sounds like some nasty multipass > rebuilding there, and a great change for circular refernces to sneak in. > > Is there a better way? I'm thinking... Would your document process allow > this: Do the whole weldment in raw and finished configurations of the > same part. Insert the weldment configuration into a blank part file to > satisfy the filing system. That would get the weldment done in one > rebuild pass on the assembly, vs. two or more. The raw weldment would > only get rebuilt when working on the drawing. > > I can't help with drawings of weldments. Last I checked, that just > sucked, no matter how it compares to the competition. There's a lot of > room for improvement there. Welds... don't get me started on weld models > and annotations. > > I'm not sure I correctly grasp your weldments situation, but I hope I at > least gave you an idea or two for making things incrementally better. > It's a constant struggle, figuring out how to structure parts and > assemblies to achieve efficient rebuilds. Some say that we shouldn't have > to be thinking about this. I'm not sure I agree. All tools have right and > wrong ways to be used. The tools in CAD systems are no different on that > point. > > Having said all that, we know from other systems that SW could be faster > by quite a large margin. I totally get being frustrated with that. > There's a lot that could be done, and not much sign of progress. Dale, you wrote " Do the whole weldment in raw and finished configurations of the same part. Insert the weldment configuration into a blank part file to satisfy the filing system. " That is exactly what I'm doing. I'm not inserting weldment parts into an assembly I'm creating a weldment part file and inserting it into another part file to machine. I would never do weldments as incontext assemblies, way too slow for SW.
From: devlin on 5 Apr 2007 14:29 On Apr 5, 8:36 am, Dale Dunn <daled...(a)atjamestool.com> wrote: > > I was hoping this one was going to work.... Seemed to be the most > > logical. > > Hmm. It does work for me, all the time. This is how I do some hydraulic > cylinders, as flexible subs. I wonder what I'm doing differently. I'm not sure I know what you mean. I use hydraulic cylinders as flexible subs too. If I have other parts then I want them to display in the BOM as individual items and the cyl to be an individual item as well. I haven't had any success using dummy subs as was illustrated by someone else.
From: devlin on 5 Apr 2007 14:33 On Apr 3, 1:25 pm, sbpowdercoat...(a)gmail.com wrote: > Just found this Forum... Glad to see that people still have hope in > Solidworks. The techsupport people send me E Drawings for dummies ; ) > I've been using Solidworks at work for a year now (not by choice). And > I have to tell y'a if I had been givin the choice we would be running > ProE instead of that low end package. Don't get me wrong Solid works > is great for drawing pretty pictures and all. But to get actual work > done. Pffffff... The 2005 version can't even do a cross section > without the hatching. Telling you lots of fudging lot of waiting but > certainly no performance. I'm going back to CAD. XYZ here I come... > > Cheers! > > M.Design Straight from a colleague who switched to ProE from SW and is working with other designers that also had SW experience prior to ProE. Take it for what it's worth..... .......Solidworks users and prefer it (ProE) based on stability and large assy performance. The downside is the interface and menus are weak compared to SW and the time to get up and productive is definitely longer. Also, I've personally found reseller support lacking. So, it basically corroborates what I was saying. SW has better vendor network and is certainly easier to use by from a purely technical standpoint ProE is more stable and faster. Speed and lack of flaky bugs would be the most important thing to me, that may vary for each of you so draw your own conclusions. End of rant.
From: Dale Dunn on 5 Apr 2007 16:25
> I'm not sure I know what you mean. I use hydraulic cylinders as > flexible subs too. If I have other parts then I want them to display > in the BOM as individual items and the cyl to be an individual item as > well. I haven't had any success using dummy subs as was illustrated by > someone else. I mean that I have the subassembly show as a single item in the BOM, which is set to parts only. The "do no show child components in BOM..." setting does this for me without any trouble. |