Yeah the behavior of the QTY cells is weird. At some point over the years, ours started acting very strange and unpredictable and we learned that "Show all configurations" had somehow become a determining factor (for us).
Ours were checked, and it was locking us in to an odd format and...
We are running 2022 SP5, but I'm hoping ctopher might have hit the nail on the head.
If you look at my previously posted snip, we do have "Use in bill of materials" checked.
Let us know if that's it and it works.
The values are Solidworks driven.
Just as you are trying to accomplish, I am not manually typing any of those values in.
The values are simply generated by the QTYs of each part number present in the different configurations.
I'm kind of sad that I don't have further knowledge on what your...
Hi Jboggs,
I have prints with many more than 2 assemblies and use this methodology with great success.
For instance,
Were you able to see if "Top-level only" was your BOM type in Solidworks?
Are you using "Top-level only" as your BOM type?
I only see the option to choose multiple configurations in the Bill of Materials using the "Top-level only" radio button.
Those not using SolidCAM might also look into using "Insert - Reference Geometry - Coordinate System".
You can use that to create a CS that orients the part for your CAM software.
When you are exporting your file, use the dropdown menu that you see when you hit "Options" to select the...
I've had this problem as well. I highly doubt its a video card/driver issue since I've had it as well on multiple workstations using approved card/driver combos. My VAR seems clueless about the whole thing and it's upsetting as heck that when you use the software how Solidworks would want you to...
Click where the "plus-sign-with-arrows" is on the revision table to get the property manager to show up. Then, you can select the proper table position in the property manager.
I know that buying the standards themselves can get expensive real quick.
The first thing I'd recommend is checking the library at your college to see if you have access to them (the major university most near me has a library of standards available to students). That way you can get an idea...
If by "large", you mean "long", then I'd recommend you use the break function to create a broken view. Since you stated that your part is just a repeat of a hole pattern, I picture this being handy for you.
As far as references for credibility, If you are in the US, I'd recommend conforming...
I use a z +x/-y when I feel like z measuring z would best suit the function of the part, or when hard tooling that establishes z is going to be built.
When I put the tolerance that way, I suppose it identifies it to our toolmaker as needing to be that number without being too restrictive, and...
Our system is as follows.
Each part under our design activity has its own folder. This folder contains the model (whether part or assembly), drawing, and any other files pertaining specifically to it.
Each part folder is located a maximum of one folder below our main parts database (If I had...
If you are attempting to make your drawings ASME compliant, then I'd recommend taking a look at ASME Y14.34M (Associated Lists) specifically section 5.
If in your discussions, the option to have a CAGE code or vendor included in your parts list comes up (for purchased or standard items), I'd...
I am having the same problem with our company logo, which for now is a .GIF image.
It's pretty annoying because my boss comes and looks over my shoulder and wonders why I'm "fiddling with the title block instead of making that drawing". Argh.
I'd much rather be making that drawing.
I agree. I am bogged down with an "intelligent"/"significant" part numbering system implemented by someone else for a product much much simpler than a large crane. At the very least, it is a pain in the butt.
If you can go as fcsuper said, then that's my recommendation. This is one of the few...
I agree that creating another pattern feature an easy solution, but it does seem a little odd that instances to skip can't be controlled through a design table. Hopefully that's something that will make its way into the software in the future.
There are times for my applications when the use of the unfold and fold features is more preferable to use than the flat pattern. That is one circumstance where I create the flat configuration ahead of time.
The majority of the time I just do it "your way".
The only advantage I can think of...
