Questions from a potential buyer......

[Sirius2]

Hi, I wonder if anyone can help me out with a few questions about solidworks.

Im currently an Inventor fan (I know, boo hiss! lol), but we dont currently have any sort of solid modeller at the place I work.

After many many years of telling them we need to get something sorted, it seems that some noise is finally being made in the management. Its a very small company, and money is extremely tight.

We do progressive die, 'crash forms' and other complex tooling. The sheet metal parts are not your average basic fold and notch, almost every part we do tools for have formed aspects to them ie double curves and lips.

We also do jigs and inspection fixtures for automobile exhausts, and manipulating and rotating data is extremely important to get right.

Thats the backround out the way, on with the questions:

1) Some of the data we get from the customer is really sloppy. They are half finished wireframe models, sometimes part of it is surfaced where it shows a form, but they dont bother creating surfaces and properly finished models of the components.
Sometimes its best to work on the tool in 2d to get a feel for it, sometimes people need 2d cad files of the sloppy 3d data sending to them (not just a viewer, usuable 2d CAD data)
Inventor lets you create orthographic 2d drawings from 3d wireframe only sketches, and it lets you create views of single skin surfaces....Can Solidworks do this same task?

I know it may be a 'work around' to try and fix up the data and make it solid....but trust me, the files are extremely bad, so guess Id really like to know if it can draw associative 2d views of 3d wireframe data like Inventor.

Sometimes the fixtures we design are drawn around a 3d wireframe pipework, so to be able to model the fixture around a wireframe without having to make a proper solid of it would be brilliant, and if you can create shop drawings of your "solid" fixture WITH the basic wireframe (to reference dimensions from) on the print, and thus show the 'part' being checked "in situ" that would be what we are ideally needing to do. Is this possible in SW2006?

2) How do you work on customer 2d data in solidworks? I know it can open and do some editing of dwg files, but even though 3d modelling is definately the ultimate way to design, there are times when we get jobs in that demand simple 2d design work, or perhaps alterations of somebody elses tools or fixture drawings where its unfeasable to do the modifications by redrawing the thing in 3d.

How does Solidworks let you design a job in 2d?, is that even possible when its ultimately a 3d design tool?. Obviously in Inventor series we would simply use Autocad 2d, but we wont have that option in SWx from what I gather.....Im not sure. Could you buy Solidworks and design a full 2d job in it? I know we should design in 3d, and the benifits, but sometimes Im not in control of the decision.

3) Ive seen two specific add ons for Solidworks aimed directly at progressive die design. They look absolutely awesome. This is essentaily why Im here, because I know that there isnt one similar for Inventor, and thus wish to suggest Solidworks as a favourable choice in the "mix" simply becuase these add ons will be available to us should we decide to get them in the future.

Has anyone used progressive die add ons here, and if so how are you liking them? The sheet metal manipulaton they offer are simply awesome.

4) We currently do all bills of materials manually. We have to go through every 2d detail drawing once its designed and detailed then jot down the the 'length' 'width' and 'height' of each 'in house' manufactured part and log down the material type, the "number off" used, the general raw stock of steel needed for the toolmakers to make our part from on the shopfloor, create a chart and type in all the data.

Can Solidworks easily automate this and automatically determine the 'extents' of the blocks and the material type and instances? In Inventor it gets hard work, as you have to derive algebric terms for the part sketches, and link that to a custom "parts list", and then it puts the sizes in for you and updates when the "dy - dx" sizes change value on the part.
I know most programs do BOM's, but most of them are aimed at 'bought out' parts, not material 'cut off lists'. A list of screws/dowels/bearings etc are no use to us at all, we need the starting dimensions for the toolmaker to 'block up' to. Will SWx help in this regard?

5) We are "ISO certified", and it takes a long time to alter all the individual part drawing sheets from what we call "working files" to "controlled drawings" status after a period of three months after the tool has left the factory and proved a success. Is there any system within solidworks to automate this task, and for example have "atttributes" on the drawing sheet that change after a particular time span?. Or perhaps run some sort of 'batch script' on selected files and folders that opens the files, looks for the word, replaces the word and saves the file again?.

6) If we dont recieve CAD data from the customer for a sheet metal part, does SW2006 let you model "formed" sheet metal parts, or is like many other programs where the sheet metal tools are more aimed at simple folds, bends, indents and notches?

I cannot lie to you, I love Inventor, however, this is going to be a really big decision in the next 8 months or so, and Im not so stubborn as to not want to look at Solidworks as what could really be the better solution for us longterm. I appreciate that SWx people will love Swx and claim its better anyway etc, but thats always going to be said lol. Inventor would be good for us, but it hasnt the progressive die bolt ons, and some other features too I suspect. I last used swx2003 breifly, and still prefered the Inventor product and interface/way of working, but times do change.

For our needs, both software companies always leapfrog each other, and at any one time, one is always better for us than the other! Its hard to keep up with specific niches and niggles we need the softwares to do, and how they compare (such as the 2d views of 3d wireframe etc) as many of these things arent mentioned in brochures or articles, and in our past experience, VAR's dont realy know those issues deeply when they arrive or when we call....they mostly pump out the broshure speel and the things we all know already, and dont know enough about our sector or the challenges.


Sorry for the long post, and I hope that Ive come to the right place to get an insight .

Many thanks,

Sirius.

 

[ajack1]

Have a look at Vero as an option if all your work is in tooling, it has some pretty neat stuff.

http://www.veroint.com/

 

[Theophilus]

Sirius,

1) What sort of data would you be using? You refer to "wireframe" surfaces or models, but what format is that? 3D DXF? SolidWorks really doesn't have a wireframe mode (except to view the model with) since the surfaces and solids are truly modeled while on-screen. I ask these questions, because if you can merely import the surface to SolidWorks, you can also easily turn it into a solid or keep it as a surface from which to work. So the mindset between the two CAD packages seems to be essentially different. With more info I can perhaps reply with better depth, but if you have a surface with what you are calling wireframe (sorry--I left AutoDesk back in 1997), you can use that within SolidWorks to get whatever else you need. From that point, you can very quickly create/export drawing views in 2D that are fully associative with your models--so if you update your models, your drawings update automatically.

2) With perhaps some contorted exceptions, you really don't design anything in 2D with SolidWorks. So the most likely answer you would receive in this regard would be to model what you need and don't look back. Yeah, it's a pain to model something, but it's worse to try to use all these hacked-together fragments of files to perform your design. Also, keep in mind that it's much easier to update the solids you create than to continue to patch the worthless files of which you speak. (By the way, you cannot "cheat" in SolidWorks by assigning untrue dimensions to geometry like you can in ACAD.)

3) I can't help you on this point (I'm an industrial designer). However, I think you'll find SolidWorks very powerful, as I have.

4) I'm not sure about this one either, since I hardly ever do drawings anymore. Others here can definitely help in this area since SolidWorks creates BOMs for drawings.

5) You can probably run a batch script or API, etc. to get this to happen. Again, others here do that sort of thing rather commonly.

6) You can do almost anything you want with a given sheetmetal part in SolidWorks, including creating all sorts of complex forms. However, flattening out your form after applying the strange forms is a problem with some of the complex stuff--probably has to do with estimating stretch, etc. necessary to flatten things back out. So, if you can model it, you've got it, but it depends what you ultimately need to do with the part when finished to determine if this will work for you or act like other programs.

I think you'll find this forum a place of great information. Check out the FAQs for this forum and do some searches and you'll probably find answers to some remaining questions without needing to wait for a reply from others here.


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[Sirius2]

Cheers Jeff.

The wireframe data is really just that, errm, kinda 3d lines in space, where some parts of it that cannot be defined by mere lines alone have a partial "skin" over it which is deformed to show the feature in that particular area.

The trouble is, often these parts cannot be turned into solids. I have tried before, in many software demo's, and I like to think Im pretty well up on this aspect of trying to repair the data.

The data is really poor. Im afraid Im not just talking about a few missing faces or a few disjointed surfaces I can delete and re-fit.......the files we get (I think) are from Japan, and the way the Japenese work on thier CAD system and the way they design the car parts, is done in a very peculiar way.

What they do is draw the bare essentials as a wire frame model, and often thats it. Sometimes we are lucky and get some surfaces, but even when there are some, they are not properly surfaced - to give one example, a single wire frame arc placed at the end of a mass of lines indicates they want that blend radius all the way down the edge. They may have surfaces mabe 80 or 90 segments of complex surface sheet 'patches'.....but they are all square cornerd when they collide at (say) right angles where the top of a part meets the side of the part. As they have placed a solitary arc wire at one end of this mass of faces in fresh air, this is to indicate that all these faces are to blend to whatever the arc radius is.

The wireframe isnt ever completed either. For example, if you imagine a cube thats 1" square, and there is a 0.125" fillet around every edge.....what we would get is a cube, and at the corners a 0.125 rad drawn on the 'top' of a corner, one drawn on the 'side' and one drawn on the 'front'.

So there is a hell of a lot of work to do to create a model, where its vastly more complex than a cube. We cannot redesign the part to a drawing, as for one they dont produce fully detailed drawings anymore, and two, they dont give enough "form" info on the rare occasions they do.

Often the wires dont even meet up, and when you zoom in, (for example on the cube right up close in a corner), the three lines representing the edges dont even collide properly, theres gaps. So when you try and apply a surface using thier wires, you end up with a major trauma as the surfaces you are trying to make are sloppy and often not water tight enough to make a solid knit.

Seeing as these are the files we get, and the only data we can get that defines any sort of required component, I hope you can understand why its sometimes necessary to be able to use the wireframe data in a solid model assembly, and for that said data to be represented in the 2d drawing mode. Remodelling complicated pressing components, and whole exhaust part assemblies with jubilee clips, catalytic convertors etc isnt often justifiable and would take longer to remodel properly as a solid as it would do to draw and manufacture the tool or fixture.

The way I see it, is I would like to buy Rhino, try and reconstruct the really sloppy data into a sort of semi sloppy state (lol) and then import into the 3d Modeller and go from there, for there really isnt a cat in hells chance of any modeller like Solidworks or Inventor turning these "sows ears" into "silk purses" in the state we get it raw off the email.

(They are Igs Files by the way, from what I gather is some CADCEUS dererative).

Regarding 2):

If we inherit a big progression tool or fixture, and we get old drawings for it, and for example somebody says "this bit here needs to go bit wider now, and we need a larger hole pierced and plunged in it and this tab knocking down here"....we cannot possibly start to remodell the whole tool from scratch just to encorporate the changes. If the customer said, "this tool makes component 'x', heres the 2d files from 1994 for the whole tool, we need to make component 'y', its the same thing, but this, this and this are slightly different".....theres no way we could draw the whole tool up from scratch when 90% of the work is already done for us in 2d already, we could just alter the 2d files to make the new variation.

I hope you understand what I mean, hahah. The company uses a really old 2d system now that should have been binned in about 1994. Theres no way that they would spend money on a 3d CAD solution like Solidworks, and then have to buy Autocad and train the staff in how to use that too. Money is tight, and theres no way they would agree to that in my opinion. This is why I thought Id ask what swx does these days to address those types of jobs. I heard they aquired Intellicad pieces into thier system, but I dont know to what extent you can draw and design in that addition.

@Ajack:

Yeah, Ive seen the Vero Visi Series, and also the Missler TopProgress packages.

I tried the Vero Visi Series about three years back, and I couldnt get into it - I found it really hard to use. Likewise for the Topsolid Modeller. They both do really amazing things, but I would hate to get a program thats cumbersome and a nightmare to use. The balance would be "yeah, its got all these great tools, but give me a few days whilst I navigate the system to do it!" lol.

They are Quite expensive too from what I remember, I dont know the budget they are prepared to pay yet, I have my doubts it would be over £9,000 per seat!. (We get ripped off here in England you see, the translation between dollars and pounds gets lost, you see Inventor or Solidworks for $5,500 (say £2,250), we see it at $5,500, and to us in the UK its sold at £5,500).

From my perspective, Id rather buy Solidworks and the progression tool add on from the 3rd party maker, this way I have great ease of use, and its a more widely used CAD package which means more resources, more help, and more people able to use it because Solidworks and Inventor have a much higher pool of users conversant in the software.


I hope this clears some things up on my vantage point, and would still like some of the questions aswered in my first post if anyone can help me .


Thanks

Sirius.

 

[rockguy]

I'm not sure I cn help a whole lot here, not really my industry but SolidWorks does include something called the DWGEditor with their software. It is basically IntelliCAD repackaged with some SolidWorks badging and add ins like e-drawings and PDMWorks compatability (as well as SW).

IntelliCAD works very much like AutoCAD. The icons and some of the terms are different but the basic workings of the programs are the same. The same command typed into the command line in AutoCAD and DWGEditor bring up the same tools. DWGEditor also reads the AutoLisp routines like AutoCAD. I have had no issue using AutoCAD files (dwg/dxf) in the DWGEditor or vice versa. In the example above (changing existing dwg files from 1994) the DWGEditor would have no issues with doing this. It's really a stand alone 2D application. For every seat of SolidWorks you recieve (3) seats of DWGEditor.

Rob Rodriguez CSWP

http://www.robrodriguez.com

SW 2006 SP 2.0EV

 

[J-C]

The DWGEditor (Intellicad) that comes with Solidworks now is a lot like Autocad and I've been using to modify old ACAD drawings since I don't have Acad. Printing is a bit picky but it's almost identical to an older version of ACAD (R14-2000).

As for Question 5: you might be able to do this with PDM/Works. Just have a status property or lifecycle and change them all at once in PDM/Works. Drawings will have to opened and re-checked in to see it.



Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP1.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[Theophilus]

Sirius,

You may be able to download a trial version of Rhino to perform the testing you mentioned--it's certainly less expensive than purchasing SolidWorks up front.

The wireframe problem seems particularly difficult--especially if the wireframe is a jumble of incongruent lines. There's no way any CAD package would be able to make something useful of something like that. But you mentioned you were dealing with IGES files. Have you tried importing the same IGES files into different CAD packages, just to see if the translation fares any better? Perhaps the files you've received are a little better than they seem (when in native format, anyway).


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[Sirius2]

Thanks for all your replies

The DWGEditor sounds intruiging. I need to get some more info on that portion of the new Solidworks I think.

PDM things really scare me at the moment. All this "product lifecycle management" and PDM, Autodesks' "Vault" etc etc are really beyond me at the minute. Ive been an Autocad User, a Teksoft user, Mechanical Desktop user (in my own time for learning purposes and keeping upto date), Inventor user (same applies) and have had plays with a few obscure softwares, Ive never seen what all this 'icing' is about really.

Unigraphics, ProE, Catia, Swx and now Inventor all have these speels on document and 'enhancing lifcycle' etc etc terminologies and it leaves me totally out of the loop for what the hell they are talking about and what it actually can do for us! lol. I know as much as it must be some sort of data management software, but we dont really produce that much data these days........the company has "downsized" its CAD staff from 7 people to 2 - me being one of the two!.


I spent many years now organising the place, installed a central server, proper file directories and naming proceedures etc, but perhaps PDM tools are a bit of an over-kill now theres only two of us? Or would you still recommend it?.

Jeff, yeah, the wireframe thing is hard work. Its the bane of the job really when you know theres no excuse for them to not properly model the parts these days. We could do with STEPS or SAT etc, but they continue on with this wire rubbish, its quite amazing. Ive seen the program they use in Japan, its very very very sophisticated in ways of concurrent users (In think Dassault have collaborated with somebody on thier Catia product along similar lines in the last year or so), and the simply tweak the wireframe to make new car variants - no real thinking of round sizes and angles!, just whats "pulled" right from one model car to another!.

Yeah, Ive tried many programs for the iges route. Rhino has been my ultimate favourite so far for this, but the company I work for hasnt got the software yet. I think its really essential kit for us no matter what Solid modeller we get. I too thought it was perhaps a loss in translation in the Teksoft Procad 3d system, but Ive run them through many systems over the years and they are all the same really, dijointed and incomplete, I guess its just the way they work over there.

Fortunately other customers have moved onto ProE and Catia type packages over the years, and when we get jobs from them they are suplied in nice formats which Im sure wont be any problem for any half decent solidmodeller to open. Unfortunately, our main "bread and butter" work is with the sloppy data lol.


One feature I really liked about Inventor 10, and new to version 10, was something (considering the work we do) I had been waiting for for many many releases......that was the 2d drawing creation of 3d Sketches and surfaces....and you can section cut single surfaces etc. Plus, you can position parts to the data (like checking pins in a wireframe hole) and it would be possible to dimension the gauge limits to the wireframe part on the drawing sheet. I think this must be unique to Inventor and would be something Id miss in Solidworks.

Cant have everything though I suppose.


Cheers

Sirius.

 

[J-C]

Not sure about surfaces, but you can show 2d/3d sketches in drawing views for a while now. You have to browse to them in the tree and show them as they don't show automatically.

Not sure what exactly you mean about dimensioning gauge limits to wireframe. You can show the wireframe stuff and dimension to it, you'll just have to selectively show it to do so.

When you import wireframe items in Solidworks you have two options, import as curves (which you can't do much with) or import as 3dsketch entities which is easier to work with. I never import curves anymore since 3dsketches were introduced way back when (2001????).

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP1.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[ajack1]

Sirius 2 I know what you mean about Vero it is a strange format but it is good if you spend some time with it.

I am similar to you, our core business is tooling and special purpose machinery although we do manufacture on site and we looked long and hard at covering all operation with one system, prior to that we had five with everything having to be translated between them. I really does have some very powerful tools for tooling and was certainly very reasonably priced.

I know exactly what you mean bout the way the Japanese work, it really is a pain at times.

I would take another look it does everything you ask for, you can work in 2D and 3D simultaneously and surfacing from wire frame is fairly easy (although time consuming) in fact on mods we often import either old 2D data or work from customer supplied data and just model the areas that require it.

You can work in 2D, 3D wireframe, solids and sheets and mishmash between all and print out all.

But as you say if you are not comfortable with something it may not be for you, good luck with your quest.

 

[Solidmold]

Sirius,

You mention on point 3 the need for progressive dies. SolidWorks has to add-ins called LogoPress and 3DQuickPress. The last one is surely the best (non-SW) add-in. When definig the strip, you're not using real geometry but, the part is transformed into a open-gl object. That gives you huge performance for complex auto parts.

Dont't be frightened. With SW "you can surely manage".

Daniel

 

[Sirius2]

Thanks Ajack1.

It seems you know the deal with the japanese data - really annoying isnt it! lol.

Somebody gave me a CD with Vero-Visi on it a few years ago, I think it was version 10 or 11. I spent most of my spare time after work coming home and looking at more CAD (lol), but after about a week spent on it, I still was struggling with it on the basics and the way it works, the terminology and proceedure, finding things etc. I simply got that frustrated with it I just packed it in.

I have tried Inventor, Solidworks, SolidEdge Origin (the cut down version they gave away about 4 years ago) and I could slip into these really, as they are essentially all along similar lines, and I like to think myself pretty good at navigating systems, I know how to use Rhino, I know the basics of the above programs, I know Autocad, Teksoft2d and 3d etc, but there have been some Ive tried where I just couldnt get into it. Topsolid and Vero being ones in that category.

It is indeed still worth a look into, I will still recommend it (and Topsolid) as being worthwhile getting people in to show us the goods.

I was thinking that as I like Inventor, that Solidworks may be the closest thing to that, and reap the benefits of the presstool specific add ons. Ease of use right away and tools I know can be used for general fixture work. Vero looks to have some amazing features aimed at presswork, but so does the 3dQuickpress program and from the demo I get the feeling it will be easier to use that.

@ solidmold:

Yeah, those are the two which have caught my eye. They are really unique, and I never knew about them until last year, and now, with this whole CAD thing rearing its head again, Ive taken a look at what they are doing again and its even better than it was before, and thrown me in doubt about Inventor being the obvious choice and my personal preferance. I have to leave that aside and think wider for the future of where I work!.

The costs are pretty high for all the other routes though, Vero and Topsolid are expensive from what I remember, and the basic Solidworks is more money than Inventor and in Inventor you get more for your money, but I feel I really need to show the management the add ons for Solidworks and make them realise that the extra £1,000+ for solidowrks and the (say) extra £5,000-£6,000 for the 3dQuickpress is really the only option if they want a dynamic and modern CAD office. It almost seems silly NOT buying them, if that makes sense.

Depends on thier budget. But it seems crazy not to spend the more money and do things the hard way on every job. Then ofcourse is the need to update the CAM package (lol) triple ouch on the pocket. We cant really have all this neat software and still use a program that hasnt moved on since about 1993 lol. They are going to have a fit!.

Sirius.

 

[J-C]

Last I heard, Inventor and Solidworks costs about the same, unless you're getting some kind of Autocad upgrade deal.

Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2005 SP5.0 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2006 SP1.0 on WinXP SP2

 

[Theophilus]

SolidWorks surfacing and 3D sketching, etc. is becoming quite powerful. Hey, I'm an industrial designer who uses SolidWorks exclusively for creation of complex surfaces--many of which are not yet posted on my web site (too new to "reveal" publicly).

Anyway, you can certainly create sections of surfaces (single, multiple, whatever) within sketch planes to work with. In 2006, we can now create a series of paths, guide curves, and profiles to create a loft from a single 3D sketch--and we can even move the profiles around while getting a preview of the resultant surface--very cool.

Rhino is still probably a good choice for file interpretation. I've known users in the past who used Rhino almost exclusively as a translation method--they really didn't bother modeling with Rhino much at all, even though it has some great surface NURBS tools to play with.


Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reality is no respecter of good intentions.

 

[TateJ]

Granted... I didn't take the time to read this whole thread... (I'm at work, you know) But it seems to me if your files are such PIAs to work with... You could just start blank & re-model these parts in less time/trouble than trying to work with crappy data. I've often taken the same approach to crappy data. Once you get the hang of SolidWorks - you can crank out pretty complex parts fairly quickly. I'd be willing to take one of your parts & model it. Then report back the time it took me. Others here would probably do the same. Trust me - we all know about confidentiality... Just let me/us know how we can help.

Windows 2000 Professional / Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer
SolidWorks 2006 SP01.0 / SpaceBall 4000 FLX
Diet Coke with Lime / Dark Chocolate
Lava Lamp​