SolidWorks Assembly: Virtual Component Not Found?

Original article written by Nick Beattie, republished with permission of Symmetry Solutions.  Image added by Matthew Lorono. 

Having problems opening legacy assemblies that had parts saved internally? If you’re getting the “Unable to locate the file…” error referencing a temporary folder, your problem might be in the naming!

In SolidWorks 2009 and prior, you could rename the entire extension of the virtual component saved within the assembly.  For example a virtual part named “[vpart1^assembly1]” could be renamed to “[Vpart^Assy]” or simply “[vpart].” It was also possible that while doing a Pack and Go, the assembly would be renamed, but not the virtual component. Starting in 2010, this was changed so that only the “part” portion of the name could be changed. A virtual component named “[vpart1^assembly1]” can only have the “vpart1” portion renamed, while the “^assembly1” will always be the same as the assembly it is stored in.

If the legacy file you’re trying to open in SolidWorks 2010 or newer has had the assembly portion of the component renamed, it will not recognize it as a virtual component and will try to find the file. To get the file to open properly in 2010 and later, you will have to go back and open the part in 2009 and find the virtual part. Any parts shown with brackets such as [vpart] will need to be renamed to have the full current assembly name after the carrot. If you assembly is named “assy123” the virtual component needs to be named “[vpart^assy123].” Save the assembly with the renamed component. Now your assembly should open properly and recognize the virtual component!

Twitter chatter on Monday’s article about using ASME

The article from last Monday entitled To what extent should a company comply with ASME standards on their drawings? generated a fair amount of Twitter chatter.  Here’s my rather vane attempt to organize these interesting discussions to share.

@fcsuper: To what extent should a company comply with ASME standards on their drawings? http://goo.gl/fb/7jkqF #solidworks

@SeanDotson: @fcsuper Well said. We “tweak” it to fit our needs as well. [link]

@DevonSowell:  @fcsuper comply with ASME? 100% but none do, 13 yrs 44 clients, haven’t see any comply or come close, Mil contractors the closest [link]

@DevonSowell: @fcsuper same client ” I want the minimum amount of Engineering to make and ship our products” [link]

@Edsonius: @DevonSowell @fcsuper some clients don’t want change so compliance from what they’re used to doing means spending $ to be current=#ignorance [link]

@fcsuper: @SeanDotson I cover that tweaking briefly in my #sww11 presentation too. Opened some eyes, I think. [link]

@fcsuper: @DevonSowell those clients may or may not pay more in the long run. It really is about finding min necessary for some companies. [link]

@solidmuse: @DevonSowell @fcsuper If we had to comply with ASME 100% we would be out of business. It is that simple for many companies. [link]

@fcsuper: @Edsonius @DevonSowell i am seeing a move towards compliance, but many smaller companies (who mite benefit most) don’t understand value [link]

@JeffSweeney: @fcsuper It is harder for them to get and see the ROI [link]

@fcsuper: @solidmuse @DevonSowell what areas of #amse do u find burdensome. [link]

@fcsuper: @JeffSweeney yup…I know that from experience. [link]

@Edsonius: @fcsuper @DevonSowell value comes with the cost of being bit on the buttocks (for u @SteveOstrovsky)  ‘cuz of non-compliance – #changeishard [link]

@DevonSowell: @solidmuse @fcsuper If we had to comply with ASME 100%… I agree Anna, so do my customers [link]

@DevonSowell: @fcsuper @solidmuse what areas of #amse do u find burdensome, me none. My clients don’t see the value of compliance, and I see their point [link]

@SteveOstrovsky: @Edsonius @fcsuper @DevonSowell Here here. We don’t need any non-compliant buttocks walking around. [link]

@fcsuper: @DevonSowell @solidmuse I am curious what u thought cuz I know #solidworks is not 100% compliant w/ #ASME [link]

@DevonSowell: @fcsuper @solidmuse #solidworks is not 100% compliant w/ #ASME it should offer that, don’t you think? [link]

@fcsuper: @DevonSowell u’d think that should be something they’d want. [link]

ADDA’s Annual Technical & Educational Conference

The American Design Drafting Association (ADDA) is hosting its 52nd Annual Technical & Educational Conference in Kansas City, MO on April 12-15, 2011.  ADDA is heavily focused on the professions of drafting, design, and graphics.  ADDA has a certification program for drafters (mechanical and architectural), civil design drafters, design technicians, and digital designers (which include imaging and editing).  Not everyone has heard of ADDA, and that may be intentional.  Olen Parker, Executive Director, states,

It [ADDA] is small, yet sets the stage for many changes within the profession.  We don’t make noise, we don’t promote ourselves, we are the best kept secret in the profession.  ADDA is very involved in the standards and regulations related to our industry.

Best kept secret?  Well, maybe not anymore. 🙂  Parker also mentioned that ADDA made final reviews to ASME Y14.5-2009, and has members that are involved in a number of national committees and organizations.

The conference

This year’s Annual Technical & Educational Conference will have sessions that cover ASME and GD&T fundamentals, CAD and drawing standards, building codes, graphics, etc.  In particular, they will have sessions for CAD and graphic art applications such as PhotoShop, SolidWorks, Pro/E, AutoCAD, Revit, Sketch-Up, Illustrator, and several others.  Other sessions of note will discuss sustainability, BIM, and even workplace ethics. 

I’m also presenting a talk on establishing company CAD procedures at this year’s conference.  Though this presentation will be similar to my breakout session at SolidWorks World 2011, it will be more applicable to the broader audience at the Annual Technical & Educational Conference.

I will write about many aspects of this conference on SolidWorks Legion, including special attention to the quality and depth of several presentations.  I also hope to have a least a couple of interviews.  I also plan to post tweets on hashtag #atec11 during the event.

This will be my first year attending ADDA’s Annual Technical & Educational Conference, though I’ve been looking for an opportunity for several years.  Please note that ADDA is non-profit.  Although ADDA is giving me full conference access (including some meals) at no cost, I am sorta earning my keep by being one of the presenters.  I am personally paying for all other costs associated with my attendance, including airfare and hotel.

If you are interested in the ADDA, their certification process, or the Annual Technical & Educational Conference, please visit their website for further details.

Linkedin adds a new and useful category

Linkedin logoRecently, Linkedin drastically expanded the number of sections available on a user’s profile page (a defacto resume).  This is important to engineers and other SolidWorks users because one of the new sections is Certification.  This new section displays the certificate name, certification authority, license (certificate) number, certificate issue and expiration dates.  SolidWorks Certified Professionals (CSWP), Professional Engineers (PE) and others can now add their certificates directly to their Linkedin profile, complete with their verifiable certificate number.  Here is my Linkedin profile as an example.  My CSWP appears between the Experience and Education sections.

To add your professional certificates, log on to Linkedin and view the Edit Profile page.  Above the Summary section is a link that looks like this:

NEW Add sections to reflect achievements and experiences on your profile.  Add Sections

In addition to certificates, there are many new sections available such as patents, publications, skills, and even tweets and Amazon.com reading list.

While you are there

If you are a CSWP, you may also wish to join the CSWP group on Linkedin.  The group is dutifully maintained by Jeff Mirisola.  He does check CSWP status before accepting new group members.

To what extent should a company comply with ASME standards on their drawings?

ASME cutSome time ago, a visitor to SolidWorks Legion asked something similar to this:  Now that we decided to use them, to what extent should my company comply with the ASME standards on our drawings versus our own internal rules?

That is a complex and difficult question.  Purist will say, “Follow the standard exactly! Otherwise, why have a standard at all?”  Internal traditionalists will say, “We already have a way that works for us.  Why change what works?”

The answer, in my opinion, is in the middle.  ASME Y14.100-2004 paragraph 1.1 states that the ASME standard establishes essential requirements for the creation and revision of drawings and BOMs.  However, paragraph 1.2 then allows for “tailoring” of the standard to exclude unnecessary requirements.  Though this is not an explicit statement that allows outright customization, it does provide a crack in the door that may be used to justify such customization of the standard.  It is important to note that the ASME standard does not take the place of internal standards; it forms their foundation.  The ASME standard still leaves options open for individual companies to define for themselves.

In a company’s internal drafting standard, I recommend including the statement, “Exclude from practice any portions of any standards (e.g., ASME Y14.100) that differ from instructions within this document.”  This formalizes the effort to employ exceptions to the ASME standard.  However, this must be used with caution.

One area that is a good case for exceptions is in how a company might handle BOMs within the context of a PLM.  In such cases, it is often considered bad practice to list BOMs in two places (on the drawing and within the PLM).  It may be advantageous to store and control the BOM within the PLM, rather than on the drawing.  ASME does not address this.  However, as long as the PLM displays the BOM in a manner consistent with the intent of ASME, I don’t personally see any issue with relying solely on that PLM for BOMs.  The internal drafting standard should address such exceptions to ASME.

An area that is bad for exceptions is in the non-standard use of established symbols or abbreviations.  This is because the symbols and abbreviations are already defined by the ASME standards.  For example, if a company allows GD&T symbols to be used in a way that is not defined by ASME Y14.5-2009, a manufacturing vendor will not know how to properly interpret the custom use of the symbology.  ASME does not allow ambiguity on drawings.  However, if a company wishes to continue the use of a few of its own custom symbols and abbreviations, these need to be fully defined on each drawing or in an internal document that is referenced by the drawing.

In my opinion, this is the bottom line: leverage the ASME standards to save time and work (both in the creation and interpretation of drawings).  Try to adhere to ASME as much as possible.  Allow deviations that are necessary, but clearly state such exceptions within the company’s drafting standard or on the drawing itself (whichever works best for the situation).