Category: Complaints

SpacePilot PRO (Smudge Factor 10)

The SpacePilot PRO is a clean looking device right out of the box, with its swoopy shape and classy mix of matte black, patent black and dark grey colors. It even feels comfortable when I rest my palm on it and place my fingers around its control knob.

SpacePilot PRO

Size and placement

SpacePilot PRO is larger that one might expect for a control device. Its size is almost sprawling as it takes up a considerable portion of any desktop. I had difficulty in trying to find a location for my SpacePilot PRO. 3DConnexion recommends that their 3D mice be placed on the left of one’s keyboard and operated with the left hand. In the literature, it shows a mouse, keyboard and the SpacePilot PRO placed comfortably on a desktop. Unfortunately for us ergonomically educated individuals, this is not practical. I use an adjustable keyboard shelf. On most keyboard shelves, there’s room for the keyboard and the mouse (usually). So, where am I supposed to place my 3D mice?  Well, I like the device enough to consider a modification to my keyboard shelf.

Look and feel

When taken right out of the box, the pristine device is handsome.  It looks like it is meant to be used.  It doesn’t take long to realize that usage (particularly of the upper patent black region around the LCD screen) quickly envelopes the device with smudges.  On a scale of 1 to 5, I give the SpacePilot PRO a Smudge Factor of 10.  Touching the shiny surface (heck, maybe just breathing on it) will leave a smudge that quickly gives the SpacePilot PRO a worn-in look.

There are a lot of buttons on this device.  They are kinda spread out.  The device could take up slightly less desktop space if the buttons are brought in closer to the knob.  This would allow them to be more readily accessed by one’s fingers.  As for the number of programmable buttons, the device seems appropriately equipped.

One may find that sometimes the left hand will shift a bit while using the control knob.  The are guidelines on the side of the knob, but these are not easily felt.  Strangely, the most obvious location for guiding features would’ve been on the top of the knob, or around the knob’s top ledge, but none are there.

Do not take my criticisms as a reason dislike the device.  These are minor details that should to be a addressed by 3DConnexion in future versions of this device.  They are not show stoppers.  It is great to have a control device with programmable buttons.  I actually like the SpacePilot PRO for the programmable buttons as much as the 3D flexibility granted by the control knob.

Terminology: Bill of Material

It’s somewhat humorous to see incorrect word forms.  Some mistakes are from mispronunciation, such as ax for ask or supposably for supposedly.  Others are based on a misunderstanding of the word.  In the field of engineering, one of the most commonly mistaken word-forms is the plural for Bill of Material.

Of course, the term is Bill of Material or Bill of Materials for singular form.  In this case, the words material or materials both refer to the total sum of material that makes up the assembly; they mean the same thing (kind of like flammable or inflammable).  The plural for Bill of Material is Bills of Material, as in multiple bills, not multiple materials.  This is similar to Flights of Fancy, Peas in a Pod, Chariots of Fire, and Dogs of War.  I guess some confusion comes from the abbreviation for multiple Bills of Material, which is commonly BOMs.  It would rather silly to try to pronounce BsOM.

SWW09: Focus Groups (Drawings and Sheet Metal)

As previously mentioned, I attended two focus groups (also called roundtable discussions) this year.  These are generally held on Sunday before all the major SolidWorks World activities begin on Monday.

Sheet Metal

The first group I attended was for sheet metal functionality.  Though attendence was very light, the number of different methodologies and opinions was high.  My own interest in the topic is the problem with being forced to use assemblies to fully document sheet metail parts with inserts.  This is an issue because if you start a drawing of a part, you cannot later replace that part with an assembly.  So, if you create a sheet metal part with no inserts and then you need to add inserts on some later revision, you are forced to recreate the drawing practically from scratch.  This is a horid time and resource sink.

Others in the group talked about using K-factors to determine the material used by the sheet metal part (for flat patterning), while others disregarded K-factors in favor of bend reduction techniques.

One request that seemed to get common acceptance is the idea of creating a table of all the bends of a part with their full characteristics, with the ability to highlight each bend by clicking on it within the table.  When this table is on a drawing, it was suggested that details be added to a specific layer.

The session  also revealed that some used work arounds to use the SolidWorks model to instruct sheet metal tooling to perform certain actions (either via direct or translated input).  Some use alternative features which do not match the final design in order to instruct a tool to produce the feature desired in the final design.

One work around solution did come out of this session.  Right now, the material mass number changes from bent state to flattened state.  Although this difference is minor, over a large quality of parts, the error multiples and can create issues in part handling.  Use a non-configuration custom property to link to the the material property (of a specific configuration?).  Use this custom property as the source for the mass regardless of the configuration or part state.

Drawings

A large portion of the drawings discussion revolved around printing and saving issues with Drawings.  It seems many people are experiencing similar problems.  When saving as a PDF, views randomly disappear.  When printing as a PDF, text locations get shifted.  Also, changes to parts at lower levels of an assembly may cause errors and view changes in higher level assembly drawings; meaning the the company has to open up all levels of a product’s assemblies to make sure that any change did not affect the drawings in unexpected ways.  It seems more people are having these kind of issues that I originally thought.  Many of the problems are magnified by use of PDM’s.

The meeting also focused on DimXpert and how to handle its dimensions.  One comment is that it should place dimensions per current standards within the model.  Another comment noted that datums and feature frames should drive the model.

I voiced my other major concern as well.  Symbols from the Gtol.sym library file should be stored within a drawing.  Right now, I cannot give native drawings to others outside of my organization because they will not be able to see symbols that we employ.  When a symbol is used within a drawing, it should be included in that drawing’s file and not require editing of any other user’s Gtol.sym file.

SWW09: Skeletons and Modelling Horizontally (live, nearly)

I’m rudely blogging live from a breakout session.  Of all people, it’s Matt Lombard I’m doing this to.  He will appreciate the ironic nature of this activity.  Will he hate me for it when he finds out?  No, unless my typing annoys him right now.

OK, I’m far enough back in the room where this doesn’t seem to be an issue, though there may be people around me that might be annoyed.  Again, no one seems to care.  (If the person next to me is trying to hint to me to stop by clearing your throat, let me apologize now.  Anyways, here we go!)

Matt says people are error phobic.  They worry if they have errors in a model.  This may cause unnecessary worry about finding errors in models.

Horizontal modelling is taking things to the extreme to protect your modelling data to avoid errors in the model.  Someone interested in this type of modelling approach is interested in trying to solve a problem they are experiencing.  The two methods to address such problems are to 1) ignore them when they crop up, or 2) presumptively stop daisy chaining references.  Link to objects that don’t break, such as sketches and planes.  Don’t link to solid faces, edges and vertices.

He compares a model created through regular practice with the same part modelled with horizontal modeling.  The relationships between features are all over the place with the regular methods, compared with clean results from horizontal modeling.  In the HM model, origin planes form the foundation, when are linked to reference places, then linked to reference sketch, with independent features that are all linked back to the reference sketch; at the end are the fillets.

Design intent is described by the edges.  HM allows one to lay out design intent with a set of sketches.  Features created from this will not fail if they are re-ordered (except for fillets).  Matt then demonstrate that HM doesn’t work quite by accident, so we continue the demonstration “theoretically”.  I think the failure to achieve the desired results shows just how hard it is to implement HM effectively.  Thank god watching Matt is entertaining because this type of issue in any other session would result in very boring dead time.  Matt actively engages the audience, which is now trying to address why SolidWorks created unintended relationships in his demonstration model.  Going through this process is interesting, but distracting.

In a question from Matt about who is using HM, the audience answers.  One person states they use HM for multiple configuration components, but would not bother in a simple single configuration part.  Another individual states it is also useful in in-context model assemblies.  HM may also be useful in 2D drawings.  Of course, now the audience is trying to discuss the demonstration model.  There doesn’t really seem to be a consensus; again pointing back to issues with trying to employ HM.  Of course, maybe that just means there are more than one way to achieve stable HM.

HM models are modelled to live forever through changes.  Concept modelling may not be able to employ HM techniques since the part may not be fully understood at the time when modelling is started.

In an almost conclusionary lament, Matt states that everything in SolidWorks is like a balance between stability versus speed of use.  Using HM modelling techniques is a tool to use at the appropriate situation, such as well understood production items where the design is complete before modelling begins.

OK, just for the record (Matt), the only reason I’m live blogging is because I really do not have the time to get all the articles done that I want to this day.  I promise I will not do this in the future.  Thank you for your presentation.

Manage Your Data Already!!! the second installment

Previously I discussed there were 2 common data management myths.  The first was Windows Explorer is a data management system.

Before I start my second rant let’s come to an agreement that Part Number = File Name.  Pure and simple.  No more “Bracket” file names.  Descriptions for file names is absolutely absurd.  How many Brackets does your company make?

The second, and I know some of you out there are going to kick and scream and even possibly wait for me after my presentation at SolidWorks World to beat me down, is that Smart Part Numbers are indeed smart.  Are you kidding me??????

2 Scenarios

Scenario 1:  One of my green horn students starts at a company:  This is followed by the severely under-defined orientation about the company, maybe even an even further degraded CAD standards orientation.  This is if they are lucky.  Now they are ready to begin modifying documents for you or even begin a new design for you.  But wait, first they must read a 4000 page document on how to create part numbers.  If this part is aluminum it starts with an “A” unless the forecast is partly cloudy, then it is “Alum”, so on and so forth.  So not only does my scared little green horn have to overcome the company culture but now learn basically a new language for part numbers.

Scenario 2:  One of my green horn students starts at a company:  This is followed by the severely under-defined orientation about the company, maybe even an even further degraded CAD standards orientation.  This is if they are lucky.  Now they are ready to begin modifying documents for you or even begin a new design for you.  You instruct them to hit a certain button (usually the Save or Ctrl+S) and viola a part number is magically created for them and a window pops up that tells them exactly what information about the file is required; i.e. Description, Material, Hardness Spec, Material Treatment like paint or anodize (otherwise known as finish), project, etc…

In the first scenario most companies will give a new employee about 60 days to comply with company policies.  But they will need to anticipate part number screw ups for the next 40 years.

In the second scenario if the employee manages through the 60  – 90 day evaluation period there should be no problem with part number issues.

Let us discuss the idea of the “Smart Part Number”.  As I said in my previous rant, every single designer and now I will add, the rest of the organization, has the best way to name files, organize files and for some reason they believe everyone else understands what is happening in their polka dotted world they call a brain.  Smart Numbers were probably developed by marketing geniuses.  they call it the “Model Mask”.   Here is the problem I see.  Model Masks will inevitably be require to evolve if a company is truly out to make money.  Companies looking to make money will continually strive to define the next innovative product, and if we work on the concept that innovation is the implementation on a new product that enters the market adding new market value then we need to agree that more than likely that parameter has not been defined so we run into 2 situations, innovation is halt because it does not fit the model mask or it is slowed until a new model mask is generated, tested and implemented.

I am throwing out some serious terminology here like Implementation (which assumes that companies are continually refreshing employees on the standards and are continually assessing their performance with measurable matrices), innovation (defined above, but many companies are willing to run the old if it ain’t broke do not fix).

Falling back to the first installment where I discussed increasing productivity to make more money, look at the 2 scenarios discussed earlier and you tell me which one can offer instant productivity out of a green horn, learning/memorizing a 4000 page How to Create a Part Number  book or just hit save, the system will tell you what other info is required.

Now how does this tie into PDM systems you ask?  Well thank you for asking, I have implemented and maintained about 10 PDM systems for companies and part of my implementation is setting up the system with part number schemes that when you do a Save or Ctrl+S the data management system takes control an doles out the next available serial number.  Notice I said serial number.  000000001 -9999999999 are very useful part numbers.  With data management one does not have to worry about descriptive part numbers, there are other more powerful ways of finding the file you need without some complicated matrix to sort through.

The power of data management systems are that they inject steroids into your custom properties.  Most of these systems resemble the Dewy Decimal System at your local library.  As I said before in Scenario 2, during the save a part number is established then a pop up box indicates additional information that your company requires when creating a part number.  Custom Properties are the meta data that is included in the file.  It is the same exact concept behind Windows Media Player or I-tunes, when you load a CD or download a song the extra data that shows up in the player is the meta data, Song Name, Artist, Genre, etc…  Notice that this is search-able in those tools.  PDM should be viewed sort of like these tools.  The difference is now you will have the ability to log revisions, describe the changes, and have a viewable history without the need for a designer to rename, pack and go and all the other workarounds we modelers have come up with.

Now instead of a model mask matrix you can use search tools similar to Google searching Advanced Search Features.  The model mask may be a good tool to develop required fields needed before a save can be completed.  Make sure the fields are descriptions of the information that will be inputted into them.  Then you can create drop down lists, or fields that are linked to outside databases to ensure the information is entered correctly.

Anyhow, the purpose of this rant was to dethrone the concept of Smart Part Numbers.  Much easier to instruct a person to hit the save button than to try to teach them a numbering scheme that will inevitably change or become way to confusing and cumbersome to use.

There will be more to come.

Manage Your Data Already!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As an instructor at a vocational career college with internships at local design firms, I am constantly amazed at the number of companies using a really good Automated Design package like SolidWorks to make sure their designs work, are manufacturable, and meet the requirements of their customers.  (Meeting the requirements is no longer a viable business plan in this global economy, but that is a different topic all together.)

What scares me is that there are still companies out there who believe in 2 data management myths.  I will discuss the first one in this post and the second in a soon to follow rant.

The first data management myth: “Windows Explorer is a data management tool.”

Windows Explorer is a rudimentary viewer into a windows file/folder directories.  That is it. 

People, the models & drawings created in any CAD package at a manufacturing or design firm are the digital records & digital currency that make that company money.  Without those documents, how will you manufacture your product that sales and marketing have oversold in too little time?  Hmmmm? 

3D, History Based, Parametric modelers by nature have a complex set of file relations that no one should every have to figure out. 

If you improperly move this file to another directory or Lords of CAD  forbid “Rename the file to show the next revision in the part number, the drawing looses connectivity, content and functionality, the assembly opens with errors you have never even heard of.  The Yellow and red thing in the feature manager tree are really SolidWorks yelling at you telling you that you royally screwed up! 

Then there is the project of updated drawings to new revisions (you know, the I did not thoroughly review my design so now I have to modify the original design so it can actually work.)  What do you do now?  Make changes to the original document so you have no idea what the previous revision looked like?  Copy the document set and make the changes there renaming those files with the new revision in the file name(just the thought of renaming strikes the fear nerve in me).  Are you sure that you have triple checked all of the other files that your changed document effects?  This process using Windows Explorer is achievable at a costly price.  You design time.  I thought we were moving into an era of design productivity.  This arduous task seems to be light years from being productive.

 As soon as your company adopts a CAD package like SolidWorks it is time to implement Product/Project Data Management.  I know, there are some folk out there who are saying things like: “We only have one designer so we do not need it”  or “We have a procedure that ensures that file names are correct, blah blah, blah…”. 

For the first comment I ask, “Do you want to end up like the Big 3 always asking for bailouts for the people who by your vehicles”.  To be successful you need to be in business to make a profit now and into the future.  Get these systems up and running immediately so that if (when) your business does grow you do not need to scramble to figure something out now.  Every designer has the Greatest directory structure and file naming scheme that everyone will understand.  And monkeys fly out of my butt every day.  By the way, I have beautiful ocean front property to sell you in the Everglades.  What happens when that designer quits? 

Many PDM systems are very scalable to accommodate 1 – 100’s of users.  These data management systems also allow you to either use an existing directory structure or define an even easier one that will take no time for newbies to learn.  Earlier, Matt Lorono wrote a fantastic post about CAD standards, PDM can compliment your CAD standards with naming standards, filing standards, change standards, the list is endless.  It will really complete a Great CAD standard.  PDM can usually hook into ERP/MRP systems to reduce the number of times a cad jockey has to enter the same information over and over again.  Make drawing searches available to everyone company wide.  No CAD needed.

The comment about procedures… When is the last time you read your company procedures?  A procedure about file naming, directory structure, etc… is about 5 years wasted productivity because as we all know it is so incredibly productive to read those things.  We also know that every individual has different ways of bending the procedure to make it work for them.  Think about it, there are easily 50 ways to model the part you are in the process of modeling.  You are telling me you are going to restrict that to 1 way.  What happens when your 1 way inhibits productivity?  In the CAD system you set up templates that everyone starts from.  You require certain things to be done in the model like no under defined sketches, you can use the Design Checker to check these requirements.  With a proper PDM implementation you can set templates that replace the custom properties of a model, then transfer them to a drawing so you only have to enter title block info once.  You can set up a behind the scene directory structure that none of your people have to be aware of because once the info is in the PDM system, all of that info can be used to search for things using a Google style search.  Setup a fill naming structure that will automatically manage file names for your designers.  One less thing for them to worry about screwing up.

Get one of these systems in place now.  Most of them cost less then a one year subscription for your 1495 seat of SolidWorks.  Complete your CAD standards and become more productive now.  Remember, Windows Explorer is not Data management.  Is is a portal into the directory structure of your computer which often leads to chaos.