Category: Complaints

Backwards compatibility discussion with SW Dev Team

One thing that seems to come up constantly is the desire to have some sort of backwards compatibility between releases of SolidWorks.  It is mentioned on the various SolidWorks forum message boards at least once month (and sometimes almost daily).  Why does SolidWorks not provide for backwards compatibility.  Well, the cynic will tell you that it is intentional, as part of the overall SolidWorks Corp business model.  Others will say that it is due to new features and tools being added to each release which will not be supported by previous releases.

Right now, I cannot speak to reasons relating to business model.  I can say that the SolidWorks development team, some of which attended the T-VSWUG Sept 10th meeting, seem genuinely interested in users’ desires and ideas regarding backwards compatibility. 

One suggestion at the meeting was to provide a way to simply save models for older releases.  The problem here is that once an unsupported feature is reached in the FeatureManager, it and all subsequent features would have to be dumb anyway.   On the other hand, the advantage is that as least some of the information in the model would useful.

Another suggest that had been on my mind was actually proposed by the SW development team; open, edit and create files native to their release level within a single session of SolidWorks.  Features and functions not supported by the release level of a particular model would either be grayed out or (when selected) display an error message stating that it is not compatible with the release level of the active document.

You know what?  I like this approach best.  I can image there are some technical issues which will need to be over come.  For example, how will SolidWorks handle assemblies with mixed release levels?  Regardless, it seems the SW development team is on top of this issue.  Hopefully, a working solution to this issue will be available sometime soon (2 years?).

SolidWorks Drawings ER Blitz – SW Drawing Forum

There’s something going on over at the SolidWorks Drawings Discussion Forum.  There has been an on-going project consisting of users working together to form a list of requests to improve SolidWorks’ drawing functionality.  It all started out with a posted message that was simple, yet poignant by user RYAN W.

When is solidworks ever going to focus on drawings for a new release? Of all the parts in SW I think it needs the most improvement. When ever I find a bug or have a problem in SW it usually is in drawings. I think it would be great to have a new release focus on this area.

From there, the discussion evolved.  Users started going into what they would like to see added to SolidWorks’ drawing functionality.  Others brought up bugs they found.  Somewhere in the discussion, Dwight Livingston took the baton.  He compiled list of eighteen improvements from everyone’s comments.  It included requests such “Create option to attach the ASME symbol for ALL AROUND to the bend of a leader”, “Change SW tables to have basic spreadsheet functions, without MS Excel”, “Create option to add a new centermark to an existing centermark group”, and “Create feature to embed custom symbols in drawing files”, just to name a few. 

This list has received considerable enthusiasm and has taken on a life of its own; it grew in scope and size in a second thread titled What Drawing Functionality Does SolidWorks Need to Improve?.  Finally, Mr. Livingston formalized the discussion under the thread SolidWorks Drawings ER Blitz, with the intent to finish compiling the list of requests by Sept 17, 2008.  By now, the list is over 40 individual items in about 15 categories.  Some of the categories are DRAWING EXPORT, DIMENSION, HOLE CALLOUTS, GD&T, and SYMBOLS.

Now, unofficially, I can say that SolidWorks Corp is aware of this list.  It is my impression that it will not be ignored.  That is not to say that every item will be dutifully explored and implemented right away.  There are many factors that go into decisions as to which improvements to work on first and when to implement them.  At the very least, SolidWorks Corp is listening.

Please check out the current list.  If so inclined, please feel free to voice your own thoughts about items on this list and mention any new items that need to be added.  What’s been bugging you?  What bugs need fixing? Where does SolidWorks not allow you to detail something per ASME or ISO standards without some heinous workaround?  Where is SolidWorks drawing functionality still lacking?  What functionality can be added to increase efficiency? 

Drill and Tap (~Part 3)

This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Hole Callouts

I previously discussed threaded hole callouts in the context of SolidWorks and its calloutformat.txt files (Part 1 and Part 2). As mentioned before, there is a tendency for some to callout threaded holes with too much information. Often, the thread callouts include the drill size. As argued before, including the drill size usually over-defines the threaded hole because the specifications of the thread itself identify the drill size. It also attempts to specify manufacturing processes, which is not allowed by ASME Y14.5M-1994. In fact, including the drill size within a thread callout may actually provide incorrect specification in many cases.

This is particularly true in the case of threads that are in blind holes. These are usually made with forming taps (roll taps). The diameter of the drilled hole for a roll tapped thread is bigger than it is for a cut thread. For example, for a 10-32 roll tap, the drill size is .1762, while a 10-32 cut thread drill size is .159. Once formed or cut, the specification for the ID of the thread is .156 to .164.

On drawings where customary units (inch) are used, the number of decimals places in the dimension usually determines the tolerance for that dimension. Stating a drill size as a decimal dimension applies the standard drawing tolerances to that dimension unless some general note is added.  This means that the tolerance for the drill callout likely differs with that required by the thread.  So, if the drill size is called out, drawing may be providing the wrong information to the machine shop.

SolidWorks World Presentation Ownership Poll (Link)

Matt Lombard has a POLL about access to the presentations at SolidWorks World 2008.  Right now, all the presentation materials are behind a login.  Theoretically only attendees of SWW8 have access to it.  Do you agree with this?  Once the poll is closed, I’ll state my opinion here.