Category: Drawing

SolidWorks Technical Summit – Los Angeles review

This review is a little late in coming.  There’s been one thing after another since I got back from this one day event in mid-December.  But now, over Christmas vacation, I have some time to write.

The December Technical Summit had around 85 persons in attendance.  As usual, it started with coffee and pastries for breakfast.  After the opening statements from Richard Doyle, everyone headed off to one of two sessions.

I attended the session by Phil Sluder on Assemblies.  He  broke the topic down into 10 essentials, ranging from basics about file types (.sldprt, sldasm, and slddrw) to how to manipulate components within an assembly.  He then went into “Assembly Survival Tools” where we were shown some newer SolidWorks capabilities and more advanced functions.  Of particular note, he did a great job of explaining Virtual Components and how to use them.  This is something I’ve not dabbled into yet, so I found it very educational.  He also covered multi-mating, mousing controls, warnings and errors, issues with chain mating (mating parts in a chain instead of to base components or geometry), and may other points that are good for newer and intermediate users.  Sessions like this one are good, even for experienced users, as there is usually at least one thing we learn or get reminded about.

Richard Doyle has likely done more SolidWorks related sessions than any other human alive today.  Not only does he host the Technical Summits (with morning and noontime presentations), he usually does at least two technical sessions in each event.  I attended his first session on CAD Management.  This was a very thorough presentation that covered just about anything we need to know for setting up and maintaining SolidWorks on modern computers.  One important point he brought up is that 64-bit computers and OS are not faster than 32-bit.  They are simply able to handle more RAM (16GB vs 4BG).  Other major point was that we (SolidWorks users) need to make sure we have administrative rights to the computers we use.  Needless to say, this was a very informative session that I recommend to all.

It was time for lunch.  The meal of good.  The noontime entertainment included the giving of prizes (which I will cover in a future article), and a review of what’s new in SW 2009 by Richard Doyle.

Some guy named Matt Lorono did some session about drawings after lunch.  🙂  I covered some of the basic information and advice about Sheet Formats and Drawing Templates, and covered some new SW 2009 features, including the new Title Block Editor.  I then covered more advanced topics, like how to create watermarks and how to make Drawing Templates utilize multiple Sheet Formats.

The next heavily attended session I went to was by Mike Puckett on mold design.  Mike is taking a newer approach to his presentation.  Although he still based it around a Power Point presentation, he spent most of his time demonstrating within SolidWorks itself.  He did such a good job with this methodology, I don’t feel he really even needed to use Power Point.  He showed us some of the basic techniques he uses to create models of molds from existing parts.  There was a lot of good information, such as using a preliminary skeleton sketch, how to translate swoopy shapes to a mold, and how to design ejector pins.

Over all, the Technical Summits just keep getting better!  If you cannot make it to SolidWorks World 2009, I recommend at least trying to attend a nearby Technical Summit.

Threading Options (Methods to make threads in SolidWorks)

Reposted with permission of Dan J. Riffell

This topic comes up over and over again, so I thought that I’d put together some of the more popular ways to create a thread in a part environment along with some statistics and reasoning as to why one method would be preferred over another. It should be noted that this may not be a complete list of threading methods, since in this case there is more than one way to thread a cat.

Before you decide to cut threads into your part, a design decision must be made which determines the relative value of modeling the threads. Thread features are often very resource intensive at the part level, and that issue only magnifies when multiple parts are inserted into an assembly. The best policy, depending upon design intent, is to avoid modeling threads in SolidWorks if at all possible. Having said that, below is a list of six ways to model threads (same process for both internal and external threads) in order of increasing complexity of operations:

I. No threads. This is the baseline from which the other numbers have been extracted. Imagine a simple socket-head cap screw shape without threads. # of features = 4. Rebuild time = 0.00-0.02 sec.

II. Cosmetic Threads. Go to Insert/Annotations/ Cosmetic Threads. This paints a visual representation of threads onto your feature. It also imports a thread callout into your drawing. This method does not add any features to your model, and it does not increase rebuild time. It is somewhat parametric as it will partially update with design changes. The disadvantages are that it doesn’t look very realistic, behaves quirky sometimes, and doesn’t show up in model rendering. # of features = 4. Rebuild time = 0.00-0.02 sec.

III. Simple Swept Profile. Draw a line following the temporary axis of your feature. Draw your thread profile. Do a Swept Cut, and choose Twist Along Path. Input the number of turns required. This is a very quick and easy way to cut threads into your feature. It is partially dynamic depending upon your sketch relations. # of features = 7. Rebuild time = 0.06-0.09 sec.

IV. Circular Threads. Draw your thread profile. Do a Revolved Cut around your temporary axis. Do a linear pattern of your cuts. Again, this is a quick and easy way to model threads. The disadvantage is that it is not an actual thread since the cut is revolved and not swept. This method serves to get the point across without being too resource intensive. # of features = 7. Rebuild time = 0.09 sec.

V. Helix Method. Draw a helix that wraps around your feature. Draw your thread profile. Do a Swept Cut of your profile following your helix. This is a very realistic method for creating threads, as you can control the pitch, height, starting angle, etc. of your helix in a simple property manager. The major disadvantage is that helixes are notoriously resource intensive, and it is not dynamic. The amount of resource that swept cuts following a helix command depends upon many factors including the pitch and how/where the cut starts. # of features = 8. As far as rebuild time goes, I got significantly variable results in the range of 0.20 to 45.34 sec depending on how I constructed the cut. With the cut starting 180° from the helix start point, I was able to reproducibly get 0.20 sec rebuilds.

VI. Swept Surface. Draw a line following your temporary axis. Draw a line perpendicular with that line (in a separate sketch) that is collinear with the top or bottom of your feature (or wherever you want your cut to start). Pick Swept Surface and sweep the second line around the first with a Twist Along Path option. Match the parameters to your thread pitch. Convert the edge of this surface into a 3D sketch. This should essentially be the same as a helix. Draw your thread profile. Do a Swept Cut that follows the 3D sketch. Although this method seems like it is overly complicated at first, it has the benefit of being completely parametrically driven depending upon your sketch relations. It will update your cuts to your model changes. The major disadvantage is that it is a resource hog. # of features = 10. Rebuild time = 18.33-19.86 sec.

If threading is something that you have to do very often then I would suggest creating Design Features and reusing them. If you use standard threads you can even create “Taps” and “Dies” that you can position in your parts and use the Combine Feature to remove the material where your threads should go. All of these design methods depend on the environment that you work in and what the intent of the project is.

If this is something that you run into often I would suggest that you submit an enhancement request to SolidWorks and talk to your VAR about the necessity of a thread-creation utility that works similar to the Hole-Wizard. Then wait…patiently…

Hopefully this helps. ————————-
Dan Riffell, CSWP
Projects Coordinator
Eltron Research & Development Originally posted on the SolidWorks Forums in this post thread.

Foreshortened Linear Dimensions (Clipped Dimensions)

As mentioned in another article in this series, SolidWorks does not support the foreshortening of linear dimensions, except in views where both ends are visible in the view, such as break views.  Also mentioned was that foreshortening of linear dimensions doesn’t make much sense in most circumstances because both ends of dimension must be in view for a drawing’s reader to understand the callout.  As such, they are not supported by the ASME standard.  Even still, there may be some cases where it is necessary or desired to clip a dimension within detail or partial section views.

There is one potential workaround to allow this in SolidWorks, using a series of double arrow symbols created by Jeff Hamilton.  Jeff’s creation requires a modification to your gtol.sym file.  Unfortunately, to implement this change, you’ll either need to be a one man show or a CAD Administrator who has time to update everyone’s computers with the edited gtol.sym file.  This is because any symbols within a drawing reside in the gtol.sym file, and that file is specific to each and every install of SolidWorks.  Another drawback is that the user must visually and manually align the double arrows into the appropriate position.

Selection of double arrows

Barring these drawbacks, this is a pretty good solution for those who really need this function.  The file can be downloaded at this location:  Geometric Tolerancing Symbols Library Foreshorten Arrows Add-on.  Instructions on how to edit the gtol.sym file and use the new symbols are included in the download.  Have fun!

Foreshortened Diameter Styles

SolidWorks supports two styles for foreshortened linear diameter dimensions.  The default style is the traditional zigzagged dimension line on the foreshortened leg.  The other style is the often preferred double arrow.  Only one style may be used on any particular drawing.  This is because the style is set in Document Properties.

Foreshotening styles

Instructions for SolidWorks 2008 and prior:

  1. Open a drawing.
  2. Goto Tools pulldown>Options>Document Properties tab>Arrows heading.
  3. The last section of the Arrows window is called Foreshortened diameter.  Here, simply select the style, and then OK to exit.

Instructions for SolidWorks 2009 or later:

  1. Opening a drawing
  2. Goto Tools pulldown>Options>Document Properties tab
  3. Click on the Dimensions heading and the Diameter subheading.
  4. The last section of the Arrows window is called Foreshortened.  Here, simply select the style, and then OK to exit.

The change will immediately become effective for all foreshorten linear diameter dimensions on the drawing.

Color for non inserted dimensions

SolidWorks has many default colors for different types of dimensions.  On drawings, the two main types of dimensions are inserted (driving) and non inserted (driven).  Inserted dimensions are called such because they are inserted from the model.  Non inserted dimensions are created within the drawing itself.  I’m not going to get into the philosophies about which is better to use and when.  Let’s just stick to the topic that many times both are necessary on a drawing, and that they appear as two difference colors. Inserted dimensions are black and non inserted dimensions are grey, by default.

A problem pops up when using or printing the drawing while in Color Display Mode is on.  When this mode is turned off, all dimensions appear black, but so does everything else, including watermarks or lines on special layers.  So, many of us rely on the Color Display Mode.  When this mode is turned on, the user gets their colors right for other lines, but dimensions appear as both black and grey.  This can send a confusing message to someone who must later read the drawing.   Also, on some printers, the grey color may be washed out and unreadable.

Example of different colors

So, I have a quick trick to overcome this issue.  Simply change the color for non inserted dimensions within the System Options.   What color to use?  Well, if one still wants to know the difference between inserted and non inserted dimensions when editing the drawing, I recommend not picking black.  Instead pick the darkest grey available.  This will allow you to see the difference in SolidWorks, but such a difference will not be obvious in any printouts or PDFs.

To make this change in SolidWorks, goto Tools pulldown>System Options>Color heading.   In the Color schemes settings box, select Dimensions, Non Imported (driven).  Click the Edit button.  A traditional Windows color palette window will appear.  Use this window to create a very dark grey color and then assign it to one of the slots in the Custom colors area.  Choose that color as the setting and click OK to exit.  Then click OK in System Options to implement the change.

Color change location

All inserted dimensions will continue to be black, and non inserted dimensions will now be that dark grey.   Since this is System Options setting, it affects any drawing that is opened without having to enter the Document Properties area every time.  I’ve personally used this trick successfully for a long time.

Radius and Diameter Dimensions (switching these in SW 2009)

It doesn’t matter if the dimension starts off as a radius, diameter, or a linear diameter dimension (on a drawing in a model).  One can become another quickly in SolidWorks 2009.

Step 1:  To change a radius to a diameter, RMB click on the radius dimension.  Choose Display Options>Display as a Diameter.

Step 2:  To change a diameter dimension into a linear diameter dimension, RMB click on the diameter dimension.  Choose Display Options>Display as linear.

Unfortunately, there is no way to shortcut these steps from a radius dimension to a linear diameter dimension.  If starting out as a radius, both of these steps will need to be followed in succession to get a linear diameter dimension.  Same goes for the reverse.

One word of caution when switching to a linear diameter dimension though; it will often not come in aligned to the Y or X axis, which may render it unuseful for certain circumstances.