SolidWorks Legion

“Over 1000 touch points for feedback”

SolidWorks Corps claims to have “over one thousand touch points for feedback” that allow them to find areas that need improvement with their applications. Without getting into detail about the effectiveness of their use of these touch points, I’m simply pointing out where they do look. First, note that the Product Definition Group oversees much of this activity and is staffed worldwide.

They conduct direct customer visits. My company was lined up for such a visit a couple years ago, but due to scheduling, I had to cancel on the SolidWorks representative at the last-minute.
They are conducting an increasing number of user surveys (check the SolidWorks Forum and sometimes your email too).
There are field people who work through the VARs.
Technical support provides invaluable information.
They gain information from meeting with User Groups.
SolidWorks World provides significant information, such as the top 10 enhancement requests list, voted upon by attendees.
They also peruse the SolidWorks and CAD forums. It’s my understanding that they also hang out at other popular independent CAD forums.

Where is the most effective place to request a change or notify SolidWorks Corp about issues with their software? Well, I think that depends. Submitting ERs might be the most effective method, actually.

Thoroughly discussing problems and difficulties in the SolidWorks Forum may also afford more attention. Bugging VARs about software bugs is fairly effective in my experience (some have had opposite experiences). Of all the bugs I’ve reported via my VAR, none remain.

Another way to give feedback is to comment on the various SolidWorks related blogs. Get your favorate blogger to talk about the issue indepth. Depending on the topic, bloggers do seem to have a little more pull than the average bear. Unfortunately, I know only one bear that uses SolidWorks (and when her system crashes, it is usually a result of her bashing it about about cabin).

Stump the Chumps submission form

See if you can stump the chumps with your SolidWorks questions at our session in SolidWorks World 2010:

Stump the Chumps question submission form

Also, if you have files to submit as part of your question, please email your question and files to stumpthechumps@gmail.com.

Stump the Chumps II (update)

There is a sizable group of suckers who volunteered to be your humble servants in the second Stump the Chumps session. At Stump the Chumps, you are given a chance to ask just about any SolidWorks questions you want. Preferably your questions will be about some issue you are currently addressing, which we can help solve.

The first Stump the Chumps session at SolidWorks World 2008 got bogged down with very complex model specific questions that were asked during the session. This time around at SolidWorks World 2010, we will not likely address those types of questions in session UNLESS you submit them via email to us prior to the session (with models or at least provide substantial detail). I would recommend submitting such questions by the end of the first week of January 2010.

That said, questions will be taken live at the session as well. But for best results, I highly recommend that your questions be submitted before hand. The more obscure your questions, the better for everyone! In the words of Jeff Mirisola, go ahead and make our day! Our goal is to fit as many answers as possible into the 90 minutes we’ve been allotted.

Please attempt to stump the chumps by emailing your SolidWorks questions to stumpthechumps@gmail.com.

Just so you know that we are real people, here’s the faces of your chumps:

UPDATE: We now have a submission website set up where questions can be asked and voted upon!

*Submit here*

MD&M’s BIOMEDevice show 2009

BIOMEDevice in San Jose, CA is a bit bigger and more populated that I suspected. It appears to get bigger and better each year. The booth displays are very snazzy too. The quality of booth backdrops was great, even compared to my memory of the big MD&M show in Anaheim.

Of note, Autodesk had a booth showing off their new version of the old Moldflow software. It still isn’t integrated into Inventor, though. Results of mold flow analysis can be exported as a .stl file for use with other 3D CAD softwares, and it does import Inventor and other files readily, at least according to the guy at their booth. That said, it doesn’t seem like there is a publicly discussed plan to increase integration beyond just improving how Moldflow Adviser talks to Inventor.

San Jose Convention Center is small. Its not likely to house any SolidWorks Worlds in its current state. Even the Santa Clara Convention Center (next to California’s Great America; and also next to the future home of the 49er’s) has much more convention space (even before SCCC’s expansion this year). ::hint hint to the SWW Committee::

I did walk away with far less swag than I expected at BIOMEDevice. There is this one over-designed pen from the Autodesk booth. Oh, J&J was giving out “Clean & Clear” facial cleanser. Kinda an odd choice, given the likely demographic of attendees.

3D Connexion continues to develop SpacePilot PRO

An important feature for any electronic gadget is continued expansion of its capabilities (without having to buy a new replacement device). SpacePilot PRO is getting considerable support from 3DConnexion. The SpacePilot PRO, and the rest of the current 3DConnexion 3D mice line-up, now supports both SolidWorks 2010 and CATIA V6R2010.

According to 3DConnexion, their 3D mice now complement new SolidWorks 2010 functions such as Rapid Dimension Tool and Mouse Gestures. I’ve personally not had a chance to evaluate these improvements with my SpacePilot PRO (which was, as I stated in a previous article, given to me without any strings attached by 3DConnexion in April 2009).

For CATIA V6, 3DConnexion doesn’t seem to really add any new support for functionality, but rather it is simply fully compatible with it.

One additional note, there was a recent price reduction! SpacePilot PRO price was reduced from $499 to $399! Although this is still expensive for some, it does make the device more accessable for others.

Datum Changes in ASME Y14.5-2009

Under ASME Y14.5-2009, Maximum Material Condition (MMC) can now apply to datums that are features of size and also surfaces. The 94 standard would only allow MMC on datums that were features of size and NOT surfaces.

The following is posted about datum changes with the permission of the author, David DeLong, who is a ASME GD&T Professional (GDTP) at Quality Management Services, Inc.

Datum Changes to ASME Y14.5 – 2009

A feature of size is a hole or pin of any shape and also a width. In most cases in GD&T, the holes or pins are most important to assembly and are used a great deal as secondary and tertiary datums. Usually, the perimeter of a non-cylindrical part is not functionally important. There are certain cases where there may be a partial hole or cutout that is used in assembly and could now be referenced as a datum.

Maximum Material Boundary

The Maximum Material Boundary (MMB) is a new term used in the 2009 standard and replaces the terms “Maximum Material Condition” and also “Virtual Condition Size” when referring to a datums referenced with the maximum material condition symbol.

In certain cases, MMB is the maximum material size while in other situations, it is the virtual condition size. It depends upon whether the datum is a primary, secondary or tertiary datum.

Let’s review the MMB for datum G in the above example.

If datum G was referenced as a primary datum, the MMB would be the MMC size of the hole which would be the smallest allowable size of the 12 mm hole which is 11.6 mm. It does not make any difference whether or not the feature actually has a virtual condition size as shown, the MMB is still 11.6 mm..

In our example, datum G is referenced at MMC as a secondary datum so the MMB is 12 – 0.4 – 0.2 = 11.4 mm which is the virtual condition size of the hole. If the secondary datum did not have a virtual condition size, it would default to its maximum material condition size of 11.6.

Datum H Reviewed

If datum H was referenced as a primary datum, the MMB would be its maximum material condition size or smallest allowable size – 8.6 mm.

If datum H was referenced as a secondary datum, the MMB would be its virtual condition size but, in our situation, we have two (2) virtual condition sizes.

The positional tolerance shown would give us a virtual condition diametrical tolerance zone size of 9 – 0.4 (MMC) – 0.3 (perpendicularity) = 8.3 mm.

We also have a refinement of the positional tolerance with a perpendicularity requirement. In this situation, we have a virtual condition size of 9 – 0.4 (MMC) – 0.2 (perpendicularity) = 8.4 mm.

So, if datum H was referenced as a secondary datum, one would use the perpendicularity refinement resulting in a MMB of 9 – 0.4 – 0.2 (perpendicularity) = 8.4 mm.

In our situation, datum H is a tertiary datum and only used for orienting (anti-rotation) the part about datum G so that we are able to confirm all the dimensions. In our situation, we will use the MMB of 9 – 0.4 – 0.3 (positional) = 8.3 mm which includes the positional tolerances rather than its refinement of a perpendicular tolerance.

Here we have 4 holes of 8 +/- 0.3 mm. The feature control frame reflects a positional tolera

nce of a diametrical tolerance zone of 0.25 mm beyond the MMC referencing primary datum A (usually the mounting surface), secondary datum G at MMC (12 mm hole) and tertiary datum H also at MMC (9 mm hole).

We have already discussed that fact that the MMB changes depending upon whether it is a primary, secondary or tertiary datum. If there is any doubt about the MMB, one can reflect the actual MMB size in the feature control frame as shown above using brackets about the MMB size. This method can also be used if MMB size differs from the calculated size.

Let’s say we wanted the MMB size of datum H to be its refinement size of 8.4. One would then replace the 8.3 in the feature control frame with the refined size of 8.4 and that superseded the calculated MMB size.

For further details, please see the full article at Datums 2009.