SolidWorks Legion

“Mommy, what’s a keyboard?”

Even with the explosion of the QWERTY keyboard being plastered on to almost every type of electronic device these days, I’m going to go out on a limb here-and-now to declare that the QWERTY keyboard will be obsolete within my lifetime. This prediction is not limited to the keyboard device I’m using to type this article. I’m referring to any type of letter based data input that takes the form of QWERTY. The beginning of the end for QWERTY is not the Dvorak keyboard. Nor is it speak [mis]recognition technology. In my view, the signal of the end is technology such as predictive text input, search assistant and other peripherals.

Predictive text input is where an author enters the first couple of letters and then is presented with a word or list of words that most likely match the author’s intent. The author keeps typing until the correct word appears, then accepts the entry. On a cell phone number pad, each number represents 3 or 4 letters. Predictive text input can quickly find the desired word, often with the push of only a couple of numbers. In addition, more sophisticated systems will learn which words are most commonly used by the author and present those as first choices to the author.

With predictive text input, a person can drastically increase their typing capabilities. I’ve seen individuals text with cell phone numeric pads faster than what is even possible on a smartphone QWERTY keyboard. In fact, I would suggest that average wpm speeds of numeric pad texters with predictive text input even exceeds that of experienced typists on traditional full size keyboard devices. That’s not hyperbole, and I’m not kidding.

Search assistant is similar to predictive text input, except a little more sophisticated and low key. Competing peripherals have a lot more buttons than they used to. Function keys are slowing being replaced by clicks on buttons on devices such as the mouse.

All combined, the QWERTY keyboard’s current Golden Age will be over soon enough.

SolidWorks 2010 Usability: Attach Annotations to Dimensions

There are a ton of subtle improvements in SolidWorks 2010 to improve its usability. Many of these improvements might seem small now, but once one is reliant on the new functionality, it will seem like we’ve always had it this way. Attaching annotations to dimensions is now easier with expanded capability. Here’s a couple of examples showing-off these new capabilities.

Drop Annotation Notes into Dimensions

It is now possible to drag an annotation note and drop it onto a dimension, to become apart of that dimension callout. First, LMB click and hold on the annotation note.

Select annotation text

Then, simply drag that annotation note on top of the dimension.

Selected text becomes apart of dimension

The result is that the text from the annotation note is now included within the text of the dimension. One limitation is that the dimension field still does not support borders around selected text.

Attach Annotations to Dimensions

Other types of annotation that can be attached to dimensions include GD&T feature control frames, datum feature symbols and surface finish symbols.

Annotations attach in more ways to dimensions

Annotations and their leaders may now be attached directly to extension lines.
GD&T annotations now may be dropped right into a dimension callout and then detached with the use of the handles in the upper left corner.
Annotations may now be moved around extension lines, and more easily moved from one attachment to another.

Plastic failure causes (brief overview)

There are many causes for failure in plastic parts. These can cause a variety of problems too. Here are some common root causes:

part was originally designed to be made from metal.
part may have design flaws due to stress concentrations and creep.
chemical interactions; in fact, even when a plastic may not be affected by a chemical under low stress, it may be susceptible in higher stress scenarios (environmental stress cracking or ESC).
poor decisions when utilizing material substitution and additives.
manufacturing process, or lack of control thereof.

With all of these common causes for the failure of plastic parts, one might wonder how does one maneuver the design and process mine field. It is important to traverse these issues since a failure in plastic parts can cause lose of valuable time, materials, customers, and can even lead to litigation. One important tool a company can use to combat and prevent such failure is making sure the engineering education of employees is up to the task for designing plastic parts and/or their molds. It is also important to seek out experienced processors who have the knowledge base required for successful part making. Of course, even when everything is done right, problems may still arise. This is where experience in process and design can be the difference between quickly correcting issues or getting stuck without any support.

Source: Fighting Failure in Plastics by Michael Tolinski – Plastics Engineering July/August 2009

Jeff Ray and CATIA/SolidWorks translator

Jeff Ray, CEO of SolidWorks Jeff Ray recently commented about SolidWorks/CATIA relationship in an interview with Ralph Grabowski (seemingly misquoted by Deelip Meneze in his article):

Customers are fed up with not being able to share data between Catia and SolidWorks.

Grabowski then predicts, “at some point, a translator will be delivered.” But this apparently is not a comment made by Jeff Ray himself.

Lunch with Jeff Ray In the discussion that Jeff Ray had with the bloggers at the Blogger Event in early August, there was a hint that a translator between SolidWorks and CATIA isn’t good enough. Does this mean that SolidWorks needs to be able to natively use CATIA files (and vice versa)? Is something really coming that will address this long standing issue?

Meneze, in his article commenting on the Grabowski interview, goes on to list several reasons why making a translator between SolidWorks and CATIA is doable right now. Meneze does this in the context of his statement,

Dassault Systems has made laughing stock out of SolidWorks and its customers.

This was followed up by Matt Lombard who proposed,

This is of course a business decision, not a technical decision, ratcheting customers toward Catia rather than toward SolidWorks. Just like the version incompatibility ratchet.

Well, I’m not sure these are entirely accurate statements. I’m under the impression that Dassault Systemes is aware they are losing business because their two major 3D CAD applications do not fully communicate. Some large customers (who will not be mentioned here…but there’s a clue here) have standardized with CATIA for the high level 3D CAD work, but continue to use a list of other 3D CAD applications that does not include SolidWorks. One likely reason is that SolidWorks cannot use CATIA files, where their competitors can, as Lombard rightfully points out in his article. So, Jeff Ray is right. Something has to be done to correct this issue. Thank you to Grabowski for stirring the pot.

Ya’no, if Microsoft ran their business like this, we’d still see Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect, and Netscape lining the shelves at the local computer store. Why as Dassault Systemes allowed this gaping hole in their product line to exist for so long?

SolidWorks 2010 More speed tests (Tune-up III)

So, I set out to make really bad use of Delete Face and Surface-Fill features. This would be a completely outside the box type of screwing around that might not be expected, just to see if I can maximize the contrast between speed improvements from SolidWorks 2009 to SolidWorks 2010.

The motor-casing model that comes in the Samples folder of SolidWorks 2009 seems to tax SolidWorks a bit as is, all without any fancy features. In SW 2009, I used the Delete Face feature to remove all of the internal walls in the main casing. This was followed up with horrible Surface-Fill to patch the hole. (Please take note of the rather unnecessarily wavy Surface-Fill results.) After saving and Rebuilding twice, I checked the model’s Statistics. The image below represents one of the better Rebuild (CTRL-Q) results I was able to achieve in SW 2009. No surprizes. Surface-Fill is on top and Delete Face is near the top.

Next, in SolidWorks 2010, I opened that very same file. After saving in SW 2010 format, I closed the file and reopened it, then checked the Rebuild results there. Strange…. I didn’t notice much of a difference. This was starting to look a bit like my previous round of tests on another model (See the previous article in this series). To check this further, another test needed to be done.

I deleted the Delete Face and Surface-Fill features and recreated them from scratch in within SW 2010. Three things happened. First, I was able to more quickly access both the Surface-Fill and Delete Face commands. Second, SolidWorks made a much more logical choice in how to form the Surface-Fill feature. Note how smooth it is versus the same feature created in the same fashion within SW 2009 (predictable results when creating features is another area where SW 2010 has improved). Third, look at what happened to the Delete Face Rebuild times!

Surface-Fill time reduced from 5.13s to 3.16s. Delete Face time reduced from 0.63s to 0.09s! It may be that the Surface-Fill time is more a factor of the simpler form than improvements in the underlying code. However, since the software did make a more logical choice in the formation of the Surface-Fill, this still kinda counts. Either way, the big news is the time savings on Delete Face!

Who really cares?!

OK, OK, now the question from many comes up, “I’ve never use Delete Face; who cares about it!?” In fact, in my test here, the difference in Rebuild times is entirely traced back to the Surface-Fill and Delete Face features. No other Rebuild improvements are witnessed in any of the more common features. So where does this leave individuals whose focus is on machine or sheet metal parts, where Delete Face would generally be very bad practice? Well, as mentioned in the previous article, other areas have also been improved.

Improvements to multibody parts and related commands, Weldment cutlist updates, and equation performance have been reported by SolidWorks Corp. Other areas may have also been improved, but I have yet to get confirmation of those. The funny thing is that performance improvements aren’t really covered in the SolidWorks 2010 What’s New file!

In the What’s New file, I only found information about selecting a large number of entities within a sketch to create blocks as being “much faster”, and that Copy and Paste within Sketch mode is faster. Nothing else readily comes up! So, why does it seem that SolidWorks Corp is letting one of the more significant improvements in SolidWorks 2010 go under-reported (practically by word of mouth)? I only found out about these improvements because the faster times for Delete Face was briefly demonstrated at the recent Blogger Event at SolidWorks HQ in Concord, MA.

The cynical side of me might say they’ve made no big announcement because they don’t want to make a big deal about how slow SolidWorks has been in the past. However, the devil’s advocate might say that they’ve made so many improvements, they may not have a collected list of those items even now (as the case may actually be), and certainly didn’t have that list when the What’s New file was released. Either way, it is almost fun trying to find the speed improvements, like an Easter Egg hunt (pun intended…and if you understand why that is a pun, you are truly a geek).

SolidWorks 2010 Usability: Hole Wizard improvement

The SolidWork Corp team has made usability one of the key themes for SolidWorks 2010. One of the areas that has frustrated almost every user since the beginning is that the user is required to select a surface before entering the Hole Wizard command in order to place their holes on a 2D sketch. Hole Wizard would automatically assign a 3D sketch when no surface was preselected. Having holes unnecessarily placed in a 3D sketch can create certain issues, such as difficulty with hole callouts on a drawing.

This is no longer so! With SolidWorks 2010, there is no default sketch assignment to hole placement when starting the Hole Wizard command. The user selects their surface within Hole Wizard when they are ready. If they select a flat surface, Hole Wizard automatically assigns a 2D sketch. If they select a non-flat surface, Hole Wizard automatically assigns a 3D sketch. The user also has the option to manually select the 3D sketch option.

Before this improvement, Hole Wizard surface selection has been one of those areas that traps almost every user when they first start out. (You can always identify a rookie simply by the fact that a 3D sketch unnecessarily appeared in their Hole Wizard feature on a part, such as a flat plate.)

Not only is this a welcome usability improvement that reduces frustration and inconsistent modelling, it is also one that will save many little bits of time for most users. It will also improve the SolidWorks learning curve ever so slightly.