F@#$*&^$%$@# Solidworks !!!!!!!!!

[Tim Hancock]

We typically design most custom machines in one open drawing in autocad, then later we create detail drawings for our machine and fab shops. In solid works, it seems more difficult to design like that.... modeling a single part seems relatively simple in Solidworks, but quickly designing a complete machine seems easier to fudge in Autocad. What can be denoted in a quick autocad drawing for OUR machine shop to make, requires much more exact detail when modeling in Solidworks. If I had 6 months to design a machine with many machined and fabbed structures, maybe Solidworks would be less daunting, unfortunately in the cut-throat special machine design and build world, I don't have that luxury.

I like the idea of only drawing (modeling) a part once then magically generating a three view drawing with a few clicks of a mouse, but learning to do this efficiently in Solidworks appears to require a good bit of time that I do not have presently.

All I know for sure is that I was able to learn to use Autocad's basic solid modeling fairly quickly on my own. The commands in the pull down menus make sense to me whereas much of the Solidworks stuff is not as self explanatory.

Once again, it would not suprise me if someday in the future, I learn to use and love it, but right now, I just want to smash my computer with a baseball bat and go home for thanksgiving.

[Tim Hancock]

Here is a rushed assembly drawing of a small filter cap dispenser that is pretty typical of the type of equipment we build. My detail drawings are typically pretty decent, but due to time constraints, many assembly drawings end up not have proper line types and alot of gaurd details, brackets etc get left off the drawings. I had maybe three weeks of time to come up with the concept and the design of this one off portion of a larger filter assembly cell.

I am capable of doing much more complete proper drawings, but time just does not allow it.

[BGCarrera32]

Dunno, scratching my head here...been on CV, Pro-Engineer, Autocrap, Autocrap Inventor, and SolidWorks is by far the quickest to pick up and most productive.

Its like anything...if you don't take the time to get some quick training or run throught the tutorials, its really not the software's fault.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by BGCarrera32

Dunno, scratching my head here...been on CV, Pro-Engineer, Autocrap, Autocrap Inventor, and SolidWorks is by far the quickest to pick up and most productive.

Its like anything...if you don't take the time to get some quick training or run throught the tutorials, its really not the software's fault.

Quit defending it!!! Can't you see I am at wit's end here? Just roll with it and agree with me that Solidworks was designed by the devil himself

You are not helping the venting process!

I need vodka and lots of it! Is it 3:30 yet?

[legion]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

My detail drawings are typically pretty decent, but due to time constraints, many assembly drawings end up not have proper line types and alot of gaurd details, brackets etc get left off the drawings.

Not being an engineer, I'm kind of surprised that I actually understood this sentence. I guess the print reading chapter in my welding class was worth something...

[chrisf]

oh, Tim, I forgot to mention....the Devil designed the whole parametric thing into SW!!

This means that you can assign table (excel for example) driven dimensional values into a model (part) you are designing. Set up your table for different dim values for the different configurations. With a click of the mouse, you can change configurations/design of the model. Go back and edit the table as you need, and the model automatically updates. Open the drawing, and all your dimensions update accordingly.

I suggest Grey Goose, or maybe....Smirnoff.

[john70t]

Having absolutely no previous experience with CAD, I got 2006 as part of a retraining setlement and upgraded to 2007 for my personal use, and possibly to go into as a career.

Playing around with it I've found a few quirky things which have made it a frustrating learning process:
1. Simple example- drew a rectangle(standard icon), defined length of two sides, and made them perpendicular to each otherand opposite's parrallel, but the shape became either over-defined and brought up error boxes or still under-defined.
2. Couldn't find a way of drawing lines on surfaces to be able to split them and make seperate entitys.
3. Tried using a picture of a car as a background and tracing the outline to make a 3D object out, but it seem like there's is not any other way(this feature was one of the selling for '07).


Igetit.com (had) some free introductory training videos that were pretty good, and has a 1year subscription for $100.

For basic freehand designing without the CAM, Form-Z looked like a good product. I'm sure there are plenty more.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

Quit defending it!!! You are not helping the venting process!

I need vodka and lots of it! Is it 3:30 yet?

HAHAHA! I'd put it aside for now if I were you Tim. I've used Autocad since rel. 9 and as with any application one gets trained BY the software as much as one gets trained to use it - long established habits and ways of thinking are sometimes difficult to change. Drove me nuts the first couple of times that I was forced by a customer to use software with which I was not familiar.

Play with it as if it were a new toy that you always really, really wanted when your not under any kind of deadline pressure and you could end up preferring it to what you are now using.

Good luck!

[motion]

This talk is bringing back nightmares.... I used to teach architects on AutoCAD back in 1985. I used to design/program those goofy templates that went on top of the tablets. Autolisp programming.... crazy times.

[sammyg2]

My father is a solid works guru who has been using it since it was a beta. He sees the world through an autocad filter.
He tried to teach it to me, a simple task required about 3576 mouse clicks with a three button mouse. And that was with an earlier, simpler version. I swear his fingers were a blur.
He worked in autocad and imported everything which required having both programs open at the same time (serious system bog unless you have the binford 6000 puter) and he switched back and forth about 4 times a minute.

You gotta be a rainman savant (like my dad) to be really, really good at it.
The older versions were easier, they make it more difficult every year to try and impress someone. kinda like autocad.

[1fastredsc]

Funny, i always hear from professors and some students that solidworks is one of the easier cad programs. Our department here taught us Pro-E, but just last year moved to Unigraphics(the class behind us learned the new one), and in high school i was taught AutoCAD. AutoCAD of back then was easy if you stayed to 2 dimensions, but if you wanted to model in 3D then forget it, Pro-E is like a god send when it came to that. Also Pro-E does part assemblies, CAM, and simple structure and thermo analysis. Unigraphics doesn't seem to hard, i've watched our lower undergrads use it and it seems straight forward. I've never used solidworks, or even seen it, so i'll refrain from personal opinion until i maybe one day get my hands on a copy. One thing to note, CAD programs are a tool. Like any other tool, they all do the same thing but some just "feel right" or take some getting used to to "feel right". Once your head is used to translating what you want to do into what the CAD program understands, it becomes very easy after that. When in the learning process of that CAD program, doesn't matter which one it is, they all make you go "WTF?" once in awhile.

[jim72911t]

Tim,
I evaluated SW a couple of years ago when it was time to upgrade our CAD system. My conclusion was that the parametrics that SW offered did not benefit us compared to a simpler geometric based system. (I'm a manufacturing engineer at a small machine shop that makes proprietary parts and does job shop work.)

That being said, SW seems to be the industry standard as far as mid level CAD software goes, so one of these days I'm going to figure out how to use it.

FWIW, I have never liked AutoCad. Maybe it's because I started out with CADKEY almost 20 years ago, and am still using it (Keycreator) today.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be looking for a good single malt rather than vodka , though.

Jim

[Tim Hancock]

Thanks for letting me vent yesterday guys! After a few drinks last night, I felt better

In college in the late 80's I had a semester of Unigraphics back when cad was not too common at many shops. In '91 I got a job where I work now. We did everything on the drafting boards. A year or two later, we got a job that required all drawings to be on Autocad so my boss had to buy a copy. I was the youngest guy in engineering there and I volunteered to figure out how to use it. This resulted in me moving up the ladder there as I went from mainly detailing and updating drawings to actually doing a good bit of designing. From that time on, I took on the title of "The Cad Master" The other guys felt like I do now in regards to SW.

I honestly believe SW will be a good thing once I become a "master" at it, but looking back, I still think Autocad is easier to learn to use when doing simple drawing tasks. I never took any classes yet I was able to easily figure out how to create and manipulate solids in Autocad, whereas Solidworks just makes no sense initially.

I did a few tutorials when we first got it, and a SINGLE solid was not too difficult compared to Autocad, but trying to figure out how to attach it to a second part and manipulate it is not very intuitive compared to Autocad.

Yesterday, I was in a pinch to quickly figure some reach issues with an urgent quote we were working on. I went to download a 3D Fanuc robot in an Autocad .dwg drawing (we used to have a Fanuc program that had all their robots in 3D, but we no longer have that program) but the 3d version was only available in Solidworks. I thought screw it....I have Solidworks on my computer, I will simply open it up and manipulate it a bit and I will have my issue on robot reach answered. Well that was an exercise in futility. I was as p!ssed off as I have been in a long time at work as I told my boss I would have an answer for him shortly.

As I said before, I do not doubt that someday I will master SW and then sing it's praises.....but not yesterday

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by motion

This talk is bringing back nightmares.... I used to teach architects on AutoCAD back in 1985. I used to design/program those goofy templates that went on top of the tablets. Autolisp programming.... crazy times.

Too funny. Nowadays most ACAD users utilize about 2% of the functionality of the program. I've done a number of scripts and AutoLisp routines in my time too. Most people wouldn't even know what those were if I asked them about it. 90% of the time, you're using one of about the same 10 or 15 commands.

I remember those tablets. I even still have one, but it's been a long time since I've used it. Instead of digitizing hand drawings and sketches now, it's easier to simply scan them in, then import the .jpg file and trace over it. But I remember those giant digitizing tables. . .

Trying go teach myself Revit right now, but very little time makes it slow-going. What I've learned so far, I like however.

[ValveFloat]