SOLIDWORKS pet peeves

[mike miller]

AKA "What do your co-workers do with SWX that makes your blood boil?"

• The number one worst offense that makes me steam......overriding dimensions on drawings!

• Vicious circular references (a mate to an edge that is defined in context).

• Not using Hole Wizard.

• 3D sketches where a 2D would work just fine.

• Underdefined sketches.

• Redundant features (chamfer six times instead of once).

• Leaving file properties blank after product release.

[Jaylin Hochstetler]

AKA "What do your co-workers do with SWX that makes your blood boil?"

• The number one worst offense that makes me steam......overriding dimensions on drawings!

• Vicious circular references (a mate to an edge that is defined in context).

• Not using Hole Wizard.

• 3D sketches where a 2D would work just fine.

• Underdefined sketches.

• Redundant features (chamfer six times instead of once).

• Leaving file properties blank after product release.

AHA! Looks like he's learning from the times when he made my blood boil! (He does the new design and I do the design changes)

[MJuric]

AKA "What do your co-workers do with SWX that makes your blood boil?"

• The number one worst offense that makes me steam......overriding dimensions on drawings!

Fireable offense in my opinion if blatantly repeated. It's dangerous on many levels.

• Not using Hole Wizard.

• 3D sketches where a 2D would work just fine.

Why would you ever do these two? It's akin to saying "Yes please I want my job to take longer and be more difficult"

• Underdefined sketches.

Dangerous and lazy. Not quite to the level of manual dimensions but if someone is doing it all the time they need to be schooled.

• Redundant features (chamfer six times instead of once).

Agree for the most part but have on some rare occasions done this on purpose when I know that it's possible I may want to change one and not the others etc.

The one that ticks me off are the "Just add another chunk" modelers. When you open a part and it's a simple square with a couple features but it's made from 357 different extrudes, cuts etc etc instead of simply going into the original extrude and changing the sketch. I love the "Extrude cut" followed by "Extrude" to fill the hole rather than rearranging the features and just removing the original cut. Yes, I know this takes longer but pleeeeaaassssseeee do it.

[mike miller]

The one that ticks me off are the "Just add another chunk" modelers. When you open a part and it's a simple square with a couple features but it's made from 357 different extrudes, cuts etc etc instead of simply going into the original extrude and changing the sketch. I love the "Extrude cut" followed by "Extrude" to fill the hole rather than rearranging the features and just removing the original cut. Yes, I know this takes longer but pleeeeaaassssseeee do it.

Actually, it takes LESS time, especially if you figure in time to change anything later.

[MJuric]

The one that ticks me off are the "Just add another chunk" modelers. When you open a part and it's a simple square with a couple features but it's made from 357 different extrudes, cuts etc etc instead of simply going into the original extrude and changing the sketch. I love the "Extrude cut" followed by "Extrude" to fill the hole rather than rearranging the features and just removing the original cut. Yes, I know this takes longer but pleeeeaaassssseeee do it.

Actually, it takes LESS time, especially if you figure in time to change anything later.

What I typically see is someone will extrude, cut, do some sort of reasonable extrusion and then decide they didn't need the cut. So it take a little time to fix it because the second extrude is based off the cut. So instead of getting rid of the cut and moving the second extrude, which takes time, they just extrude something else.

So I get why they do it....that doesn't make it any less wrong

[bnemec]

- editing the revision in custom properties
- editing the $PRP... in the title block in the sheet format

[zwei]

Adding mine to the list:
→ Using a mcmaster carr screws with threads modelled in
→ Use assembly pattern even when they only need to insert just ONE more screw
→ Importing a PCB without any applying any filter...

- editing the revision in custom properties
- editing the $PRP... in the title block in the sheet format

Oh man... This truly is a disaster that make me wan to bring up my pitchfork whenever i catch this...

A bit of off topic but I had been using CREO now and it is worse when it come to those "Model-Driven" value...
When user create a new drawing that do not have all those "Custom Property" in the model, CREO will prompt the user to create a new Parameter in the drawing automatically (which they did every single time), breaking all the link setup in the template...

[jcapriotti]

Signing their name with ultra tiny text and cut extruding it into the models they create. They were proud of their work of art.

[Lapuo]

Using multiple mirror features when only one can be used

[MJuric]

→ Use assembly pattern even when they only need to insert just ONE more screw

I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

[jcapriotti]

I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

[MJuric]

I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

I HATE myself when I do this. Which is one reason that I hate working in assemblies that have patterns. To my knowledge there is NO indication you're mating to an array. When I get going I'm thinking "This attaches to that" and inevitably forget to make sure I'm not mating to a pattern. THEN something needs to change or edit....and I can't find the mate...because it's hidden in a pattern. I want to shoot myself when I realize what I did.

[jcapriotti]

@MJuric Yeah, a warning would be nice, I wonder what it should say though?

Let's see how long people have been using the software, Mategroup2 anyone?

[Roasted By John]

Just before I leave here, I would love to go and remove all the Referenced Geometry in all the sketches, like they were when I started and then I'd like to go to every part that is referenced in another assembly and delete the part that it was referenced to, just like it was when I started, then I'd really love to go to some complicated files and plug all the holes with an Boss Extrude and add a hole about 5K from where it was before, then plug that one and add another cut about 1/32 from the first location. Take a few parts and add 20 configurations and have each configuration suppressed and unsuppressed like they were supposed to, save the file, reopen and mix up the suppress and unsuppress, like some were when I started... The one thing I would love to do is build from the bottom up by building a house of cards and then the one part that has a lot of information in it and is referenced by 2/3rds of the parts, deleted it..

Those are things I'd love to do, but don't have the heart providing Karma to the people that didn't start it, but I'd like to return it how I found it..

[mike miller]

Just be for I leave here, I would love to go and remove all the Referenced Geometry in all the sketches, like they were when I started and then I'd like to go to every part that is referenced in another assembly and delete the part that it was referenced to, just like it was when I started, then I'd really love to go to some complicated files and plug all the holes with an Boss Extrude and add a hole about 5K from where it was before, then plug that one and add another cut about 1/32 from the first location. Take a few parts and add 20 configurations and have each configuration suppressed and unsuppressed like they were supposed to, save the file, reopen and mix up the suppress and unsuppress, like some were when I started... The one thing I would love to do is build from the bottom up by building a house of cards and then the one part that has a lot of information in it and is referenced by 2/3rds of the parts, deleted it..

Those are things I'd love to do, but don't have the heart providing Karma to the people that didn't start it, but I'd like to return it how I found it..

Remind me never to get on the wrong side of you!

[DennisD]

Just before I leave here, - -Snip- -

What is going on that you are leaving wherever here is?

[mike miller]

A few more......

• Unused features such as sketches, planes, and axes. Delete them if they're not doing anything.

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

• Drawing views that intersect the title block

• Using Hole Wizard for everything! (cue...Too much of a good thing)

• Excessive use of dimensions instead of relations and equations

[AlexLachance]

Signing their name with ultra tiny text and cut extruding it into the models they create. They were proud of their work of art.

How are you not in prison? I woulda been strangling people

[zwei]

Adding one more that i just come across today....

Creating a sheet metal part that cant be flatten...

[jcapriotti]

Adding one more that i just come across today....

Creating a sheet metal part that cant be flatten...

I'll one better you, create a sheet metal part but don't use the sheet metal features. Then ask, how do I flatten the part?

[jcapriotti]

How are you not in prison? I woulda been strangling people

Yeah, we had a talk.....lucky it was before PDM and easy to fix.

[Roasted By John]

Just before I leave here, - -Snip- -

What is going on that you are leaving wherever here is?

Not leaving yet, but I really wanna get out of design, been too long, time for a mid-life career change, www.martinsroastapig.com

[AlexLachance]

Just be for I leave here, I would love to go and remove all the Referenced Geometry in all the sketches, like they were when I started and then I'd like to go to every part that is referenced in another assembly and delete the part that it was referenced to, just like it was when I started, then I'd really love to go to some complicated files and plug all the holes with an Boss Extrude and add a hole about 5K from where it was before, then plug that one and add another cut about 1/32 from the first location. Take a few parts and add 20 configurations and have each configuration suppressed and unsuppressed like they were supposed to, save the file, reopen and mix up the suppress and unsuppress, like some were when I started... The one thing I would love to do is build from the bottom up by building a house of cards and then the one part that has a lot of information in it and is referenced by 2/3rds of the parts, deleted it..

Those are things I'd love to do, but don't have the heart providing Karma to the people that didn't start it, but I'd like to return it how I found it..

Leave it be John, karma has it's way of getting back to people without you having to do anything about it. They're not worth your time.

[Tom G]

Misspelling reference entities which need to be exactly equivalent, which includes leaving the number at the end of it.

[Glenn Schroeder]

I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

I do believe I have fewer of those mate errors that go away with a rebuild when doing this than I did 8 - 10 years ago.

[jcapriotti]

I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

I agree, we do it as well in some cases where it's unavoidable. But just as general rule we train users not to do it.

[matt]

I really hate it when I get to the bottom of a tree and there are a bunch of Delete Face and Move Face features. Somebody usually inherited a design, and couldn't be bothered to go back and figure out the feature tree, so they just hacked and slashed.

So when I inherited a bunch of parts like this, I just remodeled all of them. It was easier than figuring out that tangled mess.

[mike miller]

I really hate it when I get to the bottom of a tree and there are a bunch of Delete Face and Move Face features. Somebody usually inherited a design, and couldn't be bothered to go back and figure out the feature tree, so they just hacked and slashed.

So when I inherited a bunch of parts like this, I just remodeled all of them. It was easier than figuring out that tangled mess.

There was one time in my life when I used Move Face. That was because I had a linear pattern of SM parts and the ones at either end (one was the seed for the pattern) needed to be from 1/2" material instead of 3/8". BUT...I made it parametric and linked the Sheet Metal Thickness property to the actual dimension for those two.

[matt]

I've written a couple of blog posts about this topic. Sleasy tricks or process over results?

https://dezignstuff.com/is-it-ok-to-use ... ome-times/
https://dezignstuff.com/process-or-results/

[Alin]

My main pet peeve is hearing so-called power users stating to their managers that: "I am slow because SOLIDWORKS is slow. There is nothing I can do, we have to accept that the software is bad."

There is also a lot of satisfaction to be felt hearing the retraction after they learn the proper technique to get things done.

[Alin]

it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

Have you tried the Component Preview Window tool? A thing of beauty!!!

[matt]

Here's one that annoys me. Just the opposite of what someone else posted. When someone picks 100 edges in a single fillet feature, then the fillet on one edge fails or loses its reference, so the whole feature and all edges fail. Instead, if you have several smaller features with fewer edges selected, troubleshooting is much easier. Plus, if you just select a single edge instead of a whole tangent group, the software can pick the rest of the tangency automatically.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Here's one that annoys me. Just the opposite of what someone else posted. When someone picks 100 edges in a single fillet feature, then the fillet on one edge fails or loses its reference, so the whole feature and all edges fail. Instead, if you have several smaller features with fewer edges selected, troubleshooting is much easier. Plus, if you just select a single edge instead of a whole tangent group, the software can pick the rest of the tangency automatically.

I've also seen cases where a fillet feature with many edges selected would fail, but if several features were used it worked fine.

[Glenn Schroeder]

it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

Have you tried the Component Preview Window tool? A thing of beauty!!!

I haven't. How would it would help in those cases?

[Glenn Schroeder]

It wasn't a co-worker, but I received a drawing from a client once that specified the embedment depth of an anchor bolt in concrete down to the 1/16". I'm guessing whoever did that has never seen anyone setting forms, tying rebar, or pouring concrete, and has no more than a vague idea, if that, of how the process works.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, there was absolutely no need for that kind of tolerance. I'm not an engineer, but I don't need to be to know that. Specifying embedment depth to the nearest 1/4" would have been just fine.

I've also seen rebar bends dimensioned to the 1/16". I will occasionally dimension rebar to the nearest 1/8", but I cringe when I do it. That kind of tolerance in concrete work is rarely, if ever, needed, and in any case is just about impossible to accomplish.

[Alin]

Have you tried the Component Preview Window tool? A thing of beauty!!!

I haven't. How would it would help in those cases?
[/quote]
Will record a video, so you can see how useful this tool is for achieving what you need.

[DanPihlaja]

Signing their name with ultra tiny text and cut extruding it into the models they create. They were proud of their work of art.

LOL....they just added 200+ more surfaces to their model and guaranteed that the drawing won't be able to create a section cut.

[mattpeneguy]

It wasn't a co-worker, but I received a drawing from a client once that specified the embedment depth of an anchor bolt in concrete down to the 1/16". I'm guessing whoever did that has never seen anyone setting forms, tying rebar, or pouring concrete, and has no more than a vague idea, if that, of how the process works.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, there was absolutely no need for that kind of tolerance. I'm not an engineer, but I don't need to be to know that. Specifying embedment depth to the nearest 1/4" would have been just fine.

I've also seen rebar bends dimensioned to the 1/16". I will occasionally dimension rebar to the nearest 1/8", but I cringe when I do it. That kind of tolerance in concrete work is rarely, if ever, needed, and in any case is just about impossible to accomplish.

I like to put tolerances on my concrete and rebar drawings:

image.png

[DanPihlaja]

I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

I do believe I have fewer of those mate errors that go away with a rebuild when doing this than I did 8 - 10 years ago.

@Glenn Schroeder
Did you know about the "New Window" functionality? This will solve this for you I think. See the attached GIF video.

NewWindow.gif

[HerrTick]

FFS learn to use Delete Bodies to clean up surfaces and solids used as tools!

[Glenn Schroeder]

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

I do believe I have fewer of those mate errors that go away with a rebuild when doing this than I did 8 - 10 years ago.

@Glenn Schroeder
Did you know about the "New Window" functionality? This will solve this for you I think. See the attached GIF video.

NewWindow.gif

Thanks for posting that, and it does look helpful, but not for the situation I described. I probably didn't describe it very well. In my long Assemblies I frequently need to mate new components at one end, and the only other components anywhere close are ones that were inserted with linear patterns. All previous components that were inserted and mated may be 100' or more away from where the new one needs to be.

[bnemec]

I really hate it when I get to the bottom of a tree and there are a bunch of Delete Face and Move Face features. Somebody usually inherited a design, and couldn't be bothered to go back and figure out the feature tree, so they just hacked and slashed.

So when I inherited a bunch of parts like this, I just remodeled all of them. It was easier than figuring out that tangled mess.

Yes, that is a pain, especially when the model was put together nicely from the beginning and the updates (revisions) would have been straight forward. Now the move faces obliterate the feature structure that can be so useful in history based modeling. Being lazy today can cause someone else many hours of fixing time later.

There is a flip side. We have some examples of old sheet metal parts that are ~15 years old and are used all over the place in dozens of assemblies which are used in many assemblies higher up the tree. Many nice sheet metal features were not available at the time they were modeled and poor practices were used that limit the ability to make some simple changes such as moving a flange without loosing those much needed geometry IDs that are used by relationships/mates and drawing annotations. Move/rotate face can be very powerful in that case and reduce time to update where used by order of magnitude or more.

[MJuric]

A few more......

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

I don't do this on a regular basis but have been in situations where it was very useful. For instance all of our weldments/casting have machine cuts color coded. That way you can look at the model and see if you're machining away features you need or have surfaces that need to be machined that aren't.

I've also used multi colors on complex assemblies where I need to see a multitude of various interactions. It's nice to know what part is what sometimes.

But as a "General rule", no, no colors.

[DanPihlaja]

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

I made the under defined sketch entities a bright obnoxious red color so that they would stand out better:

image.png

image.png

[mattpeneguy]

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

I do believe I have fewer of those mate errors that go away with a rebuild when doing this than I did 8 - 10 years ago.

@Glenn Schroeder
Did you know about the "New Window" functionality? This will solve this for you I think. See the attached GIF video.

NewWindow.gif

I knew about that functionality early on, coming over from non-parametric CAD that had 3-D. Using 3 or 4 views was the ONLY way to draw in 3D cad in Microstation (similar to Autocad).
The only use cases are like what you posted in SW, though, which are rare occurrences. You can use "Select Other" or usually find another method to do what you want without the extra View.

[mike miller]

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

I made the under defined sketch entities a bright obnoxious red color so that they would stand out better:

image.png

image.png

What's wrong with under defined? Ya'll have to quit dragging my blue lines! They'll be fine!!

[matt]

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

I made the under defined sketch entities a bright obnoxious red color so that they would stand out better:

image.png

image.png

You guys would go nuts on my surface models. First you'd go nuts that half the sketches have something underdefined. And then you'd go nuts defining the endpoints of centerlines, spline points, endpoints of lines that only need to go past the material, etc...

As someone who underdefines a lot of stuff, I can tell you that something that is underdefined is less likely to move than something that is connected to the wrong thing.

Machine design is a different thing. Most or all features are solid, most or all lines have a geometrical purpose other than satisfying CAD requirements. For those models, I fully define, and even centerlines I try to set up so they are defined by the rest of the sketch.

[Glenn Schroeder]

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

I made the under defined sketch entities a bright obnoxious red color so that they would stand out better:

image.png

image.png

You guys would go nuts on my surface models. First you'd go nuts that half the sketches have something underdefined. And then you'd go nuts defining the endpoints of centerlines, spline points, endpoints of lines that only need to go past the material, etc...

As someone who underdefines a lot of stuff, I can tell you that something that is underdefined is less likely to move than something that is connected to the wrong thing.

Machine design is a different thing. Most or all features are solid, most or all lines have a geometrical purpose other than satisfying CAD requirements. For those models, I fully define, and even centerlines I try to set up so they are defined by the rest of the sketch.

I learned years ago that in many cases it's not necessary to restrain the end points of center lines, and in fact, as long as the location of the line itself is fully defined the sketch will show as fully defined even if the end points aren't. (I'm pretty sure I learned that part from Jerry Steiger, who some of you will remember from the old forum. He hasn't been there in a while. I seem to remember he was switching jobs, and they used a different software.)

image.png

[jcapriotti]

I learned years ago that in many cases it's not necessary to restrain the end points of center lines, and in fact, as long as the location of the line itself is fully defined the sketch will show as fully defined even if the end points aren't.
image.png

Sometimes that little status block lies.

[matt]

I learned years ago that in many cases it's not necessary to restrain the end points of center lines, and in fact, as long as the location of the line itself is fully defined the sketch will show as fully defined even if the end points aren't.
image.png

Sometimes that little status block lies.

Here's another thing. If you use Convert Entities on an edge, the resulting line shows all black and the status bar shows Fully Defined. But, if you grab the endpoint of the line, you can drag it. Now you tell me, is that Fully Defined status worth anything at all?