SOLIDWORKS pet peeves

[MJuric]

I actually prefer that dimension window. It allows me to easily enter an expression/equation, rename the dimension, and perhaps most convenient to me, select how I want the configurations affected by the new value.

I tend to do that stuff "Post creation" so the only time I need the dialogue is to do those things. That being said I don't see any reason why those items can't or shouldn't be in the dimensions properties window. Some of them actually are already.

In fact I can't tell you how many times I've actually canceled that window thinking I had to do an equation in the properties window only to have to re-open that dialogue to do an equation.

I suppose if you had configuration differences for everything and alot of equations it might save some time, but a vast majority of what I do are just dimensions and the time I waste with the extra click is way more than I save from having those items on the screen.

[SPerman]

How can trimming a sketch make it over-defined?

[bnemec]

After poking around in group settings -> Branch then closing because I don't want to save changes:

image.png (3.81 KiB) Viewed 66197 times

Like a trap trying to get me to muck up the vault. Because following precedence would be wrong?

When closing workflow:

What the heck is it with putting negatives in checkboxes and yes/no dialogs? GUI design 101?

[jcapriotti]

Could save space by just having buttons that say:

"Save changes"
"Discard changes"

[bnemec]

Could save space by just having buttons that say:

"Save changes"
"Discard changes"

I fear someone would change the text on the buttons, but not switch locations.
"Don't save changes"
"Don't Discard changes"

[bnemec]

Never happened.

[Alin]

How can trimming a sketch make it over-defined?

trim.gif

Because trimming can potentially add new relations. Not ideal in your case.

[SPerman]

I guess it is overly optimistic to think the software wouldn't automatically add any constraints that over-define the sketch.

[jcapriotti]

Never happened.

image.png

Don't they know that programming logic doesn't work with anything with the word "Experience" in it. An experience defies logic, its a feeling, something to give in to.

That said, you can have a good "experience" (trippin out), or a bad "experience" (3dx). We like to avoid the latter.

[bnemec]

Don't they know that programming logic doesn't work with anything with the word "Experience" in it. An experience defies logic, its a feeling, something to give in to.

That said, you can have a good "experience" (trippin out), or a bad "experience" (3dx). We like to avoid the latter.

The EXPERIENCE cannot be, no, will not be, bound by code. The EXPERIENCE is beyond logic.

[bnemec]

How has Solidworks gone this far without an "Apply" button on the system/document settings window?

[jcapriotti]

How has Solidworks gone this far without an "Apply" button on the system/document settings window?

Isn't that what "OK" does? Why would you want to Apply first?

[bnemec]

edit, removed the sigh, once I saw the post it looked like I was sighing at your question

Isn't that what "OK" does? Why would you want to Apply first?

several reasons.
The king by far is the D@#$ed Default templates that cannot be set until the Template file locations are set and I must ok out of the settings just to go right back into the settings. SE template settings so much simpler IMO.

There was some round-bout here about sketch dimensions, scaling or fixed size, font, Display dimentions flat to screen, etc. to see the change of every tweek we must "OK" out of the dialog and then back into the settings. It's just much more efficient to have the settings form open, make a tweak, apply, look, repeat.

[mattpeneguy]

How has Solidworks gone this far without an "Apply" button on the system/document settings window?

Have you created an SPR on this?

[JSculley]

Have you created an SPR on this?

No need. It's been on the books since August 19,2020:

[jcapriotti]

edit, removed the sigh, once I saw the post it looked like I was sighing at your question


several reasons.
The king by far is the D@#$ed Default templates that cannot be set until the Template file locations are set and I must ok out of the settings just to go right back into the settings. SE template settings so much simpler IMO.

There was some round-bout here about sketch dimensions, scaling or fixed size, font, Display dimentions flat to screen, etc. to see the change of every tweek we must "OK" out of the dialog and then back into the settings. It's just much more efficient to have the settings form open, make a tweak, apply, look, repeat.

Fair enough. I could've sworn that there used to be an Apply button way back before that whole thing was redesigned. I can't find a screenshot to save my life but maybe some other ole timers remember (@matt ).

[matt]

Fair enough. I could've sworn that there used to be an Apply button way back before that whole thing was redesigned. I can't find a screenshot to save my life but maybe some other ole timers remember (@matt ).

Not that I remember. Solid Edge has an Apply button. Almost every other program has one for their settings. I don't remember SW having one.

[Glenn Schroeder]

. . . There was some round-bout here about sketch dimensions, scaling or fixed size, font, Display dimentions flat to screen, etc. to see the change of every tweek we must "OK" out of the dialog and then back into the settings. It's just much more efficient to have the settings form open, make a tweak, apply, look, repeat.

Maybe I'm confused, like usual, but you can make multiple changes to document properties, then click OK when you're finished, and they will all be applied. You don't have to do them one at a time and re-open the dialog box each time.

If you're talking about sheet properties, then I agree wholeheartedly that there should be an Apply button you could click without closing the dialog box.

[mattpeneguy]

Maybe I'm confused, like usual, but you can make multiple changes to document properties, then click OK when you're finished, and they will all be applied. You don't have to do them one at a time and re-open the dialog box each time.

If you're talking about sheet properties, then I agree wholeheartedly that there should be an Apply button you could click without closing the dialog box.

Yes, you are correct you can do a bunch of changes, then click OK. What they want is to be able to click Apply and see the result without closing the dialog box. This would be helpful for instance if you are changing colors of the interface or something like that, you can select a background color, click Apply and see what it looks like without having to get out of the dialog and back in.

In my mind it's a really easy fix, the "low hanging fruit" that @Alin had posted about in the old forum...Though, there are a few more pressing issues for my workflow for me that I'm worried about over this. But, I can see if you have to change options often this may be annoying.

[jcapriotti]

Not that I remember. Solid Edge has an Apply button. Almost every other program has one for their settings. I don't remember SW having one.

@bnemec @matt
Ha, I knew I wasn't crazy, well that's debatable. SolidWorks 2000 they revamped the Options dialogue to what we have today but prior versions had it structured like this:

Why oh why can I remember this type of useless info but I can't remember where I put my keys.

[matt]

@bnemec @matt
Ha, I knew I wasn't crazy, well that's debatable. SolidWorks 2000 they revamped the Options dialogue to what we have today but prior versions had it structured like this:

image.png

Why oh why can I remember this type of useless info but I can't remember where I put my keys.

And there it is! Congrats on finding that! I found some stuff back to 2003, but not that far back.

I used to be able to remember all of that crap, but it's just gone from my memory now.

Where did you find that, by the way?

[mattpeneguy]

Wow, so they took it away?...Nice...

[zxys001]

Maybe I'm confused, like usual, but you can make multiple changes to document properties, then click OK when you're finished, and they will all be applied. You don't have to do them one at a time and re-open the dialog box each time.

If you're talking about sheet properties, then I agree wholeheartedly that there should be an Apply button you could click without closing the dialog box.

Yeah, I always thought of the "Apply" button as "Try it out" or "Test and see"... and if yes, it's what you want, OK. Otherwise, Exit.

[jcapriotti]

And there it is! Congrats on finding that! I found some stuff back to 2003, but not that far back.

I used to be able to remember all of that crap, but it's just gone from my memory now.

Where did you find that, by the way?

Ricky Jordan's site, he has all the old user guides and What's New files.

http://www.rickyjordan.com/files/whatsn ... atsNew.pdf

[mattpeneguy]

Ricky Jordan's site, he has all the old user guides and What's New files.

http://www.rickyjordan.com/files/whatsn ... atsNew.pdf

It's even in black and white...I'm nostalgic for that time when SW was in black and white...

[mike miller]

And there it is! Congrats on finding that! I found some stuff back to 2003, but not that far back.

I used to be able to remember all of that crap, but it's just gone from my memory now.

Where did you find that, by the way?

As long as you remember where the keys are......

[matt]

As long as you remember where the car keys are......

Well, that's not a problem. My wife took them away from me because I can't remember where i'm going half the time.

[SPerman]

IDEAS was an early adopter of color. It has that late 90's feel where everything was in a different color, just because you could. (I found this on a web site dated 2003.)

[SPerman]

The shading looks archaic by today's standards.

And the wireframe was the same color as the part. Every part was a different color.

[jcapriotti]

The shading looks archaic by today's standards.

And the wireframe was the same color as the part. Every part was a different color.

We used to color our Catia v4 models that way, mostly you worked in wireframe back then so it was useful.

I seem to remember some SolidWorks macros back in the day that randomly assign color to components in an assembly to get the same effect. Getting SolidWorks to display wireframe color to match the model color is trickier since they added Appearances. You have to set it for each part file and save them. And it toggles off if you apply another appearance.

[SPerman]

There have been times where it would be nice to have the parts a rainbow of colors to help differentiate them. But for the most part I'm happy to leave that in the past.

[SPerman]

An apply button would be very helpful on the Manage Equations page as well.

[mattpeneguy]

An apply button would be very helpful on the Manage Equations page as well.

image.png

So would being able to edit the darn values from the Feature Tree:

image.png (22.96 KiB) Viewed 65833 times

[bnemec]

An apply button would be very helpful on the Manage Equations page as well.

image.png

LOL. The variables table in SE includes much more and edits there are pretty much live. Which is why I learned to model the way I did, because editing from the variables table in SE is super smooth IMO.

[jcapriotti]

An apply button would be very helpful on the Manage Equations page as well.

image.png

Why? The changes are live once you add the value. I guess I'm missing the workflow you need, and I'm in that equation manager a lot.

[SPerman]

I only see a change after hitting the OK button. Maybe I'm doing that to myself.

[jcapriotti]

I only see a change after hitting the OK button. Maybe I'm doing that to myself.

Your screenshot shows "Automatic rebuild" on which should give you live model updates as you change values. We toggle that on/off all the time. I usually turn it off when working on equations, especially for parts with 20+ equations and a lot of if/then logic going on.

[SPerman]

I either wasn't hitting enter enough times, or needed to click on another cell. I was definitely doing it to myself. Thanks.

[matt]

The shading looks archaic by today's standards.

image.png

And the wireframe was the same color as the part. Every part was a different color.

image.png

My parts would drive you nuts. I sometimes color the various features or bodies using contrasting colors for quick identification, and definitely parts in an assembly. I would sometimes change the color of a part to denote different revisions. Sometimes I color part faces according to draft direction. Trying to use actual material color is so literal, and really limits visualization methods. There used to be a macro to randomly color parts in the assembly. Save the actual material colors for rendering, but for actual work, I definitely use colors.

You can set your SW parts up so the shaded and wireframe are the same, also for drawings. But you have to intend for that to happen. Having all parts of an assembly the same color especially in drawings seems kind of primitive. It's even harder to identify parts in drawings than assemblies.

[Tom G]

Centerlines. Ugh.

[Rob]

Why would you use that dialogue box to edit a dimension when if you single click you can enter whatever you want right there? In fact I find it even more annoying there because if you accidentally double click the dim it pulls that dialogue box up and then you have to cancel it to get to the dimension properties panel.

So single click on the number puts you into a text box where you can change the dim and a single click on the dimension away from the dimension text opens the property panel. Seems to me that the smart move would be to eliminate it all together and if you want the functions there for some reason put them in the properties panel.

Single Click does an instant rebuild, so if you want to alter several dimensions before a lengthy rebuild double click is the way to go.
I also use this box for renaming dimensions.
The most annoying thing for me is trying to delete a dimension grrrr

[DennisD]

Single Click does an instant rebuild, so if you want to alter several dimensions before a lengthy rebuild double click is the way to go.
I also use this box for renaming dimensions.
The most annoying thing for me is trying to delete a dimension grrrr

I agree that this box is very handy for naming dimensions, using expressions to calculate the value, and rebuilding. One of the things I most like is the ability to select how the dimension is used in configurations.

As far as the frustration of deleting a dimension, I have found that single clicking on the extension lines selects the dimension without putting you into an edit of the value, so this is how I select them for deletion.

[Glenn Schroeder]

. . . As far as the frustration of deleting a dimension, I have found that single clicking on the extension lines selects the dimension without putting you into an edit of the value, so this is how I select them for deletion.

. . . or if you do click on the dimension value you can drag it a short space and release. It will still be selected so you can delete it.

[berg_lauritz]

Because I cannot believe this:

A "0" in a custom property is equal to an empty custom property or a non-existent custom property in a BOM If-Statement. Also: You can not properly use a number as a text string.

So
IF(`Length`=0; "haha"; "nothing")
returns
"haha"

For
Length = 0
Length =
AND
[Custom property 'Length' does not exist]

F*ck you D'assault! This is not what I signed up for!

Edit: also `Length`="" returns the same

[mattpeneguy]

No way to have the view title underlined and have the scale not underlined without this appearing?...Oh well...SW2020...

[SPerman]

Why, in this day and age, do we put scale numbers on the drawing? My arguments against it:

1. 90% of the time it is being looked at on a screen.
2. If someone prints it out, there is no way to know what size paper they are using.
3. Most of the drawings I see say "DO NOT SCALE" in the title block. So why then make it easier for someone to do just that?

[mattpeneguy]

Why, in this day and age, do we put scale numbers on the drawing? My arguments against it:

1. 90% of the time it is being looked at on a screen.
2. If someone prints it out, there is no way to know what size paper they are using.
3. Most of the drawings I see say "DO NOT SCALE" in the title block. So why then make it easier for someone to do just that?

We have a "Plan Quality Group" that will be looking for that type of thing...unfortunately, I'm tasked with "making my plans look like the others"...It doesn't have to be correct, but has to conform to the other plan sheets in the set...

[jcapriotti]

Why, in this day and age, do we put scale numbers on the drawing? My arguments against it:

1. 90% of the time it is being looked at on a screen.
2. If someone prints it out, there is no way to know what size paper they are using.
3. Most of the drawings I see say "DO NOT SCALE" in the title block. So why then make it easier for someone to do just that?

Agreed, we haven't put any kind of scale on drawings for over 25 years. Some companies require it, probably out of habit. Maybe ANSI standard still requires it.

[berg_lauritz]

Agreed, we haven't put any kind of scale on drawings for over 25 years. Some companies require it, probably out of habit. Maybe ANSI standard still requires it.

It gives a general idea of size & how much i.e. detail views are zoomed in. I.e. "This is REALLY zoomed in!"

[jcapriotti]

It gives a general idea of size & how much i.e. detail views are zoomed in. I.e. "This is REALLY zoomed in!"

I trust the dimensions more than an scale factor.

Maybe if you still use these:

My eye on this immediately understands the dimensions. The scale, not so much.