SOLIDWORKS pet peeves

[berg_lauritz]

I trust the dimensions more than an scale factor.

Maybe if you still use these:
image.png

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

image.png

Since I live in Canada we use both imperial and metric. Our drawings use metric measurements internally and imperial measurements externally. The perception of the metric measurements/sizes varies greatly from person to person & since our drawings show the metric measurements we always add a scale to give them a general idea.
Also - the prints in production sometimes actually get used for size comparisons.

[berg_lauritz]

Another little rant:

I recently came across the API regarding tables:

You can access various parts of a table through:

• TableAnnotation
• [specific]TableAnnotation
• Annotation
• Feature
• [specific]Feature

Some old tables do not have a table specific feature. So deleting a table is best done by selecting the annotation (NOT the tableannotation) & deleting it.
Sometimes you can select the feature though & delete the table this way.
To insert a table you don't have to select something though - you can simply access this through the view interface.

Some things can be selected through the UI BEFORE you insert the table(i.e. which layer should this table be on, line width, text format, ...) but in the API you have to manually go to the annotation OR the table annotation to change those settings.
ALSO the freaking checkboxes within the UI (i.e. use document setting) are not really accessible - so you have to manually read them out through the API & change the table afterwards to match this. By simply inserting the table it does not always use the 'default'.
And don't get me started about trying to resize a table with the UI....

Like... WHO DID THIS?

[Tom G]

I made a BOM. Some items needed attention to revision, so I edited some of those fields in the BOM, simply selecting its contents and applying bold font formatting.

I got the needed information, and implemented the revision. I corrected the descriptions within the custom items involved.
I reopen the BOM drawing. The fields which I had bolded were still bold, but maintained the old values. I select that field, delete its contents and hit enter, and then the corrected descriptions come through.

OMG, text font formatting counts as a cell content override! (Check your work.)

[SPerman]

I just hit escape one too many times and watched about 30 minutes worth of exploded view work undo itself.

[Ben]

I just hit escape one too many times and watched about 30 minutes worth of exploded view work undo itself.

i love that feature

[Damo]

I do not have co-workers, per-se. But I've had the misfortune of some less than happy collaboration opportunities...
A couple of things that stand out to me, particularirly of late because I am making some modifications/alterations to some older files
for a new project and these below listed issues are predominant in my mind.

- "Fixed" Sketch entities. Instead of properly defining the sketch, simply "Fix" the lines in place. Pure Laziness..!!!
- mirrored bodies in a multibody file, just because. Ok so don't get me wrong on this I often mirror bodies in a multi-body file too. But, really only to have the component separately recreated on the "other side of centre" and to enable less parts in and assembly (because I am not a fan of assembly mirrored files). It also assists to achieve correct quantities in weldment cutlists.
I do not mirror bodies simply so I do not have to draw the other half of a weldment beam and then mirror it to merge the body..Grrrr.. Not only does this add unnecessary extra features to the feature tree but it makes it frustratingly difficult later on in revision if the design changes and symmetry is no longer required..!
- Using the "Convert to Sheetmetal" feature.. WTF..!? For godsake people, just model it as sheetmetal to begin with. Is that so hard..?
- Modifying weldment sketches to create odd (or different) profiles. I know, I know.. It works. But it still feels like hack laziness.
- Colours... Why would one use weird random colours (I reckon I saw someone comment on this earlier in the thread). Why do this..? Weird pastel purples and odd shades of greens and strange stuff like that. Seemingly random with no pattern to it..!? Just model it to be how it will be built/fabricated.
- Lights... Colour tinted lighting. Just because it's "Pretty..!?!?!"

That is enough ranting for now...

[Glenn Schroeder]

I do not have co-workers, per-se. But I've had the misfortune of some less than happy collaboration opportunities...
A couple of things that stand out to me, particularirly of late because I am making some modifications/alterations to some older files
for a new project and these below listed issues are predominant in my mind.

- "Fixed" Sketch entities. Instead of properly defining the sketch, simply "Fix" the lines in place. Pure Laziness..!!!
- mirrored bodies in a multibody file, just because. Ok so don't get me wrong on this I often mirror bodies in a multi-body file too. But, really only to have the component separately recreated on the "other side of centre" and to enable less parts in and assembly (because I am not a fan of assembly mirrored files). It also assists to achieve correct quantities in weldment cutlists.
I do not mirror bodies simply so I do not have to draw the other half of a weldment beam and then mirror it to merge the body..Grrrr.. Not only does this add unnecessary extra features to the feature tree but it makes it frustratingly difficult later on in revision if the design changes and symmetry is no longer required..!
- Using the "Convert to Sheetmetal" feature.. WTF..!? For godsake people, just model it as sheetmetal to begin with. Is that so hard..?
- Modifying weldment sketches to create odd (or different) profiles. I know, I know.. It works. But it still feels like hack laziness.
- Colours... Why would one use weird random colours (I reckon I saw someone comment on this earlier in the thread). Why do this..? Weird pastel purples and odd shades of greens and strange stuff like that. Seemingly random with no pattern to it..!? Just model it to be how it will be built/fabricated.
- Lights... Colour tinted lighting. Just because it's "Pretty..!?!?!"

That is enough ranting for now...

I will address your last point. If you ever model something like complex rebar in concrete you may see a benefit in using random colors for components.

[berg_lauritz]

[...]
- Using the "Convert to Sheetmetal" feature.. WTF..!? For godsake people, just model it as sheetmetal to begin with. Is that so hard..?
[...]

In the right context this is one of my favorites actually. Design of a wheel well:
Either do it w/o converting to sheet metal & have a feature tree like this:

OR go with convert to sheet metal. Model the 'cutout' area first - convert to sheet metal - add flanges and see magic happen. Additionally this enforces logical design intent (this is the space we need to have - I model the space we need & build everything around it). Yes, there are obvious downsides to this approach - namely controlling the gaps is very intense on the resources the more complex the shape gets. But I still think it's worth pursuing.

[Damo]

I will address your last point. If you ever model something like complex rebar in concrete you may see a benefit in using random colors for components.

Fair enough. I do imagine there is a benefit to different colours for "logical" reasons.
For example, I totally understand the benefit of different size rods (or plate thicknesses) being different colours.. But for me, this needs to be a clearly defined pattern or just don't do it at all lest it all seem like chaos. And my brain does not like to have to deal with a whimsical or purposely created chaos...

For me, I just like it to look like it will when the customer takes delivery. And, I often use the customers own colour scheme/livery to immediately differentiate their specific bespoke fabrication from the original version.

[Damo]

In the right context this is one of my favorites actually. Design of a wheel well:
Either do it w/o converting to sheet metal & have a feature tree like this:
Screenshot 2022-01-06 125226.png

OR go with convert to sheet metal. Model the 'cutout' area first - convert to sheet metal - add flanges and see magic happen. Additionally this enforces logical design intent (this is the space we need to have - I model the space we need & build everything around it). Yes, there are obvious downsides to this approach - namely controlling the gaps is very intense on the resources the more complex the shape gets. But I still think it's worth pursuing.

Hmmmm... I'm all for reducing the number of unnecessary features in the tree. No doubt there is benefit to this.
Although, I have nothing against having as many features as required to get the job done.
I will be honest tho, I do not use the "Convert to Sheetmetal" option, except in my very early days of learning and then someone showed me how to use sheetmetal tools.. I always think of it as a direct edit hack style method.. so I have literally no experience with this magic you speak of..
We all have our own reasons and/or foibles of doing things the way we prefer..
I would indeed be interested to see examples of this in action. eg. Your example is a shelled solid..?

[SPerman]

When looking at a complex assembly in cross section, it is easier to differentiate the parts if they are different colors.

[berg_lauritz]

Hmmmm... I'm all for reducing the number of unnecessary features in the tree. No doubt there is benefit to this.
Although, I have nothing against having as many features as required to get the job done.
I will be honest tho, I do not use the "Convert to Sheetmetal" option, except in my very early days of learning and then someone showed me how to use sheetmetal tools.. I always think of it as a direct edit hack style method.. so I have literally no experience with this magic you speak of..
We all have our own reasons and/or foibles of doing things the way we prefer..
I would indeed be interested to see examples of this in action. eg. Your example is a shelled solid..?

Basically it is a shelled solid. @TooTallToby made something nice here.

Also see attached.

example-convert-sheet-metal.SLDPRT

(275.87 KiB) Downloaded 198 times

Edit: Yes, it has some flaws and you can modify those flanges more accurately with edge flanges etc. - but for many quick parts I have used this - This is also amazing to quickly get something out of imported parts or to work with legacy parts that were not made as sheet metal but you want them to be sheet metal now.

[mike miller]

This is an old bug- still around in 2021 SP1.

[SPerman]

I guess I need some narration. What is the problem?

[gupta9665]

I guess I need some narration. What is the problem?

SW remembers the last drop down selection. SO if you have center rectangle selected last time, than next time also you will get the same if you click on draw rectangle tool.

[mike miller]

I guess I need some narration. What is the problem?

Like @gupta9665 said, SWX remembers the last selection from a dropdown. Okay, whatever..........but the icon doesn't change. So you think you're going to get a corner-corner rectangle but instead you get a center rectangle.

[bnemec]

Like @gupta9665 said, SWX remembers the last selection from a dropdown. Okay, whatever..........but the icon doesn't change. So you think you're going to get a corner-corner rectangle but instead you get a center rectangle.

That's funny! I'm still so confused trying to use SW that I hadn't really noticed. I was missing the "remember my last dropdown selection" but turns out SW actually was but just didnt' look like it, so I was always using dropdown.

BTW Mike, SE has an option to remember the last dropdown, so you can turn it on/off to your liking. AFAIK the icon does change with what the action will be. Tool tips in SE though, that's another story, my 6yo does a better job matching his socks than SE does matching tooltip to the command button.

[Glenn Schroeder]

SW remembers the last drop down selection. SO if you have center rectangle selected last time, than next time also you will get the same if you click on draw rectangle tool.

I use center rectangle probably 90% of the time, but do occasionally want a corner rectangle. That's why I have a Mouse Gesture for each one.

image.png (22.21 KiB) Viewed 83924 times

[Glenn Schroeder]

Here's a big pet peeve for me. I start with a nice fully defined sketch.

image.png (16.52 KiB) Viewed 83921 times

I mirror the solid lines, using the construction line. It should be an easy, trouble-free process, right? Guess again.

[berg_lauritz]

Like @gupta9665 said, SWX remembers the last selection from a dropdown. Okay, whatever..........but the icon doesn't change. So you think you're going to get a corner-corner rectangle but instead you get a center rectangle.

WHUT?

At least with 'A' you can shuffle through those options quickly....

[bnemec]

Here's a big pet peeve for me. I start with a nice fully defined sketch.


image.png


I mirror the solid lines, using the construction line. It should be an easy, trouble-free process, right? Guess again.


image.png

We avoided mirrored sketch elements in SE when possible, not as a rule, but it wasn't the go-to method. The hassle of maintaining sketch relations of symmetric segments while editing just wasn't worth it for me in SE. Instead, mirroring the body or if needed the feature seemed to be the better process for what I was typically doing. It seems that symmetric sketching is popular in SW so I was thinking it was different. You're post started bringing back memories of why we didn't use them that much in SE. I see you have symmetric in your gesture wheel so you must use it a bunch?

[Glenn Schroeder]

We avoided mirrored sketch elements in SE when possible, not as a rule, but it wasn't the go-to method. The hassle of maintaining sketch relations of symmetric segments while editing just wasn't worth it for me in SE. Instead, mirroring the body or if needed the feature seemed to be the better process for what I was typically doing. It seems that symmetric sketching is popular in SW so I was thinking it was different. You're post started bringing back memories of why we didn't use them that much in SE. I see you have symmetric in your gesture wheel so you must use it a bunch?

I do mirror sketch elements often. The only time I've ever run into a problem with it is in situations like the one I posted above, where the software extends the arc instead of mirroring it, so since the previous end point is deleted in the process the dimension is also. It's usefulness in other situations far outweighs this one issue.

I avoid sketch patterns in SW like the plague, however, and haven't even attempted one in over 10 years.

[mike miller]

We avoided mirrored sketch elements in SE when possible, not as a rule, but it wasn't the go-to method. The hassle of maintaining sketch relations of symmetric segments while editing just wasn't worth it for me in SE. Instead, mirroring the body or if needed the feature seemed to be the better process for what I was typically doing. It seems that symmetric sketching is popular in SW so I was thinking it was different. You're post started bringing back memories of why we didn't use them that much in SE. I see you have symmetric in your gesture wheel so you must use it a bunch?

I haven't found any way of making sketch patterning/mirroring reliable in SWX. I haven't really tried it in SE because I have no reason to think it would be any better.

This is my general rule for mirroring in part files, in order from most stable to least:

-bodies (model asymmetrically and mirror at the end)
-features
-sketch entities

****************************************************

Now let's get back to griping about our software.

[DennisD]

I share your frustration, @Glenn Schroeder. Your example is a good one. My workaround has been to mirror the sketch and then add the defining constraints/dimensions.

[mattpeneguy]

I avoid sketch patterns in SW like the plague, however, and haven't even attempted one in over 10 years.

Why are you starting now? Taking chances and living on the edge?...Should we be concerned?

[Glenn Schroeder]

Why are you starting now? Taking chances and living on the edge?...Should we be concerned?

I'm not starting now. I still avoid sketch patterns. I use sketch mirror, and have for a long time.

[Damo]

Basically it is a shelled solid. @TooTallToby made something nice here.

Also see attached.
example-convert-sheet-metal.SLDPRT

Edit: Yes, it has some flaws and you can modify those flanges more accurately with edge flanges etc. - but for many quick parts I have used this - This is also amazing to quickly get something out of imported parts or to work with legacy parts that were not made as sheet metal but you want them to be sheet metal now.

This is great.. I'll admit I hadn't seen that. And I will also admit that for that part, the option TTT used does look easier too.
I've learned something new today. It is always a better day when this happens. Cheers

[Dwight]

I avoid sketch patterns in SW like the plague, however, and haven't even attempted one in over 10 years.

I used to dislike sketch patterns, but in my current project I started using them a lot. Now I think they are inspired.

I need to do a video on using sketch patterns.

Dwight

[Dwight]

I need to do a video on using sketch patterns.

I did make a video - see "How to Use Sketch Arrays Effectively" in the How To section.

Dwight

[SPerman]

SW remembers the last drop down selection. SO if you have center rectangle selected last time, than next time also you will get the same if you click on draw rectangle tool.

I have them as individual choices. Why waste another mouse click on a drop down menu? Especially if it has issues.

[zwei]

I never understand why SOLIDWORKS need to use the same folder path for properties.txt and custom property tab template
(Path defined under Custom Property File location in system setting)

image.png (8.83 KiB) Viewed 83215 times

I had defined the Custom Property File to the folder where we store all our custom property tab template so that i can use the tab template even if the files is not created with our template (eg: customer supplied part). The downside is that the above warning keep pop out whenever i am working on some configuration

(Pulling the properties.txt file to the folder where i store our custom property tab template solve the issue, but i just dun understand why they need to be related at all in the first place...)

[SPerman]

Why does being translucent make it not selectable? I don't understand why the two functionalities are related.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Why does being translucent make it not selectable? I don't understand why the two functionalities are related.

By translucent, do you mean transparent? Because I can select a transparent Part just fine. If there isn't another Part behind my cursor it works just like it would if it wasn't transparent. If there is another Part behind it holding down Shift will allow you to select the transparent Part.

[jcapriotti]

Why does being translucent make it not selectable? I don't understand why the two functionalities are related.

It's by design so you can see outside parts for reference and select parts behind them. It can be toggled off.....but I recommend leaving it on and using the shift key that @Glenn Schroeder mentioned.

[SPerman]

Thanks. The shift key was the magic I was looking for.

[bnemec]

Why does being translucent make it not selectable? I don't understand why the two functionalities are related.

Probably because some whiner like me kept complaining and saying things like, "WHY THE HECK DOES IT KEEP TRYING TO SELECT EVERYTHING?!?!!? THOSE THINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO!!!"

Instead of following an intuitive and efficient workflow of Start command first and then software applies filters appropriate for what you can select for the action, they added more functionality. Unfortunately, they cannot name anything intuitively so when a part is set to be translucent according to the dictionary, SW calls it "Transparent".

[SPerman]

I like the flexibility of the workflow. And now that I know about the shift key, I like this functionality. Having the ability to select through something is great, until you need to select that something and have to find a camera position with nothing behind it. The shift key gives me the best of both worlds.

Now if I could convince SW that not all construction lines are center lines.

[bnemec]

I like the flexibility of the workflow. And now that I know about the shift key, I like this functionality. Having the ability to select through something is great, until you need to select that something and have to find a camera position with nothing behind it. The shift key gives me the best of both worlds.

Now if I could convince SW that not all construction lines are center lines.

Agreed. Now consider if all the irrelevant parts/bodies were dynamically made "transparent" for you depending on that task you were doing.

[berg_lauritz]

Another pet peeve here:

Cut lists are automatically activated when you make a sheet metal part. Regardless of your settings.
So you start a sheet metal part & it will automatically activate 'Create Cut Lists Automatically' AND 'Update Automatically'. (Affects performance)
You also have to manually set the first part to be excluded from the cut list.

Now you manually turn this off. Both checkmarks!
Now you add a configuration & you split the body into two pieces.
GUESS WHO'S BACK?

CREATE CUT LISTS AUTOMATICALLY

And guess another thing? Yes, you have to exclude those two new pieces from the cut list again.

[Glenn Schroeder]

I like the flexibility of the workflow. And now that I know about the shift key, I like this functionality. Having the ability to select through something is great, until you need to select that something and have to find a camera position with nothing behind it. The shift key gives me the best of both worlds.

Now if I could convince SW that not all construction lines are center lines.

Although I know about using the Shift key, I almost never do use it, though I work with "transparent" parts often. To me it's almost always easier to rotate the model with my 3d mouse so there's not another Part under my cursor.

Yes, I know, I could use the Shift key on my 3d mouse so I wouldn't have to move my hand to the keyboard, but I rarely think of it. Muscle memory is a powerful thing.

[mattpeneguy]

Although I know about using the Shift key, I almost never do use it, though I work with "transparent" parts often. To me it's almost always easier to rotate the model with my 3d mouse so there's not another Part under my cursor.

Yes, I know, I could use the Shift key on my 3d mouse so I wouldn't have to move my hand to the keyboard, but I rarely think of it. Muscle memory is a powerful thing.

[Shaun]

Another pet peeve here:

Cut lists are automatically activated when you make a sheet metal part. Regardless of your settings.
So you start a sheet metal part & it will automatically activate 'Create Cut Lists Automatically' AND 'Update Automatically'. (Affects performance)
You also have to manually set the first part to be excluded from the cut list.

Now you manually turn this off. Both checkmarks!
Now you add a configuration & you split the body into two pieces.
GUESS WHO'S BACK?



And guess another thing? Yes, you have to exclude those two new pieces from the cut list again.

Thanks for pointing this out.

I have been wondering for some time why I keep getting loads of updating cut lists notifications in large general assemblies when I thought I had ticked the options not to update the cut lists in templates and in almost all parts.

I will be looking into this further when I get the time.

[Tom G]

I want folders in my display states.
Or, at least let me nest them by purpose like I could with configurations.

Just to add irony and salt in the wound, right clicking this list offers me to Collapse Items. Ooh, if I only could.

[berg_lauritz]

Another great pet peeve:

• If you have pre-defined views in your drawing template and you insert a part that has one configuration and has the sheet metal feature in it it will automatically create another configuration with a flat pattern, because it automatically selects the view palette when doing it. I pointed it out somewhere in the SWYMP already. Can't find it anymore.
  EVEN IF YOU NEVER USE THE FLAT PATTERN IN A DRAWING it will still be created!
  This flat pattern will also NOT have a display data mark - regardless of your settings!
• Adding a configuration to a part that has none also messes up the visual representation of any appearance you applied - because it RESETS IT KIND OF.
• Combine the above to get this: Using a visual grain representation on sheet parts will reset the grain angle you set for the appearance back to 0 degrees. This now happens automatically when you make a drawing. Even better - it happens SECRETLY!!!!!!
  The visual representation will LOOK the same until you check the part in/re-open/ it again or switch cfgs.

Watch this:

[mike miller]

Another great pet peeve:

• If you have pre-defined views in your drawing template and you insert a part that has one configuration and has the sheet metal feature in it it will automatically create another configuration with a flat pattern, because it automatically selects the view palette when doing it. I pointed it out somewhere in the SWYMP already. Can't find it anymore.
  EVEN IF YOU NEVER USE THE FLAT PATTERN IN A DRAWING it will still be created!
  This flat pattern will also NOT have a display data mark - regardless of your settings!
• Adding a configuration to a part that has none also messes up the visual representation of any appearance you applied - because it RESETS IT KIND OF.
• Combine the above to get this: Using a visual grain representation on sheet parts will reset the grain angle you set for the appearance back to 0 degrees. This now happens automatically when you make a drawing. Even better - it happens SECRETLY!!!!!!
  The visual representation will LOOK the same until you check the part in/re-open it again.

Watch this:
sheet metal problems.gif

The solution is simple. You're not supposed to use appearances for documentation or instructions.

[berg_lauritz]

The solution is simple. You're not supposed to use appearances for documentation or instructions.

It works as intended.

[KSHansen]

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

Referencing features to fillets, so I can't turn all the rounds off.

I'm making step files to use in large layouts, and trying to simplify them. I'd turn the draft off too, if I could.

[berg_lauritz]

It took me now about 4 years to figure this one out:
The property tab builder is significantly slower to load if you have at least one item in there that uses a linked excel list:

It actually looks like the property tab is querying the file (thus using the excel api) EVERY SINGLE TIME it has to load the property tab template. That means if you click on a part it will load with a fairly long delay.
Click onto an assembly and back onto a part again and it will load slow AGAIN.
This is extra stupid because for basically any other change in this tab you have to restart SolidWorks completely - so why does it keep querying?

Anyways - if you experience the same problem I would suggest to switch to a simple list instead. Worked wonders for us.

[bnemec]

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

Things like in the screen shot. It really shouldn't bother me so, but the amount of "Mindless Modeling" I run across when doing revisions or trying to use existing parts. It's not that it's a bad model per se. Its just that I wonder if the user's brain was even engaged in what they were doing. Like they try every single way to do something and leave it in our data set for fun, just to see what all errors might come of it down stream.

[TTevolve]

lol, I had a part I was modifying earlier this week, extruded one direction 2in and 6in in the other direction, totally nuts why someone would do that.