Weldment cut angle and direction

[SolidKeke]

Problem:
I have a model made with structural member tools. It has 2 different bodies but the bill of materials shows exactly the same information for both of them. See image below. I want to use structural member tools to modeling and show to workshop guys only the bill of materials and they would immediately know what to do.

I already have a system built where I can make structure with separate part files which can tell difference between those shown bodies above. Biggest downside is that each member is it's own part and modeling is not even close as quick as it would be with structural member. All the mating and other stuff is just overwhelming with any larger structure.

I really hope someone has something in mind but as I couldn't find anything from internet I guess there's nothing to do

[Glenn Schroeder]

I don't know of any way to do it with just the cut list. My cut lists don't even have the column for angle.

If the body isn't detailed it's assumed both ends are 90° and they have no holes or other cuts. If that's not the case then I show a drawing view of the body and add dimensions as appropriate.

[SolidKeke]

I don't know of any way to do it with just the cut list. My cut lists don't even have the column for angle.

If the body isn't detailed it's assumed both ends are 90° and they have no holes or other cuts. If that's not the case then I show a drawing view of the body and add dimensions as appropriate.

Thing is that I know a way to do it with just a cut list but I need solidworks first to recognize the difference between right-hand and left-hand cut.

My goal is that we could export all the project's cut lists to ERP so workshop guys could just start cutting without ever reading the drawings. Now it needs a lot of manual work for cutters to check quantities, lengths and angles before they could start cutting since there is no real "CUT" list, it's just a list that shows how much tube is required for each structure.

[Damo]

I don't know of any way to do it with just the cut list. My cut lists don't even have the column for angle.

If the body isn't detailed it's assumed both ends are 90° and they have no holes or other cuts. If that's not the case then I show a drawing view of the body and add dimensions as appropriate.

One can customise the cutlist table to include angle dimensions. This is a simple matter.
But this is useless when trying to determine which face of RHS is to be the mitre cut face or the 90deg face.
(think NOT square tube. Is the mitre on the long or short face.?)
Nor is it any good at all when trying to decipher whether the mitres (45deg for example) are parallel or perpendicular.
Your method, same as mine, is the surest way to eliminate ambiguity.

I cannot grok the OP intent.

[Damo]

Thing is that I know a way to do it with just a cut list but I need solidworks first to recognize the difference between right-hand and left-hand cut.

My goal is that we could export all the project's cut lists to ERP so workshop guys could just start cutting without ever reading the drawings. Now it needs a lot of manual work for cutters to check quantities, lengths and angles before they could start cutting since there is no real "CUT" list, it's just a list that shows how much tube is required for each structure.

I'll be honest. Ive been using weldments and cutlist for over 10years. (I consider Structure Systems to be a joke/gimmick.)
Weldments cutlist would indeed instantly recognise these two parts as unique. But the same issue would apply.
There are 2 pieces, the mitres are 45 at each end and they are 90deg opposed. but there is no way I know of to have them reconised as opposites.
Or, for that matter, were there only one piece, which direction of the 90deg rotation that should be.

Have you ever been able to send this kind of info to the saw operators previously without a drawing.?
Why would you want to.?

(Our steel merchant offers a mitre-cut to size service for large packs/projects and they INSIST on fully dimensioned 3rd angle projection drawings to ensure correct cutting. Unless like Glenn stated, there are no angles mentioned and the cut is assumed 90deg straight.)

[SolidKeke]

One can customise the cutlist table to include angle dimensions. This is a simple matter.
But this is useless when trying to determine which face of RHS is to be the mitre cut face or the 90deg face.
(think NOT square tube. Is the mitre on the long or short face.?)
Nor is it any good at all when trying to decipher whether the mitres (45deg for example) are parallel or perpendicular.
Your method, same as mine, is the surest way to eliminate ambiguity.

I cannot grok the OP intent.

My system includes also rectangle hollow sections and specifies the long or short face. Cutter has a drawing which shows what the sawing "code" means.
Here it is, feel free to use. Example cutting code would be 100x100x4 A45A45 L=500 and the drawing shows the angles. It goes a little deeper than this and I'm not gonna explain the whole thing here to all world but it really is an idiot-proof system and works as a charm. I just don't like the way the modelling works right now, I want it to work with structural members

[SolidKeke]

Have you ever been able to send this kind of info to the saw operators previously without a drawing.?
Why would you want to.?

Yes I'm able to give this cutting info to saw operator, see my post above. Reason for this is that it reduces production time significantly when operator doesn't need to read the drawings and calculate quantities for each member. When cut-list is exported to ERP, operator can just start cutting. I'm aware that this is not suitable for every project house but for our needs it fits pretty much perfectly.

[Damo]

My system includes also rectangle hollow sections and specifies the long or short face. Cutter has a drawing which shows what the sawing "code" means.
Here it is, feel free to use. Example cutting code would be 100x100x4 A45A45 L=500 and the drawing shows the angles. It goes a little deeper than this and I'm not gonna explain the whole thing here to all world but it really is an idiot-proof system and works as a charm. I just don't like the way the modelling works right now, I want it to work with structural members

image.png

Ahh..

Interesting. I see. The image is the key to deciphering the requirement. Makes sense. You developed this code and process.?
Well, this is kinda clever I'll admit. And I don't hate it.
I'll be honest tho, I'm not sure I can agree with your statement of "Idiot-proof". (Even if out of sheer principle that there literally is no such thing*)
But this method does seem, to me at least, to have potential for misinterpretation. Especially with manually entered data.
I learnt the hard way to never underestimate the potential for ambiguity.
If there is any way for the drawing to be misinterpreted or misunderstood, it is a bad drawing. I posit the same applies to input data.

Added some fun quotes:
*- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. (Douglas Adams)
- Nothing is foolproof to a suffiently talented fool. (Stephen Hawking)
- There's no such thing as a foolproof system. That idea fails to take into account the creativity of fools. (Frank Abagnale)

[SolidKeke]

Ahh..

Interesting. I see. The image is the key to deciphering the requirement. Makes sense. You developed this code and process.?
Well, this is kinda clever I'll admit. And I don't hate it.
I'll be honest tho, I'm not sure I can agree with your statement of "Idiot-proof". (Even if out of sheer principle that there literally is no such thing*)
But this method does seem, to me at least, to have potential for misinterpretation. Especially with manually entered data.
I learnt the hard way to never underestimate the potential for ambiguity.
If there is any way for the drawing to be misinterpreted or misunderstood, it is a bad drawing. I posit the same applies to input data.

Added some fun quotes:
*- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. (Douglas Adams)
- Nothing is foolproof to a suffiently talented fool. (Stephen Hawking)
- There's no such thing as a foolproof system. That idea fails to take into account the creativity of fools. (Frank Abagnale)

Let's say "as fool-proof as possible" then I made the coding with some insipiration stolen from others, but as I said it goes a little deeper than the example given. Manual error-possibility is removed because my part-template includes a macro that takes care that the cut-code will be always consistent. System has been in a real-life use and proven to work. Ofcourse it requires some brain activity from saw operator and a small company like ours can't afford to hire monkeys to operate the saw. If operator has any questions, designer is always under the same roof.

Let's also clarify that I would never order steel parts without a drawing from sub-contractor. The whole idea to this coding-system came from a big(ish) sub-contractor who has been using similar kind of system but there definately was big holes that could lead to misinterpretation so I came up with this better version of it.