CAD Forum

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:57 pm

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:09 am
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?

That behavior is actually designed in.
I remember reading a post from one of the Solidworks employees mentioning that the line is fully defined until you drag it. Then it isn't. This is so that you can easily get a partial line or and extension.

dpihlaja wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:46 pm
That behavior is actually designed in.
I remember reading a post from one of the Solidworks employees mentioning that the line is fully defined until you drag it. Then it isn't. This is so that you can easily get a partial line or and extension.

Right, but it defeats the purpose of fully defining your sketch, and the confidence you have in the fully defined title. It doesn't really mean it's locked down. In fact there are settings that will change dimensions when you drag lines. So putting much stock in the revered black sketch is misplaced. Just getting it fully defined to have it fully defined is a fools errand. Give yourself the control you need.

Did you ever see how Solid Edge deals with dimensions? You can tell it which end of a linear dimension should move when changing. On the fly. Or maybe it changes symmetrically. You don't have to go back and change all the relations in the sketch to change that behavior. It's just another one of those brilliant things that someone else came up with and SW users just ignore.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:57 pm

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:09 am
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?

Fully defined till it's moved, up to then it is fully defined as stated. Very similar to "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

If you look at the definition of sound (sound produced by continuous and regular vibrations, as opposed to noise), it would make a sound as long as there is something there to hear it, animal, bird etc...

Roasted By John wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:01 pm


Fully defined till it's moved, up to then it is fully defined as stated. Very similar to "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Blue lines are the same. Don't move until they do. Don't see the difference.

Blue lines don't make no sound.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm 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?

Hey, that's my favorite feature.........I remember missing that great when I went to NX for a few years. Convert/projecting sucked in NX....if you trimmed it it lost all relations. Might be better now...I hope.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:19 pm Blue lines are the same. Don't move until they do. Don't see the difference.

It is fully defined....they just let you drag and break the condition. I wish I could do that elsewhere in fact.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:57 pm

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:09 am
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?

It's worth something. I'm just not sure how much.

In the case I listed above I like that I don't get the (-) in front of the sketch if I don't fully define the end points of construction lines. I don't care at all about some things in the tree that bother other people (like numbered feature names that aren't consecutive), but I don't like to see that minus sign.

But, if you grab the endpoint of the line, you can drag it.

I complained before.
Told it is design feature.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:39 pm
It's worth something. I'm just not sure how much.

In the case I listed above I like that I don't get the (-) in front of the sketch if I don't fully define the end points of construction lines. I don't care at all about some things in the tree that bother other people (like numbered feature names that aren't consecutive), but I don't like to see that minus sign.

Actually, I mostly agree, but I like to get people a little riled up. I've been through the whole gamut, from wild bohemian enamored with the freedom when I first started out, to strict authoritarian when I started teaching, doing support and consulting, to now, when if it's broke, I'll fix it, don't wake me up unless it's on fire.

And it depends on what I'm modeling. If I'm doing splines, I don't even pretend to care, because no matter how locked down you think your spline is, there is always a way to eff it up without touching a dimension or a relation. If it's lines, I make sure the dimensions and relations work together. But I'm not going to get my nose bent if someone misses a line that doesn't matter.

Frederick_Law wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:58 pm

But, if you grab the endpoint of the line, you can drag it.

I complained before.
Told it is design feature.

You would be the one to complain about functionality like that.

@matt , it's actually pretty straightforward. When entities are converted, they are all fully defined if they close off a contour. You cannot drag a corner or a line (see below).
But as soon as it is no longer closed, you can drag a point, but not a line (see below).
You could argue that it's not consistent, but as long as there is no user input of dragging the point, it goes nowhere; even if there is another feature or external reference that attempts to force it. Now an under defined line, that will go places under the right circumstances.

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:35 pm @matt , it's actually pretty straightforward. When entities are converted, they are all fully defined if they close off a contour. You cannot drag a corner or a line (see below).

Yeah, I get it. Should have used purple again. I was just trying to get someone to take a swing.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:43 pm

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:35 pm @matt , it's actually pretty straightforward. When entities are converted, they are all fully defined if they close off a contour. You cannot drag a corner or a line (see below).

Yeah, I get it. Should have used purple again. I was just trying to get someone to take a swing.

Oof. I should've known better than lecturing the author of Mastering Solidworks.

(I'm reading it right now. Hats off to @matt !)

I actually kinda like that the end points of "Convert Entities" lines aren't restrained. It's come in handy for me a number of times.

When creating or editing the Save Bodies feature, the file location for the new or newly edited body is the last file location you saved something in a SW session - Argh$@#!! I really think it should be the same directory as the master part file (which currently contains the Save Body feature) by default, then if you want to change its location, you can alternatively do that.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:57 pm

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:09 am
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?

Edit to Add: I see you were being sarcastic from subsequent posts...I'll leave this up though because it does explain this as intended functionality.
@matt,
I agree this is unintuitive because it had to be explained to me. IIRC, they wanted to make this functionality "easy". So when you convert entities those endpoints are linked to the underlying geometry but there are no coincident relations per se(they're there but it doesn't work the same as a "real" relation). Try updating the underlying geometry and the converted sketch will update accordingly (as long as you haven't moved an end point). But if you move an endpoint it loses its reference to the underlying geometry and SW will correctly recognize the sketch as not fully defined. This is definitely one of those "consistently inconsistent" things in SW because it works differently than any reasonable person would expect, but AFAIK, it works exactly as they planned.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:42 pm I actually kinda like that the end points of "Convert Entities" lines aren't restrained. It's come in handy for me a number of times.

They're meta-restrained...which confused the hell out of me when I first encountered it.

mattpeneguy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:56 pm They're meta-restrained...which confused the hell out of me when I first encountered it.

I prefer "Quasi-constrained" and its one my favorites aspects of SolidWorks that I haven't seen in other CAD software. I just wish you could see a "coincident" in another color or have the ability to add it back once it's broken.

Here's one from today - a sheet metal box with a bottom and four sides, all sides the same height, four sketches for the sides, each sketch with its own height dimension.

Dwight

I love the way SW from time to time jumps from my right monitor to the left monitor without cause, without warning.

Uncle_Hairball wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:27 pm I love the way SW from time to time jumps from my right monitor to the left monitor without cause, without warning.

Yep, happens to me often as well. It's always a guess where any Solidworks itself, or any of the sub windows, will pop up.

But then again what do you expect from programmers that can't even make toolbars actually stick to the place you put them. Something that even barely functional acad clones back in the 90's could do.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm 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?

..amazing how many "fully defined" meme's are on the web!

Came across this today Please, please don't put everything in a sketch and don't use sketch mirror for a large amount of lines!
Unfortunately I can't blame @mike miller for this one!

Jaylin Hochstetler wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:05 pm Came across this today
image.png
Please, please don't put everything in a sketch and don't use sketch mirror for a large amount of lines!
Unfortunately I can't blame @mike miller for this one!

How in the world can you even get that many constraints on so few pieces of geometry? I would actually give a gold star for most redundant restraints without creating a constraint conflict.

Jaylin Hochstetler wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:05 pm Came across this today
image.png
Please, please don't put everything in a sketch and don't use sketch mirror for a large amount of lines!
Unfortunately I can't blame @mike miller for this one!

It looks to me like someone needs to be educated about the benefits of the Hole Wizard feature.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:14 am It looks to me like someone needs to be educated about the benefits of the Hole Wizard feature.

I guess I could have used the hole wizard but it didn't seem like the right feature for the application.

So I ended up making the "x" slots a separate cut, sketching the 2 lines and arcs, doing a sketch circular pattern, doing a linear pattern of the Cut feature, and done, fully parametric! Another pet peeve of mine is sketch bends, especially if an edge flange could have been used. They fail easily and their just a pain...

Jaylin Hochstetler wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:04 am I guess I could have used the hole wizard but it didn't seem like the right feature for the application.

So I ended up making the "x" slots a separate cut, sketching the 2 lines and arcs, doing a sketch circular pattern, doing a linear pattern of the Cut feature, and done, fully parametric!
image.png
image.png

Another pet peeve of mine is sketch bends, especially if an edge flange could have been used. They fail easily and their just a pain...

I take it back. You're right about the Hole Wizard not being right for that. I didn't realize those were + shaped cuts. I didn't see the horizontal portions since they are almost completely hidden by the relation icons in the screenshot.

I hate it when people attach useful videos and files but I am unable to access them. What setting do I need to change to fix this.

Case in point:

So I ended up making the "x" slots a separate cut, sketching the 2 lines and arcs, doing a sketch circular pattern, doing a linear pattern of the Cut feature, and done, fully parametric!
image.png
image.png

This is a method that I sometimes like to use - Draw two slots
Make them equal
Add locating/sizing dimensions
Select contours when making the cut
t

Jim Steinmeyer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:58 pm I hate it when people attach useful videos and files but I am unable to access them. What setting do I need to change to fix this.

Case in point:

The server or something hiccupped a few weeks ago and all attachments were lost. @matt can probably explain it better; I mean he can definitely explain it better.

Ok, no problem, I thought that was behind up but I guess these were posted before that.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:44 pm The server or something hiccupped a few weeks ago and all attachments were lost. @matt can probably explain it better; I mean he can definitely explain it better.

Uh, yeah, The server or something hiccupped a few weeks ago and all attachments were lost.

Actually it was back in April, I think a plugin corrupted some image files.

The dreaded line (or entity) which goes to too far (or beyond the 1KM space?) and causes display "jittering" issues with the sldprt.
Had this happen recently.. and recall a fix,.. make a 1km cube,.. save, open and delete the cube/sketch.
Problem is gone..

I tried using bounding box, for a multibody weldment part. Apparently, it only applies well to individual weldment bodies, and not this part.
In the variables, I can reference its length and width.. BUT NOT HEIGHT? I don't understand its usefulness. Maybe it's meant for others' varied uses, such as sheet metal. Also, its thickness returned 31" where no body is thicker than 1/4". May I learn?

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm 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?

Same goes for offset entities.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm 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?

This was/is a big stumbling block coming from Solid Edge, it didn't change lines segment color until the segment was fully defined (endpoints included.) I look at it as a "line" does not have endpoints and is fully defined when it cannot move in any way other than along its axis. A line "segment" is defined by the endpoints. So I tried to use this to help users remember, Solid Edge used line segments and Soidworks uses lines, the endpoints need to be defined separately. It's dumb, but it helps me to remember that when SW says a "line" is fully defined it does not include the location of the endpoints along that line, just direction of the line in space. That's why the line turns color but the endpoints do not.

Tom G wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:15 pm I tried using bounding box, for a multibody weldment part. Apparently, it only applies well to individual weldment bodies, and not this part.
In the variables, I can reference its length and width.. BUT NOT HEIGHT? I don't understand its usefulness. Maybe it's meant for others' varied uses, such as sheet metal. Also, its thickness returned 31" where no body is thicker than 1/4". May I learn?

Since this earlier post, I learned that Bounding Box stinks in 2018 when first released, and was much improved in 2019. I have even more issues with it because I'm still on 2018.

If you have a BBox anywhere in your assembly or drawing, it will be visible when opening, regardless of its hidden status when the file was last saved and closed. Every time: open file, hide BBox, carry on with work. The fix to this is to suppress it. This is fine with me, because I do not refer to its properties, but rather use it to find if this component will fit through a man-door or other opening. I create and query it, and then turn it back off.

I have also read that someone else had dimensions attaching to the bounding box in a drawing instead of the component's edge - and his was a baseline ordinate dimension so that his ordinate zero moved when the bounding box was altered. Again, suppress works better than hide.

And finally, today I learned that Bounding Box is not available to add in a component with no bodies. While this makes a bit of sense, that would also mean that you cannot add it to an empty part template.

I am glad at least that I do not rely on this feature often.

I've never used a bounding box. What am I missing?

I just ran into one of mine today - and fixed it. Hot keys - specifically, those that are just the regular keys - that is not CTRL, ALT, etc. So many times I go to make a meaningful name for a feature, and apparently the click to edit the name didn't take, and I have who knows what happening to the model as I type away....

So I found out how to edit them, and remove the offending ones.

SPerman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:15 pm I've never used a bounding box. What am I missing?

Nothing, if you haven't needed it. It shows the geometric extents of an object as a rectangular box. Its values are parametrically relatable as a variable to use in drawings or whatever. Some people find it useful for weldments or sheet metal pieces.

This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, but I've encountered a limitation in Import Diagnostics for the first time: 1341 Faulty Faces is too many to solve all at once. (New vendor - oh nice, they have STP files for their products - oh geez, they included everything - I'll need to simplify this)
Clicking Cancel, by the way, also caused the system to run out of memory and otherwise become unstable. Sometimes a dead end does get you nowhere.

Let's see if I can stir up a little controversy. My #1 peeve is when other users design parts that are not on the primary planes. The argument for this approach seems to be that it isn't necessary and doesn't add anything to the part. Unfortunately, it completely overlooks the utility of having planes of symmetry available for mating in assemblies. It also overlooks that fact that when the part is off the origin, the default zoom may be much farther out.

Uncle_Hairball wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:45 pm Let's see if I can stir up a little controversy. My #1 peeve is when other users design parts that are not on the primary planes. The argument for this approach seems to be that it isn't necessary and doesn't add anything to the part. Unfortunately, it completely overlooks the utility of having planes of symmetry available for mating in assemblies. It also overlooks that fact that when the part is off the origin, the default zoom may be much farther out.

For me parts are almost always started on the main planes but I often do not have any parts on the main planes in an assembly.

This also depends on some other things you may do. For instance in the automotive industry it is a common practice to have the part designed in car position. Essentially everything is designed around that. For instance we did a lot of gages where tooling balls were actually placed in some basic "In car position". Depending on company we even had to scribe the actual positions and lines onto the base.

By doing this you could import any part from that vehicle with it's 0,0,0 point into a model at 0,0,0 and two planes aligned and actually put the car together with only mating to the original and origin planes.

MJuric wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:03 pm For me parts are almost always started on the main planes but I often do not have any parts on the main planes in an assembly.

This also depends on some other things you may do. For instance in the automotive industry it is a common practice to have the part designed in car position. Essentially everything is designed around that. For instance we did a lot of gages where tooling balls were actually placed in some basic "In car position". Depending on company we even had to scribe the actual positions and lines onto the base.

By doing this you could import any part from that vehicle with it's 0,0,0 point into a model at 0,0,0 and two planes aligned and actually put the car together with only mating to the original and origin planes.

I used to work for McDonnell Aircraft (now Boeing) making F-15s, F/A-18s, AV8-Bs and T-45s. We also had everything in "aircraft coordinates". 0,0,0 was actually on the aircraft centerline, but 100" in front of it.

DennisD wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 6:14 pm but 100" in front of it.

That makes sense because that's where the flock of geese are that are about to get sucked into your engines and put you into an unpowered noise dive. That being said we have an aerospace company here in town I used to do work for that makes the emergency generators that get deployed in just such an event. It's like having a backup generator for your house except you're 30K feet in the air. Gives you just enough power for steering, flaps etc to get back to the ground...hopefully safely.

The thing I have to keep coming back to is that there is no "Right way" do to things and that applies to pretty much everything including CAD....and politics. There are almost always more than one way to arrive at a "Good" solution to any problem and that path can and will be influenced by many many factors.

Be leery of people/groups that say "Only I know the right way and everyone else is wrong".

Uncle_Hairball wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:45 pm .....It also overlooks that fact that when the part is off the origin, the default zoom may be much farther out.

Default zoom does not include the origin unless there is some geometry there. Try it. If your body is off in the middle of nowhere, then it will zoom to the body.

Have you ever noticed that the red "X" on the Dimension tool is totally useless? It should cancel the command and not create a dimension at all.
Clicking "X" has the same effect as clicking the green checkmark. ESC only confirms as well. Double-clicking not only confirms but also exits the sketch. What kind of twisted genius came up with this interface? What's the purpose of the X if it does nothing?

P.S. I think it bugs me because I'm now used to SE's rational approach to UI.

mike miller wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:45 pm Have you ever noticed that the red "X" on the Dimension tool is totally useless? It should cancel the command and not create a dimension at all.

2021-10-13 13_28_17.jpg

Clicking "X" has the same effect as clicking the green checkmark. ESC only confirms as well. Double-clicking not only confirms but also exits the sketch. What kind of twisted genius came up with this interface? What's the purpose of the X if it does nothing?

P.S. I think it bugs me because I'm now used to SE's rational approach to UI.

I've noticed that and sometimes it really make me unhappy. There is no way to not place the dimension once you get to that point. So if you get to that point you have to place it and delete it.

Quite frankly I'm not even sure why that window even exists. Check and "X" do the same thing. The "rebuild" button seems rather useless as if you're in that sketch everything dependent on it is not visible and nothing prior to it will be effected by a change in that sketch. I've been using SW for six years now and have never "reversed the sense", in fact I can't think of two many cases when simply dragging the geometry isn't easier. The next thing is for changing the increments for the spin wheel....but the use of that is rather...well, almost useless. If you draw something from the begining, in order to get it to an exact dimension....you have to add a dimension or enter a distance somehow. Why would you not put the number in in the first place? If you wanted to change it...click on the dim and change it. Other wise you have to change the setting in the spin wheel to whatever increment you want then spin the spin wheel. "Show in drawing" there's better ways to do that too .

So in the end you essentially have an entire dialogue box that does almost nothing and adds an additional click to every dimension you place. When you click to place the dim you should be done.

mike miller wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:45 pm Have you ever noticed that the red "X" on the Dimension tool is totally useless? It should cancel the command and not create a dimension at all.

2021-10-13 13_28_17.jpg

Clicking "X" has the same effect as clicking the green checkmark. ESC only confirms as well. Double-clicking not only confirms but also exits the sketch. What kind of twisted genius came up with this interface? What's the purpose of the X if it does nothing?

P.S. I think it bugs me because I'm now used to SE's rational approach to UI.

The tooltip for the 'X' says exactly what it does: "Restore the original value and exit the dialog". The dialog is multipurpose. If you are modifying an existing dimension, and then decide not to, the 'X' lets you cancel the operation.

JSculley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:33 pm The tooltip for the 'X' says exactly what it does: "Restore the original value and exit the dialog". The dialog is multipurpose. If you are modifying an existing dimension, and then decide not to, the 'X' lets you cancel the operation.

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.

MJuric wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:58 pm 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.

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.