Видео

Inserting a part vs derived sketches is a questions that gets brought up quite a bit. I have not done enough testing between the two to say one should win outright. At this point I would view them as tools to have in the box. Get familiar with both and then pull each one out when you feel like is has the advantage. At this point I would say both are viable, but I am likely biased towards the SS method due to familiarity.

Thanks for the comment!

I have not used it, but if it is just a low cost license of the main desktop software, then yes.

@@Mesolas yes, you should be able to use any continuous surface body that completely divides the solid.

This is a great comment, as I can understand your frustration and am sure others have felt this way as well. I have felt the same way watching people do surfacing Tutorials for SW too. The truth is, you are right, CAD is a terrible iteration and ideation tool. It takes way too long to create even the simplest of geometry, let alone build proper file structure and dependent relationships. However, even though that is true, the solution is not to throw those things out. That would be an excuse for poor CAD practices. Rather, it is to use other, more effective tools for the ideation and conceptualization phase. Moving to CAD only when you can leverage what it does best, relationships and structure. Imagine you are trying to design a new house by building walls and pouring concrete, then half way through you realize the layout isn’t right. It would feel really clunky to have to rip all that out to change the design. In fact, that frustration may cause you to build lighter weight walls, or to try to move the concrete around while it’s still wet. The need for flexibility would create bad practices with those tools because they are being used for a job they are not designed for. Same thing here. You are using CAD tool too early in the process to be utilized properly, therefore you are creating bad practices to try and use the tool for something it is not designed for. On a real-world project for a client, it is very rare that I will touch CAD before I have gone through extensive ideation and industrial design with pen and paper or tablet drawing tools. Keep in mind, I am an engineer, not an artist, so these drawings are often very rough and unsightly. Then, once the client has signed of on a design direction based on the 2D sketches, we move towards CAD, then iterate from there. Often times we will design a CAD model and then find a new design direction, but even then, we will go back to 2D sketching and establish direction before trying to capture the idea in a new model. Also, keep in mind you are watching tutorials on how to CAD, not how to design a product from scratch. You only see “cad software designers and instructors” showing you how to draw stuff they already know, because they are trying to show you how to use the tool, not a documentary on their overall process. To make videos showing how to ideate or conceptualize in CAD would be untruthful to their process and bad practice. Hope this helps clarify some things, feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or comments!

@@forgeproductdevelopment no substitute for pen(cil) & paper, highlighters for ideation! That said, I start with some simple reference goemetry in CAD to establish constraints, key datums, and simple sketches. This because we've all sketched something that "made sense" until you put it to scale... Print rudimentary CAD, sketch to ideate, update the sketches, occassionally add more reference features, lather, rinse, repeat. This also creates a breadcrumb trail.

@@raphaelhamm3853 This is an excellent suggestion as well. We have designed products where there are PCBs and motors, attachment points, or other components that are selected based on previous calculations. Sometimes we import those into CAD early on to get a sense of scale, and export out images to draw over the top of when coming up with designs. I think the heart of the matter is "start with what you have and select the best tool to move your forward given the initial conditions'. Whether that be from COTS components, systems you need to integrate with, mathematical calculations, or a completely blank sheet of paper. Each project is unique and part of the fun of engineering is getting to solve and optimize for those challenges along the way.

USA

Glad you are enjoying it! I hope it has been helpful. I don't have a scanner in house, but have sent out parts to have scans generated before. I recently did some testing with photogrammetry, but was unable to produce a model of adequate quality.

Cheers!

Surfacing in solidworks can be tricky, but once you get the feel for it, it is very rewarding. I would also recommend trying some other programs, such as rhino, zbrush, and blender, as they can be valuable tools in your belt.

Amazing that this is still helping people

Greetings! Did it help?

@@forgeproductdevelopment yes, very helpful... l've never worked with surface modeling, so I'm trying to learn it by myself

@@duduposser I found learning surfacing within the solidworks community to be difficult, as there are not a lot of intensive tutorials. Please let me know if you find any good material or find an area where you think a video could be helpful!

@@forgeproductdevelopment I work with rotational molding. Usually the design of most products is not so complex but now I am facing a new project with all these curves

Kar98K! Now you are in my world! Is this for work or fun? Let me know if you want some help on it!

Is you are using off the shelf gears, the distance between gear axis will = (PD1 + PD2) / 2 Where PD is the Pitch Diameter for gear 1 and 2. The pitch diameter should be listed in the specifications for the gear. If not, you can calculate it given other know values of the gear (module, number of teeth, etc.). Does that help?

@@forgeproductdevelopment thx

Absolutely, I would create a part file within the assembly and put the mesh in that file, then use that as a reference for the other part files within that assembly. Try to keep the part file with the mesh at the top of the assembly design tree. Does that help?

@@forgeproductdevelopment Thanks Sir. How about creating an assembly of mesh models? Is that possible Sir?

@@Pathfinder_1314 It should be. Have you tried creating part files, each with its own part of the mesh, and then inserting those part files into an assembly?

@@forgeproductdevelopment yes Sir. I created mesh bodies as part files but the Mate Feature doesn't work on them. Do you have a video reference to this topic Sir?

@@Pathfinder_1314 Ah yes! The mate commands will not work on the mesh. You will need to create some form of geometry within each part file to mate to, either sketches or surfaces will work. This video shows how to create geometry within the part files using the mesh as reference.

Thanks

Glad I could help!

Happy to help! Are you making it out of tube? Do you have the scan yet?

@@forgeproductdevelopment it will be a combination of both tube and plate. I do have a scan already. I have uploaded on to Solidworks but now I don’t know where to go from there 😬.

Is this for work or fun? If you send me the scan I am happy to show you some things. Send it to info@forgepd.com

@@forgeproductdevelopment this would be for my business. Sounds good will do!

I have watched those before! Those guys are very fast (faster than me haha). Do you know if they post recordings? I have thought about doing a previous challenge and then comparing it to the winners recording, to see where I lost time and pick up some tips.

Thanks!

Is this when you try to "save as" .stl it is not an option, or after you save the file it is not in the location you saved it to?