It's also a lot of younger "designers" have no idea how things are made, where a lot of us older designers have worked with, or maybe even in machine shops. We know what parts are going to be turned on a lathe, machined with CNC, or cast, or molded. Many CAD modelers are just that. They don't know what a part does, or how a part is going to be made, but just get the final shape in any way possible. I will say. I hate move bodies. It's bitten my in the ass when I change a dimension on an existing part, but then it gets built the same way as before... Because the move bodies (that I didn't notice was there) overwrote my changed sketch dimension. I've made a habit of scrolling down the model tree to make sure there aren't any move bodies that are going to screw me up since. I'm going to try this model (I'm using Solidworks) and see how fast I can do it.
yeah I think a lot of us have been in that spot@@indianadave8881 - I've used MOVE FACE to make a part "a little wider" but then later when I make a drawing it uses the original dimension - total FACE PALM. But when you just need to get the models out the door for the machine shop, you do whatcha gotta do 🙂
Agree - its cool that the onshape team can capture such detailed analytics, because of the nature of all their users being in a online environment. I thought that was really insightful!
@@indianadave8881 It really is true though about the 3D printing. I have a lot of experience with 3D printing, and in fact I would most likely be printing a part like this if I was going to make it. My little professional experience is in UAV research, where 3D printing is extremely prolific and virtually nothing is machined other than carbon fiber plate, so I just don't have a lot of time modelling things that are turned or milled (though I have done it). I'd also note that a lot of the people in my lab who are older make really bad 3D printed parts sometimes because they are used to machined. Avoiding overhangs and getting the right print orientation in respect to your intended loading conditions is critical to a strong part. Design errors in terms of printability can create weak parts, or even unusable dimensional accuracy.
I almost pulled the craziest Ivan exploit, but I think I misread an earlier dimension so my mass would have been wrong, and was more than a few seconds too late so it wouldn't have mattered. I ran into the same issue that needed a move body as he did, but I was just going to ignore the way the part looked and just let the ribs pattern over only 180 degrees.
Awww yeah that would have been EPIC!! I thought about that when I watched the replay and I think it would have still worked and given you the correct mass. Man such awesome matches! thanks again for being a part of this tourney!
2:42 Very interesting observation about age playing a role in the approach to modeling eg. Additive vs subtractive manufacturing.
It's also a lot of younger "designers" have no idea how things are made, where a lot of us older designers have worked with, or maybe even in machine shops. We know what parts are going to be turned on a lathe, machined with CNC, or cast, or molded.
Many CAD modelers are just that. They don't know what a part does, or how a part is going to be made, but just get the final shape in any way possible.
I will say. I hate move bodies.
It's bitten my in the ass when I change a dimension on an existing part, but then it gets built the same way as before...
Because the move bodies (that I didn't notice was there) overwrote my changed sketch dimension.
I've made a habit of scrolling down the model tree to make sure there aren't any move bodies that are going to screw me up since.
I'm going to try this model (I'm using Solidworks) and see how fast I can do it.
yeah I think a lot of us have been in that spot@@indianadave8881 - I've used MOVE FACE to make a part "a little wider" but then later when I make a drawing it uses the original dimension - total FACE PALM. But when you just need to get the models out the door for the machine shop, you do whatcha gotta do 🙂
Agree - its cool that the onshape team can capture such detailed analytics, because of the nature of all their users being in a online environment. I thought that was really insightful!
@@indianadave8881 It really is true though about the 3D printing. I have a lot of experience with 3D printing, and in fact I would most likely be printing a part like this if I was going to make it. My little professional experience is in UAV research, where 3D printing is extremely prolific and virtually nothing is machined other than carbon fiber plate, so I just don't have a lot of time modelling things that are turned or milled (though I have done it).
I'd also note that a lot of the people in my lab who are older make really bad 3D printed parts sometimes because they are used to machined. Avoiding overhangs and getting the right print orientation in respect to your intended loading conditions is critical to a strong part. Design errors in terms of printability can create weak parts, or even unusable dimensional accuracy.
ivan epic clutch wth (wasnt expecting it (literally flabberghasted))
Yeah that was soooo cool - and it kinda overshadowed the fact that he used a RIB to create that rear lug, which was also a very clever approach!
I almost pulled the craziest Ivan exploit, but I think I misread an earlier dimension so my mass would have been wrong, and was more than a few seconds too late so it wouldn't have mattered.
I ran into the same issue that needed a move body as he did, but I was just going to ignore the way the part looked and just let the ribs pattern over only 180 degrees.
Awww yeah that would have been EPIC!! I thought about that when I watched the replay and I think it would have still worked and given you the correct mass. Man such awesome matches! thanks again for being a part of this tourney!
made this today, got the correct answer 1648 grams. did not time myself though, just for fun.
yeah these were some fun models!