History-vs-Non History based CAD softwares 8

[btcoutermash]

Does anybody have any good articles where they have compared history based -vs- Non history based CAD software??? Primarily I was lloking for productivity benchmarks. Any help would be great. Thanx.

Brad

 

[Pevac]

I wonder how do you know if his comparison is inaccurate? Have you ever used Vellum? Let's not be too defensive! Nothing is perfect.

I would agree that solidworks doesn't allow you to be nearly creative enough... having said that, I am getting used to it and it is still a productivity boost from anything else...

We just wish it had only good sides and no bad... well... tough luck I think!

 

[macPT]

Well I've been out from this thread from sometime because I was feeling that it was turning into a discussion somewhat different from the original question.

But Pevac inspired me for a final statement.

For that I will use an example. Imagine that you by a good car: a Mercedes. You can enjoy this car and feel that it's the best car in the world. Now put it off road. Will it perform OK? NO. Why not, if it's a good car? Because it was not designed to do it. Thats why Mercedes have the ML jeep. So don't compare prices between these two to choose one. Otherwise you will end coursing your decision when you are stucked with your car in the middle of the sand, but don0t blame Mercedes.

SW is a mechanical design CAD. And it's a good one, competing in a very hard market and ganing a good positon. Is it creative? Yes, from the machanical design point of view. Could you perform better with other CAD? I am shure that ther are Pro/E users, or SE users that would not change to SW for "anything" on the world. Every CAD have their strengths and weeknesses. But I am also shure if the transition was needed, sunner or later this "other CAD" user would be performing very well on SW (I know it, I'm one), maybe doing things a bit different, but having good results.

But I am comparing products of the same family: mechanical design CAD.

So, the original question from btcoutermash it's triky, because he/she want's to benchmark a Mercedes car with a Mercedes Jeep. He/she either need a car or a jeep. So he/she should benchmark Mercedes car with other cars (BMW, Volvo,...) or Mercedes jeep with other jeeps. But first he/she need to know what type of vehicle suits him better.

And a final note. SW is improving it's tools for surface generation, being more suitable to use in industrial design.
Although I am concern primarely with the product functions rather than the product appearance, I also take care of this issue. And I can live happily with SW. But I see others like Ed Eaton or Theophilus (among others) or companies like DIMONTE or IDEO using SW for industrial design. Could they be that wrong?

Regards

 

[ctopher]

My only comment ... why isn't there a Vellum forum here?

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
"DON'T BE IRREPLACEABLE. IF YOU CAN'T BE REPLACED, YOU CAN'T BE PROMOTED"

 

[gunnykiln]

As a Vellum user since 1996 and recently had to switch to SW I agree with ongybill in his comparison assessment. Moving from Vellum complete design freedom to SW extruded 2D sketches is a little like tying one arm behind your back when sculpting. Or playing pool and suddenly only being allowed to make bank shots. Sure you can still get it done, but its going to take longer and will feel awkward for a while. It's hard to explain to people that haven't used it, but in Vellum you design "the thing" directly and intuitively where as in SW "the thing" is the cobbled together result of a list of sketches and features. It's oblique as opposed to direct.

While I am sure a lot of it is familiarity, the odd thing is, the more I learn SW the more my opinion is reinforced.

I do think the drawings (fabs) part of SW is vastly superior to Vellum's dimensioned drawing functions.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

The other evening I spent looking through the Vellum tutorials. What I saw was not what you & ongybill describe. I expected to see a super-duper CAD program ... what I saw was 3D AutoCAD on steroids. I'm quite willing to accept that Vellum has some advantages over SW, or any other solid modelling program, but I did not see anything in these tutorials to prove that.

Basic Modelling Processes ...

http://www.ashlar.com/sections/support/tutorials/modeling_process/modeling_process.pdf

Oh look ... 2D sketches being extruded.

Tutorials ...

http://www.ashlar.com/sections/support/tutorials/tutorials.html

Create a Bill of Materials in Graphite & Create 2D Isometric Drawings ... these are jokes, right?
Create a Simple Bowl ... what is soooo different in how this would be created in SW?

If these tutorials are a true reflection of how to use Vellum, then you are welcome to it.


Making the best use of this Forum. faq559-716
How to get answers to your SW questions. faq559-1091
Helpful SW websites every user should be aware of. faq559-520

 

[ongybill]

Hey gunny,

I was beginning to think I was the only one here who'd ever used Vellum. I'd used Vellum so long before SW, that I'd totally forgotten how difficult and convoluted CAD could be.

Reality I was totally sold on SW being vastly superior to Vellum before I used it, then amazed how difficult it actually was to use. And how incredibly restricted designing in 3D is.

{It's hard to explain to people that haven't used it, but in Vellum you design "the thing" directly and intuitively where as in SW "the thing" is the cobbled together result of a list of sketches and features. It's oblique as opposed to direct.

While I am sure a lot of it is familiarity, the odd thing is, the more I learn SW the more my opinion is reinforced.}

Very well said, couldn't agree more.

As to the comment why isn't there a Vellum forum here. It's so simple to use, why would there need to be.<G>

Going to a forum and online tutorials to try and figure out how to do things is totally new to me with SW, with Vellum I could always figure it out on my own.

 

[SBaugh]

That has been my point all long! You are still trying to make SW into Vellum. It's hard to forget your old CAD when you have move to a new CAD. I'm not saying SW is superior to all other CAD. I'm saying that what I have saw from CBL and your comments, isn't anything SW can't do and I think it can probably do it better. It's just that you don't know How to do it, because your mind is stuck in the Vellum world.

Every one I talk to think they have SW figured out. And that's not true. I am still learning new things everyday. THere isn't one person out there that can say they no the entire package. you only what you do and if you haven't had a vast amount of different things to do in SW, then you haven't used it to it's full potenial. If you would please provide me with what it is you guys are describing like I keep asking for you too[/u] then how can I or anyone else understand your point about Vellum? Please if you have an example then post it. I want to see what takes longer to do in SW versus Vellum. I'm just asking you to prove this over telling me.., If either of you can show me a few examples other then describing and giving a poll, then please by all means do so.

ognybill,

if you don't have the terminology then you will not be able to find what you are looking for in the help or in SW.

Example:

SW - Uses Circular patterns
AutoCAD - refers to those as Arrays

Neither are the same terminiligy, but they mean the same. How would you look that up in the SW help, if all you ever knew was an Array?

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users

 

[ongybill]

Hey Scott. Sorry to keep wasting your time.

I can't forget Vellum, because I still use it everyday. I'm constantly switching back and forth (which doesn't help my confusion level any, but has to be done). In fact I find myself getting confused in both programs at times.

So far I haven't done well giving examples, but I'll try again.

Things that are easier: (Most (maybe all) of these things can be done in SW, just harder w/ more steps).

Being able to modify any part of any assembly all at once (no need to go into edit part model and work on 1 at a time). Say I want to put fillets on the corners of 10 different parts w/ 5 different radii. This can be done as 1 command picking any edge on any part and modifying the radius at any point. (I'll often add all the fillets after the basic fixture is designed, time to pretty it up). This takes much more time in SW editing ea part seperately, and each different radii requiring a seperate command string.

Being able to grab any part at any reference point and drag it to any other reference point & attatch it, or hold down control and move copy.

Being able to draw with primative shapes (2 clicks creates a cylinder, 3 clicks creates a block, ect).

Being able to use any point or combination of points on existing parts or sketches to create solids, or as references.

Being able to use existing geometry to set move or move/copy distances.

Being able to draw construction lines vertically or horizontally with a simple mouse drag (very useful for seeing how parts line up in an assembly.

Being able to draw things the right size as you draw them w/o ever having to add dimensions. Each dimension requires 3 extra clicks, and I find the dimensions are often in the way & slow me down in 2 ways: 1 making it hard to see what I'm drawing; 2 dragging them out of the way or zooming in/out so I can see to select what I want.

Being able to pick a part/s then pick any point/s on any other part/s and drag a line to mirror or mirror copy those parts around.

Having the drafting assistant select intersections. I know it's suppossed to, but seldom can I get SW to select an intersection, so I find myself trimming 1 line so there's an endpoint for it to grab.

Never needing to select a finite plane to draw on. Example, being able to draw on the front surface/s of any and all parts at the same time.

Being able to draw all the details I want at the same time (not having to make several sketches). Example I want to draw both pockets in and extrusions on the surface of a plate. In SW I have to make a sketch to extrude, and another sketch to extrude cut. In Vellum I can pick any combination of sketch entities to make a feature from.

Never needing to draw in centerlines or planes to mirror, rotate around, draw on, ect..

Being able to pick any face of a part, like a motor face, and extrude a new part from that face.

Being able to mold a solid object like playdo. stretching, contracting, adding, subtracting, cutting it into pieces, scaling it, ect..

Never having to care how a model was assembled when you modify it.

Never having a model have rebuild errors because you deleted the feature that later features were referenced off of.

Having 16 undos instead of 1.

True 3D sketching (with circles, polygons, being able to extrude parts from 3D sketches, ect.) Not many sketch tools work in 3D sketch.

True 3D drafting (not needing to start each part as a 2D sketch).

Being able to store lots of similar parts in one file then simply picking the one/s you want and copy pasting them into another drawing. (ie a file with 20 different weld connectors (not 20 files that each have to be opened seperately)). Just ran into this, it takes me a lot longer to assemble common components into an assy because they're not in 10 files, but in 40. It just takes longer to got through all the extra files and folders to get to the parts I want.

Being able to totally detatch a drawing so it never changes regaurdless if the models are changed. Both for history and, so you can have a line drawing that you can modify just like a sheet of paper. (Something I use a lot when I need to do a concept drawing for something similar to something we've built before. With vellum I can take bits and pieces from several drawings, put them together, add a few lines & make them look like a complete system (more of an art function then an engineering one, but extremelly useful).

Being able to only have associativity if I want it.

Being able to take a model cut it up, take the piece of the whole I want, and discard the rest of it w/o any messing up previous assys using the whole part, or having rebuild errors.

Being able to use imported parts w/o errors. Lots of parts I've imported from Vellum need to be redrawn because they are permanently flagged, don't draw correctly, or will only allow me to have 1 mate.

Being able to simply put a part where I want it w/o having to lock it down with 3 mates.

Being able to simply delete any part/feature that I want to without worrying about messing up something else. Several times I've deleted part B that's mated to part A and suddenly I have mate errors with parts X, Y, & Z (don't think I'll ever understand why). Same with parts where you have to suppress certain mates, then add mates, then unsuppress the 1st mates to have them work (just a bug, but an annoying one).

Being able to draw parts in context w/o problems. Drew a nut on a stud in an assy 2 days ago. It'd only let me have 1 mate no matter what I did. Finally I deleted the part, reinserted it and it mated fine (yes I removed the inplace or incontext mates).

Not having the software crash on me so often (I'm using SP0 I'm sure that's part of the problem, but our head engineer won't let me upgrade).

Not having to click on a green checkmark 600 times a day.

Sorry, too long a list, and some of it's downright trivial. What I miss most is the extreme ease of moving around in a 3D environment in Vellum. If you've never experienced that it's hard to explain. If I could regain some of that with SW the rest are minor things. Vellum has a bunch of minor annoyances I just work around too. No software's perfect.

I know I've come acrost too hard on SW when in reality there's a lot I like about it. I also know that a lot of what I'm suffering from is a lack of training, but there's not much I can do about that. I am finding 2 things with SW. 1) It'll do a lot of things I've been told it won't. 2) It's more user friendly then I gave it credit for.

Anyway, I have learned a lot from your posts & your website. Thanks for the help, eventually I'll get it. Gets a bit easier and more natural each day.

Geez what a rant, I'm embarrased. Wordy even for me.

 

[SBaugh]

I will put together a list ASAP of these things and see if I can't help you out. I will probably just post it to me site, because it would be probably 10x larger then this, because I will try and include Screen shots of it.

Maybe I can find time this weekend, but I'm not going to hold me breathe.

Best Regards - and thank you for the post!

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users

 

[Arlin]

To summarize some of my feelings on this whole discussion:

I think it all comes down to how comfortable you are with history-based, parametric modeling and how you are/are not using it.

History-based, parametric modeling can be an extremely powerful tool, but it can require much upfront planning an maintenence. Some careful thought must go into all the dependancies and relationships that these types of modelers depend on.

Non-history-based, non-parametric modeling can be extremely flexible because you don't need to worry about all the dependancies and order of operations. How you get there is irrelevent here. Only the final representation has any meaning.

Both systems have their adavntages and disadvantages. In many ways your arguments above mirror arguments between SWX and AutoCad (AutoCad beig a Non-history-based, non-parametric modeling tool).

 

[ongybill]

Scott, any help on any of those areas would be wonderful.

I think I've about tapped out the knowledge base here, and thanks to things like this forum I use lots of tools that I don't see anyone else using.

Arlin hit it on the head. {I think it all comes down to how comfortable you are with history-based, parametric modeling and how you are/are not using it.}

Just hit me, I have 18 years CAD experience, but have never really used history based software before. Vellum has it, and I use it now, but before starting SW I mostly ignored that functionality because I really didn't need it.

People have asked, so here goes. Most of my experience is with Vellum. I've also used CadKey, Master CAM (it's drawing functionality beat AutoCADS at the time so I drew some of my machining parts in the program rather then use AutoCAD, which was my only other choice at the time).

Tutored AutoCAD for a time, then didn't use it for a couple releases and couldn't draw the simplest parts when I tried again. Found it was much easier to just sit down with CadKey and figure it out from scratch then relearn AutoCAD (hope I never use their software again). Still remember going through their summary and learning that each new release had added, deleted, or, my personally favorite, changed what 2-300 commands did.

Also have used some programs that are on the ash heap now. MatciCAD, MiniCAD, and a couple I can't even remember the name of, but those were 2D wireframe programs. Things have certainly come a long way since then.

 

[J-C]

Being able to modify any part of any assembly all at once (no need to go into edit part model and work on 1 at a time). Say I want to put fillets on the corners of 10 different parts w/ 5 different radii. This can be done as 1 command picking any edge on any part and modifying the radius at any point. (I'll often add all the fillets after the basic fixture is designed, time to pretty it up). This takes much more time in SW editing ea part seperately, and each different radii requiring a seperate command string.
I'm assuming that there is no assembly / part structure like Solidworks and that all parts are in one file? What happens when you want to use a part in several assemblies? Copy it? Does it stay linked?

Being able to draw with primative shapes (2 clicks creates a cylinder, 3 clicks creates a block, ect).
Might be able mimic something like this with library features. Create the cyclinder or box(sketch extrude) as a library feature then drag and drop from the library. Another way is to create a macro of the steps to sketch and extrude and assign it to a button to auto create these.

Being able to use any point or combination of points on existing parts or sketches to create solids, or as references.
Being able to use existing geometry to set move or move/copy distances.
Not sure I completely understand these. You can extrude up to points and you can reference points in sketches. You can also use points to do point to point move/copy in a sketch. There are point to point mates though I don't recommned them as you'll need more mates to lock down a part.

Being able to draw construction lines vertically or horizontally with a simple mouse drag (very useful for seeing how parts line up in an assembly.
Create a sketch for reference and sketch lines, is this not the same?

Being able to draw things the right size as you draw them w/o ever having to add dimensions.
Not dimensioning a sketch is a sure way to mess it up later when a parent reference change. But with that said, you can type in value for sketch geometry. Sketch a line and type in the length.

Being able to pick a part/s then pick any point/s on any other part/s and drag a line to mirror or mirror copy those parts around.
In sketches, mirror around a selected line. Part and assy needs a datum plane. I'm assuming once you mirror this in Vellum, you don't have associativity?

Having the drafting assistant select intersections. I know it's suppossed to, but seldom can I get SW to select an intersection, so I find myself trimming 1 line so there's an endpoint for it to grab.
Not sure on this, will the intersection option in quick snaps work? Need to see what you're attempting.

Never needing to select a finite plane to draw on. Example, being able to draw on the front surface/s of any and all parts at the same time.
You can select a parts face to sketch on, is this not the same? What do you mean at the same time.

Being able to draw all the details I want at the same time (not having to make several sketches). Example I want to draw both pockets in and extrusions on the surface of a plate. In SW I have to make a sketch to extrude, and another sketch to extrude cut. In Vellum I can pick any combination of sketch entities to make a feature from.
Try "contour select on the right-click menu. You can use one sketch for multiple features.

Never needing to draw in centerlines or planes to mirror, rotate around, draw on, ect..
Is it associative?

Being able to pick any face of a part, like a motor face, and extrude a new part from that face.
That would be useful. Believe it or not, you can do this in the loft feature, just no where else. I would suggest assigning a hotkey to "Insert Sketch" and the "Convert Entites" tools. Then you can quickly insert a sketch on a face, select the face and convert entities which will convert the faces edges to sketch geometry. Extrude from that.

Being able to mold a solid object like playdo. stretching, contracting, adding, subtracting, cutting it into pieces, scaling it, ect..
There are some tools for stretching, twisting, (Flex). Solidworks really isn't intended to create geometry like this.

Never having to care how a model was assembled when you modify it.
Never having a model have rebuild errors because you deleted the feature that later features were referenced off of.
Once again, I'm assuming there is no associativity to maintain, otherwise I don't see how this is possible.

Being able to store lots of similar parts in one file then simply picking the one/s you want and copy pasting them into another drawing. (ie a file with 20 different weld connectors (not 20 files that each have to be opened seperately)). Just ran into this, it takes me a lot longer to assemble common components into an assy because they're not in 10 files, but in 40. It just takes longer to got through all the extra files and folders to get to the parts I want.
Maybe configurations can help here. You can create configs in a part file or assy file and vary dimensions per config thus creating many similar parts in one file. Drag it into an assembly and select the config to show. Works for drawings too.

Being able to totally detatch a drawing so it never changes regaurdless if the models are changed. Both for history and, so you can have a line drawing that you can modify just like a sheet of paper. (Something I use a lot when I need to do a concept drawing for something similar to something we've built before. With vellum I can take bits and pieces from several drawings, put them together, add a few lines & make them look like a complete system (more of an art function then an engineering one, but extremelly useful).
Save as dwg and reopen it is the only option here. You could use the Solidworks explorer tool to copy an assy and all parts to play around with for concepts.

Being able to only have associativity if I want it.
Yes, Solidworks is built around associativity.

Being able to take a model cut it up, take the piece of the whole I want, and discard the rest of it w/o any messing up previous assys using the whole part, or having rebuild errors.
Again, I'm assuming no associativity.

Being able to use imported parts w/o errors. Lots of parts I've imported from Vellum need to be redrawn because they are permanently flagged, don't draw correctly, or will only allow me to have 1 mate.
Import diagnosis should help to fix problems like these.


Being able to simply put a part where I want it w/o having to lock it down with 3 mates.
Is mating so bad? There is an option in the mate dialogue to use for positioning only which won't create the mates. I don't recommend it as it's easy to click drag a part out of position by accident.


You are used to modeling in a non associative world where sketching and positioning parts must be done precisely to start. More simlar to Autocad, in fact most new ex-Acad users complain about the same issues at first. As master Yoda says "You must unlearn what you have learned, then, only then will you see the true power of the sworks". On the flip side we've had users that learn CAD on Solidworks or some other parametric modeler and complain that Autocad makes them have to draw precisely and doesn't work well. I think the hardest concept of Solidworks to grasp though is the assy / part file relationships. Solidworks could take steps to make that easier to manage.

Ultimately, I guess it dpends on what you're modeling. Programs like Alias, Rhino, and 3d studio model without much care for associatvity because feature history isn't important and can slow you down, just gettting the end result is all that matters. Feature history and parametrics to me is important. Sometimes it can get in the way, just like in some cases where you don't have it, having it might be nice. Depends on what you do, how often you change stuff, and what changes.

Can you provide any pics or a website of the product you work on? Be helpful to see so as to provide suggestions in Solidworks. Not having fully associative parts and assemblies doesn't make much since to me. You don't have have design intent built in for when you make changes. For example, I may want a hole 2" from the edge of a plate no matter how long the plate is. Without creating relationships, modifying the length of the plate may mean that the hole doesn't move to where it should. another thing to modify and keep track of.

anyway, good luck





Jason Capriotti
Smith & Nephew, Inc.

 

[ongybill]

Wow Jason,

Thanks for a great post. Don't have time to respond to much of it right now. You're right that a lot of my 'issues' revolve around associativity. I think associativity is great, some of the time. Most of the time I find it a detriment to design and creativity.

I build custom equipment. Lots of things that're similar, but not the same as anything else I've built. So having part A be associative just causes me problems when I create a new design that uses part A modified. Unless I'm really careful about how I save Part A before I modifiy it I mess up all my earlier work. In Vellum I 'flatten view' on all detail drawings. This totally disassociates them from the solid model and they're just 2D drawings, so I NEVER accidentally mess up a detail drawing for an older system when I change something. Haven't found a way to do this is SW, so I save the final drawings as pdf files, just to be safe.

In short, I like associativity, find it very useful at times, but only when I can turn it off and on. I'd rather not have it at all then be forced to have it all the time.

Couple quick responses:

{Being able to draw construction lines vertically or horizontally with a simple mouse drag (very useful for seeing how parts line up in an assembly.
Create a sketch for reference and sketch lines, is this not the same?}

Yes, but we were talking about speed. Vellum hold down mouse button & drag narrow window (construction line appears). SW pick plane, pick sketch, pick line tool, click 2 points, click on construction geometry. Also in SW it's a seperate sketch in the design tree, and there's no command to delete all construction lines at once. Certainly doable in SW (more steps, more time). Just something I miss, but not a major thing.

{Being able to store lots of similar parts in one file then simply picking the one/s you want and copy pasting them into another drawing. (ie a file with 20 different weld connectors (not 20 files that each have to be opened seperately)).

Configurations will help on some parts. I'm more talking about having say 40 gas fittings in one file. Open file look at fittings select the ones you want & cut & paste into assy. Parts are similar in catagory, not shape.

{Never needing to select a finite plane to draw on. Example, being able to draw on the front surface/s of any and all parts at the same time.
You can select a parts face to sketch on, is this not the same? What do you mean at the same time.}

Here is the crux of the difference. In most cases SW seems to force you to work on 1 thing at a time. Edit 1 part, with 1 sketch, on 1 face. Ect..

What I mean here is working on all parts in an assembly at the same time. I'm used to simultaneously modifying several things at once. So I pick the circle command once and draw in 40 circles, 10 different sizes, on 8 faces, of 4 different parts, all as one command. Then later use them to add features. Or pick offset lines and draw dozens of offset lines on several parts w/ one command string.

{Try "contour select on the right-click menu. You can use one sketch for multiple features.}

I'll try that again. Tried to figure out what it did once w/ no success. I'll have to spend more effort, as I'd love to cut down the # of sketches I have to create.

I just posted a few picts of some systems we've built. I also took a couple snapshots of similar parts files so you'll see what I mean.

http://img38.imageshack.us/gal.php?a=1

 

[ctopher]

ongybill,
Can not open your pic link.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
"DON'T BE IRREPLACEABLE. IF YOU CAN'T BE REPLACED, YOU CAN'T BE PROMOTED"

 

[SBaugh]

http://www.scottjbaugh.com/Images/Vellum_vs_SW_-_

what_I_can't_do.doc

My reponse
Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users

 

[ctopher]

Very well done Scott!

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP2.0 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site
FAQ371-376
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-1091
FAQ559-716
"DON'T BE IRREPLACEABLE. IF YOU CAN'T BE REPLACED, YOU CAN'T BE PROMOTED"

 

[J-C]

I build custom equipment. Lots of things that're similar, but not the same as anything else I've built. So having part A be associative just causes me problems when I create a new design that uses part A modified. Unless I'm really careful about how I save Part A before I modifiy it I mess up all my earlier work. In Vellum I 'flatten view' on all detail drawings. This totally disassociates them from the solid model and they're just 2D drawings, so I NEVER accidentally mess up a detail drawing for an older system when I change something. Haven't found a way to do this is SW, so I save the final drawings as pdf files, just to be safe.

New designs based off an old one should be all new files. You can use Solidworks explorer to copy them and rename them at the same time. I would ignore library parts (see below) though and leave them linked to the library.

As for the old project files, they remain untouched and left in the state that you left them in. PDF backups are still a good practise though.


Couple quick responses:
Yes, but we were talking about speed. Vellum hold down mouse button & drag narrow window (construction line appears). SW pick plane, pick sketch, pick line tool, click 2 points, click on construction geometry. Also in SW it's a seperate sketch in the design tree, and there's no command to delete all construction lines at once.

What about the window select (draws a box), doesn't leave anything on the screen though after you release the mouse button.

Configurations will help on some parts. I'm more talking about having say 40 gas fittings in one file. Open file look at fittings select the ones you want & cut & paste into assy. Parts are similar in catagory, not shape.

This sounds like standard library parts in which case using the library (task pane) would be the way to go. Parts that do size similarly could store in one file or they could all be separate. The files are stored in a central library and all assemblies would reference them. The task pane library sorts and stores these items in folders (Gas Fittings) (Screws) etc. Then you just drag and drop from the library into the assembly. YOu can add mate references too so that they "pop" into place and add mates automatically.



Here is the crux of the difference. In most cases SW seems to force you to work on 1 thing at a time. Edit 1 part, with 1 sketch, on 1 face. Ect..

What I mean here is working on all parts in an assembly at the same time. I'm used to simultaneously modifying several things at once. So I pick the circle command once and draw in 40 circles, 10 different sizes, on 8 faces, of 4 different parts, all as one command. Then later use them to add features. Or pick offset lines and draw dozens of offset lines on several parts w/ one command string.

Lack of assembly structure and associativity seems to allow this in Vellum. You can't really build design intent into the model it appears, at least not like Solidworks does. You just model "dumb" geometry in space. I guess it depends on your needs, for the one offs design you are doing, perhaps Vellum is a better choice. Sounds difficult to me from a design perspective not using relations and mates and fully locking down all geometry so that it responds to changes the way I expect it.


I just posted a few picts of some systems we've built. I also took a couple snapshots of similar parts files so you'll see what I mean.

Link didn't work

Jason Capriotti
Smith & Nephew, Inc.

 

[SBaugh]

I'm reading this Tutorial

http://www.ashlar-vellum.com/sections/support/tutorials/2d_iso_drawings/2D_Iso_Drawings.pdf

on Ashlar Vellum.

Vellum doesn't use planes and 2Dsketches at all. They are building entire models from an Isometric standpoint, from the get go. I see why they are struggling with SW. The example in the tutorial can be made in SW in 2 sketches and 2 features, where as Vellum took way long to build a most simple part. If Vellum takes that long to build a simple part like that, no wonder you guys are struggling with SW.

When you sit down to use SW you are not thinking about how to accomplish this in SW correctly your still thinking Vellums way.

The example in this tutorial, can be made in 2 features. The first feature is a single 2D profile with Chamfer and notch in it and extrude it to a depth. 2nd feature will be too cut the ellipise in the side of the part.

You can change the location of the notch with dimensions, if you use Equations you could automate it further.

With Vellum you have to 1) window Select everything, 2) Drag it to location, 3) grap points to get the final position of the notch. To add the Chamfer you have to ctrl window select 2 points and drag to location. Drawing assitanct helps with this, where SW doesn't have a drawing assitance. SW gives the ability to the user to be in control.

With SW you can do this by changing 2, maybe 1 dimension if you have the parametric diemensions setup correctly. The Chamfer was added in the beginning, by changing the dimension you can control the angle.

Ellipse tool in Vellum requires 3 points and SW also requires 3 points. Center, height, and width. Dragging the points changes the size. Dimensioning the center with 2 Dimensions will control location.

Looking at this further reminds me of the Old CAD system we had back in College. It reminds me of the old command Projection, and other commands similar to that. I'm sure it has it's strengths, but I quesiton everything I have read in these Tutorials. I bet there are a number of key strokes you make without thinking about anymore and those will contribute to more time doing those operations. I say that because I keep seeing press this, press that.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users

 

[SBaugh]

Link Correction:

http://www.scottjbaugh.com/Images/Vellum_vs_SW_-_what_I_cant_do.doc

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376
faq559-716 - SW Fora Users

 

[gunnykiln]

Scott, Actually in vellum you could easily create that model in about 30 seconds. It looks like a lot of steps in the tutorial because they show everything being done a certain way. You could more easily create the model with the rectangle tool than with the line tool that they use in the tutorial. Also, I believe the demo is for Vellum's 3D wireframe program not the solids program in which you would use different 3D tools and still create the model very easily without creating a 2D single sketch.

Vellum certainly has its weak spots, but its definitely not the ease and speed of creating things.