Learning Solidworks
Learning Solidworks
(OP)
Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences on learning Solidworks efficiently and thoroughly (and fast). Where and how does one dig in to lay a solid conceptual foundation capable of growing rapidly to fluid use of the program?
I am a mechanical engineer, and am working on learning Solidworks from a base of Autcad (have used A from ver2.7 to ver2002, however only as 2d layout and planning tool). For some reason, Solidworks simply doesn't click with me.
Is Solidworks really as easy to learn as resellers claim, does lengthy experience with Autocad block learning, or does it require substantial rote learning (vs conceptual oversight learning).
I am a mechanical engineer, and am working on learning Solidworks from a base of Autcad (have used A from ver2.7 to ver2002, however only as 2d layout and planning tool). For some reason, Solidworks simply doesn't click with me.
Is Solidworks really as easy to learn as resellers claim, does lengthy experience with Autocad block learning, or does it require substantial rote learning (vs conceptual oversight learning).






RE: Learning Solidworks
Just forget AutoCAD all together and free you mind!
Start with tutorials. That should take all of one afternoon. After that, just start modelling parts. Real parts, downloaded models, prints from work.
Becoming adept at sketches is key. Try to think about constraints as you're laying down curves.
When modelling, don't try to do too much in one feature. Do those chamfers and fillets need to be modelled as part of that extrusion? Can those holes be made from a pattern?
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com
RE: Learning Solidworks
The tick is right, forget everything you learned about AutoCad except drawing in a 2d plane. You would actually draw that in a sketch plane in Solidworks and do a simple revolve or an extrusion to make your solid model. It's that simple and also fun. I had my 8 year old daughter extruding, shelling and using the hole wizard in about an hour. She made a comment to me about modeling and said "you actually get paid for doing this?" LOL!
Don't make 3d modeling harder than its suppose to be, and Solidworks did that for us.
Good luck,
Macduff
Meggitt Airdynamics Inc.
Dell Precision 370
SW2004 Pro SP4.1
XP Pro SP2.0
NIVIDA Quadro FX 1300
RE: Learning Solidworks
This will be your biggest hurdle. I have seen many people moving from AutoCAD to SW fail, simply because they try to make SW work and behave like ACAD. SW tries to make this easier on some users by the 2D Emmulator, but I think that is a bad move as well.
The best thing to do is run through the tutorials once, just to get basic understanding of the software and capabilites. After that it's just constant application of SW to get more familiar and comfortable with it.
I had been using ACAD from r10 to r13. We got SW and I did the tutorials over a week, spending the last hour of the day working with it. By week two I was modeling simple parts and small assemblies. By the end of the month I was using SW exclusively. The key was knowing what I wanted the software to do at the end of the day, and learning how the software did what I wanted it to do... not forcing the software to do what I knew the other could do.
I hope that made sense.
"But what... is it good for?"
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Learning Solidworks
RE: Learning Solidworks
1. Go through the tutorials, etc. as the others have suggested, then get training from your VAR. DO NOT GO TO TRAINING UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO JUMP IN WITH BOTH FEET. One of the biggest mistakes I have seen is users being told "we don't have time for that..." after returning from training. If that happens, the training is lost.
2. Do not jump back and forth between the programs for a while. The more you do that, the longer the learning curve will be.
RE: Learning Solidworks
RE: Learning Solidworks
Lets not tell the bean counters that your eight year old learned the SWx basics in an hour. I can see it now - corporate America farming their SWx duties to grade school working programs.
Kroth - Just like The Tick mentioned free your mind. SWx is as easy as you make and as complexed as the part you're trying to make. Depending on your geographic location most community colleges offer classes within their mechanical drafting program or you could get a demo/eval copy. Best of luck
Best Regards,
Heckler
RE: Learning Solidworks
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
RE: Learning Solidworks
RE: Learning Solidworks
I use SW to model parts and build assemblies and do all the work that requires a lot of thinking or a lot of trial. When it comes to detailing a part, I generate all the views and sections with SW but save it as a dwg file. Then I cut and paste the views onto one our Autocad drawing formats and add the dimensions. This has allowed me to concentrate on learning the 3d modeling. The detailing part will be for another day. This may seem like an absurd way of doing things, but it is a good compromise and is probably faster than doing the whole thing in 2d. I have heard of others doing the same thing with Pro-E.
John Woodward
RE: Learning Solidworks
It's a compromise that holds your company back from truely experiencing the bennies of 3D MCAD. I suspect it's like my situation where management is not completely sold on the idea of purchasing $30K worth of software without any metrics of furture company success. I think it's short sightedness on managements behalf
I would hate to think it's resistance from designers not wanting to learn SWx. Because using AutoCAD is basically a generation above using an etcher-sketcher.
Best Regards,
Heckler
RE: Learning Solidworks
I am going to chronicle my progress in this thread, and feel free to continue adding comments. Diving into, and mastering this program appears to be an issue out there - for a lot of reasons.
My background is Mechanical Engineering, my interests and experiences are inventing, research, development - the initial areas of the continuum of Theoretical Science / experimental science / invention / research / developmental engineering / engineering / design / industrial design / manufacturing engineering / industrial engineering / manufacturing - etc..
Autocad is more applicable to the initial part of the chain, since it is a highly mathematical and precise tool -a visual calculator, precise to (16?) places - ideal for conceptualizing, layouts, converting distorted imaginings to measurable reality -- a few simple lines, key items precisely placed --- etc. Very useful to get a solid grip on concepts and reality.
Solid modeling programs, on the other hand, would be useless or too clumsy for the above, but shine on the manufacturing end of the continuum, where Autocad is basically a disaster. Whether Solidworks is the cream of the crop, so to speak remains to be seen - for one thing, how will the folks at Solidworks continue to improve, evolve, un-bug it for real improvement, rather than slicken it up for improved marketing.
Anyway, Solidworks is definately neat and intelligent to the novice in solid modelling. I attended two reseller's demos, signed up for an introductory course at a local college, and bailed out after two sessions, realizing that I was never going to get anywhere this way. However, there was a defining moment in this session - one of the attendees worked for a local engineering company, and he stated that his employer had 312 seats - (and the instructor,a local reseller, confirmed this, starting from 1997 - more than a million invested in software alone). This business is a very successful, world leader in custom automation. That cliched it for me. If it was good enough for this large enterprise (XX millions in world wide sales, and they have been with it for 6 years now, and keep getting more seats -- it would be good enough for humble me. So, off I went seriously trying to learn Solidworks, and the reason for the start of this thread.
So, here I am - Solidworks Personal Edition on my computer - SolidProfessor loaded on my computer - Solidworks for Designers by Sham Tickoo (all 1.5 inches of it)on my desk. Fearless and determined to succeed. My ultimate goal would be to actually buy the program - but not before I would be sure to be its master.
To be continued
Kurt
RE: Learning Solidworks
Kurt, I disagree completely. I've used ACAD and various modelers for several years and I would never choose begin my "noodling" with ACAD. While sketching out my thoughts, a modeler is much easier because I can place geometric constraints into my sketch and a modeler sketch is much easier to modify than an ACAD sketch.
About the only thing I'd choose ACAD for over a modeler is a very rough, "free-hand" sketch where I wasn't concerned about orthogonality, closed shapes, and precision.
Otherwise, I'd choose a modeler over ACAD any day, any time.
RE: Learning Solidworks
Kurt- I think 75% of learning SW is the desire to learn it. The rest is going through the tutorials and then using this forum or other users if there are any in your company. Like you, I found college courses in cad considerably less than satisfactory, same with all of the handbooks. It is mostly learn as you go. I spent many years with Autocad and it has really evolved into an excellent 2d and drafting program, but to me it has always been useless for 3d (same for Mechanical Desktop). I am working toward using SW for concept work butit just takes a little more time and work when your database is all 2d.
John Woodward
RE: Learning Solidworks
If your going to be going to AutoCAD from SW then why don't you detail it in SW the best you can and export out the SW drawing as DWG and use a Map file to help with converting the layers, etc...? - Also SW05 has DWG editor to help get ACAD users over the hump.
Heckler,
-
Kurt,
Why is ACAD a more Applicable to the initial part of the chain?
Do you really 16 places for your engineering needs?
Sketches are 2D and allow you to give your Ideas and imaginings Mass and depth to a true Measurable Reality, after they are extruded. You also have the ability to shade it to were all users that see this idea will understand it. They will not have to be an Engineer to understand it's function.
I think not! I have used SW for all my ideas an inventions that I have come with. I then sent the idea to my father that works at Whirlpool and he Gov'ed out a job for me to build my design. No drawing needed, just a simply file.
How do you figure this?
SW has envolved to ends that I thought would never come about. All enhancements you see in the program today are not because of SW, but because of users putting their $.02 worth into the Enhancement Request side. If your a user then that's where you should put ER in at. Every complains about crashing in SW. Most crashing is not due to SW, but rather to poor Maintenence of their computer, bad graphics card or drivers, Network, etc... that list can go on and on. Yes there are some cases where SW is the culprit, but if tally up the times everyone crashes minus the above. The problem turns out to be 90% of the time it's Badly Maintained, bad hardware, or bad Driver's.
You think you can be a master by going through the professor and the online tutorials, plus before you buy the program? You will not understand SW fully. It continually changes, there is no way to keep up with every changing thing. I have to bust my hump everyday to try and keep up with SW. It's even harder as a user. You will only know what you build. - I have been using SW since it came out in 95-96 and up until I took this job 2 years ago. I didn't know or understand surfacing. Never needed it! - Now I have to know it and I taught myself how to use it. So I have been using the software about 8 years now and I have not taken a single Training course. I taught myself everything I know... which sometimes is still not enough.
It can be done but you have to realize this is not something done over night and it will take time to become a master of SW (with it changing a twice a year makes it more difficult) So purchasing the software and putting it to everyday tests, is your best way to understand and teach yourself, or take the courses (God knows it will help you learn faster).
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
RE: Learning Solidworks
Hi Scott:
Thanks for your for your reply: I have used Autocad generally only as a "framing tool" to create reality reference structures into which to place specific critical details difficult to visualize precisely. So, for the sake of argument, if I were to imagine a distributed system within a house, with Autocad I might throw up quickly a precise framework of a house, and within this framework I might might only precisely place one or two critical componments of the 20 I can visualize, because the other 19 are irrelevant, or I already know they are ok -- . If this critical step makes sense, I might populate the structure with more sketchy details until a clear mental image exists in my mind free of mental distortions, because it is rigorously tied to a numerical structure. The precision to 16 places of Autocad are irrellevant to me (although theis would be necessary to an architect designing a large structure, like the Emire State Building) -- I mentioned this only because this has always impressed me about Autocad.
I am generally concerned that Solidworks would not give me this rapid reliable insight capability (at the start of the invention/development chain), which is critical to me as an engineer, and might cripple my imaginings, make me work too hard in creating this framework, etc., if I were to abandon Autocad foolishly in favour of a pretty 3d tool that gives easy details, but leaves me guessing in the overall conceptualization -- although, beyond any doubt, once the system settles down to something realistic, good and worth while taking further, Solidworks would be the way to do it (at the end of this chain), when specific items might need to be priced, sourced, actually made.
Regards
Kurt
RE: Learning Solidworks
Hi Scott:
Regarding your reply to my concerns about the further development and evolution of SW:
My preference in software is to stay one or two levels behind the latest and greatest upgrade. RELIABILITY is critical to me, and slick function secondarily. All this rapid fire evolution is risky and plays with my set of habits un-necessarily. I would prefer to stay with a set of habits tied to a less slick program, and then have to retrain myself only infrequently to a firm improved version (what effort for example, is involved in just overcoming a habit as simple as requiring only a single click to execute a command, as compared to the previous two clicks - then multiply that with many other instances of minor improvements that require that you establish new neural pathways and responses (ie - new habits).
I would prefer that hotshot software designers would spend a long time coming up with one truly major set of improvements, and then with a lot of testing ultimately release the next level. All these rapid-fire releases, and forcing annual or semiannual upgrades I feel play havoc with users, their habit structures, requiring them to relearn and relearn etc. The marketing department no doubt loves the profit this generates by foring customers to pay for annual upgrades. Does Solidwors ever do any Beta releases on their next proposed level, where actual users do actual work and report actual results, or do they simply shoot out their best ideas, on an annual or semiannual basis, and keep their fingers crossed that nothing serios happens, that their customers put up with the extra effort and confusion caused, and that the bitching is minor.
Regards
Kurt
RE: Learning Solidworks
Every major release they have Beta testing. SW05 was tested for months before final release. SW has it setup now as a contest and the person that finds the most bugs in that time Wins the prize (They had top 10 prizes this year). Every SP goes out into Early Visibilty and the users with that ability can download the SP early and test it. - So to answer your YES they do.
But some problems are file specific and are not seen by other users. Some people just seem to have better luck then others in some releases. I have been in SW Newsgroups for years now and this is what I see every year.. except this year. This year there is better stablity in SW05, because the NG are quiet and there isn't a huge thread talking about this. This hasn't happened since SW01+ - I'm glad to see this, this year.
SW is not the best tool for architectual designing, but I have used it for it a number of times and mine designs came out nice. But you have to have the parts pre-made to make it work faster. Example: I made a designed a play house for my Girlfriends Daughter. I made it using a single part file. I used configurations to construct any where from 2x4 Stud to a .5x4'x8' Plank (roof). SO the whole thing was made in under a day. I used a Design table to control my part and by using that, it was simple to create the pasts I needed.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
RE: Learning Solidworks
Hi Scott:
Regarding my statement: "My ultimate goal would be to actually buy the program - but not before I would be sure to be its master"
By this I did not mean "mastery" in the sense of knowing it totally. In fact, I only want to know at any time the %tage I need to know to do what I want to do - and that might only be 8% of the total program. Right now, SW wipes me out it is trashing me badly (my self concept of a reasonably smart guy bumbling endlessly) - it is my master. Well I want to turn this around so that it no longer scares me, intimidates me, and that I know damn well that, no matter what, I can lick it, guaranteed, even though I might only "Master " or fully know only a very small percentage of its capabilities.
I can say this of Microsoft Word, for example, even though I use and know probably only 3% of its full capabilities (the same goes for my other favorite software) - however, if I ever need to use an obscure capability or say 60% of its capabilities, beyond aby doubt I can ramp up fast - no full failure here. So, I am beyond any doubt the "master" of MS Office, even though I have little mastery of it (at any given time) - it does not intimidate or scare me.
At this point, SW scares me.
How much effort and time is needed to truly become its master - so that no matter what I will need to do, I CAN IN FACT DO IT, GUARANTEED, if and when I CHOOSE. I will NEVER be blocked permanently by anything in SW.
That is my goal - so that I can put my brain on automatic, the X% of SW I actually use appears magically on my monitor, and I can use my brain for other things - full knowing that SW will not ever present an unsurmountable barrier to me.
Once I get to that point I will buy SW -- it is my hope that the "Personal Version - 90 day limited time, with new installs) will do this for me with a reasonable effort. If it can't I will QUIT. No more SW for me.
Regards
Kurt
RE: Learning Solidworks
There are so many different industries using SW, not every industry uses all aspects of the software. Myself, the products I design are about 80% sheet metal, 19% machined and 1% molded plastics. I don't do any surfacing, and I have never used PhotoWorks or Animator. But if something comes up that I need to do, but don't know how to do it, I only have to read through the online Help Index to get me where I need to be. The majority of questions I see being asked on some forums can be easily answered if people only used the Help Index.
In SW, you can create 2D sketches for layouts, and use these layouts to drive many different parts and assemblies. It takes some time to become adapt at using this method of design in SW, but once you get the hand of it, you will wonder how you ever made anything without them. The big thing to remember is that you don't have to sketch accurately in SW, just throw those sketch lines and arcs where ever you want them. Dimensions define sketch segments in SW, so once you get your basic sketches places, you refine them with dims.
"But what... is it good for?"
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Learning Solidworks
Didn't mean anything mean by my reply about being a master. Just wanted to clarify what you meant by "Master" and what it means to me as "Master"
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
RE: Learning Solidworks
I did the tutorials and was making simple parts right away. I would highly highly recommend the tutorials and then follow up with a formal class or two. Our community college was far cheaper than the people who sold my company solidworks.
Meanwhile, our company is trying to get everyone migrated over from AutoCAD to Solidworks and they are all hardcore AutoCAD users. You truly do have to 'free your mind' and it is a very difficult thing for a lot of people. I can say this because it's become my job to 'help' and try to explain how to design in SW.
AutoCAD logic is not Solidworks logic and if you try to design with AutoCAD logic, it just won't happen. You really do have to forget everything AutoCAD has taught you.
Another thing that is important is to remember that design intent and relationships are key. In Autocad you could kind of slap things together so they look good, but if you don't establish relationships and define your geometry in Solidworks, one minor change will give you a nightmare. Relationships and fully defining your geometries also ensures accuracy far better than it ever could in AutoCAD.
RE: Learning Solidworks
Hi:
Thanks for your comment -- you are absolutely right -- it's the logic that trips up a lot of people in their learning effort, and that is what got me on the first attempt. Autocad logic embeds itself in your brain, and needs a good dose of SW logic to turn off or at least make less insistent. SW just doesn't work until your mind lets go of Autocad logic, and at least has a hint of SW logic to build on.
All the training I saw was bottom up - like explaining an elephant piecemiel to someone who has never seen one -1 hour on a foot, 2 hours on an ear -- etc. This type of training might work on competent rote learners, but doesn't do much to defeat Autocad logic and replace it with SW logic. Perhaps professional trainers should figure out a top down approach to teach SW.
In my effort to make progress, my first success was reading in Tickoo's book the section on "Reference Geometries" - 55 pages that made instant sense, and I still remember and can use easily on first try. Maybe this is the place to start -- maybe this is a crack in AC logic, like the camel's nose under the tent, that will allow SW logic a foothold. What is the next topic that naturally and easily builds more permanent structure on this foothold ???.
Regards
Kurt
RE: Learning Solidworks
[quote The Tick]Just forget AutoCAD all together and free you mind!"[/quote]
Until this happens all the AutoCAD user can ever hope to make is pretty little useless stick figures
Best Regards,
Heckler
RE: Learning Solidworks
It's very easy to design a basic layouts in SW. You can use sketches to layout the basics of your design, and use this layout sketch to define other parts as you work on the design. I design mechanisms all day, and I find this a rather easy approach.
I use one sketch to represent one "system" in my design, until I get the basics all worked out. I then create simple shaped models to represent these sketch lines. As the design solidifies (no pun intended), I refine those basic shapes. I would turn a simple extruded shaft with two pivots into several parts to represent a threaded rod with spherical bearings on each end.
I'm probably not explaining myself that well.
I gave up AutoCAD 6+ years ago and have never looked back. It realy depends what field of work you are in to see the advantages (or disadvantages) that solid modeling can offer.
"But what... is it good for?"
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Learning Solidworks
Hi MadMango:
Thanks very much for your response, quoted below -- this is exactly how I do development, and this is exactly where I would want to end up in my SW effort -
"It's very easy to design a basic layouts in SW. You can use sketches to layout the basics of your design, and use this layout sketch to define other parts as you work on the design. I design mechanisms all day, and I find this a rather easy approach.
I use one sketch to represent one "system" in my design, until I get the basics all worked out. I then create simple shaped models to represent these sketch lines. As the design solidifies (no pun intended), I refine those basic shapes. I would turn a simple extruded shaft with two pivots into several parts to represent a threaded rod with spherical bearings on each end. I'm probably not explaining myself that well."
However, since I am still at the very basics of SW learning, I have absolutely no conception how this would be done in SW. Is it possible for you to let me have a SW file that illustrates this?
Thanks
Kurt
RE: Learning Solidworks
kroth, you said
"I am generally concerned that Solidworks would not give me this rapid reliable insight capability (at the start of the invention/development chain), which is critical to me as an engineer, and might cripple my imaginings, make me work too hard in creating this framework"
To me this is exactly backwards, with a solid model, allparts are there in 3d with interference checking, it is much easier to see how it all fits together. Using your framing example, think of this, at the end of the design, your client comes back and wants 2x6 walls instead of 2x4 walls. Set up correctly the Solid Works model will update all the 2x4s to 2x6s and move anything that needs to be moved in just a few minutes.
RE: Learning Solidworks
I think I am slowly arriving at a satisfactory feeling about these concerns.
To re-focus my basic question:
How good a tool is SW as extension of the brain: does it allow the solidification and externalizing of vague, developing ideas, or does it mire the brain in its own workings (its mates, tricks and tips, icons, drop down menu's --), actually hindering the process. In many ways, a pencil in the hands of an artist is the perfect tool (as for example Leonardo da Vinci's sketches of his conceptions of various unlikely mechanical devices, such as his "helicopter").
If I had even a fraction of da Vinci's artistic and visualization talents, I would probably not touch SW or Autocad - I think I would stay with pencil and paper.
SW learning has a heavy stress on "technique of correct mates" - that is, mating specific parts specifically to each other. This is ideal at the design/manufacturing end of the process, when one is close to a final design.
At the other end, the inventing/development end, perhaps, the heavy duty focus on "mates" is the problem, since very little is known at the start, there are only vague parts and relationships, that are forever changing, and arriving or departing as one's ideas are evolving. There are few reasonable mates, and firm parts. Those that do make sense are fleeting and continuously changing.
How good is SW in allowing "continuous change and evolution", where only the "need" is known, and little else, at the start -- and the final goal is a specific assembly, with specific parts in specific mates.
Perhaps one should think in terms of a "developing assembly": a set of indefinite evolving parts, in an indefinite framework, with indefinite and evolving relationships. This set could easily evolve loose in space, or mated to co-ordinates, planes, axes, nodes etc. in an evolving framework.
In time, as this "evolving assembly" matures, if the internal workings of SW do not prevent this, this could in fact become a "final assembly" of "specific" parts, just by continuously refining parts, and massaging and refining their relationmships and mates into a firm final design.
I am starting to feel that SW just might be a good tool for this --- if it allows continuos change easily without getting itself hopelessly confused (and crashing).
RE: Learning Solidworks
Personally, I don't know if I could be a designer without CAD. My penmanship and drawing ability are horrible. Yet, for some reason, I can whip out sound CAD models as fast as I can think. CAD is a wonderful tool that helps me take the images out of my mind and display them to others.
The main reason I have developed this fluency is that I have learned to embrace each tool's possibilities, not bemoan the loss of the tool it replaces. Also, I am a designer first, an operator second. "Begin with the end in mind", as the saying goes.
I leave you with a quote from Stephen King's Gunslinger series, of which I am a huge fan...
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com
RE: Learning Solidworks
I start with a layout sketch or skeleton part (see links below for help), then insert parts. Many times my parts start out as simple boxes or cylinders and then I add detail as necessary.
These articles are from SolidWorks Express newsletter:
http
htt
htt
RE: Learning Solidworks
REgards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
FAQ559-716 - SW Fora Users
RE: Learning Solidworks
SW is typically taught bottom up (memorize a great deal of specific detail, and trust that it builds up into competency). This was my first exposure via a recent week introductory course led by a reseller's instructor. An extremely capable and knowledgeable SW operative (also an experienced Autocadder). The heavy duty bottom up approach simply did not agree with me, and I bailed after the 4th class.
Perhaps SW should be taught top down as an alternate approach - create a conceptual framework / understanding /overview / structure, and fill in the specifics and detail and refinement - anyway, that might have worked better with me.
Bottom Up SW should be taught/offered to detail designers, apprentice designers, kids just out of high-school, the inexperienced (where correctness in details is important).
Top Down SW should be offered/taught to the experienced, the sceptical, engineers, development oriented (where correctness in concepts is important).
Thanks to all who thought about this - replied -
I appreciate it very much.
Kurt
RE: Learning Solidworks
RE: Learning Solidworks
Some of this thread sounds like a conversation between me and "the AutoCAD guy" who sits next to me - but you have the right attitude: Try it before you write it off!
With that said, a couple of things that seem to have helped some of our recent "converts" are:
One thing SW does well is to allow you to focus on design intent. From your earlier postings,you seem keen on top down design, so try this - don't think of them as "mates", think of them as "relationships between my parts". If part A has a tongue that slides in the groove on part B, your mechanical instincts should be telling you that the two parts are in contact, the sides are parallel, etc.
Name your features (and your mates) well.
Think about "how would I make this?" If your machinist will start with a piece of plate, your design should start with a rectangular slab. If a groove will be turned on an lathe, draw a profile and rotate. Paradoxically, this focus on the "real" will help with this Zen-like "freeing of your mind".
You've already done the hard part - after you've found this forum, you'll never have any unanswered questions!!!
Good luck!
RE: Learning Solidworks
Great ... so what is the meaning of life?
RE: Learning Solidworks
Mates and relationships seem to be a sticking point in SW. As MElan mentioned earlier, this may be the reason SW is tought bottom up.
One comment I might make:
SBaugh in faq 559-871 states
"In my opinion and in my experience Planes have been the best way to make mates inside a SW Assembly. When using a plane you don’t have the fear of losing a face ID. If your not aware of what a Face Id is I’ll try and explain it. SW uses what they call “Face ID’s” or “Edge ID’s” These ID’s are what control mates, colors, in-contexted relationships, Sketch relations, etc -- "
In SW Newsletter, specific to top down design: (htt
"One method that can be used to capture the design intent for an assembly is a reference feature skeleton. A reference feature skeleton is a framework comprised of simple, robust features (that is, planes and axes) used to define mating surfaces, axes of rotation, common reference features. These simple features can be created and named according to their functional use. "
and:
" Planes and axes are simple, robust features that can be defined with few parent/child relationships. The ability to use a simple feature means the design intent can be clearly delineated. A reference feature skeleton can be constructed within a part or assembly. A part feature skeleton can be used to define planes or axes that will be used by more than one feature.
For major functional surfaces within a part, a well-named plane can be used by many features while creating only one parent relation to the plane. This is a better practice than using a part face for the same function.
Reference feature skeletons can also be used to simplify complex models or assemblies. When the major functional surfaces are defined, unnecessary features or components can be suppressed to help minimize the information required to rebuild the part or assembly "
---- It would seem that top down might be a better way to use and learn SW.
Sould one routinely populate ones design with reference features, and then mate parts to these features (instead of to each other)??? -- or does thus have other drawbacks, such as creating a confusing clutter of planes --????
RE: Learning Solidworks
RE: Learning Solidworks
If your inexperienced to SW don't learn Top-down yet.
It's kind of like this. You can't learn CAD, if you don't understand how to draw it on the board first.
Or as in bowling (Like I told my girlfriends son the other day) He wants me to teach him how to throw a Curve ball. He's 7 years old and I just got him off the bumpers. At the least... He must learn how to control the ball from going into the gutter, before I can teach to throw a Curve ball.
You should not learn and advanced function in SW until you learn how tocontrl, use, and maintain your normal assemblies without In-contexted relationships throwing a monkey wrench into the mix.
If you go with In-contexting - you be out more then you already are when you start having circular relationships, Errors, Part errors, etc...
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
FAQ559-716 - SW Fora Users
RE: Learning Solidworks
You are absolutely right, and in fact I am seriously working on the nuts and bolts of SW, however, with the caviat that I will (hope to) eventually use these nuts and bolts in a top down fashion.
This thread, in my mind deals more with strategy and technique - so, hopefully once the nuts and bolts of SW are under control (which I assume are not solidly bound to design method), I would wish to apply these in a top down technique or startegy (most of the time) - and from this thread I have learned that SW does indeed lend itself to top down design (thankfully)- SW might not be worth the effort for me, that is - if this were not the case.
Regards
RE: Learning Solidworks
"But what... is it good for?"
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Learning Solidworks
Sounds easy... it isn't. The one job I worked on like this took 2 months to build and perfect. you can see a picture of it and some of the tools I used to make it at my site.
h
h
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
FAQ559-716 - SW Fora Users
RE: Learning Solidworks
Thanks for your encouragement above - my effort to re-tool my brain from Autocad 2D to SW is going very well, and I am starting to think SW.
Apart from this, one of my main goals is ultimately a comfortable top-down technique of concept evolution.
While the following is unrelated to learning SW, I would appreciate your comment if something like the strategy/method described in this link (Inventor) also applies to SW.
h
RE: Learning Solidworks
1) You create a "root" part that represents a subsystem in your top level model, with a giant feature tree to represent all the various parts in the subsystem.
2) You create individual derived parts from the features in the root part.
3) Changes to the root part filter through the rest of the derived parts.
I've never done anything like this, so any comments from me would be very biased.
"But what... is it good for?"
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Learning Solidworks
I have lots of experience in the way I did it above. By using it at the assembly level, it gives me the ability to control the entire model and all the parts from a single DT. That IMO is better then tring to control a single part. Plus by using the Assembly DT, you can have equations and VBA code that will give the DT some intelligence. That intelligence will drive the cells that make up the assembly DT.
IMO - This away is better, but that maybe because I have plenty of expereince in this. I did lead on my customers that was very good with SW and he loved the functionality that he got from this type of top-down designing.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
FAQ559-716 - SW Fora Users
RE: Learning Solidworks
I went to the resellers training program for 4 days and with an excellent instructor returned home with competence and confidence to learn. From there I jumped in with both feet and drew. I found it to be very intuitive. It is just like you would make something in the shop--cut it, extrude it, weld it, etc. This is coming from a VP of engineering who bought 20+ stations of PROE over the years and watched the tedium and frustration of our "expert" CAD designers having to learn it. I would say the ease and use is excellent.
To further this, I started my own company, the money comes out of my pocket--and I could not be happier with the choice.
RE: Learning Solidworks
Hi -
I appreciate your comments - particularly from your background end use perspective.
Incidental comment:
Apart from my SW learning effort, I am pursuing out of interest various side issues to 3d modelling --- for example -- having just recently looked beyond Autocad 2d (which suited my needs adequately), I am now discovering that there are numerous mid level 3d design programs on the market, all claiming to be this and that and everything else. I am very curious how all of this is going to shake out, will SW become the world standard in due course?? Or not? (SW claims to have 300,000 seats world wide -- is this significant -- or a drop in the bucket).
SW is pricey and overly intricate for independents, who need limited 3d capabilities. Others offer graded versions, starting at affordable levels ($800 randge) and offer several levels of increased functionality.
SW would be well advised to offer a "lite" version - perhaps that ttey don't is a sign of their success - they don't have to bother.
However, it sems to me that offering a "Lite" version in the $500 range would not cannibalize their current business, but would go a long way to help assure that SW becomes the standard (which might, or might not be a good idea).
What difference would it have made to your efforts if SW had been available in commercial "Lite" version - in your instance, would this have been of advantage both to yourself, and to SW?
RE: Learning Solidworks
I think these Eng-Tips forums represent a good cross-section of the working engineering force. Considering this, take a look at the other CAD related forums, and their membership number (bearing in mind that many people are subscribing to more than one forum).
AutoCAD- ~9,700 subscribed
Mechanical Desktop- ~1,400 subscribed
Inventor- ~1,700 subscribed
Catia- ~4,000 subscribed
ProE- ~6,000 subscribed
SolidEdge- ~1,600 subscribed
MicroStation- ~1,000 subscribed
Alibre- ~400 subscribed
CadKey- ~250 subscribed
I-Deas- ~1,500 subscribed
Unigraphics- ~2,000 subscribed
SolidWorks- ~9,000 subscribed
Is this an accurate comparison or scientific, of course not. There are many factors influencing these numbers, from users that have not heard of Eng-Tips, to users that find all the support they need from the software vendor. But I think it's a good gage.
"But what... is it good for?"
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Learning Solidworks
RE: Learning Solidworks
SW is inexpensive if you compare it other 3D CAD systems, plus the power that it has in it. It comes down to this. Do you Quality (SW) or Price (AutoCAD = free INV)
SW is not AutoCAD, so I hope they never come up with a SWLite product. If you want a cheap CAD system that has cheap tag on it like IntelliCAD. Or spend the cash for a good corporate edition of SW. SW offers a Education seat for $99, try getting that instead. It has a water mark on it, that you can't get rid of.
Having a Lite would require more support on both my end and SW end. SW and myself are already busy enough with the Corporate, and education versions. In the end a LITE SW would cost more money and it would not benefit anybody but those that are buying it. We would probably see a jump in maintainence on the corporate and education side as well as a jump in the Liet side.
SW Lite is bad idea no matter how you cut it. If you want Lite get the personal edition for al little while then buy the edition seat for $99 bucks. But the deal is you can't produce production drawings without the watermark, plus you will be breaking an agreement with SW. So if you want SW, try getting in close to a VAR and maybe, just maybe they will give you a discount on a single seat of SW.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
FAQ559-716 - SW Fora Users
RE: Learning Solidworks
$4k/seat may seem like a lot if you are buying it for yourself, but if you are buying it for yourself then you're doing so to generate income. This is not just a business expense, it is a very smart investment.
The last two companies I worked for were using Pro/E and Wildfire. We did a clean sheet evaluation and in both cases decided on SolidWorks hands down. This evaluation was done from the standpoint of the users. We let them define the criteria and they came up with the usual which can be summed up as: Does it do what I need it to do? Is it easy to learn, use and re-learn for the casual user? We did not ask them to consider purchase price nor maintenance since they weren't paying for it. That was the enlightening part - they chose SolidWorks over the Pro/E they were using based soley on its abilities and ease of use. Management loved the recommendation since the SolidWorks with maintenance was cheaper than the Pro/E maintenance alone. A win-win!
Sometimes you get what what you pay for and sometimes you get a whole lot more!
- - -Dennyd
RE: Learning Solidworks
As I said before, I had none, and left the class more capable than them.
As far as the price of SW, I wasn't looking for something to fool around with at home--I wasn't in the hobby business but rather looking for a product that would make my business money. It was my money so maybe I had more incentive to learn.
Good Luck with your choices.
RE: Learning Solidworks
Naturally, as "self educator", I didn't qualify --- then the "Personal Edition" was handed out at a reseller seminar, and that has been my learning tool.
However, it does not contain the other elements of the regular package -- it is in many ways a teaser -- SW must think that normal adult learners (who normally need to educate themselves under adverse cconditions), are less worthy than learners enrolled in degree seeking programs.
I don't see why SW plays this game - discriminating between "degree seeking" learners and "non-degree" seeking learners, and force the latter to learn from this 90 day, stripped down version.
Neither one is used or usable for paid work - which after all is the isuue - to buy the tool once it has earnings potential (until the entire tool feels good) and assured useable. Until then, the 5K is a gamble.
Putting forth a serious educational effort on an incomplete, limited program seems foolish somehow.
Or do I have this wrong -- is an "Educational Version" available to me as well?? - and if so, how??
RE: Learning Solidworks
I don't SW is playing any games. They are protecting their investment and if you want into the same investment then you have to take a chance and buy the software. There is no way around it.
Besides you can't do production work with the PE edition or the EDU edition. You just said that is pretty much what you want SW for. I sounds to me like your something for nothing. The world doens't work like that as i'm sure your completely aware of. But you have to be willing to take a chance. if you want to teach yourself then get the 90 day PE version and teach yourself.
kroth - have you used the Corporate version and the PE version? what are the difference - Please advise?
I would like to know what is the difference between the PE version and the Corporate Version. From my understanding they are the same except, the PE version has a watermark that cannot be removed. And the files cannot be converted to Corporate version even if you purchase it.
DennyD yes this is true same goes for Personal Edition files.
Regards,
Scott Baugh, CSWP
3DVision Technologies
http://www.3dvisiontech.com
http://www.scottjbaugh.com
FAQ731-376
FAQ559-716 - SW Fora Users
RE: Learning Solidworks
AutoCAD is just as relevent as SW. Look at what you want to produce as an end result. If you want mail merged letters then you use MS Word, if you want a quick printed list of a dozen names then why not use Wordpad or even notepad? You can't say a software package is not worth using because it isn't as powerful as another if you're not going to use the extra features.
I invested a lot of time in 2D mechanical drawings in AutoCad, if I want a 2D drawing now then why should I spend time modelling it in 3D when I've still got to lay out the 2D version even if SW does shortcut a few 'bits'.
The biggest mindset change I found whilst starting to learn SW was exactly as rhpe said earlier, you work with SW by imagining how physically you would produce this part, which is as much a design aide as the resulting model/drawings.
RE: Learning Solidworks
I have not been exposed to the corporate version - my plan was/is as I said earlier to learn SW from the Personal Edition - which is just fine for that purpose, and if it truly fits me, to buy the full version (at one time , did things the other way around - bought the software, then threw it out when I discovered it didn't suit me - very wasteful - although I would rather learn using something I own -- more comitment that way).
Which brings me to SW Lite - I would buy a $500 version, for example, that would cover the entry level engineering effort -- PARTS and ASSEMBLIES only - without quibbling (assuming that these two make a reasonable entry level package) --. That $500 from me now is better than $5,000 maybe - and in the process, who knows how many full version sales would result due to my enthusiam and missionary work (all free to SW).
RE: Learning Solidworks
Agree with what has been said about learning. You learn more by jumping in and concentrating on using SW exclusively. Going back & forth between AutoCRUD & SW gets confusing. Classes are OK, classes at local community college are good to force you to take the time to learn, and they are off site so your not bugged with other responsibilities. VAR classes are probably OK, but rather expensive and are more helpful after you have been using SW a while.
Just one more thing for your consideration: Look at a site called cadpo.com. They offer a free class on "What's new in SW 2005" as a teaser, but for $400 for a years worth of classes, it may help you.
RE: Learning Solidworks
You are all absolutely right, and thanks for everyone's input and encouragement.
Took a lot of effort to retool an Autocad wired brain - but I now think Solid Modeler. Actually, it's very easy.
Regards
Kroth
RE: Learning Solidworks
Very Best,
Macduff
Meggitt Airdynamics Inc.
Dell Precision 370
SW2004 Pro SP4.1
XP Pro SP2.0
NIVIDA Quadro FX 1300
RE: Learning Solidworks
It took me a while too, but now when I have to go back to AutoCAD to edit a drawing or something, I find myself trying to do it the way SolidWorks does.
Engineering Technician
Fisher Research Laboratory