FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
(OP)
In my class... I try to drive home the point that all shetches should be fully defined. Typically, I deduct a few points from the homework if a student leaves undefined sketches in his model. I'm confident that this is the rule I want to keep for reasonably simple parts. But, I'm curious to hear the opinions of you guys that model a lot of swoopy stuff... aka surfaces. I know that it's practically impossible to fully define a sketch that contains a spline (but I won't bet my paycheck on that statement). And I suspect a lot of your surface built models might contain a few splines.
So tell me please, should I ease up on underdefined sketches?
Windows XP / Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse 5000
SolidWorks 2007 SP1.0 / SpaceBall 5000
Lava Lamp
www.Tate3d.com
FAQ376
So tell me please, should I ease up on underdefined sketches?
Windows XP / Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse 5000
SolidWorks 2007 SP1.0 / SpaceBall 5000
Lava Lamp
www.Tate3d.com
FAQ376






RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
Jason
UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2006 SP5.1 on WinXP SP2
SolidWorks 2007 SP2.1 on WinXP SP2
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
Chris
SolidWorks 06 5.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 02-10-07)
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
Sometimes fully defined is more trouble than it is worth. Especially true when using construction geometry (other than "infinite length" lines). A construction arc or spline may be adequately defined but with "loose" endpoints. Constraining endpoints of construction geometry often just adds unneeded clutter.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks API VB programming help
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
I expand the feature tree & look fot + or -... then I investigate. If it's just the end point of a center line that's causing the sketch to be undefine... that's OK.
I don't grade very harshly either. The students that fail are the ones that take ZEROs on assignments & never do them. You'd have to make an effort to fail my class - if you know what I mean.
Windows XP / Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse 5000
SolidWorks 2007 SP1.0 / SpaceBall 5000
Lava Lamp
www.Tate3d.com
FAQ376
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
BTW... that flaming bag on your front porch might have poo in it...
Windows XP / Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse 5000
SolidWorks 2007 SP1.0 / SpaceBall 5000
Lava Lamp
www.Tate3d.com
FAQ376
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
However, while designing, I use a different rule. I define only as much as is needed for its given purpose. Your example of using swoopy stuff is a good one. I have little need to define all the points on a spline, so I don't. In fact, I normally don't even define these things when I "freeze" a design. No point in making things difficult to edit, and spline points don't magically move themselves when I'm not looking. In fact, the same goes for lots of geometry--if it's not anchored to something else outside the sketch (like an assembly reference), it won't move itself spontaneously either. If I move something upstream in the tree, that could affect my undefined stuff, but then it's other geometry or sketches that change, not my undefined stuff (quite easy to fix the rebuild errors if I do this).
I also leave alone specific geometry-driven things that I want to refresh with an assembly's changes.
Since I'm an ID guy, things have to be flexible enough to work with. Normally, I start a junk assembly with all sorts of criss-crossed relationships among parts. I establish working movement and other relationships in that assembly. When things take on sufficient form, I begin severing those relationships and build up a clean, new assembly. Tweak the parts within the new assembly and I'm finished with the design. Clean method, saving myself (and my clients) time, which for me is expensive.
Jeff Mowry
www.industrialdesignhaus.com
Reason trumps all. And awe transcends reason.
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
Having said that, when I am actually designing a prodict that will eventually need to be constructed or tested virtually, I will always fully define my sketches. I seem to have less problems with the models, and I always gain a little more insight into my design when I actually have to put some thought into how each sketch relates to everything else in the design.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
Dan
www.eltronresearch.com
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES
RE: FULLY DEFINED SKETCHES