Parametric Dimensioning
Parametric Dimensioning
(OP)
Ok hopefully sw can for sure do this.
If im detailing a simple recangle plate, in sw2003, and i place a hole in the center, how do i specify that that hole will always be in the center of the width of the plate? Even when i want to change the width dimension later on? The Dimension modify box wont allow me to enter in the width name "D1", which i would like to specify "D1/2"...
thx.
If im detailing a simple recangle plate, in sw2003, and i place a hole in the center, how do i specify that that hole will always be in the center of the width of the plate? Even when i want to change the width dimension later on? The Dimension modify box wont allow me to enter in the width name "D1", which i would like to specify "D1/2"...
thx.






RE: Parametric Dimensioning
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
Regards
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
1. Sketch a construction line from corner to corner.
2. Right click this line and select "midpoint".
3. Control select the center point of your circle sketch.
4. Create a coincident relation between these two selected points.
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
You can
1. Select the Construction line
2. Select the Center Point of the circle
3. Add a midpoint relation to the 2 selections.
One fewer step.
Alan M. Etzkorn

Manufacturing Engineer
Hoffco/Comet Industries Inc.
http://www.hoffcocomet.com
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
draw construction line, then constrain symmetric to one pair of edges. Constrain the hole to the construction line
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
thx.
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
You cannot simply type an equation using dimension names in a dimension modify box (Like Inventor).
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
If you don't know the dimensions name or don't want the trouble of write their long names, just click on the dimension when you are editing the equation: SW will write it for you. Then just add the needed math functions.
Regards
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
Ken
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
While I have not found equations to be unreliable (yet), I would first use construction geometry (preferrable) or relations. They show up first when you edit the sketch.
Regg
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
Can you give me an example of when equations are not reliable in solidworks. I use them from time-to-time and want to know when not to use them. Or maybe you meant that the user may not use them reliably??
Can you clarify please.
Thanks,
DG
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
FAQ559-590
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
My last and worst experience with equations was this (running SW2001 at the time I believe). In my main assembly, I was using equations between multiple parts and sub-assemblies. It was a ball feeder, and I wanted multiple parts to update when the inputted diameter of my ball part file was changed (i.e. hole sizes to update, plate thicknesses, and mates/relations between parts, etc.). There were occasions when the equations were *not* updating the parts, some equations were wrong and I don’t think I saw any notification that they were wrong, and then having to manually update the filename in each equation (if a part or assembly filename changed) was a mess. Once I had this assembly completely working, later I copied the assembly and all it components, then tried to change the ball diameter and let SW work all it’s magic (thinking I wouldn’t have to do any work). It was a nightmare. Some files were looking at the previous assembly base ball part, and some files in the previous assembly were looking at files in the new assembly (which was probably *not* a fault of equations tho, but I still wonder). And all of the equations still contained the old filenames in them. A year and 3 or 4 more times coping this assembly later (with a day or 2 of headaches), I decided to delete all the equations and the base ball.sldprt file. I then created a layout sketch in the main assembly, and had all my (previous equation) references point to that construction geometry. I’ve only copied it once since then for a new ball size, but that time was much smoother.
At that I time I was advised that equations were quirking and not reliable, and to avoid them if at all possible. I haven’t used one since then.
I would think that only using them inside a single *part* file (not looking at *any* other files), and not a really complex part shouldn’t cause any of the problems I saw, but I haven’t seen the need to use and equation (for simple add/subtract/multiply type equations) that couldn’t be done with geometry...so I do it with geometry. In these files, if there are going to need to be multiple relations, I usually have a layout sketch *only* as the top most entry in my feature tree. All that’s in that sketch are my “equation” geometry lines/arcs/circles that subsequent features will look at. For just one or 2 relations, here and there, I just put the construction geometry in that respective feature’s sketch.
Also, most of my work is 2-1/2-D (rectangular/shaft) type parts, no curvy stuff.
And before I get flamed, I know there are times when equations are the obvious, and best way to go, but I choose to go the another way. Just take a look at www.mikejwilson.com and see what he did with equations. Another good thing I could say is that I do like the fact that equations now show up in the feature tree. That makes it easier for another user (or me later down the road) to notice that they actually exist in this file and are being used (I don’t think that was in there before).
I’ll try to keep an eye out for a good instance to use one and maybe I’ll dip my feet in there again...maybe...;o)
Just my $0.02,
Ken
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
And yes, I *was* a much greener designer at the time and may have been throwing the equations around were they weren't *really* necessary. I would definitely not go overboard with them (just like in-context relations). But they still failed in my opinion.
Ken
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
And I do as the tip that TheTick recommended, I also rename the dimensions in my layout sketch to be names with real meaning, not just Sketch1 and Sketch2, blah.blah.blah.
Ken
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
About equations I've never experienced problems but, as you say, I only use them inside parts (not relating differnt parts).
About the copy of files, yes, I was already in big trouble. I gess SW remembers the place of the original files. You may call the copy assembly, but SW will retrieve the original parts and these are the ones that are about to be modified.
The only safe way that I have found to do this is by changing the file location option of SW, to point only to the intended folder (containing the copied files).
Regards
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
Thanks for the heads-up.
DG
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
I went to mikejwilsons site they you mentioned and that scooby doo model was very impressive on its use of surfacing. I am curious how long he worked on that?
RE: Parametric Dimensioning
Obviously (for any CAD system) the least complex all definitions are the faster the system will run.
The more fundamental (simple) the definitions are the faster things will run.
You can't get much simpler than using basic trigonometric rules and principles. I always teach people that if you can define something simply via its basic geometry it is much better than adding lots of relationships and dimensions, etc later - they become time consuming and unnecessary.
Also the simpler things are, the easier they are to modify without unwanted effects occurring due to other interdependencies.
I appreciate the horizontal/vertical circle center-to-rectangle side and top midpoint relationship method (and similar ones). But it has a practical drawback in the general case. If you fillet the corners, or break an edge with some other feature in the sketch, this goes to pot real quick. Whereas with the diagonal contruction line, the "virtual sharp" intersection remains and your relationships stay put.
3/4 of all the Spam produced goes to Hawaii - shame that's not true of SPAM also.......
RE: Parametric Dimensioning