Because our EE's don't use or have seats of Solidworks. Our products have assemblies with electrical and mechanical components that need to be built up in tandem to finish the assembly.
Our EEs could give us the information, but then a great chunk of our Mechanicals' time would be integrating...
Well, I don't have access to 2005 now. Is there any way to accomplish this other than breaking the document into multiple one page documents and then having an unholy mess when repagination is required in the Word document?
Ok, I have several Word documents that I use that our electrical engineers update in order to accomodate changing electronic procedures without having to get the mechanical engineers and SolidWorks involved with every change. Previously, we've kept the two separate, but what I would like to be...
Ahh, your help, even though it is for the Excel based BOM helps. I can do the same thing for the table based BOM. I just wish SolidWorks were smart enough to have an "override" of sorts. Basically it should have a column and a property that operate as such...
1) If the property is null, the...
Ok, here's my problem. I work with models that have things like cabling, conduit, etc. that have BOM entries that list linear feet as a quantity instead of a part count. Now, these elements are modeled as a part in SolidWorks, so when the BOM is created, is parametrically points to the...
I'm looking to start using SolidWorks routing for electrical cabling and connectors. Now, the SolidWorks help files say nothing at all about using the routing package for cabling, and instead focuses on piping. There is no way my company will ship me off for several days and spend a couple...
Ok, I have many assemblies where I have a circuit board enclosed in a box that's about 4"x2"x1" with a cable that is up to 12 feet long. What I'm looking to do is to be able to model the cable true length. The problem is that when it comes time for assembly prints, the cable is so long that no...
Ok, last update to this thread, I promise. I think I've figured out what's going on here in case anyone cares. When you have a drawing view in a drawing document that is shown in the exploded state, it appears that any part that has sketch references to another part reverts to a state in which...
Yeah, I forgot that tidbit of info. What throws me for a loop, though, is that some parts will allow themselves to be annotated on and selected in the exploded view, but others won't, and I can't figure out how they decide which is which.
Ok, I found out a way around it, so someone might be able to come up with the reason why this is happening. Basically, if I make the view unexploded, I can select and point to the part. If I were to make the view exploded, the leader stays stuck to the part, but I can add no new leaders, and I...
Actually, it is a custom view created through a macro. I modified the 8-iso macro to also produce 8 dimetric and 8 trimetric views. However, this problem has occured before I began using this macro.
Ahh, I didn't say that at the beginning. Yes, I am trying to add a note, but nothing else works either. I can't select the part just by clicking on it with no function selected. Balloons won't attach to it, I can't put a weld on it because I can't select it. I can't dimension it because it...
Basically, it's as if the part doesn't exist. Anything in front of the part is selected, as usual, when pointed to, but anything behind the part is selected as well. Turning off surrounding members or supressing them doesn't help. Then it just doesn't select anything.
Hmm, that's a good idea, SBaugh, but I'm trying to insert new notes with leaders to the part in an assembly. There's not a lot on the assembly itself to insert with Model Items, and nothing on the part in question.
Ok, lets see some of those big brains on this. Here's my problem, I have an assembly and I'm drawing up the prints for it. In one particular isometric view, there is a part that is clearly visible in the print, yet when I go to add a note or a callout with a leader to that part, SW refuses to...
Actually, good catches by both of the follow-ups. I read the wrong line for material strength, and I only gave the torque required for a direct shear of the shaft at the head, not for torque required to shear PLUS frictional seating torque.
I guess the lesson is that these forums are a useful...
Assuming the bolt sees only torsional shearing and not a complex stress pattern from bending as well, the torsion formula should work as a good approximation, assuming the head shears off of the body.
The material's tensile strength is 586 MPa. The transition radius under the head should be...
