Learning Solidworks 15

[kroth]

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).

 

[TheTick]

working on learning Solidworks from a base of Autcad

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?

"An object at rest can not be stopped."

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[macduff]

kroth,
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

 

[MadMango]

Just to reinforce what others have said, forget all you know of AutoCAD.

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.

[green]"But what... is it good for?"[/green]
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?

 

[ctopher]

I agree with the others. Go thru tutorials, and create models just playing around with the icons/menus. Don't be afraid to do a mistake ... it is the best way to learn.

 

[MElam]

Long time ACAD users definatly have the hardest time making the move to any feature-based modeler. To make the learning curve as short as possible, I recommend the following two things:

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.

 

[fastasleep]

I was a long time AutoCAD user when I learned Solidworks. The best resource I found for learning this program was the online tutorial found in the Help menu. I started with lessons 1 through 3, following them verbatim, then chose the other lessons that I thought would be of benefit. Of-course, tips and tricks from co-workers and these forums are also invaluable resources.

 

[Heckler]

MacDuff,

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

 

[SBaugh]

See this:

http://www.scottjbaugh.com/SW_Children.jpg

- They do pick it up faster then old Acad users do.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376

 

[ctopher]

That's funny Scott!

 

[EngJW]

I am using a hybrid system now. Our entire database is in Autocad, and there is resistance among other designers to learn SW (don't have time). I would not be able to turn over a SW drawing to someone else for changing or checking.

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

 

[Heckler]

John,

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 or #-) but I'm sure the sales people made its learning curve overly simplistic.

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

 

[kroth]

Thanks to all the contributors to this thread - Learning Solidworks - this far -- I realy appreciate this.

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

 

[Stripper2]

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.

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.

 

[EngJW]

Heckler- sad to say, it is designer resistance. They are still trying to use Acad 12 methods with Autocad 2000. Management was good enough to get me a copy of SW just for the asking. It has already become a very productive tool for me.

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

 

[SBaugh]

John Woodward,

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,

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.

- - I agree.


Kurt,

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.

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.

Solid modeling programs, on the other hand, would be useless or too clumsy for the above,

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.

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

How do you figure this?

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.

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.

My ultimate goal would be to actually buy the program - but not before I would be sure to be its master

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

 

[kroth]

Reply to SBaugh:

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

 

[kroth]

Reply to SBaugh:

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

 

[SBaugh]

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.

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

 

[kroth]

Reply to SBaugh:

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