https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/index.cfm?forumid=3 FuseTalk Enterprise Edition https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14678 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 03:58:21 EST Martin Euredjian 1
The configurator is not complete. It doesn't really have any error or bounds checking, therefore you can ask it to make rivets that will result in invalid geometry. If that happens, just ignore it, re-open the design table and change the parameters. Specifying a rivet length that is very close to the recommended full head clinch allowance will break the model.

I don't want to dive much deeper into this until I get a good sense that this is the way to go (and receive some good constructive criticism). Feel free to use/modify this for your own applications, of course.

I can see that some VBA code within the Excel workbook could do wonders. I am particularly concerned about how to handle the various options with regards to showing the rivet in the clinched state. The tables built into the current version simply use the recommended clinch allowance for a full clinch head. This rarely gives you the work thickness you might be looking for. My thought is to, perhaps, add the ability to override the default clinch allowance and specify the thickness of the material to be joined. This would give you a rivet that fits "right".

The way I would use this is to create the desired rivet configuration; use "Save As..." to save it to its own file; open that file; delete the configuration table and then use it in an assembly. You don't really want to carry a config table on every rivet you insert into an assembly!

I included the Excel file saved outside of the SW document to make it easier to examine. Both the internal and external Excel documents have two custom views saved to make it easier to view the whole thing or just the "form" area. In Excel, go to the View menu, select "Custom Views...", then select one of the two views and click "Show".

Thanks,

-Martin



]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14551 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:44:52 EST Monty Montgomery 4
I would like to have a user (on page two of a spreadsheet) enter data in a dialog box then click a "go" button. After the "go" button is pressed , I would like to have a configuration build.

Many configurations may exist, the new configuration will have to be build in the first empty row on page one of the spreadsheet.

Is this possible? Have you done it? Are there any examples I could study?

Thanks a lot
Monty
]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14403 Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:31:38 EST Steven Dinsdale 5
Thanks in advance,
Steven ]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14390 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:31:04 EST Jon Califf 4
We are playing around with some standard casework fixtures in solidworks. The Idea being to have multiple configurations of a single fixture that can be inserted into a assembly. For example, one configuration would have 2 doors and a drawer, one with 1 door and no drawers, etc.

I seem to be having a variety of problems with this. There seems to be no easy way to get multiple copies in Varying sizes of the same configuration. IF i want a configuration that is 27 inches wide and then another that is 35 inches wide of the same configuration...do i really have to "save as" and create seperate files to modify to different sizes and then insert into a assembly?
This process becomes more and more confusing the more complex it gets.

For example im looking at one room that im trying to draw up as a test, that room has 4 different versions of one base cabinet...2 of another...and then 3 different upper cabinets..

so for that to work...it seems that i have to save out 9 indeividual files and then insert them into the assembly and then modify the sizes?
This dosent seem right to me.

The other problem im having is actually saving the Files out to be completely seperate entities. Inevitably something breaks. Using the Pack and go function does not work, and using "save as" is confusing, but i try it multiple ways and it seems to work sometimes but not others? If i rename the file my equations break, if i dont select virtual components the fixture breaks. Its frustrating because im not sure if i am doing it wrong or if the functionality just really isnt there for this to work.

Any suggestions or tips would be appreciated. ]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14379 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:25:58 EST Michael Crist 5 Our company upgraded to 64 bit machines, 64 bit XP, and 64 bit Solidworks. I have Office 2003 installed, but when I look at a list of OLE objects, none of the Office types appear (for instance, in Insert, Object; the dropdown list does not include Excel spreadsheet, Word doc, etc...). Could this broken support for 32 bit Office OLE objects in XP 64 bit be causing my design table problems?
]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14341 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:51:07 EST Alan Stoldt 4
We have an Assembly that uses design Tables/Configurations and Equations to create a Tube Frame and Safety Door with a few inputs from the Designer.

(see image below for a simple version).

After developing this module and getting it to function correctly, we have just begun to use it Real Time. It works well and give us the conformity of design we were looking for.

The Sub-Assembly as shown is Pack and Go 'ed to the directory of the new design. A six digit prefix is changed to match the company's Work Order Number. (i.e. xxxxxx_Machine becomes WO1234_Machine...)

The only issue I've encounter is more of a nuisance than anything. When we initially open the Main Assembly to work on it, a window comes up (2nd image below)...

The equations of this assembly refer to assembly: xxxxxx_Machine.
Would you like to reset them to refer to assembly: WO1234_Machine?

YES NO

We choose YES and continue working without issues until SolidWorks has been restarted and the assembly opened again.

I originally thought this would be a one time thing, but it continues.

Is there a way of doing things so this condition doesn't happen for future modules or perhaps a simple fix so it only needs to be done once?

Is this perhaps something along the lines of the "YES TO ALL" option?

Thank you in advance,

Alan ]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14257 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:12:08 EST Kevin Ramanjooloo 7 - How many nozzles
- Their size ( I dont know how to drive configurations from a DT, for the flanges)
- Each Nozzle's Height and orientation.
I know its a lot but once i get out of this bug, I'll have a fully automated assembly.
This will work to reduce production time. I haven't worked with APIs yet but i bet that could help in this situation...

--- Probably another newbie question, but does anyone know a way to export a 3D solid to AutoCAD?

Thanks ]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14223 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:37:52 EST Matt Greenstreet 1
Is there something I can do to make sure when my design table supresses a folder or pattern that all the parts within it are affected? Thanks!

~Matt Greenstreet ]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14163 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:12:51 EST Eric Arnold 1
Thanks! ]]> https://forum.solidworks.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=14101 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:13:30 EST Martin Euredjian 1
The design is a top-down assy where everything is referenced to sketches/planes at the top:

How do you deal with sheet metal gauge?

Including the thickness of sheetmetal might be needed in order to be able to mate or reference features or assemblies to one side or the other of a sheetmetal part.

However, the issue here is that in general terms, I think it is better practice to use gauge tables when making sheet metal parts. If you want to avoid mating or refering to surfaces within sub-assembly sheet metal components you have to include sketch lines at the top level to reflect the thickness of the sheet metal being used. This poses a problem because you can't lock your bend table thickness selection to a dimension on a sketch . So, if you change the metal gauge at the part level you have to remember to go back to the top level assy and change your sketch to match. This, I think, "breaks" a nice top-driven parametric design.

The way I see it, if you want to be fully top-down, you can't use bend tables.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,

-Martin

]]>