AnsweredAssumed Answered

Solidworks surfacing capabilities or lack thereof???

Question asked by 1-GU3IT0 on Sep 26, 2007
Latest reply on Dec 5, 2007 by cachaulo vanlaanen

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 29

Nice to meet ya master !!

I got a call into my congressman right now. Your message has inspired me to take this surfacing issue all the way to Capital Hill if nothing is done about it. It's those damn Republicans who insist we use "Solid Models" who are to blame.

FIGHT THE POWER !!!!!!!!!!!

No one else has this question

Outcomes

29 Replies

1 2FirstPrevious

Steve Calvert Oct 3, 2007 11:08 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
QQ, I haven't been to this 'Surfacing Forum' in a while and your thread caught my eye first thing. I have to ask the question, though. What is the problem? I can't call my sales rep and say, "Hey your surfacing tool sucks" without some kind of problem or lack of features or something else wrong. Come on give us some specifics don't just slam the tool.

Chris, are you making fun of us Republicans who want you to follow the rules or was that just a shot at the mass media because we get blamed for everything else?

Steve
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
1-GU3IT0 @ Steve Calvert on Oct 3, 2007 11:50 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer

Steve Calvert wrote:

QQ, I haven't been to this 'Surfacing Forum' in a while and your thread caught my eye first thing. I have to ask the question, though. What is the problem? I can't call my sales rep and say, "Hey your surfacing tool sucks" without some kind of problem or lack of features or something else wrong. Come on give us some specifics don't just slam the tool.

Chris, are you making fun of us Republicans who want you to follow the rules or was that just a shot at the mass media because we get blamed for everything else?

Steve

Hi Steve , I was just being sarcastic. The only one I was taking a shot at (so to speak) was "Master" Quartus . Hopefully my comment didn't offend anyone else. If so , I apologize.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Matt Lombard Oct 3, 2007 1:45 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Wow, that's quite a statement.

SolidProfessor is coming out with a surfacing training course. Maybe it can help you get a handle on a few things that you are having trouble with.

While I'm not a "master modeler" in any package, I've managed to get a few things done in SolidWorks surfacing.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Maybe like Steve said you could be more specific about what you are having difficulty with. If you provide an example or something concrete, I'm sure someone can give you a hand.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Charles Culp @ Matt Lombard on Oct 3, 2007 2:58 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
What? No surfacemodels of women's feet, Matt?
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Steve Calvert @ Charles Culp on Oct 3, 2007 5:57 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Chris, no need to aplogize to little ole' me. It didn't hurt my feelings, in fact, I used it as a chance to take a shot at the mass media.

Matt, nice models. I liked #4 the best. Looks like to me that SW can do surfaces.

Steve
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Matt Lombard @ Charles Culp on Oct 3, 2007 6:16 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Ok, Charles,

Here you are.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Steve Calvert @ Matt Lombard on Oct 4, 2007 11:48 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
QQ, I guess at least three of us are waiting to see what SW can't do...

Steve
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Pete Yodis @ Steve Calvert on Oct 4, 2007 2:51 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I'll up the rhetoric to try to pull QQ out of the woodwork. QQ great master, prove to us that you are not just a troll that hasn't slipped through cracks and show us some of your work and examples where SolidWorks is desparately weak in accomplishing what you need - it would only make SolidWorks better.

Pete
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
John Burrill @ Pete Yodis on Oct 5, 2007 4:16 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Indeed, Charles!
And I think he who makes such a claim as to be 'a master modeler in every package known to man' had better show comparitive versions of his work in other 3D modelling packages.
In the very least, he should have a link to his personal gallery of surfacing triumphs.
John
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Steve Calvert @ John Burrill on Oct 9, 2007 11:20 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Damn, I was hoping to get back from a long weekend and see some master surfacing questions.

Oh well...

Steve
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Steve Calvert Oct 9, 2007 4:09 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Now that's funny - I don't care who you are...

For those who might be out of our country, that was a quote from a comedian.

Steve
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
1-5RBXHY Oct 9, 2007 9:02 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer

Wow! Thanksall for providing feedback. I'm really surprised to find all of itnegative. I can see you are all die-hard SW users. I of which useto be before using Catia, Pro/E and UG. First off the mastermodeler comment was more of a joke, like the congressman comment.The point was that I am extremely proficient in numerous surfacingpackages and I find Solidworks at the bottom and wish it couldimprove because I do find other parts of the program are down well.Of course it helps if you are only looking to design a simple platewith a couple holes in it. :-) To my knowledge there has not beenany significant improvement over the last several releases. As forproblems I have with surfacing in SW, here are a few long with somefeatures I find extremely powerful in my favorite package,Catia.

1. No conic creation. This is huge!!!
2. Mutual trim is inherently unstable. Keep selections often flipon and off after modifying earlier surface features. For examplechanging an offset value.
3. Solidworks surface files consume far too much memory, whichleads to performance issues when you have 500 part assemblies. Minegenerally contain 2000 parts.
4. No law definitions, i.e. mathematical formulas to representchanges in amplitude versus a given parameter.
5. No healing operation when SW leaves gaps from a trimoperation.
6.One positive that I can think of for SW is it's surfacingevaluation tools such as deviation analysis and undercut detection.They're visually much more appealing.
7. As for Catia functions, here is an example of some ofthe various types of sweeps possible:
    A. Explicit with 2 guide curves
    B. Explicit with pulling direction
    C. Implicit line with two limits
    D. Implicit line with ref surface
    E. Implicit line with draft direction
    F. Implicit line with two limits
    G. Implicit line with tangency surface
    H. Implicit line with two limits
    I. Implicit circle with three guides
    J. Implicit circle with center andradius
    K. Implicit circle with limit curve andtangency surface
    L. Implicit circle with center and twoangles
    M. Implicit circle with two guides andtangency surface
    N. Implicit conic with 2 to 5 guidecurves

I could go on, but there really is no point, because when it comesdown to it, there really is know comparison between Catia and SW. Icould care less if the same company makes them. One is meant tomake toy cars, and the other makes real products like the samples Iattached. Sorry I don't have any others, but they are allproprietary. And unless you've used one or more other packages,please don't respond.
Attachments
- Surface Sample 2.JPG11.9 KB
- Surface Sample 1.JPG9.5 KB
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Kevin Quigley @ 1-5RBXHY on Oct 9, 2007 10:38 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I've got to say I agree with you on the conics QQ

But we have to get realistic here don't we. The surfacing you aredescribing in CATIA is not in the core system but in the variousadd on modules. There is no question in my mind that when it comesto true technical surfacing CATIA v5 - in the higherspecifications - is the market leader. Imagine and Shape is a trulyoutstanding piece of software - but at a very high cost.

As you so succinctly say, SW is ideal for designing toy cars(surfacing wise) - and what is wrong with that? Fact is most the SWcustomer base are component designers. SW is not aiming at theautomotive or aerospace market - Dassault would pull the plug onthat.

I for one have used many of the top end surfacing systems on themarket - mainstream and lesser know - like Think3 and VX forexample - we still use VX alongside SW. I find it kind of funnythat CAD companies spend so much time pontificating about A classsurfacing and g2 and even g3 curvature when in reality many of theparts are made by hand or 3 axes CNC, driven by 5 year old CAMsystems. Especially true in some areas of aerospace.

Who knows what will happen in 5 years. Maybe SW will be phased outand merged with CATIA? Maybe SW will move to the CATIA kernel.Maybe Autodesk will buy out Dassault!

All I know is that for the time being SW does the job for consumerproduct design for me and a lot of others - and yes - conics wouldbe great, but then we've been there before!
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Matt Lombard @ 1-5RBXHY on Oct 9, 2007 10:42 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I'm not sure what kind of a reaction you expected, coming into a moderated SW forum, posting with an alias, putting yourself on a pedestal, and with no background other than a couple of simple questions posted in other areas, just start ripping at the software for no reason, and with no explanation.

If there is no comparison, then why are you comparing the two softwares? How much did you pay for that functionality in Catia? Why would you try to do Catia type work in SolidWorks?

It is easy to see that you are impressed with your own abilities, but it looks like you have a few things out of whack when it comes to SolidWorks. If you were "extremely proficient" in SolidWorks, I think you would have a different view of the situation. First you would see that there are different ways of doing similar things in SW. I don't think anyone would argue that Catia allows more control over surfaces than SW, but they are different tools intended for different purposes. There's a reason why you don't see Boeing standardizing on SolidWorks, but you also don't see Rubbermaid standardizing on Catia.

"not been any significant improvement over the last several releases"

You must be living under a rock. Freeform, Boundary, improvements to spline, Fill, Loft, etc.

"no conic creation"

Yeah, that's true. Spline controls do most of what you want to use conics for.

"mutual trim is inherently unstable"

I've seen the selection flip, but it isn't "inherently" unstable.

"no law definitions"

Macros and partner software exist which can help you drive things like that for people who need it.

"no healing..."

if you're not getting clean trims, there is a problem somewhere. Catia plays pretty loose with tolerances.

As for the different kinds of sweeps, you're being petty. SW has a single sweep feature with many options, as well as a fuzzy line between certain types of loft and the sweep, in addition to boundary features that sometimes can work like a sweep. I think before you shoot your mouth off about SW, you need to do a bit more homework. I'll agree with accurate criticism, but I don't think you are as informed as you believe you are on the topic.

Anyway, I wish you luck with your surfacing endeavors, wherever they lead you.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Mark Matthews @ 1-5RBXHY on Oct 10, 2007 1:28 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer

Quartus Quartus wrote:

I'm really surprised to find all of it
negative.

What did you expect, the bowing masses? Forgive us for placing arrogance where it belongs.

Now that you have declared yourself a mere human you see you are getting some more considered feedback, though it puzzels me why you even bothered to post to this forum to begin with. You obviously have a superior surfacing package to use that has cost your company countless thousands of dollars to do work that that requires it.

Like Kevin and Matt say, SW makes no claims to work in those areas. I however work in Product Design and don't need to be creating high order surfaces and curves. I used to use Pro-E almost exclusively (after starting with Alias), but find that for concept work and presentations, SW is faster at creating what I need. Do I miss conics? Yes, for the occassional times I needed them. Do I miss Variable section sweep? Yes. But SW has made huge gains in surfacing ability since I started using it V2003. Then, if there was any surfacing work to be done I used Pro, but since 2006 there have marked improvements to splines, lofts, and now a true boundary blend surface. No package I have used has anything approcahing the N-Sided surface capability of Fill Surface. This tool alone has saved me boatloads of time in acheiving blends that in Pro would take 8 or more features with more patches. Yes will still have Pro-E in house too.

SW makes good business sense for our consultancy, and they are only going to improve surfacing down the road the competition in this market is substantial.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
John Ferguson Oct 23, 2007 1:31 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer

Quartus Quartus wrote:

I am a master modeler in every package known to man.

Bwahhahahaha.... That's the funniest thing I've ever heard in my life.

BTW, genius, in your follow up thread, I think you meant to say that you COULDN'T care less.

Muggs
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
CJ Goodrich Oct 27, 2007 3:04 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
"I am a master modeler in every package known to man"

Apparently you never worked in Inventor, Ironcad.... I can go on but who needs to.

I agree with 90% of what the others have posted here. There is no single base CAD package that will do everything at the most elite level.

Matt said it best "There's a reason why you don't see Boeing standardizing on SolidWorks, but you also don't see Rubbermaid standardizing on Catia."

I work in consumer products, the leading Multi-Tool manufacture in the world and I design allot of our new product primarily with surfacing for plastic injection molding highly complex and extremely tight tolerances. We have not had a single issue with SW model with gaps, false surfaces or ghost surface, I cannot say the same for Pro-E.

We output neutral models for our vendors and sense switching from Pro-E and Inventor we have not had neutral model body errors.
For examples check out http://leatherman.com/products/knives/default.asp
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Roland Schwarz Oct 29, 2007 10:28 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
SW's surfacing toolbox is considerably more limited than those of UG or Pro/E (which I've "mastered") orCATIA. This hasn't stopped me from producing models with endresults rivaling those I achieved in UG or Pro/E. It justtakes more thought and attention to model structure.

The greatest limiting factor almost always resides about 12-18inches from the monitor.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Kevin Quigley @ Roland Schwarz on Oct 30, 2007 3:32 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Yes I really must get rid of that Pentium 2 or at the very leastupgrade the ram to 256MB.......
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
cachaulo vanlaanen @ Kevin Quigley on Nov 6, 2007 1:51 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
What about his claim that file size gets out of control with SWsurface files.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Charles Culp @ cachaulo vanlaanen on Nov 7, 2007 12:26 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
As far as I know, SW2007 SP3 fixed that problem. My complexsurface part files are normally 5-8MB. They normally includethings like "Surface-Extrude14" and"Surface-Loft36"....
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Matt Lombard @ cachaulo vanlaanen on Nov 9, 2007 11:45 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I would be careful about unspecified "claims". Files get big sometimes. Configs make them bigger. Using rollback makes them bigger.

Who cares, really? Are you transferring files on floppy disks? Is your company limited to one 8 GB hard drive?

Storage space is cheap, and storing data is both faster and cheaper than recalculating it. SW doesn't come out and defend themselves on this issue, but they should. Other wise users just make up some voodoo answer and people start believing it. Lack of communication causes misunderstandings.

It isn't anything for me to have a single file that is 20 MB. There were some problems at one time where I would get files in the 200+ MB range, but that is fixed.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
1-9C36HC @ Charles Culp on Nov 9, 2007 7:18 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
This is correct Charles, it was SP2 actually. A MS patch 'hot fix' for XP was needed to be integrated into the SP build to correct the problem. Previous to SP2, the patch could be download from MS for 2007. This makes good on our claim at SWW2006 when we announced it but was held up on actually getting it to work correctly until MS fixed their end. BTW, it has nothing to do with heavy surface parts verses machined parts.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Jason Capriotti @ Matt Lombard on Nov 9, 2007 9:12 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I agree and disagree Matt. I usually could care less how big the files get since hardrives are cheap.

The problem I encounter is when it comes to emailing. It can be tough to get a 20-30mb model with lots of surfacing down under the 5-10mb limit my email has.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Matt Lombard @ Jason Capriotti on Nov 10, 2007 12:20 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
spell it out - FTP!
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions

Solidworks surfacing capabilities or lack thereof???

Outcomes

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content