ds-blue-logo
Preview  |  SOLIDWORKS USER FORUM
Use your SOLIDWORKS ID or 3DEXPERIENCE ID to log in.
SKSimon Kószó17/08/2016

I have just started to get familiar with the Interference Detection function in Solidworks. However in the first couple trying I found something which seems to me a bug.

I attached a simple assembly containing only two type of parts, a box and several screws. In the box there are two original hole (1-1 in two oppsite side of the box) with ISO M4x1.5 cosmetic thread. I used linear pattern to create the other holes (5-5 in each side). Afterward I inserted two screw in the two original whole and applied derived pattern to insert all the screws.

When I ran the Interference Detection I clicked "Create Matching Cosmetic Threads Folder" option and I saw something strange. Only two interferences were collected into this folder: Those  ones which contained the original two holes. The other interferences which belongs to the patterned  holes were not identified as a matching threads

I tried to insert a screw without pattern into a hole which was created by pattern function: the same problem happened: solidworks did not recognize as a matching threads. However when I created a hole in the box individually (so not with pattern) and afterward I inserted a screw in the hole with a properly configured linear pattern in the assembly the interference was recognized as a matching threads.

Well after this strange behavior I am quite sceptic about whole Interference Detection function. As I saw this whole recognition of matching threads works only if both the screw and the nut contain exactly the same cosmetic thread. Therefore I need to review my whole CAD database where I collected my fasteners and modify all the parts. Obviously I don't want to do this huge job if I have any doubt about the functionality of the Interference Detection.

                                                                 

I use SW2014 SP5.0.  Have anybody experienced anything like this in SW2016?

Thanks in advance for any answer:
Simon