SOLIDWORKS 2017 ADVANCE HOLES

Rick,

Sorry for taking so long to reply; I do not get out to the forums as much as I would like.

What we do is really crude; but it is a known process to our users.  For your example of a tap with a spotface.  We might start by putting in the tap, followed by a drill the diameter of the spotface and set the drill angle to 180 degrees.  In the drawing we would use hole callout for both the tap and drill then combine them by using an annotation (see below).

I have also experimented with putting the tap in with a countersink.  I then edit the profile sketch making the countersunk angle driven, changing the countersunk diameter to the spotface diameter, add a horizontal and vertical line to make the spotface and finally add a depth dimension.

Unfortunately, I have not found a way to get the depth dimension to link to the hole call out so I manually added it (I had the idea of setting the countersunk angle to 0.01 but I could not get it to display to two decimal places).

I guess I do not see a tool that makes it more complicated than doing a simple revolve to define a complex hole as a feature.

The reason I thought this might be a good tool is because trying to call out a hole with complex geometry with one dimension, with a single GD&T seems beneficial (hole callout).

Otherwise, this seems a convoluted method to make a revolve

Maybe they don't use hole callouts in Europe because your hole callouts aren't the proper formatting used in Europe.  Did you ever consider that?  Do you think people like to do manual work because they enjoy it?  Do a little more research and actually talk to people (instead of your secret data gathering methods) to find out what people really think.

Prefacing this with the statement: With all due respect Matt.

Cute icing aside. As an admin user who has always stated SW is the best software, I admit I feel that SW is now waning on being comparable to other software programs with instability. I've used many others.

We upgrade every other year. I'm not convinced, with 2017, that ALL the testing was done for some of the new and old functionality as well as it should have been. This includes the installation software, which really sucks for a lot of users (we were not of this issue, but of an observation of the forums).

It's not just the advanced hole functionality that I feel is half baked.

• The routing program has become very unstable with complex cables and tied with vault.
• No one seems to want to address the toolbox being as problematic as it is, especially when tied to the vault.
• The fact that 2017 was rolled out for 4K while not working properly (due to scaling issues) until - I think SP2 (don't know as we won't go to SP2 as there are tooo many corruption issues Iv'e seen o the forums). My boss clicks on the SW screen on his 4k monitor and it replicates the graphics.
• SolidWorks Electrical was rolled out some odd time ago. The amount of trouble tickets and troubleshooting my main electrical engineer did with our VAR due to just the set up wizards being err'd, made a quick decision that we weren't using SW Electrical until the information was years beyond beta testing. These are issues he found and had to report...
• The corruption and crashing issues of 2017 SP2 were not even addressed with SP3 according to querying the portal.

• On a general level, not all feature functionality works on all computers (i.e. we can't link cell values to notes which was a new feature of 2017). Reset my registry to do this or anything else with SW? Why doesn't the installation take care of this adequately. If I were the admin to a large group of users, this would be troubling. So much room for error. I won't reset multiple users registries until I see it in an SP release that this was addressed.
  • The fact that users themselves have to reset the registry to make sure they get full functionality out of the upgrades is puzzling.

I feel that just like when 3ds/SW/Dass. bought Enovia (which was a beta program that barely worked or was programmed for consistency in the PLM environment - for functional use) and just rolled it out, we are now seeing the myriad of sparkley options that would make the software great but only cause instability.

These things are not icing -but the fact that it costs a few thousand per seat, topped with subscription requirements.

Please just make SolidWorks great again?

OH man, I modified the text file to get it to work.

Try that, no?

David, what's happening with "Use baseline dimension" and modification of the callout?