Is it considered best practice to use as little sketch geometry as possible? For example, when designing a simple, square plate, should you use an Extrude Thin instead of a traditional 4 sided square? What are the advantages/disadvantages? I've tried using Extrude Thin to define my simple plates (usually just one part of a weldment) but they are always rejected as "that's not how you do that."
Could you please explain how long you used SW? and who is rejecting the models, your Boss or your Instructor?
I've been using SolidWorks for 6 years but I'm using it in a different environment now. I should have chosen my words more carefully. When I say "reject" I simply mean it isn't a preferred method by co-workers. I didn't see any obvious downsides to using the feature based on how I use SolidWorks so I was trying to ask if anyone else had experienced any disadvantages while using it. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
It depends on who is doing the rejecting. You will see ALL of the VARs and SW guys doing a quick extrude and pulling the arrows for depth when they do a "Show & Tell" to impress the boss and get the sale. Then when you start working on those and items made with those methods, you find that your sketches are unconstrained and likely to cause problems down the road.
Is it possible that the person doing the rejecting is rejecting something like unconstrained sketches and not giving you the full reason for the rejection?
Coming from a world that uses primarily sheetmetal and uses lots of symmetry, I start most of my parts as sheetmetal with a center rectangle having the center of my first surface centered on the Origin. Even modeling structural tubing and the like I set it with the datum planes centered top to bottom and side to side with the tube extruded both ways so I have planes in the center of the part. My coworkers on the other hand were all taught to use extrusions to make the part and then convert. They place the Origin at the bottom left of everything they make.
Drives me up a wall!
Bottom line, other than things like making sure ALL of your sketches are constrained and waiting to place your fillets till the last, many times "best practices" are often driven by what works best with your workflow. But I am always open to learning a better way.
I never use unconstrained sketches but that is the kind of response I was hoping to get. I was hoping that my question was worded such that it would illicit others to tell of their negative or positive experiences. I like using it because once the part has been created, when I click on the feature, I see all the dimensions. I think it is ultimately a workflow issue for me and my co-workers and as such I'd never go against the grain. Thanks for your response.
I prefer to see an inside dim and the outside dim on the pipes and other parts instead of an extrude thin. There is only one place the sketch to check dims not a sketch and a feature. I have trouble seeing some dims in the model when double clicking ect. Colors and me don't always get along.
Thank you for responding. I would have never thought about color being an issue for some people (it's not for me... usually). Checking the dimensions is actually the reason I do prefer it. I can click on the feature and see all the dimensions in one place just as I'd expect to see them. I can see now how that might be burdensome if the entire part gets too large.
It depends the use
If I need the square for a mold or a die a full defined square and extruded will be the best choice "the reason" see this catalog, did you see all the variables as you need to give a value?
as structural member are simple forms not to many variables to give, I think maybe this one was the principal reason what your projet rejected.
Thank you. I can see how it could become overwhelming and maybe even more difficult to use based on the part itself. That's definitely one disadvantage.
There is no limit to your supply of sketch geometry. You are not billed by the segment.
Do what is best to properly define the design. No more, no less.
Hi Cary
I don't know if it's good practise or not but I use thin extrudes all the time.
What could be simpler?
They're just another weapon in your armoury.
For example these grooves (you have to alternate the sketch lines direction) but its quick and easy once you remember.
I use the same name for the sketch and the feature but use an underscore or a hyphen which is easily understandable in equations
The only down side for me is the position of the dimension is not always very obvious
YES!!! The first image you show is why I like using it. It's very simple and then you can see the dimensions as I would expect to see them naturally. I have experienced the dimension placement issue you describe. It seems like there are times that no matter how the part is rotated afterward, the dimension just will not show correctly. But, I tend to run into this issue from time to time on any feature. The other member mentioned not liking the colors that show. Form your images, I can now see why that might not be pleasant for some. Thank you for taking the time to respond!
Hi Cary
I don't know if it's good practise or not but I use thin extrudes all the time.
What could be simpler?
They're just another weapon in your armoury.
For example these grooves (you have to alternate the sketch lines direction) but its quick and easy once you remember.
I use the same name for the sketch and the feature but use an underscore or a hyphen which is easily understandable in equations
The only down side for me is the position of the dimension is not always very obvious