The Mold tools in SW are not useful to a large degree. Their biggest draw back is that they are not associative to the design model if a change is initiated by the customer. It is better to use tools like the "cavity" feature in an assembly environment. Then you can replace the part with a new one and just reselect the new one as the body to subtract in the cavity feature and it will update. If you use the Mold Tools in SW everything goes haywire if you try to replace the design part.
So What method do you use?
We have a "Split" assembly...
We bring the part model into this, edit the "Split" part and use the Join command to put the part model into it. Then we open the "Split" part and use the Parting Line command/tool to fully and completely split the part into cavity & core surfaces. Then we use the various surface tools in Solidworks to create the parting line surfaces. Then we use Move/Copy bodies to create copies of the parting surfaces...knit one set to the cavity surface body and the other set to the core surface body. Then we can go back into the assembly, edit the Core & Cavity parts and use extruded cut (up to body) cutting up to the respective surface body in the Split part. It is a system that gives us a lot of flexibility in how we incorporate & deal with changes, and continues to have a 100% success rate when splitting parts.
Hi Doug, This is similar to the way I do it. I will have to examine this work flow in more detail, but I feel I have in the past and found the Parting Line creation tool a little unwieldy. In some more complex instances it ended up with gaps that SW choked on. The main difference I can see between our ways is you add another layer of reference/inference with the addition of the SPLIT part. I just apply a shrink rate and sometimes a split line to the customers model and use that in place of the SPLIT part. It seems to me that you would run into the same loss of certain references if the customers model should change in a way that affects those references. Thank You for answering in a helpful manor.
We have not had any problems with the Parting Line tool. It is pretty much the ONLY Solidworks "Mold Tool" that we use, and we use it on every single Solidworks mold design.
The Parting Surface tool, on the other hand, is pretty much useless/worthless.
We also never use "Shut-off Surfaces" tool, "Tooling Split" tool, or "Core" tool.
Ahh Yes that's the one. I haven't used it in so long I forgot which one it was. As I said, I'll examine this work flow in more detail. Does Parting line work better than split line? they almost seem like they do the same thing.
Those are two very different tools. split line is purely cosmetic for modifying existing geometry or surfaces.
parting line is necessary for any tooling split to eliminate a lot of manual work that results if you choose to do it any other method.
Parting Line not only splits faces on the silhouette, it splits the solid body into:
Cavity surface body
Core surface body
& the original solid body
Tool is tool. You might not like it while others found it useful.
Please spell out what you want to improve so this tool can be enhanced which benefit to many
Don't worry about it. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they even save time. Most of the people I know who really design molds use the built in tools about 50% of the time. That's fine. Use what works. The shutoff stuff is often helpful. The parting surface is probably not. The split tool is great, if you get the surface bodies correct.
I'm not worried about it. I do lust fine. I've been designing molds for about 20 years and I don't use the mold tools at all. Not because they never work, but because in cases where they do work its easier to do the "Hack & Whack" method as Doug calls it (Not my words. His) ,but he implies that he has a better method and I was just asking what that was. I don't think there is a method that is totally bullet proof, But I have replaced a customers model using my method and had the whole assembly regenerate without an issue. Can that be done if the SW mold tools are used? Let me clarify: By mold tools I'm not talking about Scale, Draft, Split Line, Move face, etc...I use those all the time. I'm talking about the automated tools basically those to the right of the "Insert Mold Folders" on the tool bar.
I would agree with Doug that most people actually using the tools are instructors or just learning the basics of tool design. They have their own dedicated tab, so why wouldn't one think they are the obvious choice? Experienced users can identify the negative aspects and incorporate work arounds. I think the biggest improvement could be made with the parting surface tool. I'm sure it wouldnt be incredibly difficult to implement another reference object to keep surfaces normal/planar. Everything else works fairly well IMO.
I think you must to understand a workflow first...I use a workflow "assembly" always....
Many issues with the 'mould' or 'mold' tools. I do wonder if Vero has as many issues, it seems the most likely used software for tool design in the UK.
Brian,.. the ones I've done are all manual, each part is different (ruled/radiate/loft/boundary/planar,.. cut w/surface.. combine.. split (core/cav/slide/lift/insert),..some multi part some assembly) so, I do not normally use the supplied mold tools... but for the forum,.. it's easier, for me, to use/show both... otherwise,.. the poster (new user, student or teacher) almost always gets confused.
The only people I've come across that "insist on using the internal Mold tools in SW" are instructors (who are teaching students how to use the tools in Solidworks, not teaching them how to best utilize Solidworks to design molds) and people who don't design molds for a living.
The method you suggest will still cause you to have a lot of stuff suddenly fail when you get a new part model. And using the "Cavity" method (which we refer to as the "hack & whack" method at my workplace) does not have a 100% success rate and also slows down Solidworks more than other methods...from our experience.