I am trying to configure my toolbox. On step 1 - Hole Wizard, I checked and unchecked the boxes for what was needed, but when i try to click on section 2 - Customization, my mouse cursor simply will not allow me to click it open. Has anyone had a similar problem? All help is welcomed; thanks.
EDITED BY MODERATOR: Moved to Toolbox space. Please post to the appropriate space when one exists.
Scott Baugh - Absolutely the best way, however there are plenty of people that don't know any better...
Anthony Kindle - Did you do any searches???
If you can't find what you're looking for go to
Forum SEARCH RETURNS - Over 189,000 Search Returns - 120 Categories - Excel (6/10/2020) Updated "API - Appearances & Bug" Searches and download the Excel Spreadsheet and look in the Toolbox Tab..
I hate it and it does not let you add your own fasteners to it.
I've heard this alot and I'm not sure what people are talking about. You can add parts, fasteners etc., to the TB in several different ways.
1) If you're talking about simply adding a larger, smaller, weird thread etc you can add it directly to an existing TB database. This is available for every existing fastener in the TB. Considering the TB has a bragillion different standards it would be difficult to find one that isn't already included.
.
2) If you're looking for "Modifications" to existing ones you can add customer properties. We did this to all the fasteners. You can add any custom property you want and have the option to have that added when you place the screw or in the data base.
.
3) If you wanted to create an entirely new oddball fastener you could copy one of the existing databases and enter in all the odd info via #1 above. Granted this would be laborious and you would have to be a bit inventive by reusing the model and DB but I'm nearly certain it could be done.
4) You can add parts to the toolbox as models you create. It is not nearly as flexible as existing TB parts but it can be done I would guess it's as flexible as what you're currently doing.
I'm certainly not saying that the TB is the way to go, I just don't understand what people are talking about when they say they can't add parts or customize the toolbox. I just went thru ours and added a "Smart number" to every configuration. We have not yet implemented it fully but when you place the fastener the smart number pops up in the BOM as well as a much better description that ISO 4762 M5 X.... that most of the people that are ordering the parts have no idea what they are anyway. This was all done in Excel, export, import...done.
Attached is an example of a Fastener I use. The code I am using is in this file as well... don't knock my VBA coding I know enough to make it work .
This is fairly basic, the bolts get a little harder, but it's the same code just referencing different cell locations.
When I was doing an overhaul of ours I found that on occasion the databases just wouldn't load. To minimize lost work I would save regularly and when it would not load, close everything and open it again. This seemed to happen more often the larger the databases where.
It also will not let you move on if there is an error somewhere. Things like duplicate names in the Database will prevent you from moving to anything else. You either have to fix the problem or exit and not save.
Just curious, what advantages do you see with that part over the TB parts? How are you using it?
Thanks
Matt,
I think what you are describing is merely changing what items SW gives you not adding anything special. You are expanding the configurations of the existing hardware
So are you saying that you found a way to add something special such as Rivets to your TB from a model you made?
From what I recall if you Copy the Database and you remove certain sketches\dimensions the DB no longer works for the file and gives an error then becomes unstable. If you try to use a newly created part and you add the flag "ISFastener" that makes the new part a TB fastener but the DB still does not see it as a DB file. So if you have found a way to add special custom made fasteners to the DB please enlighten us.
Matt Juric - About 7 - 8 years ago I used Toolbox for all my fasteners etc, worked really well till SW dropped the ball and sent out a buggy release and when I opened my large assembly files with around 1,000 to 1,500 toolbox components, every one of them came in at the wrong size, I was sick to the core. Prior to that I had a pretty comprehensive easy to use fastener library and used a lot of it since 1998, but I switched over to try it and got burned... That was a while back, those issues are all taken care of and a lot of people use TB, but not I..
Dennis Dohogne is - Pro -Toolbox and should be able to help out if someone has issues with there tools...
I don't want to use multiple locations for my hardware. Since TB does not allow me to add anything custom, such as Rivnuts, Rivets, Welded nuts or other fasteners than I truly have no use for it other than when I have to do a Simulation.
I can't say for sure this type of file sees any benefit doing it this way over using TB, but don't have any less functionality outside of SW Simulation. Truthfully I have the same advantages that the TB offers, except this, is designed by me and I control it. I am not relying on SW to get it right. I have seen where SW had made some mistakes in the TB DB. (Unfortunately, that was 2 years ago so I am unable to show you at the moment. I will see if I can find that information). These files load up fast and are all read-only in my PDM, and easy to change. I never found TB file easy to change all the dimensions. I like to see what am I changing and not hoping I am changing it correctly. Seriously though how much easier can this be?
If you go to McMaster-Carr all of this information is given to you. Plug in the numbers to the following Letters, click a button and bam new configuration. I don't' have to sift through the DB and remove what I don't want and I can add anything I need using the same VBA code. Just change the locations of the cells.
Like John, I too got burned more than a few times opening up large assemblies and not getting the SW to rebuild the fasteners properly like that have been claiming for years. My biggest complaint is not allowing us to add custom made parts to the TB database. Here was my attempt to add a custom part to the TB. I can get it into the DB, but I cannot control it and I don't want 100+ parts that represent a different size. That's the reason we make configurations of a single file.
No ability to customize or even add dimensions to control the file. It would be great if they allowed us to use the existing DT and add each column into the DB.
I hope this helps explain to you why we don't use TB and hopefully, this helps Anthony Kindle as well
So are you saying that you found a way to add something special such as Rivets to your TB from a model you made?
I didn't find it but there are couple threads in this forum on how to do it. Now you do not have the flexibility that you do with a native TB part but I believe you can create a design table and have that create your configurations as you place them...although I've only messed with that a bit and have had only limited success.
From what I recall if you Copy the Database and you remove certain sketches\dimensions the DB no longer works for the file and gives an error then becomes unstable.
Yes, you probably couldn't use a SHCS DB and model to create flow control. But you might be able to squirm your way into making it a rivet. Not saying you can do this as I've not tried it but it seems like a possibility.
On top of that you can always mix your method with the TB. If 90% of what you use can easily be modified and pulled from existing TB parts and you only have to create 10%, that's a bit of saved time.
So if you have found a way to add special custom made fasteners to the DB please enlighten us.
Here a recent discussion that is linked to one of the ways to add parts. Again not sure if that will work for you or not. https://forum.solidworks.com/thread/232269
Also if you're REALLY adventurous you can download DbVis and modify the actual databases. I only got so far as to pull the database, run the software and open the database....and scream :-) That being said if you know someone who is good at that sort of thing or if you are, they could do it. I sent it to my brother and he said he could do it but I'd be better off outsourcing it to UpWorks.
I'm certainly not saying the TB is the best way to go and or that it doesn't have issues, it does. Just in my experience it pretty comprehensive and easy to use. If you're library is full of oddball things then it won't be as nearly as much use to you if you use more standard things. I'd say 80%, easily, of the standard parts we use are in the TB without making mods other than adding our part number and descriptions. It would be nice, for us, if they added pneumatic push to connects and hydraulic fittings. But I understand why they don't because those are significantly less "Standard" than a 1/4-20 SHCS.
Thanks for the link Matt Juric! I had not seen this I will have to read through it further.
Squirm
I had tried doing it in the past and you can see from my post below bringing in a file with DT did not have good results. It's possible they have updated the TB to help with this because of the huge fit I through on this subject a couple of years ago to my VAR and to SW.
DbVis
Ah no thank you, would love to learn how to do Databasing, but I am not about to destroy that crazy DB. SW has made it bad enough, they don't need me in there messing with it. I know Excel and happy with that.
I would hate to give up what I have been doing for a couple of years now (my hardware) to go back and rely on SW not screwing the TB up again. As much as a lot of us have had over the years using TB it's not worth the risk anymore. If you like it and does what you need Congrats, I hope they don't burn you as they did us since they moved it to a DB. Yes TB was not always a DB and I used it then.
Seriously though how much easier can this be?
If you go to McMaster-Carr all of this information is given to you. Plug in the numbers to the following Letters, click a button and bam new configuration.
Well with the tool box you don't have to go to mcmaster carr, you don't have to enter numbers, they are all there for you. That seems easier to me. I actually looked at the design table way and it seemed like considerably more work. Again I could be missing something.
My biggest complaint is not allowing us to add custom made parts to the TB database. Here was my attempt to add a custom part to the TB. I can get it into the DB, but I cannot control it and I don't want 100+ parts that represent a different size. That's the reason we make configurations of a single file.
I absolutely agree with you here and for those things that aren't in the TB already it may be that your best bet is to use a design table. I've been working on combining the TB and a design table...with limited success mind you.
As I stated in my other post however, this option is available to you if you are good with SQL and databases....I'm not. Is that easier than you method, no idea. Probably is for someone who knows how to do it, probably isn't for someone who doesn't.
The only problem I have with your comment about configurations is you are relying on them to be right. Just because they have a thread length listed, does not always mean you can purchase that style bolt. I found this often at a previous employer. Since I have been here (new employer) and found the TB issue, then started making my own hardware, I first started using the Machinist Handbook's list of bolt data to plug into my DT. Then when it came time to buy the bolts that were spec'd out, they didn't exist. That's when I started searching what fasteners were available through places like McMaster or Fastenal. Granted we don't buy from them all the time we use a local source. Turns out their parts are even more limited than the online stores are.
So just because it's in the TB DB, doesn't mean you can buy it.
I forgot to add I can also add all my PDM requirements, Cost, Cost per qty, etc...
Matt Juric wrote:
Seriously though how much easier can this be?
If you go to McMaster-Carr all of this information is given to you. Plug in the numbers to the following Letters, click a button and bam new configuration.
Well with the tool box you don't have to go to mcmaster carr, you don't have to enter numbers, they are all there for you. That seems easier to me. I actually looked at the design table way and it seemed like considerably more work. Again I could be missing something.
My biggest complaint is not allowing us to add custom made parts to the TB database. Here was my attempt to add a custom part to the TB. I can get it into the DB, but I cannot control it and I don't want 100+ parts that represent a different size. That's the reason we make configurations of a single file.
I absolutely agree with you here and for those things that aren't in the TB already it may be that your best bet is to use a design table. I've been working on combining the TB and a design table...with limited success mind you.
As I stated in my other post however, this option is available to you if you are good with SQL and databases....I'm not. Is that easier than you method, no idea. Probably is for someone who knows how to do it, probably isn't for someone who doesn't.
Matt,
I agree that TB is a fantastic tool, I wish I had it on my current installation (I am on SWX Standard, so no TB ).
For anyone following this thread, let me make these general statements about TB vs. other methods:
1. Toolbox, in its early days, definitely had some problems. That was a long, long, long time ago. It is time to stop punishing TB for those early problems.
2. Toolbox is not as intuitive to customize as we would like, therefore a lot of folks have problems with it and get frustrated with it and dump it. Worse is they then bad-mouth it as a means to make themselves not feel so bad for not being able to use it properly.
3. Properly setup, Toolbox is a fantastic tool. Some of the keys to this are to have a network location for the TB installation that everyone on your system is pointed to, and having someone go through the effort to learn how to customize it (it really is not that hard, it's just not obvious/intuitive) and have them be the TB administrator (this is a minimal effort).
4. Toolbox fasteners are so easy to insert and have the smart mates built into them.
5. Toolbox parts are incredibly easy to change, especially after a major enhancement was added I think in SWX2017 where you could select a group of dissimilar fasteners (SHCS, FHCS, Hex bolts, etc. of different sizes and lengths) and change them all to one fastener - WOW! Most folks that go through the trouble of creating their own fastener files will have a file for their SHCS and a different file for their FHCS and yet another file for their Hex bolts so changinging a similar disparate group of fasteners to one common size is a lot more work.
6. Toolbox parts have access to a very broad set of industry standards. If it is a standard fastener then it exists in TB without any work to research it and model it. The biggest effort here is to figure out what standard covers your fastener and then pull the fasteners from it. (I found that there is no standard for imperial Nylock nuts, but there is for metric Nylocks.)
7. At the several companies I worked we customized our TB fasteners to have the same part number and description as in our ERP system. We used the spreadsheet export function in TB to generate a spreadsheet of the existing TB data and linked those two fields using a VLOOKUP command with a sheet dumped from our ERP to fill in the part number and description. Re-importing that spreadsheet to TB gave us the customized list. Easy peazy. We even removed (unchecked) from TB the sizes of fasteners we did not use. This gave us a list to choose from that ONLY included the fasteners in our system so we did not have to wade through all the possibilities of fasteners and could just focus on the ones we had. Adding a new fastener in TB was as simple as checking the proper size and giving it its part number and description.
I am a huge advocate for Design Tables, and fasteners make a very good example of how to do a DT, but I don't want to do that work if I don't have to, and for fasteners Toolbox is a very simple and very effective solution.
If you are considering using Toolbox then read up on it. It really is a very capable tool, but has suffered from a self-inflicted black eye from the last century and subsequent poor implementation by others. There is a 30 minute tutorial for Toolbox in the Basic Techniques section. If you need more help in customizing TB for your part numbers and descriptions just ask your VAR, and if you are not satisfied with their help then ask here (actually, just search the forum or use the spreadsheet in John Stoltzfus's Forum SEARCH RESULTS. . . ) since this has been asked and answered many times before.
As for me, I really appreciate Toolbox and have had no problems with it since 1998.
toolbox is fine if all is working correctly, but as John said, many of us have lost connectivity to the toolbox through version upgrades, network outages, etc. and then all hell breaks loose.
that's when we realize it is not a useful tool and that building our own library is actually faster and more efficient in the long run.
Also, you bring up another great point why we DON'T use TB, because they LACK so many common components such as hydraulic fittings that we are relegated to creating our own library anyways for all the other stuff that is not included in TB.
Another reason is that TB doesn't come in SWX Standard. So if you want some members of your team on a less-expensive license, they won't have toolbox.
It requires an increasing level of administration as it grows, especially if all of your fasteners are given part numbers, custom properties, and such.
I highly recommend leaving TB alone.
You already stated that you have a problem with TB, a big problem at that...YOU DON'T HAVE IT!
Not including TB in Standard is a HUGE problem. How many companies have all the same licences? Many companies are forced into a higher-priced product because they need toolbox. I'm sure Dassault did this on purpose.
One thing I've found after using SolidWorks for 20 years is that it has a LOT of fancy features, but those features aren't always the best way to do things. The reason is that whatever you do should be as simple as possible if at some point others will have to work with your files. For instance, complex, out-of-context relationships, or equations, or other advanced features will screw up new users. Then there is a high probability of errors in the model.
Some of these convenient shortcuts could be costing you in the long run.
One example is an employee came to me one day complaining of performance issues...on his assembly that is. He said everything was lagging really bad. I took a look at his assembly after he went home and I noticed that he used a bunch of hardware patterns. I don't know why I was suspect of that, but I always took the time to insert every fastener one at a time using mate references.
I copied his assembly, deleted the patterns, inserted all the hardware manually, and BOOM the assembly worked way better. I can't explain why, but a shortcut was actually causing massive lost productivity.
KISS
because they LACK so many common components such as hydraulic fittings that we are relegated to creating our own library anyways for all the other stuff that is not included in TB.
I don't really fault SW for this. If SW made TB a database that included every possible "Common Part" that every company on the planet considers "Common" it would be HUGE. As it is I think they include to much stuff. If I were King Solid Works, I would have a very basic number of items that pretty much everyone uses, bolts, nuts, screws etc and then allow 100% customization. As it is everyone will have to add there own "Standard" parts to their own library. I don't see that as a reason to NOT use the standards that are provided, you're just duplicating work.
Another reason is that TB doesn't come in SWX Standard.
Absolutely agree and think this is a huge mistake. Again if I were SW I would alter the standard package to include TB even if it meant taking something else away from it to hold the price point. It essentially makes standard not compatible with the other packages. I don't know too many people that do something like a simulation and then expect someone on a lower package to open and modify that simulation. I do however know a whole lot of people that have Premium or Professional that add fasteners and will expect lower packages to open them.
Good Morning Dennis,
Some thoughts about your bullet points. I have no doubt you are more than capable of using TB, but I still don't trust it and it's still limited IMO.
1. Toolbox, in its early days, definitely had some problems. That was a long, long, long time ago. It is time to stop punishing TB for those early problems.
1) Agreed it had problems, but were doable prior to turning TB into a DB, it has been a problem since then. Granted it has given users some better control over the existing parts in the library and far more security.
2. Toolbox is not as intuitive to customize as we would like, therefore a lot of folks have problems with it and get frustrated with it and dump it. Worse is they then bad-mouth it as a means to make themselves not feel so bad for not being able to use it properly.
2) I have been using SW since 1995, I worked for 2 VAR's as Tech support for a total of 8 years. I used it when I worked as a CAD Administrator for 5 years and 2 at another location. So I know how to use it, but never did I try to add a new component to the TB... With that said I can still bad mouth it if I like and it's not because of my lack of not knowing how to use it. I have seen so much better productivity from users that have their own hardware setup than using the TB.
3. Properly setup, Toolbox is a fantastic tool. Some of the keys to this are to have a network location for the TB installation that everyone on your system is pointed to, and having someone go through the effort to learn how to customize it (it really is not that hard, it's just not obvious/intuitive) and have them be the TB administrator (this is a minimal effort).
3) This is simple, because if it's not on the network what's the point of sharing the TB and making a Library or hardware. I have mine in the vault.
4. Toolbox fasteners are so easy to insert and have the smart mates built into them.
4) I can do this with any file, not just TB parts. My hardware parts mates the same way TB parts do, because I have smart mates built into them. This has nothing fancy to do with TB.
5. Toolbox parts are incredibly easy to change, especially after a major enhancement was added I think in SWX2017 where you could select a group of dissimilar fasteners (SHCS, FHCS, Hex bolts, etc. of different sizes and lengths) and change them all to one fastener - WOW! Most folks that go through the trouble of creating their own fastener files will have a file for their SHCS and a different file for their FHCS and yet another file for their Hex bolts so changinging a similar disparate group of fasteners to one common size is a lot more work.
5) Can you not just use Replace components to replace all of them to one fastener? Granted you might not have been able to prior to 2017 using a TB library part, but using Replacing components has worked fine for me to replace all my different fasteners to one fastener.
6. Toolbox parts have access to a very broad set of industry standards. If it is a standard fastener then it exists in TB without any work to research it and model it. The biggest effort here is to figure out what standard covers your fastener and then pull the fasteners from it.
6) I don't think this completely true. The more common fastener yes I would agree. but you get into the larger ones its not always available. Look at a Heavy Hex bolt 3-12, 18" Long, THD Length 5. I can't find that at any common site and google searching I found a site Ziegler bolt. They have 3"-12 bolts, but only at 8" long, nothing more. They could probably make you a custom bolt. However, looking through the list of Hex bolts it looks better than it used to.
I think TB could be so much better than it is, but those of us that have made our own libraries due to how ineffective TB was and still is (IMO), it's going to be hard to get convince me and others to come back to it. I have yet to see them add anything new to the library. there are soooo many fasteners that could be added to make everyone's life better, but it's still the same hardware as its always been since its release. Like other add-ins within Solidworks, everything is hidden in plain sight to customize the existing library components, but their lack of support of the library components (expanding the types) is the main reason I stopped using it. It's not my lack of understanding or implementing. It's on SW. Their lack or giving us ways to either implement our existing hardware (custom made) or being able to add new fasteners that have strict criteria would be better than no ability at all.
On a personal note: It's great having a TB expert out here I am by no means bad mouthing you or anyone else. Please do not be offended by my findings and statements above. I think you are a great addition to this forum. Cheers brother and may God bless you!
I have an old Toolbox post no one ever answered, want to give it a shot?
I don't think this completely true. The more common fastener yes I would agree. but you get into the larger ones its not always available. Look at a Heavy Hex bolt 3-12, 18" Long, THD Length 5. I can't find that at any common site and google searching I found a site Ziegler bolt. They have 3"-12 bolts, but only at 8" long, nothing more. They could probably make you a custom bolt. However, looking through the list of Hex bolts it looks better than it used to.
I think the point being made here is that a significant portion of common fasteners are in the TB. I'm not sure that a 3"-12 by 18" Heavy Hex bolt is a "Common" bolt. If this is something that you do use "Commonly" it's pretty easy to add it to the tool box without creating a new model. Just add the thread to the TB and all the configs, lengths etc for the size is created. I have no idea if the specs are right but here it is. Took me maybe 30 secs and I got every other available size from 3" to 24", full thread or partial.
Matt Juric wrote:
I don't think this completely true. The more common fastener yes I would agree. but you get into the larger ones its not always available. Look at a Heavy Hex bolt 3-12, 18" Long, THD Length 5. I can't find that at any common site and google searching I found a site Ziegler bolt. They have 3"-12 bolts, but only at 8" long, nothing more. They could probably make you a custom bolt. However, looking through the list of Hex bolts it looks better than it used to.
I think the point being made here is that a significant portion of common fasteners are in the TB. I'm not sure that a 3"-12 by 18" Heavy Hex bolt is a "Common" bolt. If this is something that you do use "Commonly" it's pretty easy to add it to the tool box without creating a new model. Just add the thread to the TB and all the configs, lengths etc for the size is created. I have no idea if the specs are right but here it is. Took me maybe 30 secs and I got every other available size from 3" to 24", full thread or partial.
That is a large size bolt! I use McMaster-Carr for most of my searches for common hardware. One thing I have come to particularly appreciate is the listing of applicable specifications the fastener meets. That is how I discovered that a lot of common imperial Nylock nuts do not have an industry standard, but metric ones do:
This is valuable because I was able to find the fastener in McMaster-Carr and see its spec/standard. From there I went to TB to grab that fastener from that standard library.
Scott, I have been using SWX since the initial release in 1995. My comments regarding Toolbox are based on my experience, which has been overall very positive. Toolbox has done a lot of work for me so I don't need to create part files and add smart mates or look things up. I just load it and use it. The most work we had to do was add our part numbers and descriptions.
I am not a salesman for SWX, but I think Toolbox is still suffering from the black eye it got from its early days. I'm very happy for the folks that do well without it. As for me, I prefer to have it and use it. And I agree 100% that is should be included in SWX Standard.
I know that was a super large bolt, but it was just selected at random, plus it was at the end of the list of heavy hex bolts.
I am not knocking you for using it if it works for your needs and Matt's needs, then great, but it doesn't for mine and there are others that feel the same way I do. Maybe its learning issue or a setup issue for some, I don't know, but don't knock us for bad mouthing it, because it needs some work.
Thank for sharing the Imperial standard for the lock nuts I was wondering what you meant by that.
FYI - I too have been using SW since 1995 but my opinion on TB is different than yours.
I'm not knocking anyone for doing anything. People need to find out what works for them and use it. I was more curious about the many threads where "You can add parts" had been stated. I thought people where doing something super easy to add parts in some other way to some other better system. I don't think that's the case and it's more personal preference and conditions.
Also bad mouthing something that does not work is not the same as bad mouthing something because you don't understand how it works. I'm perfectly fine with either, just that the latter is a bit slanderous.
Matt Juric wrote:
Also bad mouthing something that does not work is not the same as bad mouthing something because you don't understand how it works.
Always.... Things top out at our individual IQ level, nothing to be ashamed of, just reality.... I also have no problem with anybody using it, I just crawled back to my comfort zone...
Has this issue been solved. I don't care what everybody's preference is with the toolbox as a tool & creating your own toolbox. Most people don't have the luxury of creating something that is already available. It has all of the basics that I can make basic tweaks to. Then create what I don't have.
The question he had and I have is when trying to configure the toolbox we cannot select steps 2-5. I have been using toolbox for years and decided to use the new version of toolbox. Everything is setup correctly and I can't get any further than Step 1.
My recommendation is to get rid of TB. I hate it and it does not let you add your own fasteners to it. Only use it when I have to do a simulation, but that rare.
I made may fasteners using a design table, works really well and it's all automatic. I plug in a few numbers and bam new configuration made with all my PDM properties added.