CADForums.net

cadguru · Guest

Neil,

Thank you for your interest.

As I stated before we try not to let the CAD system define the design. We
do everything we can to create whatever shapes our minds can dream up before
ever going near a CAD system.

Once we get a design that we like, we have to decide what tools are best
used to get the result we are looking for.

Alias, Rhino, and some other Surface native packages, though very powerful
for visualization are not limited (good and bad) to creating robust
geometries. These systems by nature have freedoms that can come back and
create difficulties during manufacturing and assembly, as well as drawing
creation.

We have to weigh the cost of the downstream issues against the benefit of
speed and "agility". Sometimes we do go the route of using a surface
modeler, however those models usually only exist as surfaces. We most
likely do not try and create production ready drawings, assemblies, BOM etc
from any surface models. Sometimes quick concepts require quick surface
models to render in different colors textures etc. this works well. We do
not try and import models from surfacers into SolidWorks.

Normally in a production environment we are better off spending more time
creating SolidWorks surfaces than trying to deal with the downstream
pitfalls of a surface "only" modeler.

We do not in any way compromise our designs with the CAD tool. There isn't
anything we cannot create with SolidWorks. We have a vision and stick with
that vision (Graphics Design Pictures, ID foams or Clays) throughout the
production process.

It is very important to build quickly through many iterations of models to
come up with the best way to build the geometries required. You cannot be
tied to any process. You have to be extremely flexible in how you use the
tools that are available, and be ready to ditch your efforts and start over.
In any project I might create 20 to 50 attempts before deciding on the
methods that go to production. This is the only way to ensure that your
design intent is being captured not crippled.

It is this flexibility that is portrayed in the tutorials and demonstrations
of Ed Eaton and Mark Bioscotti as well as many others. I do not agree with
everything that Ed and Mark come up with but agree with their efforts 100%.
There are no perfect tools, or perfect processes, but there are great tools
and processes that work for a wide range of geometries.

We do our best to capture the original style and design intent of every
product we create. No matter what tools you use, you have to be creative.
The tools cannot limit your designs, nor can they create for you.

This is why we are designers.

Please feel free to post any other questions, and I'll do my best to answer
them in a timely fashion.

Thank you,

Cadguru

"neil" <neilscad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_qeef.1297$vH5.77163@news.xtra.co.nz...

wannabe · Guest

Really Nice. Thank you.

wannabe · Guest

This has been a very interesting discussion. Does your company have a web site
or web based portfolio. I'd love to see some images of your products.

cadguru · Guest

http://www.productcreationstudio.com

Adam Smith aka Cadguru
Mechanical Designer
SolidWorks User Since 11/20/95

"wannabe" <wannabe@hotmail.con> wrote in message
news:XJgef.872$jI5.798@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

cadguru · Guest

SurfaceWorks is a ground up geometry creation tool that allows the user to
maintain associativity and design intent.

Shapeworks is more of a back end geometry modification tool. (not that this
isn't sometimes the most cost effective way to reach a goal)

I usually approach a product design with an underlying skeleton of
geometries. Then build up from there. This approach gives me the most
robust model while capturing design intent and facilitating modification.

Wether I use SolidWorks or Alias depends on the goals for a given project.
For instance, I recently had to generate a series of handbags with different
textures, textiles, and shapes. On one hand I could create the geometry
faster in Alias (or Rhino or Surfaceworks) but on the other hand I could get
a functioning parametric model in Solidworks without too much added effort.

In this case I used Solidworks to build surface models then thickened the
fabrics into solid sheets. This allowed me to create stitching, pockets,
edge piping, etc, while still being able to Open and close the bags as well
as unfold and fold the bi-folds.

If I had used Alias I would have had to remodel the bags to show them
opened. (not a big deal after copying the geometry and recreating some
curves)

Either way I would get the Job done, I just needed to decide what was best
for me at the time.

In another case (and most cases for that matter) I had to create an assembly
of plastic parts including battery door with snap and overmolded parts.
This was definitely going to require 3D solid Models without surface errors.
In this case SolidWorks was the obvious choice, because even though the up
front modelling takes a bit more time and setup the data is robust,
parametric and immediately manufacturable.

If we use alias to create surface models for ID we then import those
surfaces and make 3D solids within Solidworks. Due to the difficulties in
maintaining moldability in Alias we rebuild the surfaces inside Solidworks
to be able to control draft, tangency, curvature continuity etc. Going to
manufacture with Alias models directly, proves itself time and time again to
be a costly venture.

I agree that surfacing in Alias, Surfaceworks, Rhino, etc. is faster and
easier than SolidWorks. However with the goal of product development in
mind, Solidworks is a much better choice.

For Concept and Mockup Alias is faster and gives you more flexibility.
However I do not feel that it is fast enough nor flexibile enough to build
first article ID models. In order to free our minds to create ID models we
build with our hands using pencil, pen, clay, foam etc. then we go to CAD.
Alias, Solidworks, Whatever.

So with all this in mind, SolidWorks is usually the better choice for us.

Thanks,

Cadguru

"neil" <neilscad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xtaef.1230$vH5.75192@news.xtra.co.nz...

neil · Guest

What pretentious self satisfied rot matt.
SW has real limitations for complex surfacing and you know it.
How do you produce something with C2 continuities throughout or variable
creases - not easy is it? Can you pull the shapes around like putty and not
'break' relations and conditions?
Obviously the models you recreated were fairly simple...I guess any
improvement can be made on something that is pretty poor to begin
with....and nothing in this thread asked if Alias could do sheetmetal...what
relevance is that?
Shapeworks and Surfaceworks were raised as possible enhancements to SW
native tools and even you agreed the later has worth....
Are you really telling me that Catia, Pro/E and UG are a waste of time and
that SW is all we really need??

neil · Guest

matt · Guest

neil · Guest

ok well I take a slightly different approach -
I pay attention to what I know works quite well and quickly in SW - if I
know a particular solution takes many hours to set up and many to refine and
is liable to break if there are revisions I don't go there. - I think I can
still produce something quite pleasing without fussing and pampering it to
death as a 'designer' - I am not sure that in the end the customer really
benefits or indeed notices anyway....they soon become aware of any
functional or technical deficiencies after the eye candy stage passes.
Indeed some people are resistant to over designed products and 'organic'
forms... and not just salt of the earth 'engineers' either.
For instance a cell phone may appeal to someone's visual taste and it may
come in a very smart box but any savvy customer these days will be looking
on the internet for reviews and opinions before they buy...and despite that
if they go to the shop and find they can't press the little buttons easily
on the demo well it really doesn't matter about the finer points of shape
and texture or the studio shots on the glossy advertising circular...
I use common sense to screen out stupid notions before they even get onto
paper as concepts - I don't see the point of exploring 50 options if you are
aware only 5 are actually going to be practical from past experience - an
amusement for me is to look at car designers sketches and know almost all of
their doodles are never going to see the light of day....
Perhaps I am unusual here in this I just think it is a mistake to force a
design onto a product merely because it is important for a 'designer' to
have defined everything about it.
So I do compromise what I do as a matter of course and let the tools limit
my designs - you have to actually know if a machine tool can make something
that is on the screen....

cadguru · Guest

Neil,

I fear you completely missed my point.

We create products using many tools. Our entire design team is involved in
product creation. Every team member has an important role in developing the
product. We design products using tools that have enough freedom to capture
the design intent. Could be a pencil, could be a CAD tool. Once we come up
with a strong concept we refine that concept into something that can be
manufactured. This is all part of the design stage. Normally before CAD is
ever involved. When we have a good Idea of what the products look, feel,
and function is then we do our best to maintain those ideas throughout the
engineering process. The CAD tool cannot limit your design!!!
Manufacturing processes however do define design parameters that have to be
followed. For example; We don't build a part without draft because the
designer wants it straight. We build the part with the minimum required
draft for the finish. Or we change our mfg process or pull direction.
There are certain things we have to follow, but we should always ask why, or
we will never evolve those mfg processes.

I do not fuss or pamper a model to death to capture the required design
intent. The iterative process I spoke about was in CAD after the design
intent has been defined. I might start heading down one path then realize I
need to go a different direction. My point was that many people maintain
their current heading even when the path is gone. They either forge ahead
creating a patchwork model or call it good enough. I find it better to take
a step or two back and create something that actually captures the original
design intent in a straight forward robust model.

Cadguru

"neil" <neilscad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0Hief.1396$vH5.80983@news.xtra.co.nz...

neil · Guest

hmmmm...I always try to work through available CAD tools rather than
replicate a pre defined 'design intent'....once I get the idea onto the pc
it assumes a life/character of its own and I am happy with that. I confess I
find terms like design intent a bit fuzzy and idealised/abstract....maybe my
methods are wrong....possibly my thinking is more 'engineering'
orientated....
This is quite an interesting divide and probably one a lot of folks find
challenging. It will be interesting to see what Ed Eaton has to say in his
SWW presentation.
thanks for sharing your methods and view point.

cadguru · Guest

Thank you for your input as well, I think this further establishes the idea
that no single tool will work the same for everyone. If you have time I
would like for you to attend my two part presentation at SWW as well.

Art to Part 1 and 2

Cadguru

"neil" <neilscad@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IYsef.1518$vH5.87835@news.xtra.co.nz...

	CADForums.net Forum Index -> SolidWorks	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2