CADForums.net

Diemaker · Guest

In IV you can "dice up" a sketch and pick about any individual
region(s) to extrude. Regions can be coincident, butt or over lap. SW
needs a special command for this? Maybe were thinking the different. I
have an picture in response to TOP.

matt · Guest

In article <1133372024.745340.312150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
diemaker888@yahoo.com says...

Jeff Howard · Guest

Howdy,

Ok. Right up front: I don't know a lot about CAD, a smattering here and there.
I know a lot more about CAD than I know about the intricacies of strip or
progressive die design. Metal forming is not totally foreign. The automation
and strip development are the interesting, and totally foreign, parts to me.

I think you might be going about your quest in the wrong way. You have
developed, over the years, methods that are presumably highly productive using a
certain set of software tools. You'd like to adapt these methods so you can use
a different, more comprehensive set of tools to extend your capabilities or
somehow improve on what is. That's where I think the problem lies; trying to
adapt methods that rely on the strengths of one (or a set of) program(s) to
another program that has different strengths (as yet undefined, comprehended,
even imagined?). Doing this you end up focusing on details that are probably
irrelevant. No offense meant, but getting wrapped around the axle about whether
or not a program can pick discrete regions, or boolean them on the fly, out of a
single sketch is not going to be productive. I also think that (what I imagine)
you're intended usage of configs, or table parts, is going to be a dead end,
that other methods will prove to be more effective. The actual "strip" part may
be another story; good use of a config type entity. I also would forget most of
what IV's pseudo-skeleton modeling leads to. It's a really pale imitation of
what's possible using other (loosely related; it's all related, e.g. xref stuff)
methods of creating dependencies with another software (any of several programs,
SW, SE, Pro/E, if I were to guess).

I don't know for a fact that any single 3D software will compete favorably with
your well developed integration of 2D / 3D methods. You are not alone in that
respect. I sometimes work in a field (general aviation) that still relies
heavily on 2D. In part this is because mid-range 3D is still assimilating high
end trickle down (strictly speaking; 3D, certainly "mechanical" is not
emerging -- it's old stuff) and, like you, a lot of people still get the job
done faster using 2D than they can using strictly parametric 3D. Fact or
perception? I don't know. It's something I struggle with myself. Sometimes
it's a toss up, an extension of the napkin sketch vs. engineering drawing
debate. Hand drawn sketches are still, undebatably, the best way to define and
communicate some simple structural repair and that's what goes into the
engineering documentation and is submitted for reigning authority (FAA, DER)
approvals. Sorry, meandering. That's a given; the "design" happens in the
head. Drawings are just documentation and communication of the abstracts. Here
we should be just as interested in how the software can aid the "in the head"
processes and communicate what 2D doesn't lend itself to; 3D shapes and
contours.

I don't really know how one might better (?) go about it. Knowledge of both
software (well beyond "basics" and a tentative grasp of "advanced" topics) and
application is obviously necessary. Perhaps partner with someone to fill in the
missing pieces, someone having intimate knowledge of any given program's
strengths. With the pooled knowledge working scenarios can be explored and
evaluated to see how they stack up against your existing methods. Considerable
investment will be required of both parties. You might also check some of the
local trade / tech schools, colleges, etc. Chicago should be a fertile area for
that; something to be gleaned or maybe a deal to be struck (what can you teach
them?).

Do wish you luck with it ...

Sporkman · Guest

Having trouble posting, Diemaker -- I'll see if I can get a message
through to you directly.

'Sporky'

Diemaker · Guest

Thanks Michael. That's a terrific edrawing. A mold, not a die, but
certainly comparable in complexity if not more. Lots of holes. Lot of
model for 4 meg self contained file. Amazing. It was jerky, and I got a
pretty good machine. Love the configs. Super. Can the configs include
different positions? Really want to be able to click a button and show
open and closed. Edrawings personify the philosophical differences
between SW and adsk. DWF is stylish to the point of obscurity. Edrawing
is like Chryslers big buttons you can operate with mittens on. I just
don't have any problems operating edrawings.

Sean-Michael Adams · Guest

TOP · Guest

Sean,

I found your discourse very interesting and appreciate you taking the
time. I guess I could sum it up by saying that in many industries a lot
of information is carried in the head, not on the paper. Tool and Die
and mold making are two such industries. I have no idea what half of
your terminology means. What is important is that you and the readers
of your prints know the conventions. 3D simply doesn't lend itself to
some of the shortcuts that account for this kind of skilled knowledge.
It almost sounds like your drawings are more symbols with dimensions
than an attempt to detail every little feature.

On the other hand, you have a very efficient system setup in 2D. No
doubt it is fast for you. The real question then is, can 3D be setup to
be as efficient. You speak of using layers. Layers are indeed a
powerful tool in 2D and in some 3D programs like UG. The question in 3D
is whether layers are needed at all. It can come down to a difference
of methods.

I have to agree about drawings. SW could be a very fast drafting
package if they had thought to use the sketcher to make scaled 2D
drawings in the draft module. The fact is, you can't take the hard
stuff that needs 3D treatment, drop it into a drawing and then finish
up with 2D to complete the drawing. It is just outside a 3D system's
ken. But that would sure speed things up. SolidEdge has tried to do
this but still comes up short.

TOP

Michael Eckstein · Guest

Now that I read your reply carefully, you probably want to show the die
"straight" open. You could do someting similar to my last post if you have a
lot of "in context" relationships, or with configs and mates, or---------

Mike Eckstein

"Diemaker" <diemaker888@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133399583.228853.96450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Diemaker · Guest

Hey Jeff... I kind of feel like I've just been thorough therapy. Hehe

My 3d mentality is changing. Every now and then I get a moment of
clarity and a little more light sheds on the darkness. I do have a lot
of baggage, but there are many treasures in those bags.

I feel I'm a trailblazer. I did not grow up in automotive country
where 3d is highly sought, I grew up in electronicville, where we mass
great quantities of little details. And none of my cronies have made
much effort to explore 3d. One of the better independents I keep
contact with is getting more crushed parts, as am I, and he's paying
a proe jock to do his extrusions. Last time I out-sourced was 3+ years
ago, and wouldn't think of sending that job out today. Search the
groups, you see some die interest, but not much proof of action.
That's what I see, seems everyone has 3d, but not using it. Talking
prog dies of course.

I had three designers under 28 years old. You'd think they would be
gun ho on 3d, but no. They would say...3d? yeah, I can do that, give me
another die to design. My oldest designer however went to SW classes
after a 10 hour day. 4 years later though, they still use acad.

Find a partner? That's what I've been doing. I got my best dress
and good perfume on waiting for someone to buy me a drink. Hehe. As far
as schooling, would you really want ME in your class? Innovation
doesn't come from a procedure book, it comes from expectations and a
will to overcome. I have at least 1.5 of those things.

There was a well known designer (in our circle) that was famous for
sketching as he talked. When I finally met him at a tool review, sure
enough, he penciled the most perfect little iso drawings all over that
print. It was like watching Charles Schulz draw snoopy. I'll never
forget that.

I didn't obsess about regions, they did. I want to know about part
configs.

Thanks for the encouragement, if I get SW I'll let you know how it
stacks up. In fact, I'll let everyone know. Hehe.

BTW, I wonder what grade Roxanne got on your "challenging implant"
model?

Michael Eckstein · Guest

I'm assuming you mean open "like a book" so you can see both halves at the
same time. It can be done, I think the easiest way would be make a new blank
assembly and add in the original assembly of the mold (or casting die)twice.
Use the properties function to change the configuration of one half or the
other in the new assembly to what you need. Then make your edrawing. As you
will find out there are a lot of ways to skin a horse. This is just one of
them.
Also that file, it was not at all jerky for me. It could be your video card,
if you decide to get SWX check the website for recommended cards. It will
save lots of grief down the road. Give me a call if you have any questions.

Mike Eckstein

"Diemaker" <diemaker888@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133399583.228853.96450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Diemaker · Guest

Hello SMA.

"You are a tool designer and ACAD is still the best all around tool
for that type of work. "... You're either a real good salesman, or
the first authority I've read who speaks the truth. If you listed all
the engineering disciplines by order that they benefited from 3d, dies
would be at the bottom.

"1) SW can very accurately unfold a part a bend at a time" ...
Individual bend control. What better way to play with form
progressions, eh. Although I found out bends only go from folded to
flat. Occasionally need incremental bending (flat to 45 to 90)

"2) .... Very important. With featureworks, you can make dumb models
fully parametric with relative
ease."... I'm looking forward to that. So often have to remove a
fillet to extrude a toolbody too. But dose it really work? I have many
problems with imported geometry in IV. Often parts get translated a
couple of times before I get it. The 3d world is a solid mess it seems.
I'm hoping parasolids long history makes it a better translator.
Until/if the world unifies on one kernel, dumb solid tools are very
appealing.

"3) The configured part can be patterned and used as the basis for
your 2D strip design."... you betcha. Number one desire. Even if I
design in 2d, want the strip in 3d. So often in design reviews people
have no ideal what they are looking at and prevents them from giving
good input. With a 3d iso, my grandma can tell what's going on. But
the big question, do station configs actually work. Well SMA has said
all the right things to support his knowledge of dies. If he says it
dose, I'll take his word as the voice of authority.

"ideally you want pre & post operation, so you can overlap parts with
different configs to achieve this."... in 2d I show strip in pre-hit
position. In 3d you have to show post-hit. But in 3d, easy to add
another strip and feed it one station. At least for checking. I've
even assembled 2 strips, one progression apart, then boolean subtract
and you get the pre-hit remnant and slugs too!

"4)... - great for quoting." ... I never thought of that. a dummy
die controlled with a few parameters you can instantly get weights/cost
from. Excellent! Combine that with featureworks to deconstruct a part
into stations, and a strip template ready made to accept the station
configs. You could have a real good picture in no time. I wonder if
that's how QuickQuote (quickpress) works?

"5) Variational details that you do over and over "... dies
certainly could make use of a 3d library. A lot of planning to preset
parameter for bom though. I believe you can specify which sketch
dimensions can be used in the drawing at the part level, for auto
dimensioning on the print... A way to facilitate detailing of the
library part. What would be best, if individual detail drawings of
library parts could be ready-made, then pasted into a sheet. I would
guess this is not possible, in any package.

"6) Full blown die design on SW is absolutely clunky." ... telling
it like it is instills more confidence than a big surprised later.

"Dealing with fasteners is a pain, all the parametric fudging"...
Oh no, I'm getting scared, care to elaborate? I know screws are a
pita, what parameter fudging? I've heard params in SW are not as good
as IV, which seem very easy.

"and frankly the drafting is somehow not clean"...One advantage IV
has, I think, is the drawing side. Given all that it is doing, quite
fast. And prints are clean and nice as they get. Makes a tough
decision. Do you want to be with a pretty girl, or hang with your
buddies. Know what I mean???

"it's tough to get a "simplified" side view" ... no different in
IV. Big advantage to 2d. I'm thinking of having a generic side of
lifters and punch lengths and such. Then section just the unique stuff
on the tool.

"Nesting for a stick punch layout for wire EDM? Forget it!"... lol

HEY BIG QUESTION... Sw has ordinate dimensioning??? Anyone written
auto-ordinate programs?

"7) Large drawing sets"... I know. Last job I detailed 4 stage
tools in one 2d drawing complete. Must have been 40 sheets crammed with
details. + plans, boms, order sheets... all in one 8 meg file. They
don't update, details might not match the plans, but you can zoom to
any detail in a second. In 3d you spend 30% of the last half of design
waiting on files to open. Can SW have 10 sheets in one file? Does that
one file take forever to open? One print per detail would be slick for
end customer, but try to run that through a shop.

"8) On the upside if you want to do full 3D designs, there is no CNC
prep"... well a lot of times you have to close up holes and pockets
to single point machine. Another + for configs, a "designed" and
"CNC" config.

"I have used 3D at times to develop a complex forming operation"
.... I've said it many times, 3d makes the hard stuff easy, and the
easy stuff hard.

"DISCLAIMER:" ... I have designed dies for 17 years now. Probably
400 - 500 designs, not little ones either. Designed first 3d die with
acad r10 (for money, not play), been designing or supplementing design
with a parametric modeler for 4 years... outside of SW specifics which
I have no knowledge of, I agree with everything SMA has said.

But we're not giving up yet. Are we?

Thank you SMA.

Diemaker · Guest

Showing a "clam shell" view certainly is the most descriptive
single view you can have of a die. But constraints make it hard to
drive that. I was talking about pulling the die straight apart. Just
like that mold would be in the open position, with the ejectors out.
But open in a die is pretty cool. We got a lot of sprung components
that move. Plus the whole strip. Best thing about 3d is showing the die
open.

I'm assuming SW can config an assy by changing constraints. Right?

Diemaker · Guest

I hear you Matt. When I saw sketch blocks the first thing I thought
about was sketching a whole die with the blocks. I've read others
talk about using split method, so I started there.

There are a couple of die specific add-ons. Twice the cost of SW
though. Now we're talking close to the price of UG's die package,
which I hear is killer.

I may take your advice. Thanks.

Michael Eckstein · Guest

It can be done, one way or another

"Diemaker" <diemaker888@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133477613.449354.244880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

irontest · Guest

Hello Diemaker,

Since having multiple parts in a single file seems important to you,
you might want to check out IronCAD. You can create the entire
assembly in one file without using tricks.

Kevin

	CADForums.net Forum Index -> SolidWorks	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4