Comments on: 3 Unique Solutions to Modeling in SolidWorks

By: Loeb

Loeb — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:12:42 +0000

For “Sketches Driven Assemblies Methodology” which is also Top-Down design, I recommend against putting the layout sketch in a separate part file. This may cause problems with external relationships. Just put them in the top-most assembly file. Also, for parts that need to move, I just add copies of the moving parts to the assembly. I put the original parts into a folder that I can hide and use the copies as the moving parts, like one normally would.

By: The Best Modeling Methodology for a Robust SolidWorks Assembly

The Best Modeling Methodology for a Robust SolidWorks Assembly — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:37:47 +0000

[...] little while ago I did a cannonball into the serene waters of assembly design and gave you 3 Unique Solutions to Modeling in SolidWorks. It was almost a taunt, because I just jabbed at the [...]

By: Ripper2009

Ripper2009 — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:20:39 +0000

I actually work with that guy Karl.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:27:43 +0000

I’ve done it before by defining a thickness in a layout sketch and linking the dimensions there. That way I don’t have to set use equations or run the risk of creating circular references between parts that could be referencing each others thickness. Sketch layout work real well for this because everything, for the most part, is controlled from a single location.

An example would be a wood box. each side is the same thickness.

-I create a layout sketch in an assembly that defines the size and thickness of each and link the ones I need to.
-I insert new parts into the assembly and use the layout sketch to create the wood panels.

If I need to change the size I go back to the layout sketch. If I need one to be a differeent thickness, I unlink it and change just that one.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:51:23 +0000

I have created a layout part and it drives other parts in an assembly.
I created a variable in the assembly called “thick” and link it to the part thickness dimension.
I then have to create an equation in the assembly for every thickness of each part. This will work.
I was wondering if there is a quicker and simpler way to “link” to create an equation in the assembly for every part.
I tried the link to value, but I seem to have difficulty linking the value externally.

Note: I’m using the “thicken” command and can’t create an external “extrude to surface” or other type of external reference.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:36:46 +0000

Gerald, hi. Adding features/sketches to cylidrical or spherical surface is going to depend a little on what you’re doing. 3D sketches are an option, but you can also do some features or use surfaces to do some things. What in particular are you trying to do?

By: gerald

gerald — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:12:06 +0000

This is a great way to organize parts, components, and assemblies. I am actually more of a beginner and was wondering what is the easiest way to add features/sketches to circular (i.e. cylindrical and spherical) surfaces. The only one I have found is by using the 3-D feature with parallel planes, but this seems incredibly tedious and inefficient.

Thanks!

By: Gamage Hemaratne

Gamage Hemaratne — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:46:06 +0000

I am a Biginer- In Sri Lanka
Thanks

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:05:52 +0000

J.D. - thanks. from the comments and emails I’ve gotten, it seems I threw out a lot all at once. I’m planning on breaking each down a bit in a future post.

SolidWorks sets thier default Large Assembly Mode (Tool, Options, Assemblies) at 500. You can change it, because this may be a lot if your parts are very complex or you’re working on an older computer system.

If you have some time before your deadline, we can look at improvements, otherwise I would use what you have for the time being.

I can help you go over your approach and modeling practice. just shoot me an email from the contact page.

By: J.D.

J.D. — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:45:50 +0000

Josh - I am trying to figure out and digest what all you say here, but being new to Solidworks, I am not sure which is best for me. Or what is considered a LARGE assembly. I have started a project and I have the Model completed, however, I am not certain I drew it correctly. And due dates are looming for fabrication drawings. If you have some time, I would like to corresponde with you and get your opinion as to which approach would be best for me and what I should do with my first project (assuming I went down the wrong path).

BTW - This is the first tutorial of yours I have read, and I can already see I will be spending more time here soaking in all the expert info I can. Thanks!

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 01:31:15 +0000

Richard, thanks for the honest comment. I’m not sure what it all means either sometimes

Really, though, I’ve found these to be helpful in both team and consultant environments. The idea behind the first two is to be able to make changes quickly. The first works well for small assemblies and the second works best for large assemblies (in my opinion)

The idea behind the last one is to not spend a lot of time when there’s existing models available. There’s been time when I’ll take a SolidWorks model that has been created somewhere else that I only need for reference, so I’ll save it as a parasolid (.x_t) file so it’s easier to use.

I’ll try to write some post that explains each of these in more detail. Thanks.

By: Richard Williams

Richard Williams — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:15:49 +0000

Wow this sounds like a dynamite way to do something like a good sized project. However, I don’t have the foggiest idea of what it all meant. I’m sure it works great but I’m not working in a team effort. I’m a loner, retired and trying to teach SolidWorks if and when the chance comes up. Only beginners that is. Very nice ideas. I hope they help someone out there and maybe lots of people.