Відео

I do not personally know of a program that will take a mesh and create clean geometry out of it, though I can imagine something like that being out there, you may just have to find it. As for staying within SW, this probably depends on the size of the mesh, the complexity of the part, and how much editing needs to be done. On a small mesh you could just import as a solid and then use features to add or cut material. If you need a fully parametric model, then yes you will need to recreate it to have the proper feature tree and sketch geometry.

Honestly, you can do surfacing (think sweeping continuous surfaces such as car exteriors) in SW, but those types of complex "organic" shapes are not what SW excels at. You would likely be better served with a different software, maybe Rhino or Zbrush, that uses high polly surfaces to capture all those details. Hope this helps!

Thank you so much for the kind words! Great question. I would create a global variable for the fillet width inside the skeleton sketch part file. Use that variable as a dimension inside the sketch. Then, create another variable within the part file where the chamfer feature will be created. Next, within the parent assembly, set the part variable to be equal to the skeleton part variable. Lastly, create the chamfer feature and set the width equal to the variable within its part file. Now, whenever you change the dimension inside the skeleton sketch, it will pass the value to the other variable and the feature. Another cool trick, you can dimension previously constrained geometry in a sketch (a derived sketch) and set the new dimension to "driven". This basically creates a dimension that is measuring geometry for you, that you can reference in your equations/features. When the measured geometry changes size, the driven sketch dimensions changes, and updates your equations/features. Both options can work depending on your use case. Keep in mind, daisy chaining dimensions and features like this, especially if it is across multiple parts/files, may cause rebuild issues. I always try to make changes from within the parent assembly, so all parts are open and rebuilding together. Also, "ctrl + Q" will be your friend.

@@forgeproductdevelopment thank you so much! Great answer. Can’t believe you’re still replying to comments this long after it’s been posted. Awesome work

@@akaZ__ You are very welcome. It is a lot better than waiting on me to make a new video haha

Great question! I have a few different ways to handle this. The first is drawing two circles, one representing the pin and one the hole. This way you can relate them to each other, (say, maintain .005" interference) no matter the diameter. This works great for specifying exact fits, and clearly showing the diameters and fit within the sketch. In very demanding applications, you can even set the holes and pins tangent to each other, instead of concentric, for added stack up accuracy. The one downside to this is that you can end up with a lot of lines and dimensions in your sketches, which can muddy the waters. The other method I have used is is to use the "move face" feature to prescribe the offset. I use "interference detection" as one of my checks, and then create the offsets for each flagged area. I can use search in the feature tree to find all my offsets too. I find this keeps the sketch clean, but is not as easy to create relations and less obvious what is happening, unless you examine the tree. I tend to use this on non-critical fits or large clearances. Hope this helps! If anyone else has methods they use, feel free to share!

Awesome, thank you!

Crazy to hear that this is still happening. May need to redo the video for 2024 as well. What graphics card are you using?

Create a sketch on a plane. Then, search “sketch picture” or go to tools>sketch tools>sketch picture… and use the pop up window to select your file. Hope that helps!

Thanks

As in you can't see the features on the inside to select them? I would use a combination of section view, transparency, select other and cutting away material, to get to the features I needed. Does that help?

I have not personally played around with it. What specifically are you trying to do? My typical workflows do not involve converting scan data to usable geometry within solidworks. Normally the scan is just reference to what I am creating. I know there are programs out there that are built for repairing and modifying meshes (zbrush, blender, others) and that is likely what I would use for something like this. Then I would import the clean geometry into SolidWorks and go from there. The mesh2surface plugin may be a cleaner solution than these programs, but I do not have enough experience to say for sure. I have used the PowerSurfacing plugin to good effect tho.

Thank you for the kind words and motivation!

Inserting a part vs derived sketches is a questions that gets brought up quite a bit. I have not done enough testing between the two to say one should win outright. At this point I would view them as tools to have in the box. Get familiar with both and then pull each one out when you feel like is has the advantage. At this point I would say both are viable, but I am likely biased towards the SS method due to familiarity.

Thanks for the comment!

I have not used it, but if it is just a low cost license of the main desktop software, then yes.

@@Mesolas yes, you should be able to use any continuous surface body that completely divides the solid.

This is a great comment, as I can understand your frustration and am sure others have felt this way as well. I have felt the same way watching people do surfacing Tutorials for SW too. The truth is, you are right, CAD is a terrible iteration and ideation tool. It takes way too long to create even the simplest of geometry, let alone build proper file structure and dependent relationships. However, even though that is true, the solution is not to throw those things out. That would be an excuse for poor CAD practices. Rather, it is to use other, more effective tools for the ideation and conceptualization phase. Moving to CAD only when you can leverage what it does best, relationships and structure. Imagine you are trying to design a new house by building walls and pouring concrete, then half way through you realize the layout isn’t right. It would feel really clunky to have to rip all that out to change the design. In fact, that frustration may cause you to build lighter weight walls, or to try to move the concrete around while it’s still wet. The need for flexibility would create bad practices with those tools because they are being used for a job they are not designed for. Same thing here. You are using CAD tool too early in the process to be utilized properly, therefore you are creating bad practices to try and use the tool for something it is not designed for. On a real-world project for a client, it is very rare that I will touch CAD before I have gone through extensive ideation and industrial design with pen and paper or tablet drawing tools. Keep in mind, I am an engineer, not an artist, so these drawings are often very rough and unsightly. Then, once the client has signed of on a design direction based on the 2D sketches, we move towards CAD, then iterate from there. Often times we will design a CAD model and then find a new design direction, but even then, we will go back to 2D sketching and establish direction before trying to capture the idea in a new model. Also, keep in mind you are watching tutorials on how to CAD, not how to design a product from scratch. You only see “cad software designers and instructors” showing you how to draw stuff they already know, because they are trying to show you how to use the tool, not a documentary on their overall process. To make videos showing how to ideate or conceptualize in CAD would be untruthful to their process and bad practice. Hope this helps clarify some things, feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or comments!

@@forgeproductdevelopment no substitute for pen(cil) & paper, highlighters for ideation! That said, I start with some simple reference goemetry in CAD to establish constraints, key datums, and simple sketches. This because we've all sketched something that "made sense" until you put it to scale... Print rudimentary CAD, sketch to ideate, update the sketches, occassionally add more reference features, lather, rinse, repeat. This also creates a breadcrumb trail.

@@raphaelhamm3853 This is an excellent suggestion as well. We have designed products where there are PCBs and motors, attachment points, or other components that are selected based on previous calculations. Sometimes we import those into CAD early on to get a sense of scale, and export out images to draw over the top of when coming up with designs. I think the heart of the matter is "start with what you have and select the best tool to move your forward given the initial conditions'. Whether that be from COTS components, systems you need to integrate with, mathematical calculations, or a completely blank sheet of paper. Each project is unique and part of the fun of engineering is getting to solve and optimize for those challenges along the way.

On top of this, the storage and creation of manufacturing info, especially when parts are shared between products, makes this utterly unworkable in a manufacturing environment that does any real part re-use. I rarely need my assembly to fully update and push changes in multiple subcomponents, and even when I do, I don't trust software to push the changes properly ready for review.

@jamesbuckle6077 You are right, this would be terrible if you tried to do it this way, but that would be a misuse of the technique. This is primarily for NEW part design. Once the product has been validated and released (ie. is stable), best practice is to freeze or break the relationships, so the parts can exist on their own. By doing this, you can reuse them in future assemblies, just like any other COTS part, without worrying that they would change due to revisions in the parent assembly. Any future changes would be subject to normal ECN processes. I blame myself for the misunderstanding, because I do not cover this part of the workflow in the video. Think of it like this: you would not reuse a part in multiple products that has not been designed yet (and if you were designing a multi use part, this technique would still be the best way to do it, as you could create functional relationships between both assemblies), and once it was designed and ready for incorporation into future work, the design would be stable and therefore locked out to exist on its own. Does this help/make sense?

USA

Glad you are enjoying it! I hope it has been helpful. I don't have a scanner in house, but have sent out parts to have scans generated before. I recently did some testing with photogrammetry, but was unable to produce a model of adequate quality.

Cheers!

Surfacing in solidworks can be tricky, but once you get the feel for it, it is very rewarding. I would also recommend trying some other programs, such as rhino, zbrush, and blender, as they can be valuable tools in your belt.