SolidWorks Sucks...
in [SolidWorks]
|
Prev: swApp Events and C#
Next: AddControl with bitmaps
From: John H on 5 Apr 2007 03:51 <devlin(a)semmlerclan.com> wrote >> Why can't you use the "Show parts only" option on the BOM? With that >> all parts, even those in subassemblies, will be shown in a single BOM. >> Even if subassemblies did show, you can exclude them from the BOM using >> the BOM Contents option in the Properties of the BOM. >> >> Am I missing something?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I do have some subassemblies too though. I could be wrong but I think > if I "show parts only" then I'm showing all parts, no subassemblies > even thought there are subs that I want shown as subs. Know what I > mean? > To change hats and come to SWX's defence for a minute......and then "dis" it again at the end. You CAN have as many levels of sub-assemblies as you like and still show all the parts in the BOM as if they were added to the top level using the "show parts only" command. It is totally mis-named and ought to be called "show all components". You can also mark each "dummy" sub-assy (i.e. ones that are just containers to simplify the assy structure) so that they do not appear in the BOM, but their contents still do. Having said all that, it doesn't work that reliably for me. I've got a small assembly which uses sub-assys to let me add in groups of optional extras. Quite often many of the lines of the BOM are blank, or only some of the columns are populated, but if I do enough ctrl-Q rebuilds it eventually sorts itself out. I've got another larger assy (not huge though) with sub-assys, and depending on which rebuild you look at, the number of items in the BOM varies between 51 and 58 !!
From: John H on 5 Apr 2007 04:09 "fcsuper" <fcsuper(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1175702887.366355.44550(a)p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > John H, > > I couldn't disagree with you more. It's ridiculous to say that a > software took over the market because it has an easy to remember > name. Did I say that was the only reason? From what I've seen of various CAD journals down the years, SWX has been THE most heavily advertised 3D package. Combine that with a cool, quite clever and easy-to-remember name, and it greatly helps the marketing effort. > Being less expensive than ProE was a factor, but there still > has to be a good product there to hold the customer for years. Unless you create one-off, bespoke designs, changing CAD systems is a nightmare most companies won't contemplate unless there's an issue that's a complete job-stopper. > Kia does have 600,000 owners, but how many of them will buy a Kia as their > next car? With SolidWorks, retension has been vital. > > As far as the "as many flaws as strengths" statement. Well, the grass > is always greener somewhere else. :) However, there's a reason ProE > fell far behind and why Inventor doesn't dominant the market (which > should've happened a couple years ago if what you are suggesting was > true). Not at all - the wider world hasn't heard of Inventor, but everyone has heard of Autocad. >It's because it is a great package for the price. And ya'no, > it's even a better package for the price now more than ever. > The lack of PDM in the lower-end offerings is shameful, and the price when you include them is not attractive. You could get I-DEAS with PDM as standard for less than SWX (the merging with NX has killed that off). Sure, there were some things missing at that price (sheet metal for example), but it gives the lie to the argument that SWX is currently "great package for the price". I think it would be more accurate to say "an OK package for the price". John H John H
From: JOJO on 5 Apr 2007 04:29 Why do all machine design guys think they are the center of the world, concerning their work with 3D CAD software? Of cause the amount of users of the nuts an bolts fraction are considerable, but they are definitely no measure for the requirements of a sophisticated and powerful cad software. Their only problem seems to be the amount of parts the software is still able to handle and to flatten 3d data again to 2d paper drawings with millions of crossing lines. ;-) LOL 10.000 +++ parts consisting of piled up boxes and cylinders, only crude geometry. That�s nothin�you need a cad software, you just need to take some nice coloured wooden building blocks ;-) I bet that I can also force down the performance of SW with only one single complex part of a consumer good, designed for injection molding. And that�s real frustrating to me to see that SW still can�t handle complex geometry, surface-tangencies and precise predictable spline behavior in an acceptable and efficient way. Not to mention all further shortcomings of SW: bug legacies reaching back to 2001+, painful instalation, the lack of stability, altered geoetry, redundant gadgets, decreasing quality while price is steadily increasing ..... just my 2cents of a non machine design guy happy flaming ;-) JoJo
From: Dale Dunn on 5 Apr 2007 10:36 > I was hoping this one was going to work.... Seemed to be the most > logical. Hmm. It does work for me, all the time. This is how I do some hydraulic cylinders, as flexible subs. I wonder what I'm doing differently.
From: TOP on 5 Apr 2007 10:46
JoJo, Guess you never tried a machined project for real men like say an eight cyllinder internal combustion engine. With all the castings and forgings you have the worst of both worlds, complex geometry, drafts and fillets galore and lots of parts. Isn't just the ID guys that do complex. TOP PS You haven't lived till you've done a watercooled cylinder head casting. |