CAD/CAM discussion forum > 3D CAD/CAM > Sketcher suggestions - do you have an opinion?

Sketcher suggestions - do you have an opinion?

    
  Subscribe Topic

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 344

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 1 of 23

 Sketcher suggestions - do you have an opinion?
28-06-2009 04:59 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
As I use sketcher, ideas as to how it could be improved come to mind. Not every day but occasionally.
So I am wondering others have these inspirations ?
I figure I'll put some up here and see if others agree or disagree. Everyone else is welcome to throw in their gems.
Maybe if enough folks think it is a good idea, VX will consider it. It not a good idea, VX will know not to use it!

Cheers

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 344

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 2 of 23

28-06-2009 05:16 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
HISTORY OBJECT naming.

At present, all shape extrudes etc get a generic name with an index number appended. Rename in V14 (nice) allows a description to be added(nicer still) but the description doesn't show up until easily.(pity) Maybe it would be nice if it did , View Labels active, during hover.

IDEA: Why not use the Parent object name plus the Cut, Base, Boss, Surf suffix?

BENEFIT: This would mean you only had to rename the sketch/curve etc. and all its children would share the surname.

If you didn't want that you could rename it anyway.

Some systems allow yo to toggle name prompt on. e.g. you get the option to edit the name at every history eventcreation. This is a bit tedious and still doesnt actually provide a logical connection except via the operator.

So, what do you think? (SWDYT?)

(I have realized this is not actually a sketcher specific idea, rather a sketch related thing... my bad.)

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 3 of 23

28-06-2009 08:06 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Mudcrab

Quote

BENEFIT: This would mean you only had to rename the sketch/curve etc. and all its children would share the surname.


Since all of these history entities already belong to the Parent Object (Part Object), not sure how this naming convention is a benefit? Can you expand your hypothesis?

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 344

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 4 of 23

29-06-2009 12:22 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Chris,
sure.

When I am working and developing a product I edit the history a lot. There is a desire to be able to recognise each feature within the history list. When every shape has the same name e.g Extrude3_Boss, Extrude4_Boss etc. there is no user significant distinction which is why we rename features. In truth the default names are 'dumb'.

At some point I have to tell the system what name I want for a feature. But in most cases, I start with and usually edit the sketch, curves etc.. So it makes sense to name the sketch. I do not always make the shape immediately after the sketch so there is no assumed association. When I use the sketch to create a shape, most times I am very happy to have the feature adopt the family name. In fact there are very few times this would not be the case.

So instead of using dumb names, why not use the family names in a useful way. IMO this would be much more intuative and helpful than the current system.

Not sure what else I can add....

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 5 of 23

29-06-2009 04:57 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Mudcrab

Well, not sure about the VX history names being dumb but am I being dumb?

Quote
IDEA: Why not use the Parent object name plus the Cut, Base, Boss, Surf suffix?


Customers are encouraged to give their history operations meaningful names, especially if the history is long. To me, in a Part Object named "Drive Shaft", a Sketch named "Horizontal Woodrough Keyway Sk" certainly makes more sense than "Sketch15".

As I understand it, what you are proposing is, History Operation prefix = Part Object name, for every op. Why would I care if the system names the Sketch "Sketch15" or "Drive Shaft Sketch15"? That's an equally dumb name isn't it?

So the system would save your Sketch as "Drive Shaft Sketch15" and then you would want to rename it to be "Drive Shaft Sketch Horizontal Woodrough Keyway". If there were more than one Sketch required, you'd make the name even more descriptive, or at least a number would need to be postfixed. I do not see the benefit of that prefix. I can foresee it being a nuisance if the Part Object name is anything other than very short:

(1) I would have to give the history list more screen real estate just to be able to see "Horizontal Woodrough Keyway" on the end of "Drive Shaft Sketch".
(2) If the Operation name exceeded the name length limit, a system-shortened name like "Drive Shaft Ske~odrough Keyway" would be less meaningful than "Horizontal Woodrough Keyway Sk".

On the other hand, if we say we have a collection of history operations that ultimately define a feature (not the whole Shape, not the whole Part Object), and we would like all members of the collection to be associated by prefix, a new command whereby the User enters a prefix and the system uses that prefix until a different one is entered could answer the requirement. So in this example the prefix could be "Horz Woodrough Keyway" and the system would name all subsequent operations with that prefix.

Rank: 1

cutter

Newbie

posts: 56

Registered: 2011-11-23

Message 6 of 23

29-06-2009 06:50 . am   |   View his/her posts only
In general I have no issues with sketcher in VX and compared to other programs I use it is easier especialy if I wish to create a number of sketches at one time for use in a multipart file for the generation of parts based on common features. I have not had problems with names there as I assign a name for each sketch for futher use as I create them and never have left them as a number file.

Now in extrude, sketch and the rest when working in the history I agree with Paul. What my other software does is to highlight the feature in question as you mouse over the description in the "history". See attached picture for an example. If I had a hundred features to go through it is faster to just move your mouse down the line til you hit what you want than it is to have a description you would have to read for.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 7 of 23

29-06-2009 07:57 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hi chaps

Currently, if you click on an operation in the history list, if it is a feature such as a boss, a fillet etc, VX highlights it. So, a mouse over the History list would be a neat enhancement.

VX does already deliver mouse-over on the model (even without "Show Labels"). With the filter set to "All", just mouse-over the model - as a feature highlights, it's history operation name is displayed in the main input field. I can hear you thinking, lets have that work both ways, a highlight on the model equals a highlight in the history list. I'll raise a PCR.

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 8 of 23

29-06-2009 01:01 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
I agree the highlight would be very useful and passing that into the CAM side for the geometry would be a nice extra step.

My wish list for sketch is based on some functionality I see our guys using in ProE sketcher. On my wish list is the ability to dimension to the tangency of an arc. Currently we either break the arc and constain that point or create a line for the tangency constraint and dimension it. Another is the ability to dimension a diameter from a centerline for a profile. In ProE this is done by picking the centerline, object, centerline or object, centerline, object. The second extension line and arrow are place on the opposite side of the centerline from the objecy as though it were there. I have attached a .pdf file showing what would be displayed as applied in that package. A lot of what we create is based on a revolved profile and this would really reduce our equation sets.

I have PCR entered for "parallel" and reading some of the other posts it seems there might be a parallel option under line, arc, circle, etc. I think it should just be a separate command, input the entities, input the distance, done.

John

Rank: 1

Mike

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-28

Message 9 of 23

29-06-2009 04:42 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
John,

See the attached picture. The 5.00 dimension is tangent to both circles. I used Right-click Dimension.

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 344

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 10 of 23

29-06-2009 04:49 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Cutter,
I think VX addresses the 'which feature is this?' question by Bolding in the history (Filter set to Feature) and via the RMB Redefine, Show and Open options. I am guilty of not using the features enough.

Mouse over is icing on the cake but I suggest it doesn't actually add much. I am sure if it was there it would be used, but perhaps we are all doing it the old way?

Of more value would the a RMB option to move the feature into view within the history window. Again this is nicety, as using RMB Open, then scrolling soon finds it. The BOLD is not actually that distinctive in a big history.

Rank: 1

Mike

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-28

Message 11 of 23

29-06-2009 05:06 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Now John,

For your second request see the attached image. Who can figure out how I created the two diametral dimensions at the bottom of the part.

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 344

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 12 of 23

29-06-2009 06:18 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi John,
as Mike has shown VX does do the arc dim OK. In even trickier circumstances adding a point to the arc(other than the midpoint) where you want is and controling the location along the arc is an easier method rather than breaking the arc.

Associated Tip: A bit obscure, is also the Option in Mid point constraint to use X or Y orientation. (Default is both)

Question: Why have to scroll to see options. Why not just X and Y tick boxes? Default both ticked, untick the one you don't want. One click does all three options!

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 344

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 13 of 23

29-06-2009 06:32 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Chris,
Even if one used very long names, the suffix would only add 4-5 characters. However long names are a total pain when using equation editor AND to type in gaps and all (naughty, naughty).

Further, the description field is where that depth of detail should reside which means the Description field should show on mouse over BUT only when view labels is ON. Since labels are viewable in the command line anyway, this provides users a choice and we always like that.

The issue is not to design fancy names, rather to give clues in the history that indicate the which sketch did that come from and at the same time as a provide a meaningful name whilst saving effort for the user.

Cheers

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 14 of 23

30-06-2009 05:46 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hello Chaps

I think parametric dimensions are more useful in this case:

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 15 of 23

30-06-2009 07:59 . am   |   View his/her posts only
I appreciate all the feedback. I have found there is normally a way to get the job done with VX as it is. We apply decoration to many revolved cavities and all are much more complex than the example I attached. In my example from ProE with one extra mouse click to establish a centerline the dimensions are created as diameters. No points, no extra geometry, no thinking.

John

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 16 of 23

30-06-2009 08:39 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Mike,
To answer you question:
Who can figure out how I created the two diametral dimensions at the bottom of the part.

Dimension Attributes, Text, Linear Scale. In your example it is set to "2". For my use .5 would be useful.

Thanks
John

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 17 of 23

30-06-2009 08:40 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hello John

If you take a look at my screenshot/VX file:

1) Extra geometry: The geometry on the right is construction geom (construction entity type), simply a mirror of the geom (2 clicks) that will actually be revolved. ProE is essentially doing the same thing behind the scenes, but you don't have the "other half" displayed. For me, the VX way is preferable, it seems more natural that you can have a "front view" of what the model will look like, and can adjust dimensions that meaningfully span geometry rather than thin air.

2) No point entities have been inserted.

3) We do have to change the dimension attribs in VX to insert the diameter symbol prefix, though for Sketch purposes the symbol is not necessary given the way the geometry is presented. There is of course a VxDAL available that toggles between regular and diameter dimension input.

Rank: 1

Mike

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-28

Message 18 of 23

30-06-2009 09:11 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Now this is what a forum is all about. Chris, your example is brilliant. This should stimulate a lot of user brain cells; it did mine. Using the scale factor the way I did admittedly was a little hokie.
One minor point about Chris's scketch. Make sure that the center line is toggled back to real geometry.

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 19 of 23

30-06-2009 09:17 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Chris,
To use some of your own words:
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To this engineer, there is twice as much geometry.

John

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 20 of 23

30-06-2009 09:57 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hello Chaps

...in this case, the center line can stay as a construction entity type, the profile will revolve to a Solid.

Twice as much geom but maybe twice the understanding? It is personal preference in the end - I was in the aircraft industry for years, meticulous drawing presentation is the norm. Mudcrab has a PCR about the constraint symbols, for example VX uses "Horz" when "H" or "HZ" would be adequate for most people, so ProE has one over us there.

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 344

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 21 of 23

30-06-2009 06:24 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi John,
SW has always had the option of a diametral?-radius dimension BUT it also requires that you insert a dedicated center line in order to do this.
Does Pro E require the center line or will any geo. do for a resolve?

One of the neat things I like about VX is its' exuberance to revolve ANYTHING about ANYTHING

I enter diameters for centre line offsets as the Dia./2 which of course invokes the behemoth equation editor when you edit BUT doesn't not display as dia.

If making similar but differently dimension parts I put the dia values into an variable list at the start and then use them in the dimension/2 as links. This means I work in dia all the time but only use radial real estate. Makes part derivation easy.

As a diversion ONE definite Sketcher RMB candidate should be the EYE dropper.

e,g select dimension, RMB/EYE and pick the desired sample. Ditto all other preselections.

I raise this here because changing dims attribs re scale and symbols etc could be made easier that it is at present thus allowing more readily applied cunning.

My screen shot for comparison.

Cheers




Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 22 of 23

01-07-2009 07:41 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Paul,
ProE requires a line of the type centerline. Its only purpose in this context is for diameter dimensioning. The sketch can still be revolved anywhere in 3d space, same as VX. We use ProE for our drawing creation, based on actual models of the parts. I have used it in the past and to be honest, hate it. But I take note of things I think are easier or more logical.

We create everything from a drawing, which are dimensioned as diameters. We do the same thing, enter the dimesion/2. Then deal with the cumbersome editing of the equations. So I asked the ProE guys how they handle it? Turns out pretty simple. Since we manufacture moulds for the glass container industry. we make a lot of revovled surfaces. My mindset still revolves around the day when computers did not and could not handle large amounts of geomerty, so to copy the geometry, simple or not, does not seem to be a good first choice.

John

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 344

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 23 of 23

01-07-2009 03:58 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi John,
thanks for that.

Seems to me that the revolved shape 1/4 section is a special but very common situation. I wouldn't bother with surplus geo. either.
Possible ways forward for VX in improving this situation...

a) Provide a diametral/radius dimension sans centreline (seems tricky to me)

b) Improve the Equation Editor so that it is a pleasure to use Perhaps one that only dealt with the specific equation being edited.

c) Invoke an independent equation editor that only deals with non linked equations. e.g. 100/2=50. In one sense this means the non linked equations just remain outside the equation editor.

d) something better still???

As an aside to this I'd like to see some visual indication that a dimension was an equation. e.g a unique attribute. Bold or Italic perhaps.

I'd be curious to know what others would prefer....

Cheers
See also
X