Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 352

Thread: Show us your solidworks models

  1. #91
    Arrogant wankeler Slides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Inner Westside/Sydney
    Posts
    1,316
    Newcastle uni used Pro-E when I was there, not as many people use it in industry which is a bit shit. I didn't do the 3rd/4th year modelling courses, I did make some very basic stuff like suspension bellcranks, but still have contact with mates who model for work and built the FSAE car models so I'm confident I can get plenty of help with it to build skills back up/futher.

    Is solidworks a lot different to Pro-E in terms of process to get a hang of?
    Last edited by Slides; 20-02-14 at 09:50 PM.

  2. #92
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    In my experience, solidworks has many ways of achieving the same outcome. This makes is feel very intuitive and easy to use. I have not used creo so I don't know how it may or may not be improved but proE has only one way of achieving a result. Usually the buttons or features u need are not where you would expect to find them, however once u know where everything is and how to use it there are no problems and they have some neat little tools that solidworks doesn't have. Apparently the drawing side of proE is not efficient and is quite time consuming. For example you can't do a section of a view while in sheet mode you have to open the part and add a section plane in there.

    There are pros and cons for both and while solidworks is easy to use and quick to learn, all the many options and capabilities make it really bog down with a large model with many parts and rebuilt time can get quite long. Basically at my old company proE was used for large plant layouts with many parts where solidworks was used for everything else.

  3. #93
    Baked Dachi Benonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Th' Fuckin' 'Gong
    Posts
    943
    Dassault really need to bring out a cut down version of SolidWorks for a decently low price. The basic license for SW is nearly 5K which is fucking ridiculous. I like the workflow in SW and would dearly love a version that just allowed me to make models for printing. The dopey bastards are missing out on a huge potential market. If they added plugin type functionality to a basic modeller, you could add things like sheet metal and FEA as you needed it. Autodesk are doing it right. With their free 123D software, high school kids will be using it and when they go into the workforce, they'll favour Autodesk products.
    “Buy the ticket, take the ride.’”
    ― Hunter S. Thompson

  4. #94
    Registered User Suscunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Lycralandya
    Posts
    1,306
    So what should I be looking at uni wise for this shit?

    Want to go back to studying and have a few ideas what id like already but open to options.
    Quote Originally Posted by cheapracer View Post
    Sperm are clever little fuckers that got us where we are today. You've never heard of pre-cum by the way?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nugs View Post
    That's why I punch myself in the nuts before sex, get them disorientated.

  5. #95
    BLING BLING PLAYA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    adelaide
    Posts
    6,225
    They don't teach it, it usually is one course in engineering

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
    3D scanning
    3D modelling
    Structural certification
    3 and 5 axis milling

  6. #96
    Registered User VRSenator065's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gawler, SA
    Posts
    475
    I really don't agree Solidworks is better than Inventor. We have multiple licenses of each, most of my guys can use both. SW is maybe an easier to learn modeller, but Inventor shits on SW for the actual drawing environment. It really is like Holden vs Ford, one has a red button one has a green. My experience is guys that come to me prefer the first package they learnt on as its so familiar, but once they use the other and give up the "this is shit" attitude they pick either package depending on what job its for. TAFE used to offer CAD training, but I agree really its not that difficult to teach yourself the basics.

  7. #97
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    How much of both packages have u used? I have used solid works for almost 10 years. I have only used inventor for a couple months and it shits me to tears. The most basic features that have been in the last 5-6 releases of solid works are not in inventor. Simple things like normal cuts through sheet metal do not exist. Ask the inventor guru's at work and they give some 10 step work around as opposed to the automatic feature in solid works. Another stupid thing is u can't reference sketch entities from other sketches or bodies without projecting them into the working sketch. U end up with a sketch full of additional entities which is not required in SW. I have a list of these types of complaints at work. If u have never used solid works then inventor would seem perfectly fine and normal and u can achieve a similar outcome. But once u get used to the time saving features in solid works its hard going to inventor. Also I can see top down modeling in inventor being very difficult which is probably why they don't model that way at work meaning a simple change in global geometry requires going and editing each and every part required to fix the model back up. A top down model in SW and proE is very quick and easy to make global geometry changes like stretching length or width etc.

    I have not used the drawing side of inventor as I am employed to do FEA not drafting but there is another engineer at work who has come from solid works and is doing drawings at the moment and he is constantly complaining and swearing while working with it.

  8. #98
    Registered User VRSenator065's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gawler, SA
    Posts
    475
    Well I own and run a CAD drafting service providing company with 20 employees for the last 9 years, been a drafter for the last 30 years. We have 11 licences of Inventor and from memory maybe 6 of SolidWorks, 7 of Microstation. I am a former Australian AutoCAD user of the year. Seriously give it a chance, it's different, yes, it's worse, no. We quote jobs in either, same hours, true story. But you will always gravitate back to what your comfortable with.

  9. #99
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    I appreciate your sensible reply. However I don't think I will be changing my mind on inventor anytime soon. I now refuse to use inventor other then to export the geometry to put into spaceclaim.

    On a different note, where abouts is ur business and how are things for you at the moment? I left my previous company who do engineering and drafting cause things got really quiet and I got offered a job elsewhere. I still stay in contact with them but things are still pretty grim at the moment.

  10. #100
    Registered User VRSenator065's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gawler, SA
    Posts
    475
    We have never been busier, but it's been a bit of a hard slog for the last couple of years. I definitely think the world is changing, to be truthful at least in cad drafting it's returning to normal. Guys were getting paid stupid amounts just to be bums on seats. Now it's going back to normal (in my opinion). In the old days subbies got 15% more than a perm but at it's height cad drafters were commanding over $100 Per hour, it just wasn't right, again in my opinion.

  11. #101
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    Probably getting this thread off topic but it hasn't been all that active lately...
    I am curious, do you do much with mining? My old company I guess was primarily concerned with engineering and certification and the drafting was more an optional extra. They suffered a lot from the down turn because as the big jobs dried up the big players started tendering on the smaller jobs they would normally never have bothered about and undercutting just to keep people busy. It's hard to compete with companies trying to buy work. I am just lucky the government is spending big on defense at the moment. Sorry if prying but I am interested to know what's going on in the industry and its good to hear someone is busy as its more common at the moment to hear about redundancies and closures.

  12. #102
    Registered User old_geez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Commotion View Post
    How much of both packages have u used? I have used solid works for almost 10 years. I have only used inventor for a couple months and it shits me to tears. The most basic features that have been in the last 5-6 releases of solid works are not in inventor. Simple things like normal cuts through sheet metal do not exist. Ask the inventor guru's at work and they give some 10 step work around as opposed to the automatic feature in solid works. Another stupid thing is u can't reference sketch entities from other sketches or bodies without projecting them into the working sketch. U end up with a sketch full of additional entities which is not required in SW. I have a list of these types of complaints at work. If u have never used solid works then inventor would seem perfectly fine and normal and u can achieve a similar outcome. But once u get used to the time saving features in solid works its hard going to inventor. Also I can see top down modeling in inventor being very difficult which is probably why they don't model that way at work meaning a simple change in global geometry requires going and editing each and every part required to fix the model back up. A top down model in SW and proE is very quick and easy to make global geometry changes like stretching length or width etc.

    I have not used the drawing side of inventor as I am employed to do FEA not drafting but there is another engineer at work who has come from solid works and is doing drawings at the moment and he is constantly complaining and swearing while working with it.
    I would think all of these things are easy with inventor.
    I do all of them every day, as well as top down modelling where one change at the top adjusts 100s or 1000s of components below. Very simple stuff, and just using the built-in features of inventor.
    When I was using solidworks, it didn't have the same flexibility.
    But different strokes; you use what you're comfortable with and what does the job you need.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sicarius123 View Post
    Performance Forums, where our two best threads are a man stabbing a lawn mower and a lawn mower stabbing a man

  13. #103
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by old_geez View Post
    I would think all of these things are easy with inventor.
    I do all of them every day, as well as top down modelling where one change at the top adjusts 100s or 1000s of components below. Very simple stuff, and just using the built-in features of inventor.
    When I was using solidworks, it didn't have the same flexibility.
    But different strokes; you use what you're comfortable with and what does the job you need.
    I would really like to know how to do these things one day because no one at work could show me and I found nothing on the inventor forums apart from people asking why is it not possible.

  14. #104
    fat man-bitch DavidI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    putting the "o" back in "country"
    Posts
    814
    Just my 10c worth, as a draughtsman or nearly 20 year's experience, using Inventor since 2002 and having recently trained in Solidworks.... they're pretty much same/same. During the training class the teacher was constantly saying "can Inventor do this?" and the answer was inevitably "yes." Some things SW does better, some things Inventor does better, SW is probably easier to learn from scratch but realistically if you can use one you can use the other. You'll probably end up at some point wondering why you can't do something as simply as you can in the other programme but, really, I think the Holden/Ford comparison earlier summed it up best.
    The person who proof read Hitler's speeches was literally a grammar Nazi

    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has a limit.

  15. #105
    Registered User old_geez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,269
    ^^^^
    This. Totally agree. Also have been drafting since 1988. (Boy are my arms tired)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sicarius123 View Post
    Performance Forums, where our two best threads are a man stabbing a lawn mower and a lawn mower stabbing a man

  16. #106
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    Okay, genuine inquiry here. There is something that I cannot work out how to achieve in Inventor which drives me crazy and maybe you gurus can help me out.
    I have set up an example to demonstrate how I would do it in solidworks and hopefully you can enlighten me in the ways of inventor.
    Firstly I have created two sheetmetal bodies in a single part. This is to save time but I could have achieved the same thing with an assembly of 2 parts. I don’t believe inventor can deal with multiple bodies in a part but I’m sure u will correct me if wrong.

    Next I create a sketch on the face of one component and then use it to cut into the second component. In solidworks I get this option called “Normal cut” which appears when there is a sheet metal body present in the part. This trims the sheet metal component in a manner which leaves the edges of the sheet metal component perpendicular and works across the edges of the folds also.

    The end result is a sheet metal component which matches nicely the mating component. I have used this method time and time again on quite complicated sheet metal components and when the laser cut and folded components arrive everything matches nicely. There is no manual manipulation of the sheet metal components to get edges to match which is great when doing top down modelling.


    Please tell me there is a way to do this in inventor because I cant find it and nobody at work knows as they spent their time manipulating each component getting edges to line up etc which is such a waste of time.

  17. #107
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    Nothing?

    Well got a bit bored so spent some time playing with Solidworks so that i dont forget how to use it. Knocked up a manifold design and added an existing turbo model and a wastegate model borrowed off Crack.
    I trialled a different modelling technique with this one and it came together much quicker. The completed manifold model took me about 2 hours and is fully defined.

  18. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    5
    Are you using a 3D scanner to model the turbin housing and impellers or are you doing them off of dimensions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commotion View Post
    Nothing?

    Well got a bit bored so spent some time playing with Solidworks so that i dont forget how to use it. Knocked up a manifold design and added an existing turbo model and a wastegate model borrowed off Crack.
    I trialled a different modelling technique with this one and it came together much quicker. The completed manifold model took me about 2 hours and is fully defined.

  19. #109
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    I just modeled them up from measuring the turbine housing with an assortment of rulers, squares, verniers, etc. I am confident it is close enough for the purpose it serves. I wouldn't go sending them off to china to make copies tho as the insides are much harder to measure and get right.

    In response to my inventor query: apparently inventor 2015 will have this much delayed normal cut feature. Horrible software imo!!

  20. #110
    Opens
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    TEXAS, QLD
    Posts
    9,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Commotion View Post
    Nothing?

    Well got a bit bored so spent some time playing with Solidworks so that i dont forget how to use it. Knocked up a manifold design and added an existing turbo model and a wastegate model borrowed off Crack.
    I trialled a different modelling technique with this one and it came together much quicker. The completed manifold model took me about 2 hours and is fully defined.
    Don't like twin scroll turbos?

  21. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    5,149
    Can you determine individual pipe lengths for the manifold with that software?

  22. #112
    Registered User boosted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    311

    Show us your solidworks models

    Quote Originally Posted by greenhj View Post
    Can you determine individual pipe lengths for the manifold with that software?
    Yeah it's easy enough to measure. I'd developed something like that using centrelines for this reason.
    Last edited by boosted; 10-06-14 at 12:21 PM.

  23. #113
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by myliberty View Post
    Don't like twin scroll turbos?
    You not seen page one?

    This manifold was designed to be a direct replacement for a cheap Chinese manifold so that when the inevitable happens this manifold could be bolted straight on without any mods to dump pipe or wastegate plumbing.

    As boosted said, the model is built around centrelines so it is very easy to measure and compare runner lengths. I used this same method to design a header for my 18rg trying to get runner lengths as close as possible.

  24. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    5,149
    How many hours would you spend modelling a manifold like the various posted pics?

  25. #115
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    I have an array of flanges, collectors, pipes and elbows already modeled so that manifold only took me about 2-3hrs to set up the centre lines and insert all the pieces. It's modeled so each runner is a subassembly which is then assembled into the top level fab assembly.

  26. #116
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    5
    So you are just assembing pipes you designed it looks like each one is its own section? did you model these off sc40 pipe you had then found the best way or are you just doing a sweep then ysing the shell to make the wall thickness?

  27. #117
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    Originally i used to just assemble the individual pieces, ie a length of pipe mated to a 90° elbow. I would then trim elbows back to shorter angles and save as a different part. This method was time consuming and i was constantly having to save copies of pieces of pipe and elbows as i modified them. It also meant that i didnt have a centre line sketch to measure runner length.

    The new method i use begins with me creating a 3d sketch in a separate part. I construct the geometry from lines and arcs where the arcs have the same centre line radius as the butt weld elbows. I then manipulate the runner path by setting angular constraints and length constraints to get the runner where i want. Once i have the runner centrelines done i can then use these lines to do a quick sweep of the pipe diameter to make sure i dont have any interferences and give me an idea of what the manifold will look like. I then take this part with the 3d sketch and insert it into a new assembly. I then insert 90° elbows into this assembly and then mate them to the sketch geometry. If the sketched arc is anything less than 90° i then do an assembly cut to trim the elbow using the sketch as reference. I do the same thing with the straight pipe. I assemble it in using the sketch geometry and then define the length based on the straight line sketch geometry. I do this for each runner and then i can assemble all runners and flanges and collector into a master fab assembly.

    This has a few benefits, one being the assembly is now parametric and any minor changes i make to the 3d sketch will be updated in the assembly with the elbow angle and pipe length updating automatically. The other benefit is when i create a BOM for the fabrication, the items in this have their original mass listed in the line items however the assembly mass is the true mass (the difference between the two being the off cuts of the elbows). Summing up the masses in the BOM will give a total mass of the materials required.

  28. #118
    THE CISCO KID ROBAPHENT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Aust
    Posts
    603
    Just started getting into this, not ot crash hot at it yet but still learning. Pan on enroling myself into some courses or find some decent tutorials so i can become a bit more advanced. Maybe not as crazy as Commontion stuff but goal is to design/flow test the new aero of my car on it.

    diffbush


    subframe bush


    made itme



    Thought i had more pictures online turns out i dont.

    Friend is building this for me ITB for my 1JZ



    Also Commotion the below picture are all the measurements correct? sort of interested in the sump setup so i can do flange for my dry sump

    CISCOKIDS
    The Gentlemen's Club
    Midnight Rocker

  29. #119
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    5
    Do you ever check how the mani will flow in sw? Also I have been looking for RB dimensions RB30 block and oil pan or a 3D scan of these parts.

  30. #120
    Ease Up Turbo Commotion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bogan City
    Posts
    838
    ROBAPHENT: I don't remember how accurate that sump model is. I draw it a few years ago and it may have some cumulative errors in the measurement. It was mainly representative and would be ± a couple mm so fine for an engine bay layout but not good enough to reproduce.

    If you are after an accurate drawing and willing to pay for one Crack may be able to measure up and produce something for you. He has more access to 1j bits than i do at the moment and is pretty anal with the accuracy of his models.

    nismo silvia: I have not done any flow simulations on the turbo manifolds. The modelling of the exhaust pulses to get proper boundary conditions is way out of my experience and the results from a linear study would not be valid and would provide no usable information. The only automotive stuff i have is of what i have measured and drawn myself and unfortunately i cant help you out with any nissan stuff

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •