> >
> >> All you Solid Works guru's out there.
> >> I need to mill out these four pockets
> >> from the back of this part. How do I do that
> >> in Solid Works?
> >>
> >> BTW I do most of the drawing in Rhino
> >> and let Solid Works do the fillets as it does
> >> fillets
> >> better than Rhino.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
> >
> > send away Paul, I'll see if I can help ya :-)
> >
> >
> > Jarrett
> >
> > Thats OK I need to learn how to do it myself.
> > The Rhino part had a defect. I'll probably just
> > draw it over. Seems quicker than drawing it in
> > SW.
> >
> > So far drawing parts in SW is T E D I O U S :)
> > I think it is a plot by the French to destroy
> > our
> > engineering productivity :)
> >
> > Something simple like "snap to" would speed
> > things up.
> > So far I have not found snap. Is snap in there
> > someplace?
> >
> > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>
> I sent that last one to fast :-) From the view
> you have in the pic, what you would do [in
> solid works] is click the face you want to do a
> 'cut extrude' on, which would be one of the four
> quadrant sections, click the cut extrude function
> and then click convert entities from the sketch
> toolbar, you would do this for all four quadrants
> [all in the same sketch] and then click the
> checkmark. You then type in what depth you want to
> cut to, or what dept in ref. to the other surfaces
> you want and its done. Next time you change the
> thickness of the casting, the depth of the cut
> will move w/ it [ or not depending on how you
> dimensioned the depth of cut]
>
> Solidworks can be tedious, however once you get
> onto it, you'll find it much more user friendly
> than Rhino, esp. when you go back and want to
> change things. Each program as its place.
> Solidworks is a bit more labor intensive when it
> comes to complex lofting, but also presents more
> options when you do go that route, hence it can be
> seen as 'harder' instead of just different.
> Send me the file if you'd like help.
>
> Jarrett
>
> That was a defective file anyway and SW refused
> to fillet it. I sent another to you by private email.
>
> Main problem with all this stuff is there is no standard
> for nomenclature. Each 3D program uses its own terms
> to do basicly the same thing. I suspect they do that
> on purpose to lock you in. On the other hand it could
> be programmer culturally difference. Seems Rhino
> and ACAD where almost the same. If you new ACAD you
> could jump right into Rhino. The main problem
> with SW is the user drawing interface. All the SW features
> could be added to Rhino and we would have the best of
> both worlds. Revolve is a very powerful Rhino feature
> but I could not find it in SW. You draw a cross section
> and revolve turns it into a solid. Simple and quick.
> --
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
I hear you on the standard terms part Paul, its too bad they all
can't get together on that. I think
what it is,
is marketing more than anything. "If we come up w/ a new name it
will be different and better" sort
of a deal.
I'm sure you know where I'm coming from when I say its all what you
know. I'm sure we could do most
of these drawings on the program of our choice [ favorite] and be
very quick at it. When I tried
Rhino, I to
found it tedious, but it was simply me not knowing the program. The
same can be said for SolidWorks.
I've heard people say that MasterCAM is a piece of junk, simply
because they didn't know how to use it.
There has to be a reason why it is [or was] the #1 CAM system on the
market for years [ I don't use
it but
this is my understanding]
Solidworks is very complicated and in depth, for a reason. Once you
get onto using it, you can't
beat it
[my opinion], but there was a time when I thought I was faster in
AutoCAD rather than SW. Something to
remember w/ SW is the user interface is completely customizable. You
can add or remove buttons from
which ever menu's you'd like to whichever tool bars you'd like [some
of which would make no sense at
all]
All you have to do is find an empty section of tool bar, right
click [this shows a list of all
tool bars, you
can pick what you want from this list] then click customize. >From
there you can cycle through the
tool bars
and pick the button's you want to add or remove.. Some of the
confusion comes from using the three
levels inside the program [part / assembly / drawing] understanding
this helps in many operations,
not to
mention the parametric's of the program. If your serious about
learning SW, there are several books out
there that will help. I hate the " For dummies " books simply for
what they imply in their title,
but they do have
a decent Solidworks book. And just for the record, SW does have the
revolve and a function which is
the
same as your 'difference' function. It's under the feature list
called combine, you can add the two
parts,
keep whats common or subtract 1 from the other.
I guess in the end what I'm saying isn't that SW is better than all
the others, it still has some
warts, but
there is a reason that its an industry leader, because it can do it
all, and in so many ways. If
your wanting
to get to know it, I'd love to offer you whatever help I can.
Jarrett
Ps. What size fillet did you want??
-----------------------------------------------
I am debating with myself if I want to take the time to learn
it. Right at the moment the two things I need from it are
good fillets and a SW file for the machine shop.
I can knock out the parts super quick in Rhino and most
of the time they are totally accepted by SW.
Don't bother putting the fillets in as I need to learn
that in SW anyway. Perhaps by osmosis I will learn
more of SW as time goes on.
BTW folks the relevance of all this to the installation
of rotary engines in aircraft is that with a good 3D program
you can save a couple of years doing things and making parts
over and over again to make everything fit under the cowl.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Just insert a new plane at the back surface. Outline the shape of your
pocket and insert a cut to the specified depth. Add draft angles if
required.
Dave Barker
I think we have that handled Dave. Thanks.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.