modeling proposal-sneak method

[magneplanar]

A challenge of sorts: if you are bored...

create a part using your usual method, then recreate the part and use none of the same methods, but achieve the same results in terms of geometry. Then make another model and use a completely different method compared to the first two. The more difficult the object the more of a challenge it will be.

e.g.: you used all solid modeling techniques, then use all surfacing, and then make a blended surface and solid model.


the benefit of this is to layer the options you have for the tools you use instead of being stuck in one option or the other

cheers,

M

 

[Dell_Boy]

About 10 years ago I challenged a graduate to try and think of as many ways as possible to make a simple constant thickness U shaped channel in as many fundamentally different methods as possible.

He came up with about 10. I could see closer to 30 ways of making it even without surfaces which we did not own at the time.

Similar to your described benefit, the object of the exercise was to realise there are so many ways possible, each having their own advantages and limitations and even though some of them were grossly inappropriate for making something so simple, it is not until you are familiar with a large percentage of them that you can make a judgement call over which is the most suited for the task at hand.


DB

 

[audctrl]

That's outside the box thinking right there. I like it. Every model I open I look for ways to either make it more flexible or reduce feature count. It comes down to, how can I make this model better or could some features been done differently to make the model more flexible for future changes?


It's just a couple of questions I ask myself so that I use some of the different features of this program that don't get used much by our group.


I hope this thread gets other users thinking about other ways to accomplish the same end goal.

 

[dougr]

You guys have too much time on your hands..
Edited by: dougr

 

[dewme5]

You guys have too much time on your hands..

I disagree. By pushing your own envelope, you are learning more, and becoming more efficient. Why do the same method you always do, when the method you are unfamiliar with can do it in half the time, with the same exact results.

let's take family tables for screws. You can create one by one (old method), or use a family table (new method). If you didn't know about family tables, how much would that hurt your production?

By doing what you've always done, you'll be getting what you always got.

 

[pjw]

A challenge of sorts: if you are bored...

Magneplanar, you would HAVE to be bored?

 

[pjw]

That's outside the box thinking right there. I like it. Every model I open I look for ways to either make it more flexible or reduce feature count. It comes down to, how can I make this model better or could some features been done differently to make the model more flexible for future changes?


It's just a couple of questions I ask myself so that I use some of the different features of this program that don't get used much by our group.


I hope this thread gets other users thinking about other ways to accomplish the same end goal.

audctrl:Less features doesn't automatically mean a better model. If you are using family tables extensively thenmore features are better as you have more flexibilityto turn features on and off independantly.
Edited by: pjw

 

[audctrl]

PJ, I agree. I did not mean to get a model down to just a few features. But rather create features logically, depending on the design intent. I kind of figured that after I posted, that I'd get a response. It is just sometimes I see wasted features like a cosmetic sketch in a model to show a centerline in a drawing when if the pattern was created differentlythe centerline would show thus eliminating the need for the cosmetic feature. As to your example on family tables, like I mentioned, it depends on the design intent. For what we use family tables for, all we need to add is a dimension or two.


For example if the pattern were done as dimensional (right)rather than axis (left) there would not be a need for a cosmetic feature in the model or a sketch in the drawing. Note: First hole in both patterns were done the same way.



Edited by: audctrl

 

[magneplanar]

dougr and pjw,

Don't let the grind get you down

In my experience I have worked with many types of engineers and they all have their own unique way of building a model. One guy could sweeten up the model tree until it was in perfect order ( if there is such a thing). But his idea of top down design was that all the parts were in default position. Another guy didn't know how to remove the clutter and had so many inter-dependent features you would think the part was a balloon about to pop. So I guess necessity makes you have to figure out a path to get things done. I never have time to make it neat and tidy, but I set my own standards for geometry errors and order and try to stick to it. If the part is complicated, I make a few and try out different solutions. Sometimes that is faster than redoing the whole thing when that last feature just won't stick to the shaky foundation of the only version.

cheers,

M