Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
Here i have placed some of Question.
1. What is the difference between object reference and geometric associativity? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
2. What are the file extensions given to parts? assemblies? drawings? sketches?
3. How should you create a new part or assembly? Why?
4. What is the config.pro file used for?
5. What is a trail file?
6. What does
Rather than focus on questions about the software functionality, I'd recommend questioning the person on how they might build a particular partthey are expected to design. Most people who have the desire to use the software will catch onto the ligo. Unfortunately, just because you know some definitions doen't mean you can actually generate a robust model or manufacturable design.
For instance:
Show them a symmetric part to see if they mention that they might mirror the geometry.
Show them a varying hole pattern and ask how they might create it.
Ask how they might control mating parts with a common profile (copy geom, skeleton, master model, etc.)
If you use Copied Geometry, ask if they are comfortable using it and how they manage relationships of this nature.
Show them a part that challenged you to see how they might approach the design.
Once you narrow down your candidates,the mostvaluable thing you could do is test them on adesign they would be expected to model. Then review the trail file to see if their thought process fits your requirements.
I would reccommend having some drawings showing your previous work. This is sufficient to impress the people that interview you who don't know the software.
In my last interview, the CAD administrator simply sat me at a workstation and handed me a drawing. I was given 1 hour to make the 3D model and get as far as possible on duplicating that drawing. This was enough for them to prove I was as proficient as my resume and application claimed. Every company is different, but to me this seems like the best way to prove an applicants ability.
Another comment I've heard is that a good user can make a model and modify it to optimize it, while a great user can take someone elses model, determine how that personmodeled it, and be able modify it successfully.
A few years ago I gave a graduate I was mentoring a picture of a simple U bracket and asked him to think of as many FUNDAMENTALLY different ways of modelling it as shown in Pro/E.
He came up with about 10 ways. I came up with about 25 ways and even that was far from exhaustive as I had no real experience of surfaces. How many can you think of?
In terms of limits, it can be modelled with a single feature in MANY different ways, i.e. no datums, but it is also possible it with a single sketched ELEMENT and correspondingly; a single sketcher dimension and a single sketch constraint.
You bring up a good point. To expand on your comment, while there are 10's or maybe 100's of ways to make that shape, a few are far better suited to capture the design intent. With several of the ways I can think of making it, you would need to modify multiple dimensions to keep the same basic shape, or by changing only one dimension could make the model fail. But I also could make this shape with one feature, containing a few constraint and relations where I would only need to modify one dimension to scale it up or down (with a second dimension controlling the depth.) Knowing multiple ways to model something is only half the battle, making a model that can be altered easily to reach the design intent is the goal.
As a clarification, the intent was always to have a nominal total of 5
dimensions to give total control over the profile as opposed to lesser
dimensions and
somehow maintain proportionality.
The prime objective was to test his knowledge of the tools available
Additionally, while the simple U bracket could be modelled in 25 different methods
(and about 100 variations on those 25) it is when you start putting
additional requirements such as non-uniform thickness, variable depth, drafts, variable
radii, unfoldability etc on to the part that some methods become more
suitable and other less suitable or even impossible.
If you don't have a reasonable idea of what all the tools in the box
can do, there is a good chance you will not pick the best one for the
job.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
ffice