Sketch to Extrude vs Extrude to Sketch

[AchrisK]

I am curious. Do you:

1. Create sketches first, and then extrude them?

or

2. Start extrude features, then set up the sketching plane etc. and create the sketch, then finish with the extrude depth details?


The first case leaves a sketch in the model tree that is above a feature, as well as a sketch that is embedded within the feature. The second method simply embeds the sketch into the feature.

The second method is the primary way I was taught back on Version 20, and the way I always did it while I was using 2000i. It seems to be the way it was originally intended to work.

The sketch first method seems to be among the more modern "let

 

[michaelpaul]

I am curious. Do you:



1. Create sketches first, and then extrude them?



or



2. Start extrude features, then set up the sketching plane etc. and create the sketch, then finish with the extrude depth details?





The first case leaves a sketch in the model tree that is above a feature, as well as a sketch that is embedded within the feature. The second method simply embeds the sketch into the feature.



The second method is the primary way I was taught back on Version 20, and the way I always did it while I was using 2000i. It seems to be the way it was originally intended to work.



The sketch first method seems to be among the more modern "let

 

[foolmankh]

Dear friends,


In my opinion, 1'st method or 2'nd thatdepend on your modelling.


If the modelling's so complex. We should make sketch firstly.Or we make concept file by sketch and from it wemodel part easier and precision.


If not use2'nd methods (it saves time). Weimage model easy

.


I use both ofthem.


Regards

 

[deepakbhat_nie]

Hi,


Creating the sketch first is just to capture the concept.I would allways suggest you to unlink the sketch as more number of sketch in the model treecauses lots of problem during modification if the features are named properly.


Regards,
Deepak Bhat

 

[proengineertips]

Just feel a bit funny when I raed that the 1st method is the "modern' features.. haha..

Just for your information, the more feature you have, the bigger is the
file size. The more reference you build, the more troublesm for parts
modification.



there is no such as 'modern' or outdated methods. everything is just depends on what you need and how you want it to be.



Inventor started using the 1st method and added the 2nd in version 7. Does it mean Inventor move backwards? ^_^



One thing I really amazing: how do SW position themself as a modern
MCAD software? as they are just mid-range software.. impressive on
their strategy..

 

[skraba]

When we switched to WF2 we were advised to create sketches and then protrusions from sketches, so at the beginning we changed the procedure of creating the solid features. But....


The main drawback and the reason I don't use sketches for creating a solid feature anymore is, that when creating rotational feature from the previously defined sketch, dimensions won't show in the drawing as model created if view orientation is not paralel to the sketching plane of the sketch. So, when you want to show dimensions of the rotational feature, Pro/E won't show them, since they are on the sketching plane that are not paralel to the "front" of the view.

 

[AHA-D]

You create parts with features, so all you want to see in the tree is features. So logically sketches to create features are internal to the features. There is only a couple of cases where you don't want this :
<UL>
<LI>Creation of complex paths and/or features that need multiple input.</LI>
<LI>Global reference sketch</LI>
<LI>External references (for instance imported 2D info)</LI>
<LI>...</LI>[/list]


When a protrusion is so complex that you don't want to risk doing it in one go (in an internal sketch) then you're making things too complex. Doing things this way jeopardizes the design and any future changes. You should breakdown what you're trying to accomplish in manageable chunks, both for your own sake and for the speed and stability of the CAD.


Alex

 

[dougr]

I personally think the sketch feature is confusing andunnecessary. 1st came across this in SW and thought wtf.


If I have a complex sketch to create then a datum-curve is the way to go, these are so much more forgiving (can have intersecting entities for instance) and stable. Trimming etc can be done during feature creation.


Then again what do I know ??


btw Pro/E as far back as I can remember (R9) has always had the ability to create sketches (sec files) offline..
Edited by: dougr

 

[michaelpaul]

Just feel a bit funny when I raed that the 1st method is the "modern' features.. haha..

Just for your information, the more feature you have, the bigger is the
file size. The more reference you build, the more troublesm for parts
modification.


One thing I really amazing: how do SW position themself as a modern
MCAD software? as they are just mid-range software.. impressive on
their strategy..

It's actually pretty straight forward in SW. i wouldn't say it's "modern" but it makes very intuitive sense.

for one thing, the sketch becomes embedded in the feature IF you use it in a feature. So, there is not a sketch feature and an extrude feature in your model tree. it shows the same data in the model tree as pro-e. a featrure with a sketch (or sketches, if it's a sweep) embedded inside it.

THE BIGGEST advantage of creating the sketch first is if you delete the feature the sketch does not go away. So, if you have a feature and you decide you want to create it a different way (create a sweep instead of a staight protrusion for example) then you delete the protrusion but your sketch stays in your model. Then, you use that sketch in your sweep instead of having to recreate teh sketch because it was part of the feature you just deleted. There have been times where I've backed myself into a corner in Pro because I create my sketches embedded in the feature and have since deleted the features requring me to recreate the sketches. No big deal, but it took a bit of time to recreate.

I do get a chuckle everytime the SW bashing starts though. It's kind of funny. Pro-E has awful customer service, the "windows" interface sucks, it is inefficient in terms fo the number(s) of mouse clicks to create many things, etc. but it's the best and all other packags suck!

Pro, SW, Catia, etc. are all just tools. they all do the same thing. some do things better than others but I don't think any one is THE BEST. they're all just differnt tools to use. some are easier to use adn some are more powerful but they all do the same thing. Personally, I miss SW. I found it very easy to work with and more importantly, it could do everything I needed it to do. I'm doing the same exact thing in Pro now so obviously it can do the same thing too.

I think of it as being analagous to cars. to a Ford guy, Ford's rule and all else sucks. To a Chevy guy, Chevy's rule and all else sucks. yet, at the end of the day they both get you to work the same way!

Michael

 

[jabbadeus]

Actually, the reason to create sketches is to make the model more parametric. The advantages of the external sketch method (as PTC calls it) is that (1) multiple features can be based off the same sketch, and (2) you can create multiple design concepts as sketches, and then edit the definition of a subsequent feature like an extrude to change from one design concept to another.


Therefore, it is recommended that all sketch-based features (e.g., extrude, revolve, rib, etc.) start with sketches, and then you invoke the sketch-based feature tool, regardless of complexity.


And AHA-D, sketches are indeed features. If you don't want to see them in the model tree, then you have the ability to turn off their display from Settings > Tree Filters.

 

[AchrisK]

I tend to do it the way I learned it, with sketches embedded. I understand that design intent could dictate the other method, and I try to listen to design intent. But for every day modeling I use the "original" Pro/E way. By the way, the "original" method is very cumbersome and click-heavy with the WF 2.0 interface. Thank God for mapkeys!

I do get a chuckle everytime the SW bashing starts though. It's kind of funny. Pro-E has awful customer service, the "windows" interface sucks, it is inefficient in terms fo the number(s) of mouse clicks to create many things, etc. but it's the best and all other packags suck!

Don't misunderstand my original post. If I was bashing anything, it's the way that I perceive that SolidWorks has driven the majority of the changes in Pro/E in the last 6 years or so (or more?). I have been watching the solid modeling market longer than I have been using the tools, and I really feel that PTC has been very reactive in their developement.

I agree that most solid modeling tools will do most of the jobs that most of us need them to. I was a Pro/E 2000i user for years but the company decided to unify on SolidWorks, so I learned SolidWorks and used it for a couple months until my department got laid-off. It is powerful and easier and less frustrating to use. I still consider myself a "Pro/E guy", but one with a little more insight.

 

[mgnt8]

but the company decided to unify on SolidWorks, so I learned SolidWorks and used it for a couple months until my department got laid-off.

Sorry to continue off-topic but this rings a bell. I've heard these kinds of stories a lot over the last 5 or 6 years - goes like this:


Apparently changes needed to be made because business was down, SW is cheaper, easier & thus more efficient, Pro gets dumped, the anticipated benefits never materialize so the users get dumped. Another variation is the layoffs come first, switch to SW because its cheaper, easier, & thus more efficient, anticipated benefits never materialize, more layoffs. If I couldn't laugh about it I'd go nuts.

 

[AchrisK]

Actually in our case, we were part of a larger company (power supplies, DC-DC converters, etc) which liked to purchase other companies. So they really did need to standardize, with or without our division. The division I was in was just not generating profitable designs, so the design engineering department was eliminated. So this company is still using SW here for manufacturing engineering, and also in its other locations where the design engineering is being performed.

I was the only person using Pro/E, or even solid modeling, at our location when they decided to go with SW. Some other divisions/locations were already on SW.

A Technology company that utilizes a (most any) solid modeling software will have an advantage over those who don't. So it's just a question of whether or not they are utilizing SW now.