Actually, it’s only been three months since my last post, but that is too long. I’m sure that you’ve been missing my words of wisdom. In my defense, I have been traveling quite a bit this year. By that, I mean a lot. If my guesstimate is correct, I’ve flown almost 80,000 miles. Sadly, all of it, save for SolidWorks World, has been for work. I’ve lucked out and been able to do some sightseeing on many of my trips, so that’s been cool.
What is it that finally got me to come out of my shell and write a post? The release of SolidWorks 2017 Beta, that’s what. Granted, I can’t actually talk about 2017, but it is the impetus of this post.
I’ve been meaning to climb onto my soapbox for months now regarding the hullabaloo that occurred with 2016 and it’s new look. And, more to the point, the manner in which people responded when SolidWorks began to make changes to the colors to pacify those who had been so greatly offended by the change. There had to have been at least four different posts on the SolidWorks Forums, each beating the same dead horse over and over and over again. There were assumptions being thrown about, personal attacks, much finger wagging and pointing and, basically, a whole bunch of whining. While said posts garnered quite a few responses (hundreds, actually), many of those responses came from the same posters who kept beating on that poor horse. To their credit, SolidWorks took notice and decided to make changes to return SolidWorks to “the way it was” with regards to colors.
When the first changes were announced, however, so many of those who had pissed and moaned to begin with, pissed and moaned some more. Their biggest complaint? That SolidWorks hadn’t completely changed everything to their liking. As if SolidWorks could simply undo 18+ months of coding in one service pack release. They all seemed so ungrateful. I think what irked me most is they acted as though they were talking for most, if not all, users. Such utter bullshit. Then, when the second round of changes were released, there were still people complaining. Absolutely ridiculous.
Maybe it’s because I like the new color scheme, or maybe it’s because I’m getting old(-ish) and curmudgeony, but I just don’t have time for that crap. There were more than a few times when I wanted to climb on my soapbox and rant in those posts, but I just bit my tongue. I realized that whatever I said would, more than likely, fall on deaf ears. So I’ve ranted a bit here and feel a bit better. Thanks for reading.
Right, talk about dragging my heels on this one… […Read More…]
It’s no secret that I am a SolidWorks fan-boy. I’ve been using it for close to 17 years and, were it not for SolidWorks, I wouldn’t be where I am today. I run the Seattle Area SolidWorks Power User Group. Also, more often than not, I’ll defend SolidWorks when it comes under fire. Today, however, I find myself as the one pointing the gun, though more at Dassault than SolidWorks. […Read More…]
What’s up with Workgroup PDM? Who knows. SOLIDWORKS is unable, or unwilling, to say what they’re plan is for WPDM and that lack of communication is getting on the nerves of those of us who use it. Honestly, I don’t know why it’s such a difficult topic to address. As a matter of fact, I’ll give you what I think is the best option and exactly what SOLIDWORKS (Dassault) should do with it:
Keep it. You don’t have to improve it. You don’t have to change it. Just keep it compatible with all future versions of SOLIDWORKS. Why? Because there are those of us who don’t need ePDM, or some other over-the-top PDM system, and we have a ton of time and money invested in what we have now. Why would you abandon what I’m assuming is a decent portion of your user base? While the bean counters may see dollar signs, I suspect that showing such disregard would not go over well.
So there’s your answer, SOLIDWORKS. Now, you just need to accept my plan and then let your WPDM users that WPDM’s life will last as long as SOLIDWORKS is around. I believe there are many who will breath a sigh of relief.
I posted this almost 4 years ago, but a post on Eng-Tips.com riled me up again. It deals with “smart” part numbers, so if you don’t care you can stop reading now. For those of you who are still reading, and have read the original post, I’ve added on a bit more.
A warning: This post will have absolutely nothing to do with SolidWorks, or CAD for that matter.
Why do people feel that part numbers need to represent anything? Too often I’ve seen “smart” part numbers end up being so convoluted that you need a PhD in cryptography to understand anything. What’s bringing this on? I’m ashamed to admit it, but there is such a part numbering system here. It’s not as ugly as some I’ve seen, but it’s frustrating nonetheless. Naturally, I tried to get the powers-that-be to see the error of their ways but, in the end, I had to concede. (Today is only my third day, I don’t want it to be my last.)
What so many people fail to realize is that a part number is just a placeholder in the MRP system (or whatever inventory control system you’re using). The part description is the important part. Yes, I know there are those who are screaming “blasphemer” at me, I don’t care. The minute you implement a “smart” part numbering system, you’re setting up for future failure. At some point you’re going to have a new part that is really similar to an existing part so you’ll add some sort of suffix or prefix to its number so you can differentiate between the two. Next thing you know, you’ve got a third one that’s similar to the other two. Another suffix, perhaps? Oops, look, here’s a fourth one. Ok, we’ll just create another classification, slide the first three over and now we’re good. Right? Crap, what to do with the old numbers? Hey look, this part is sort of like the first four, but it’s also sort of like these ones over here…
It’s enough for me to want to pull my hair out.
Everyone, for the most part, has heard of the KISS principle, right? Keep it simple stupid. A part number should be just that, a stupid number. Whether it’s 4-, 5- or 6-digits really depends on your company’s needs. How many parts are you dealing with? Let the description take care of telling you what it is: Screw, HHC, 1/4-20 x 1, GR5; Cable, Red, 4 GA; Number, Part, Stupid.
Think about it, no more having to train newbies on how your part numbering system is deciphered. No more having to come up with new codes. Need a new part number, just take the next available one. The world is already confusing enough. Let’s not make it worse with “smart” part numbers, ok?
Update: So I re-posted this because of a question that was posted in the SolidWorks forum on Eng-tips.com. Here’s the link, but I’ll try to sum it up. The poster was asking about “non-significant” part numbers, then had a list of part numbers and what types of parts/assemblies they were assigned to which made them significant. On top that, he was asking what he should do if he ran out of numbers. He had things set up so that he had upwards of 200,000 numbers per type! Perhaps I’m naive, but I can’t think of a company where they have 200,000 unique upper level assemblies. Hell, I’m thinking 200,000 unique part numbers would be hard to reach for the vast majority of companies but I’m not about to say it’s impossible. However, were he not trying to set up his system in 5 groups, he’d have a pool of 1,000,000 unique numbers that I seriously doubt would be exhausted. This goes to strengthen my point. If you used part numbers as strictly place holders, your life will be much more simple.
This has been a dark secret that now needs to be brought to the forefront. We’ve all seen it, many of us have dabbled in it, some still do it. Configuration abuse. There, I said it. I know it’s not pretty and something some would rather not discuss, but I just can’t stand by idly without at least trying to help to eradicate this blight upon the CAD landscape.
The following picture is not for the faint of heart.
Your eyes aren’t playing tricks. I couldn’t actually get the whole string to fit. Each of those numbers is a part number, each of which is a configuration within the part. This isn’t just at the part level either, it’s at the assembly level as well but, thankfully, it’s usually no more than 3 configurations. I can’t even tell you how thoroughly confused I was when I first saw these files. After the confusion came the pain as I banged my head off my desk.
I get configurations, I use them. I don’t abuse them, and that’s clearly what went on here. (I’m avoiding the whole part naming thing because, well, I just don’t know what to say to it other than WTH?) I really have no idea what the thought process was to dump all of these parts into one file and to then use all of them to name it. I’m usually not at a loss for words…
Look, use configurations wisely. If you use different lengths of 2×2 where it’s tabulated (partnumber-length), use configurations all day long. Screws? Go for it. Need to show dimensional differences between machined and coated? Yes! But, please, moderate yourself. You need to moderate yourself. Configuration abuse needs to end.
I’ve had it. I’m tired of being an afterthought. Just because I’m only colorblind doesn’t mean you can ignore it, SolidWorks. Actually, it’s not just SolidWorks, it’s any software that uses color coding. It would be nice if you’d think about me, and my brothers and sisters out there, when it comes to identification. Why is it so hard to come up with some symbols instead?
As I sat watching Jeremy and Mark preview 2011, I finally asked, for the umpteenth time, when SolidWorks was going to stop discriminating against us, the colorblind. They didn’t have an answer, but spent the rest of the demo hesitating every time they mentioned coloring.
So my question is this, who else is tired of those insensitive color-seeing people making all the decisions? If you’re as tired as I am, submit an enhancement request. Let SolidWorks know that we have feelings and we’re not going to stand by and be ignored.
Warning: this is going to be another of my opinionated posts. I welcome any, and all, well thought out comments. However, should you make things personal, I’ll be forced to call for the immediate removal of all your body hair so that you end up looking like this (yes, it’s safe for work). You have been warned.
A couple of months ago I was training some engineers on SolidWorks. Their company had been using SolidWorks for a bit and a couple of them had brought their laptops to the session. After going through one lesson, and having them start the examples, I was walking around and saw a screen similar to this:
I say similar because I’m pretty sure he had every possible toolbar turned on and I got tired going that far. I stood behind him for a moment, slack-jawed. Bear in mind, this was on a laptop with a 17″ screen. I’m not sure how he was ever able to design anything in the 6 square inches of usable graphics area , but I digress. So I asked him why he still had his setup looking like something from 2006. He gave me that look. You know, the look that says “why are you such an ass?”. Anyway, he went on to explain that it’s what he was comfortable with, that he didn’t have to search the command manager, he knew where everything was, yada-yada-yada. That was when I noticed that he didn’t have the command manager turned on either. I’m thankful that I didn’t hit anything when I fell over…
I took a deep breath and asked him about the ‘S’ key. He asked, a bit arrogantly, what I meant (thankfully, I was sitting down at this point). I then went on to explain to him the wonder that is the ‘S’ key and how it was customizable. How it was there only when you needed it. How, in his case, it could provide ten times the available graphic area, which garnered me “that look”, again. How his mouse travel would be greatly lessened. How all the cool kids were doing it. How, had the technology been around, there’d be 11 commandments instead of 10.
What it all boiled down to was this: it was outside his ‘comfort’ area. Now I don’t want to go and start belittling people who are uncomfortable with change. I’ve been there, I get it. However, there are times when not changing really isn’t the best course of action. I believe this is one of those times.
I know there are those of you out there who have a macro mapped to every single key. That’s awesome. Honestly, I’m jealous of you; I don’t have the brain capacity to remember what macro was mapped where. The ‘S’ key, though, I can handle. With one keystroke I have 95% of the tools I need at that particular moment. That, in my not so humble opinion, rocks! As I explained to him how versatile the ‘S’ key was, I could see that his mind was beginning to engage, that he was beginning to see the possibilities. That totally made it all worth it for me. I love teaching SolidWorks, especially when I see the light come on.
Here’s the thing, I know that there are still a number of people out there who still have toolbars active. There are those who don’t use the Command Manager much less the ‘S’ key. I want to know why. I want to understand what it is about toolbars that makes you stay with them.
I know, this subject has probably been discussed adnaseum but I don’t care. This is my blog and I write what I want. Today I want to write about why I hate external references. Specifically, why I hate it when someone creates an entire assembly that is so intertwined with external references that it’s next to impossible to change anything without blowing up everything else. Hold on, I need to take a deep breath here.
I took on a side job where I’m managing an assembly for a small company. 99.99% of the time this wouldn’t be a big deal, right? This particular assembly has a skeleton sketch, though. Again, not normally a big deal as skeleton sketches often only control the assembly and the placement of parts/sub-assemblies. Uh-uh, not this one. This sketch not only controls part placement but part geometry as well. I can’t even begin to describe how frustrating it is to try to fix a sketch only to see that, while it is fully defined, it doesn’t have a single dimension on it *and* it’s miles away from the origin. Perhaps this wouldn’t really matter in the big scheme of things, but every single external reference is broken. All of them. There’s only 54 unique parts in this assembly, but when every sketch entity is defined by at least one external reference…I’ll let you do the math on it, my head is starting to hurt just thinking about it. Again.
Look, I totally understand the need to occasionally create parts in context. I do, I’ve done it. However, I don’t leave those relationships after the part is created. Sure, it’s nice when hole A drives the size of hole B, but just at what point does enough become enough? Seriously, everything is driven by the assembly sketch. Can you imagine the carnage that would ensue should someone accidentally modify that sketch? The collateral damage (keyboards, mice, monitors) alone would be staggering.
The assembly I’m talking about, in the end, has 666 parts (a bad sign to begin with?) with only two sub-assemblies and it takes forever to open. Aside from the fasteners, and their patterns, almost every part has an “in-place” mate. This I find especially annoying as it goes against how I believe an assembly is created, and you all know that I am always correct. I’ll pause here for laughter. I’m sure that the originator of this assembly had only the best intentions when they created the original file; then again, so did Dr. Frankenstein. However, in creating such a monster, the mad scientist neglected to leave any information regarding the proper care and feeding for said monster. This, my friend, just exacerbates the situation. If you’re going to leave such an abomination for future generations, at least have the common decency to provide some notes regarding your thought process so that we, the unfortunate heirs, can have a chance at understanding what’s going on. It makes me thankful that I don’t drink to drown my sorrow, otherwise I’d probably have drunk myself to death.
I think though, the worst part of it all is that the overall assembly is so incestuous, that I can’t move the part sketches to their corresponding origins without wreaking all sorts of other havoc. I’m hopeful that once I’ve gone through everything and removed all the in-context bs that I’ll be able to have more control over the assembly. I’m not overly optimistic, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if the mad scientist has some other diabolically created mates or relations that will continue to aggravate me.
Thank you, dear reader, for allowing me to rant. I’m not 100% sure how much sense this post will make, but I certainly feel better at this very moment.