Frequently Asked Questions The following are 3D-modelling related questions we have answered to some of our clients and others who run SolidWorks or PhotoWorks or IPA. 3D Modelling questions I want to rotate a few sketched entities 2 times 120 degrees about the center and cannot seem to be able to. what is the secret? It would be nice if you could pattern inside a sketch wouldn't it? Worth an enhancement request if you have time. Meanwhile, 3 options for you are: Make a feature out of the sketch and pattern that 3 times at 120 degree spacings Copy the sketch to the clipboard and paste it twice onto the same plane, then use the Modify Sketch tool to rotate each 120 degrees. If you need it all in one sketch, you could edit the last sketch and convert-edge the other 2 sketches so they appear there also. In your sketch you could mirror the first set of entities twice – first with a centre-line at 60 degrees - before doing the second mirror, select all the new entities and change their property to construction geometry. Then mirror that set with a mirror line at 180 degrees. This will give you the first rotation of 120 degrees. You can do the second set in a similar way, by reflecting the construction line set about a mirror line at minus 30degrees I think. Can anybody tell how to save a flat part in DXF format ? Suppress the bends in the part and then make a .slddrw file of the flattened part. Than do file save as to make a .dxf Does anyone know how to simply add an exploded assembly view to an assembly drawing? I haven't tested this, but I believe the following combination of SolidWorks features will do this: You can make a configuration of your assembly which is exploded and then insert that view in your drawing. If the other views change as a result, I think you can edit their properties so they refer the unexploded (default) configuration of your assembly.
Zetec Ltd  sales@zetec.co.nz

Has anyone had any problems mating surfaces in SolidWorks 98? I am having trouble mating the third plane constraint on two parts. I am mating both x and y planes of two parts which works ok but when I mate two surfaces that are in the z plane I get a over defined error message.

Almost always when this happens there is a sound reason:

1. You may have one of the planes upside down - the default mating relationship is "nearest" but you may have to change this to aligned or anti-aligned to get the last plane to mate
2. Maybe you're already wise to this and you are ready for the next hurdle: - usually something to do with the way you defined the planes you are mating. For example (and I am assuming here that you are not simply mating the 3 default planes of each part together) if some of the planes have been derived from sketch elements and spun through an angle, they may not be perfectly orthogonal to each other. So when you try to mate them to a set which is perfectly orthogonal, it will protest when you try to mate the last one. So what's the answer? - Avoid spinning planes around axes if you intend to use them for mating later.

Yes we tend to model everything because it's probably quicker than browsing all over the place to find something that isn't quite right. The obvious exception is fasteners (nuts and bolts) which are so common that libraries exist. We have thought about putting some of the more useful parts and assemblies we have modelled into a library or onto a website, but wonder whether the time involved and the web-space required is justified. I am a little surprised no-one else has picked up this thread. Isn't there anybody out there who wishes they could get off the shelf stuff like parametric-mannequins for incorporation with their assembly to check ergonomics? Or architectural components for composing a scene showing off their own product?  Any feedback welcome as we would consider making what could become a popular library and offering access via our website.

All the above are achievable. There is a really powerful face blend feature which can be used in may new ways in '98.

Very easy...

You get prompted to browse for it or to ignore it. The assembly will rebuild as best it can in either case.

We sometimes use layout sketches to drive the whole assembly or subassemblies within a larger assembly.

Yes to both, and they work very well.

Depends on how much of the part is showing. With no features suppressed, they tend to be about 5 times smaller than an IGES export of the file. Our parts vary from about 40KB for a simple fastener to 7MB for a complex housing. Much smaller if you want them to be by suppressing or cutting away a complex area before saving (you do this so they zip up small for email purposes).

Yes to all of the above. We have clients and others looking at our files via the viewer, as well as our animations (we are using IPA rev3.0) and PhotoWorks images.

We design organic shaped plastic and die-cast parts and their tooling (about 1 a week) with SolidWorks ‘98. We can do most of what we need to; including irregular curved part-lines in both planes and often following filleted edges. We provide the tool-makers with files for force, cavity and inserts. True, there are times when some extra tools would be nice and times when it is difficult to avoid "zero-thickness geometry" and "failed to merge body" warnings, but there is usually a way around these. So if your not using SolidWorks because you think you can't design plastics parts or tooling, you may be missing out. If we can help, let us know.

Often you have two parts substantially a mirror of each other but with some differences in detail, which you want to link parametrically. What we do is make a "common" part first (say the left side) with all of the common features. We then insert make a mirror part from this and develop it further with unique features of the "right" side. Then, to continue the "left" part to completion without upsetting the mirror part, we insert the "common" part as a base part in a new file which, when developed becomes the "left" part. The two final parts are both children of the "common" parent part.

We have heard it said from a few sources that SolidWorks appears to lack horsepower for making tools for plastic parts, yet we do them all the time in SolidWorks.  Please contact us if you require assistance with this

Any ideas how to create core side for the mould?  Do I think in right direction, that from SW should IGES export part and with third party surface capable CAD design closed body. Then back to SW?

NO, that is tedious and loses the ability to update parametrically after changing the part. We use the part and the cavity side to cut the core side. There are some traps with this however depending on the complexity of the part. Sometimes it works better to join the cavity and the part and other times it works better to cut the core with both the part and the cavity individually. Expect at first to get a few edge conversion problems, "zero-thickness geometry" and "failed to merge bodies".  Now that we have done this for about 20 tools, we are keen to help others by taking their part files and making the tool files on a contract basis.  Hope this will help others like you as well, and also encourage others to use SolidWorks for design of organic and complex moulded parts and tools

No problem, ours usually do (!). Feel free to email a sample part to sales@zetec.co.nz and we will advise further

No, we haven't given up on any yet.

Our design consultancy has 2 seats of SolidWorks, we've used it for 2 years on over 50 projects and there are 5 samples of our work in the SolidWorks Design gallery. We are specifically targeting this type of work as well as consulting to other users on some of the trickier aspects of designing organic shapes, filleting, shelling, mould-making and sheet-metal foldouts.