Sneak Peak of 2011 :)
- Thread starter normc
- Start date
HaroldL
Alibre Super User
I found that Direct edit dimensions has 8 votes in the suggestion forum. Not sure if this is what Jamie Robledo had in mind when he suggested it but it is needed and it looks like some interesting improvements for 2d detailing.
A couple of questions come to mind though: Can the editing only be done after the dimensions are in place, or can you edit while placing the dimensions? I would think that allowing editing while placing the dimensions would be preferred and would take a lot of time out of detailing.
I noticed in video 1, at time stamp 00:45, there is a change in a dimension value for a hole location from .314 to .67 with no apparent change in the hole location. Is this supposed to be an "Out of Scale" dimension, or is it supposed to push the change back to, and update, the model?
As long as you are adding bells and whistles, are there any plans to have the different standards, ASME/ANSI, DIN, ISO, set up as dimension styles? I know that it has been asked for here.
H.
v12.1
A couple of questions come to mind though: Can the editing only be done after the dimensions are in place, or can you edit while placing the dimensions? I would think that allowing editing while placing the dimensions would be preferred and would take a lot of time out of detailing.
I noticed in video 1, at time stamp 00:45, there is a change in a dimension value for a hole location from .314 to .67 with no apparent change in the hole location. Is this supposed to be an "Out of Scale" dimension, or is it supposed to push the change back to, and update, the model?
As long as you are adding bells and whistles, are there any plans to have the different standards, ASME/ANSI, DIN, ISO, set up as dimension styles? I know that it has been asked for here.
H.
v12.1
Hey guys and gals,
We're still way pre-beta on 2011. But, there's some CADilicious goodness to share even at this point. Some of this is not fully implemented, but it's way good enough to show off.
Engage salivation.
The videos contain:
1) In place editing for 2D drawings - ridiculous efficiency improvements
2) Converting solid parts to sheet metal parts
3) "0 radius fillet"
The "In Place Editing" (#1) is a new paradigm we're going to start using. The goal is to absolutely minimize mouse travel and mouse clicks, make the tools available immediately in all circumstances, only show you what you need, make it update in real time, and make it pretty while we're at it.
More to come. Share your thoughts!
We're still way pre-beta on 2011. But, there's some CADilicious goodness to share even at this point. Some of this is not fully implemented, but it's way good enough to show off.
Engage salivation.
The videos contain:
1) In place editing for 2D drawings - ridiculous efficiency improvements
2) Converting solid parts to sheet metal parts
3) "0 radius fillet"
The "In Place Editing" (#1) is a new paradigm we're going to start using. The goal is to absolutely minimize mouse travel and mouse clicks, make the tools available immediately in all circumstances, only show you what you need, make it update in real time, and make it pretty while we're at it.
More to come.
Share your thoughts!
Max - I think I kind of get the idea BUT
My eyes aren't so good any more (neither is my monitor) - I can't make out the legends in the drop down menus.
A commentary on what is happening would add tremedously to the videos.
As always - it is probably obvious to the developers who have been living and breathing this for weeks, but I have to guess what I'm supposed to be seeing then interpret it...
I guess I'm going to like this - but I'd be more sure if I understood what I was looking at :|
[EDIT - personally glad to see the temptation of 'Office 2007' or 'Ribbon' toolbars has been avoided].
My eyes aren't so good any more (neither is my monitor) - I can't make out the legends in the drop down menus.
A commentary on what is happening would add tremedously to the videos.
As always - it is probably obvious to the developers who have been living and breathing this for weeks, but I have to guess what I'm supposed to be seeing then interpret it...
I guess I'm going to like this - but I'd be more sure if I understood what I was looking at :|
[EDIT - personally glad to see the temptation of 'Office 2007' or 'Ribbon' toolbars has been avoided].
Not quite
But, you can turn them off.
The video was not so much to show the exact features of everything - just the notion that you can very quickly modify dimensions and set layers (other features to come). Again, this is way pre-beta and we'll be making much more full videos later, with audio, etc. i just wanted to throw this together for you guys.
Max
NateLiquidGravity
Alibre Super User
#1 Awesome improvement! My only concern at this time is that things are easily changed to a custom style. Can they instead become a derived/child/modified style that is still connected to the original style with only the modified area being custom?
#2 The first design is technically impossible to flat pattern. Can we get a descriptive error msg or at least color the interfering parts red? Also does it work for odd shapes
or just straight edges?
#3 Somewhat useful to me.
#2 The first design is technically impossible to flat pattern. Can we get a descriptive error msg or at least color the interfering parts red? Also does it work for odd shapes
or just straight edges?
#3 Somewhat useful to me.
We thought about this. Currently it is not in the cards. It will likely be linked in the future.
It's not impossible - there is a bug that makes an extra flange currently so it does look impossible. Like I said, not fully implemented. Also, I didn't show any sketch rip stuff yet, so for the parts that are generally impossible you would need to add rips with sketches so they are possible to unbend.
It currently will not handle lofts/weird stuff.
Max
swertel
Alibre Super User
Max,
Drafting changes are always welcome, and these look like not only great efficiency improvements but also will give Alibre drawings the much needed professional quality look. (Early drawings look a bit cartoonish.)
There are two things I noticed from the video that need to be tweaked.
1) When using bilateral tolerancing (+ / -), the tolerance should be centered about the dimension value. Right now, the -value is even with the dimension and the +value is above it. It is also difficult to tell, but the tolerance font size, when dealing with +/-, should be a bit smaller than the dimension font size.
2) I hate fake dimensions. This is especially true for solid models since those generate the g-code -- the drawing doesn't. Changing a dimension on a drawing is not going to produce the correct part. But, some companies allow this and therefore so must the CAD package. But, there needs to be a way to identify a not-to-scale dimension. Can you default a squiggly line below a dimension that has been faked?
Drafting changes are always welcome, and these look like not only great efficiency improvements but also will give Alibre drawings the much needed professional quality look. (Early drawings look a bit cartoonish.)
There are two things I noticed from the video that need to be tweaked.
1) When using bilateral tolerancing (+ / -), the tolerance should be centered about the dimension value. Right now, the -value is even with the dimension and the +value is above it. It is also difficult to tell, but the tolerance font size, when dealing with +/-, should be a bit smaller than the dimension font size.
2) I hate fake dimensions. This is especially true for solid models since those generate the g-code -- the drawing doesn't. Changing a dimension on a drawing is not going to produce the correct part. But, some companies allow this and therefore so must the CAD package. But, there needs to be a way to identify a not-to-scale dimension. Can you default a squiggly line below a dimension that has been faked?
NateLiquidGravity
Alibre Super User
This is a very cool idea something like the squiggles for spelling check on text editors that you can see but don't show on prints unless specified. If I had any votes it would have mine.swertel said:
Agreed, fake dimensions can be a real pain when there's no way to spot them. In Unigraphics, I believe the text color changed, but it's been a while since I used it and that was a few versions ago. Regardless, I feel that this is not only nice, but absolutely necessary to somehow identify fake dim's (method isn't important, just the fact that it's done is).
HaroldL
Alibre Super User
Did anyone else have a problem with the dates of their posts being reset? There are three comments on this topic that are dated before Max's OP. :shock:
Just to get mine back in line; viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10960&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p65221
-----------
Out of scale or Not to Scale dimensions seems like a sure fire way to help yourself out of a job. Maybe when drawings were done on a drafting board that was acceptable. Now with CAD there is a real chance for a major screw up if NTS dimensions are used. Imagine sending a drawing with a NTS dimension that is sent to the shop. The part gets made per the dimensions on the drawing. Meanwhile, the mating part is produced to the correct dimensions on the CAD model. Are the going to fit and function properly? Doubtful. And how much will it cost to fix the NTS screw up?
But if someone wants to put their neck on the block the correct way, at least per ASME/ANSI, to indicate NTS dimensions is to underline the dimension text with a solid line. That can be done now by editing the dimension properties. Click on the Text tab, deselect "Use Style" if it is used, then click on the Font button. In the font dialog select Underline then OK your way back to the drawing.
With all that effort to mark a dimension as NTS you may as well just correct the model.
If I remember correctly, there was a NTS button when I was using CADAM and I-DEAS. but SolidWorks doesn't, unless you work at it.
H.
Just to get mine back in line; viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10960&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p65221
-----------
Out of scale or Not to Scale dimensions seems like a sure fire way to help yourself out of a job. Maybe when drawings were done on a drafting board that was acceptable. Now with CAD there is a real chance for a major screw up if NTS dimensions are used. Imagine sending a drawing with a NTS dimension that is sent to the shop. The part gets made per the dimensions on the drawing. Meanwhile, the mating part is produced to the correct dimensions on the CAD model. Are the going to fit and function properly? Doubtful. And how much will it cost to fix the NTS screw up?
But if someone wants to put their neck on the block the correct way, at least per ASME/ANSI, to indicate NTS dimensions is to underline the dimension text with a solid line. That can be done now by editing the dimension properties. Click on the Text tab, deselect "Use Style" if it is used, then click on the Font button. In the font dialog select Underline then OK your way back to the drawing.
With all that effort to mark a dimension as NTS you may as well just correct the model.
If I remember correctly, there was a NTS button when I was using CADAM and I-DEAS. but SolidWorks doesn't, unless you work at it.
My 2nd Edition [u:1uupl71f]Technical Drawing[/u] said:
H.
NateLiquidGravity
Alibre Super User
The way I was thinking about it was for any "custom" dimensions like discussed earlier. For example you turn down the number of decimals on one value. Perhaps it don't matter for that specific design but then you make a config with a different dimension that actually needs the correct amount of decimals. It would be something that would say "Hey this isn't a standard dimension!"
My current workflow is to predefine dimension styles and layers in a drawing template. I then add dimensions as required, followed by selecting a set of dims, selecting a dimension style, reselecting the same set of dims and selecting the layer. A very simple click reduction is to add layer selection to the dimension style.
The second irritation I have is dimensions that become dissociated when features change, such as adding a fillet radius. The dimension is correctly located, right style and layer, but can't be re-associated with suitable features. I generally delete and redo them.
I can certainly see that the new tools will have their place, but if each dimension takes on its own format it could be counter productive. I also think that 'fake' dimensions should be clearly identified as such.
The second irritation I have is dimensions that become dissociated when features change, such as adding a fillet radius. The dimension is correctly located, right style and layer, but can't be re-associated with suitable features. I generally delete and redo them.
I can certainly see that the new tools will have their place, but if each dimension takes on its own format it could be counter productive. I also think that 'fake' dimensions should be clearly identified as such.