training books
- Thread starter Sip
- Start date
Training information for Alibre
This may be completely off the wall but a good source of training information for Alibre (or any sketcher based CAD system - and aren't they all at some level) would be a good technical drafting/drawing manual. The blend of 2D and 3D in our designs demands a good understanding of both. Coupled with the information contained in the Alibre help files, the users manual, and the tutorials, this would help clarify some of the design methodologies used to construct parts.
Another thing to keep in mind is the old KISS admonition. The simpler the design tree the smaller the part and the easier it will be to edit in the future. Build as many of the design features as possible into the basic sketch instead of adding them as features to the created part. Constraints, both geometric and dimensional, should be evaluated for inter-dependancy and conformance to the final design intent.
Having been in the design engineering field since parts were designed using charcoal sticks on cave walls, I must tell you that no matter how good the traing materials are, they're not going to cover every aspect of the application, and the best way to learn how to use the tools is through trial and error (and a little help from your friends). That's what's so great about the fourms, live sessions and the Alibre assistants. We're all here to help each other.
This may be completely off the wall but a good source of training information for Alibre (or any sketcher based CAD system - and aren't they all at some level) would be a good technical drafting/drawing manual. The blend of 2D and 3D in our designs demands a good understanding of both. Coupled with the information contained in the Alibre help files, the users manual, and the tutorials, this would help clarify some of the design methodologies used to construct parts.
Another thing to keep in mind is the old KISS admonition. The simpler the design tree the smaller the part and the easier it will be to edit in the future. Build as many of the design features as possible into the basic sketch instead of adding them as features to the created part. Constraints, both geometric and dimensional, should be evaluated for inter-dependancy and conformance to the final design intent.
Having been in the design engineering field since parts were designed using charcoal sticks on cave walls, I must tell you that no matter how good the traing materials are, they're not going to cover every aspect of the application, and the best way to learn how to use the tools is through trial and error (and a little help from your friends). That's what's so great about the fourms, live sessions and the Alibre assistants. We're all here to help each other.
Mibe
Alibre Super User
Re: Training information for Alibre
That was a really interesting angle on design. My personal history teaches me that a good way is to keep as little information as possible in the sketches, and try to use features where possible. THIS makes the model easier to edit in the future. Feature based solid modellers works better that way, sketch based modellers (TurboCad?) perhaps like the other way. I can't imagine in my deepest fantasies that it's easier to create holes and patterns in the sketch?
Hm... Wonder if someone agrees with me
scarr said:
That was a really interesting angle on design. My personal history teaches me that a good way is to keep as little information as possible in the sketches, and try to use features where possible. THIS makes the model easier to edit in the future. Feature based solid modellers works better that way, sketch based modellers (TurboCad?) perhaps like the other way. I can't imagine in my deepest fantasies that it's easier to create holes and patterns in the sketch?
Hm... Wonder if someone agrees with me
sketch vs feature
I agree with your assesment regarding certain part features (counter-bored, counter-sunk, threaded, holes and associated patterns but stick to my guns when it comes to simpler features such as fillets on revolved parts, and simple thru holes (and patterns) on extruded parts. The deeper the tree the more difficult it is to edit, and the more likelyhood there is of encountering (sometime in the design or editing process) problems, especially if the part has to be edited by someone other than the creator, a couple of years after it's created. I've witnessed no small number of instances where part trees have been so complex and or convoluted that designers have scrapped the existing model and created a new one from scratch.
Dependancies can arise in complex tree structures that will make editing a nightmare and make conversion of the data for use in other systems (not an uncommon occurance) virtually impossible or will result in a large amount of data loss. Just a few reasons to keep things as simple as possible.
Since everything we do in Alibre is sketch dependant it just seems more effective to develop sketches that approximate the finished part as closely as possible and then add those features we're not able to create at the sketch stage.
Now about the question that started this off, I sometimes take time out of my normal design work to practice building parts from detailed drawings. It makes you evaluate how the part can best be modeled based on the deliniated dimensional and geometric constraints. For anyone just getting started in Alibre 3D modeling, using 2D drawings to develope a few parts can help make the transition a little easier. Of course this is old news for seasoned users but sometimes we get so caught-up in the modeling aspect of our work that the drawing end of it atrophies. It pays to keep both as sharp as possible. One of the best texts I've come across for these exercises is Technical Drawing by Fredrick E. Giesecke et al. It can also give you pointers on constructing sketch features not offered as standard features in Alibre (ellipses and other assorted conic sections), as well as giving you a little history on technical drawing.
I agree with your assesment regarding certain part features (counter-bored, counter-sunk, threaded, holes and associated patterns but stick to my guns when it comes to simpler features such as fillets on revolved parts, and simple thru holes (and patterns) on extruded parts. The deeper the tree the more difficult it is to edit, and the more likelyhood there is of encountering (sometime in the design or editing process) problems, especially if the part has to be edited by someone other than the creator, a couple of years after it's created. I've witnessed no small number of instances where part trees have been so complex and or convoluted that designers have scrapped the existing model and created a new one from scratch.
Dependancies can arise in complex tree structures that will make editing a nightmare and make conversion of the data for use in other systems (not an uncommon occurance) virtually impossible or will result in a large amount of data loss. Just a few reasons to keep things as simple as possible.
Since everything we do in Alibre is sketch dependant it just seems more effective to develop sketches that approximate the finished part as closely as possible and then add those features we're not able to create at the sketch stage.
Now about the question that started this off, I sometimes take time out of my normal design work to practice building parts from detailed drawings. It makes you evaluate how the part can best be modeled based on the deliniated dimensional and geometric constraints. For anyone just getting started in Alibre 3D modeling, using 2D drawings to develope a few parts can help make the transition a little easier. Of course this is old news for seasoned users but sometimes we get so caught-up in the modeling aspect of our work that the drawing end of it atrophies. It pays to keep both as sharp as possible. One of the best texts I've come across for these exercises is Technical Drawing by Fredrick E. Giesecke et al. It can also give you pointers on constructing sketch features not offered as standard features in Alibre (ellipses and other assorted conic sections), as well as giving you a little history on technical drawing.
Mibe
Alibre Super User
Re: sketch vs feature
I can agree to some extent, but I stick to MY weapons when it comes to features like fillets etc. Regarding fillets, the reason is simple - ALL fillets should be added in the end (if possible) since that fastens up the design.
Keeping fillets and stuff like that in the sketches, not only makes it harder to edit them in the future, it's also impossible to Name, Change, Suppress etc.
Since this is a thread about general solid modelling, it's also impossible to use and create configurations of parts (where the features are part of the configurations) if all data is stuck inside a few sketches.
I guess there are (at least) two ways of modelling and try to keep to the one that feels most comfortable
I can agree to some extent, but I stick to MY weapons when it comes to features like fillets etc. Regarding fillets, the reason is simple - ALL fillets should be added in the end (if possible) since that fastens up the design.
Keeping fillets and stuff like that in the sketches, not only makes it harder to edit them in the future, it's also impossible to Name, Change, Suppress etc.
Since this is a thread about general solid modelling, it's also impossible to use and create configurations of parts (where the features are part of the configurations) if all data is stuck inside a few sketches.
I guess there are (at least) two ways of modelling and try to keep to the one that feels most comfortable
Training Books - Sip's first question
Hi - Well Sip - I don't know if this will help - but some users have given my materials great reviews!
http://www.aircraft-computational.com/a ... nts-1.html
Might be of some help - as they can easily be printed from Acrobat! Robert
Hi - Well Sip - I don't know if this will help - but some users have given my materials great reviews!
http://www.aircraft-computational.com/a ... nts-1.html
Might be of some help - as they can easily be printed from Acrobat! Robert