Here is a list of all the postings Gary Wooding has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Solid Edge Community Edn. - Gen. Qs. Thereof|
Nigel: Check the display resolution and report back with your Belarc numbers. This forum will then be more able to guide you for your next step, whether to upgrade or replace?
Nigel: Yes, you can add another 4MB to make 8MB.
If you right-click anywhere on your desktop that is not an icon, then click Display settings it will show the current and maximum resolution of your monitor.
Nigel: There is a very useful free program called Belarc Advisor. If you download and run it you will get a very comprehensive listing of your computer's hardware, as well as some useful info about your software licences, versions, and usage.
My Win10 Home system is a very modest 7yr old 3.20Ghz Core i5-4460, 12GB RAM, 450GB SSD, and 1TB HDD, with GeForce GT 705 video card. It runs Fusion very well, and I've just downloaded, installed and run SE(C) 2022 with no problems.
It originally came with Win7 installed, which I upgraded to Win10 Home when it became available. I've had no problems with the upgrade and all my installed programs continued to run without problems. I see no advantages in upgrading to Win11, even if I could - it's doesn't meet minimum requirements.
The point I was making with the puzzle is that modern CAD systems can do it exactly with just 3 constraints - no calculations at all. You just draw the the 2 axes and the square, then a 35 unit long line and say the ends of the line must touch the axes and the line itself must touch the corner of the square - job done.
My rather ancient m/c is too old for Win11, but I personally don't see it has any advantages over Win10.
I reckon SE(C) would be perfect for you and yes, the file-types you mentioned are industry standard.
Nigel: Just to whet your appetite, try creating a line drawing in TCAD containing...
Two lines from a point - 1 vertical and the other horizontal - like the +X and +Y axes of a graph.
At the point of intersection, ie locn 0,0, draw a square of side 12 units.
Now draw a line, 35 units long, that just touches the two lines and just touches the corner of the square.
And yes, I know it's a very old puzzle that's a pig to calculate, hard to draw in TCAD, but trivial in Fusion or any other modern 3D cad system.
Nigel: Select the viewport, right click and select Properties, then choose the layers to be included.
Nigel: It's certainly possible to print a rendered 3D model from paperspace, as per the attachment.
That's very strange, I've received several PMs in the past.
Nigel: About TCAD. My V21.2 came with a 475 page Reference Manual in the form of a PDF. As a reference manual it's pretty good, but it's not a tutorial. If you don't have it, drop me a PM and I'll send you a copy. I painstakingly divided it into 4-page signatures which I printed in booklet form on A4 sheets and then folded each page and bound them together to produce a 475 page A5 book. I found it very useful.
When in Paperspace click File and then Page setup to choose whatever page size you want. You can specify your own page size with the Page Setup wizard. You can even define a very large print area and 'tile' it with sheets of your choosing. TCAD will handle it for you.
In Modelspace, click Modify and you can choose Fillet or Chamfer.
TCAD has all the tools you need to produce really good 2D drawings or fully rendered 3D models - I know because I've done it. But, compared to a modern 3D CAD system, the tools are blunt and somewhat sparse.
All good CAD programs are complex and require a steep learning curve. It seems to me that you have really just started with TCAD and still have a way to go. It took me at least a year to become efficient enough to use it without really thinking about it. After a day's worth of Solidworks I was convinced that a true 3D system was the way to go, but I had to wait until Fusion came along. Had I known about SE(C), or equivalent, then I guess I'd be using that now.
I take the point about the Win10 requirement, but to my mind that's really not a good reason to spend time and effort on learning an outdated system. Far better to bite the bullet and go for something more up-to-date.
Both TCAD and Fusion came with many tutorials, none of which I found useful. I'd probably feel the same about SE(C). My main source of learning was with queries on the relevant user forum and Youtube videos from presenters sifted from many that were a waste of time.
It seems to me that, after painstakingly learning to use pen and ink you're getting to grips with a typewriter, where you should be starting to learn a word processor.
Peter: Your observation is exactly the same as mine.
Nigel: Your observations about TCAD's multitude of editing modes is a reflection on it's origin in 2D and the addition of 3D. This is very apparent with the complexity of the workplane and reference-point system. Not to mention the very different properties between layer-0 and all the other layers. It's also very apparent in the very distributed and haphazard customization facilities, where it's obvious that bits of code from various places have been brought together without any real attempt to integrate.
You are wrong about viewports in Paperspace, You can set any scaling you like by selecting the viewport and clicking Properties.
All CAD systems require climbing a steep learning curve - clearly you are still climbing TCAD's. The modern 3D systems are really no more difficult, but they are different and vastly more powerful. They don't have the workplane concept of TCAD, nor do they have the concept of layers (at least Fusion doesn't). They also have something that TCAD really lacks - a timeline where you can go back in time to make changes that affect recent modelling.
I take your point about lack of support for subsequent operating system versions, but have no real answer to it.
I can't speak for SE, but Fusion can use any sized paper for drawings and use any scale you like. I'm sure all the other 3D systems are the same.
I've been using TCAD for more than 20 years and got to be pretty efficient with it. My current version is V21.2 ProPlat and I have no intention of upgrading to a later version. TCAD is basically a 2D CAD system with 3D 'bolted on'. It's quite possible to produce excellent 3D models (I've made some myself), but it can be hard work, especially if you need to make changes. TCAD has excellent printing facilities, but no animation.
About 5 years ago I attended an introductory session of Solidworks. It was TCAD on steroids and I was really hooked - until I found the price. It was totally out of range. A year or so later I discovered Fusion360 and, because it was free, I started to use it. Its paradigm is totally different to TCAD's and I found the transition very difficult. I didn't have to think about TCAD in order to draw the things, I just did it, but Fusion was a beast of a totally different colour. The documentation was (is) dreadful and I spent a lot of time watching YouTube videos. A few months later and things were different and I could then use Fusion without really thinking about it.
Yes, I know your query was about SE(C), but it's paradigm is very similar to that of the other modern 3D CAD systems (Solidworks, Solidedge, Alibre, Catia, etc) which are designed for 3D work - unlike TCAD which was designed for 2D work and had 3D stuff added on. TCAD allows you create 3D objects by extending 2D objects, and offers a few methods of glueing them together to make an assembly, but that's it. Motion is impossible - at least it is in my V21.
The modern 3D systems allow you to create 3D parts from 2D sketches, and combine them to make assemblies that can, optionally, display motion. 2D sketches are far more powerful than TCAD's 2D drawing facilities. Dimensions are defined in the sketches and are generally not visible in the 3D parts. Changes to sketches automatically change the dependant 3D parts. All dimensions are parametric and can be interrelated if you want.
Fusion uses a facility it calls Joints to assemble the parts; other systems use things called Mates, which are similar but not identical. As far as I'm aware (I'm sure someone will elucidate), Fusion is unique in allowing the parts to reside in the main model or as separate models, or a combination of both. In contrast, the other systems have two types of files - parts, and assemblies. You combine the parts together in an assembly, where the mates are used to join them and define the allowed movement.
In order to print a model or part in TCAD you have to create a Viewport by specifying a boundary around the section to be printed, then switching to a mode called Paperspace where the viewport can be inserted and scaled as desired. You can have multiple, separate, paperspaces and populate them at will. Any paperspace can be printed. 3D models can be saved as STLs and printed on a 3D printer.
Fusion, and probably the other 3D CAD systems, has a separate 2D printing facility which can create fully dimensioned 2D orthogonal drawings at any scale you like.
Both TCAD and Fusion have very powerful 3D rendering facilities.
|Thread: Lock nuts / Jam nuts - MEW 311|
It seems to me that the sole reason for torquing a nut is to apply a particular tension to the bolt. Under tension, the bolt stretches; uniformly up to the nut when it rapidly reduces as it gets further into the nut. The first few threads in the nut also distort to nearly match the shape of the stretched bolt. If a thin locknut is then tightened down onto the original nut, then the tension in the bolt, inside the original nut, is increased accordingly, but it certainly doesn't reduce the original tension in the bolt. How can it? So I can't see any objection to using an external thin locknut.
|Thread: Maths problem just for fun|
|Thread: Laminated Info|
I've had no problems with laser print and proper lamination pouches.
|Thread: What O-ring is this?|
This is a scale sketch of the groove into which it must fit. The hole it goes into is 10mm diam.
I opted for the 1/4"x3/32" size (had to buy 5) but it turned out to be a mite too big - the valve actually went in, but was far too tight. I probable something closer to 1/4"x1/16" will be OK.
|Thread: I can't explain this - can you?|
I like Andrew's suggestion - it seems very plausible. And makes sense.
|Thread: Filing Technique|
If you watch the video you will notice that the pressure applied to the backstrokes is not reduced.
|Thread: I can't explain this - can you?|
I've had a set of 4 DECT cordless phones for about 13 years. They all worked fine until one day, about 3 months ago, when I accidentality knocked a charging station and handset off the shelf. When I put the handset back on the charger it was totally dead. Putting a good handset on the charger confirmed it was OK, and putting the dead handset on a good charger confirmed it was dead.
I took the handset, charger, and a known good charger, to a friend who used to be an active radio ham. After confirming it was really dead he took the covering off, expecting to find a break or some other physical reason for the failure. He found nothing. The design layout was such that it wasn't possible separate the several PCBs for more extensive problem hunting so his advice was to scrap it and either make do with three handsets, or buy another set of four. I decided make do with three. Until, you've guessed it, I accidentality knocked another one off the shelf and was dismayed to find that, it too, was totally dead.
So I purchased another set of four and copied the phone book entries from the old phones to the new ones and started to delete them, one at a time, from the old phones so that the two remaining handsets could be salvaged and used by someone else. I was interrupted many times in this endeavour and got somewhat muddled up because I discovered that I was actually removing entries from one of the broken phones. What? How could I remove entries when the phone was totally dead? I checked all four handsets, and all four were working!!!
What's going on here? Those two handsets were truly dead - totally inert. I'd done nothing to them and now all four phones are working properly. How come?
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.