CAD Forum

• The number one worst offense that makes me steam......overriding dimensions on drawings!

• Vicious circular references (a mate to an edge that is defined in context).

• Not using Hole Wizard.

• 3D sketches where a 2D would work just fine.

• Underdefined sketches.

• Redundant features (chamfer six times instead of once).

• Leaving file properties blank after product release.

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:33 pm AKA "What do your co-workers do with SWX that makes your blood boil?"

• The number one worst offense that makes me steam......overriding dimensions on drawings!

• Vicious circular references (a mate to an edge that is defined in context).

• Not using Hole Wizard.

• 3D sketches where a 2D would work just fine.

• Underdefined sketches.

• Redundant features (chamfer six times instead of once).

• Leaving file properties blank after product release.

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:33 pm AKA "What do your co-workers do with SWX that makes your blood boil?"

• The number one worst offense that makes me steam......overriding dimensions on drawings!

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:33 pm

• Not using Hole Wizard.

• 3D sketches where a 2D would work just fine.

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:33 pm

• Underdefined sketches.

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:33 pm

• Redundant features (chamfer six times instead of once).

MJuric wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:48 pm The one that ticks me off are the "Just add another chunk" modelers. When you open a part and it's a simple square with a couple features but it's made from 357 different extrudes, cuts etc etc instead of simply going into the original extrude and changing the sketch. I love the "Extrude cut" followed by "Extrude" to fill the hole rather than rearranging the features and just removing the original cut. Yes, I know this takes longer but pleeeeaaassssseeee do it.

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:58 pm

MJuric wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:48 pm The one that ticks me off are the "Just add another chunk" modelers. When you open a part and it's a simple square with a couple features but it's made from 357 different extrudes, cuts etc etc instead of simply going into the original extrude and changing the sketch. I love the "Extrude cut" followed by "Extrude" to fill the hole rather than rearranging the features and just removing the original cut. Yes, I know this takes longer but pleeeeaaassssseeee do it.

Actually, it takes LESS time, especially if you figure in time to change anything later.

bnemec wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:46 pm - editing the revision in custom properties
- editing the $PRP... in the title block in the sheet format

Zhen-Wei Tee wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:50 pm
→ Use assembly pattern even when they only need to insert just ONE more screw

MJuric wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:17 am I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:42 am

MJuric wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:17 am I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

Roasted By John wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am Just be for I leave here, I would love to go and remove all the Referenced Geometry in all the sketches, like they were when I started and then I'd like to go to every part that is referenced in another assembly and delete the part that it was referenced to, just like it was when I started, then I'd really love to go to some complicated files and plug all the holes with an Boss Extrude and add a hole about 5K from where it was before, then plug that one and add another cut about 1/32 from the first location. Take a few parts and add 20 configurations and have each configuration suppressed and unsuppressed like they were supposed to, save the file, reopen and mix up the suppress and unsuppress, like some were when I started... The one thing I would love to do is build from the bottom up by building a house of cards and then the one part that has a lot of information in it and is referenced by 2/3rds of the parts, deleted it..

Those are things I'd love to do, but don't have the heart providing Karma to the people that didn't start it, but I'd like to return it how I found it..

Roasted By John wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am Just before I leave here, - -Snip- -

• Unused features such as sketches, planes, and axes. Delete them if they're not doing anything.

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

• Drawing views that intersect the title block

• Using Hole Wizard for everything! (cue...Too much of a good thing)

• Excessive use of dimensions instead of relations and equations

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:53 pm Signing their name with ultra tiny text and cut extruding it into the models they create. They were proud of their work of art.

Zhen-Wei Tee wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:29 am Adding one more that i just come across today....

Creating a sheet metal part that cant be flatten...

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:27 am How are you not in prison? I woulda been strangling people

DennisD wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:16 am

Roasted By John wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am Just before I leave here, - -Snip- -

What is going on that you are leaving wherever here is?

Roasted By John wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 am Just be for I leave here, I would love to go and remove all the Referenced Geometry in all the sketches, like they were when I started and then I'd like to go to every part that is referenced in another assembly and delete the part that it was referenced to, just like it was when I started, then I'd really love to go to some complicated files and plug all the holes with an Boss Extrude and add a hole about 5K from where it was before, then plug that one and add another cut about 1/32 from the first location. Take a few parts and add 20 configurations and have each configuration suppressed and unsuppressed like they were supposed to, save the file, reopen and mix up the suppress and unsuppress, like some were when I started... The one thing I would love to do is build from the bottom up by building a house of cards and then the one part that has a lot of information in it and is referenced by 2/3rds of the parts, deleted it..

Those are things I'd love to do, but don't have the heart providing Karma to the people that didn't start it, but I'd like to return it how I found it..

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:42 am

MJuric wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:17 am I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:16 pm
I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

matt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:47 pm I really hate it when I get to the bottom of a tree and there are a bunch of Delete Face and Move Face features. Somebody usually inherited a design, and couldn't be bothered to go back and figure out the feature tree, so they just hacked and slashed.

So when I inherited a bunch of parts like this, I just remodeled all of them. It was easier than figuring out that tangled mess.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:16 pm it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

matt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:56 pm Here's one that annoys me. Just the opposite of what someone else posted. When someone picks 100 edges in a single fillet feature, then the fillet on one edge fails or loses its reference, so the whole feature and all edges fail. Instead, if you have several smaller features with fewer edges selected, troubleshooting is much easier. Plus, if you just select a single edge instead of a whole tangent group, the software can pick the rest of the tangency automatically.

Alin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 3:07 pm

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:16 pm it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

Have you tried the Component Preview Window tool? A thing of beauty!!!

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:14 pm

Alin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 3:07 pm

Have you tried the Component Preview Window tool? A thing of beauty!!!

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:53 pm Signing their name with ultra tiny text and cut extruding it into the models they create. They were proud of their work of art.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:23 pm It wasn't a co-worker, but I received a drawing from a client once that specified the embedment depth of an anchor bolt in concrete down to the 1/16". I'm guessing whoever did that has never seen anyone setting forms, tying rebar, or pouring concrete, and has no more than a vague idea, if that, of how the process works.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, there was absolutely no need for that kind of tolerance. I'm not an engineer, but I don't need to be to know that. Specifying embedment depth to the nearest 1/4" would have been just fine.

I've also seen rebar bends dimensioned to the 1/16". I will occasionally dimension rebar to the nearest 1/8", but I cringe when I do it. That kind of tolerance in concrete work is rarely, if ever, needed, and in any case is just about impossible to accomplish.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:16 pm

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:42 am

MJuric wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:17 am I'm really torn on this one. I really like things in patterns because of easy of changing, suppressing etc. However on the other hand there are things I dislike about working in assemblies with a lot of patterns.

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

I do believe I have fewer of those mate errors that go away with a rebuild when doing this than I did 8 - 10 years ago.

dpihlaja wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:42 am

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:16 pm

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:42 am

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

I do believe I have fewer of those mate errors that go away with a rebuild when doing this than I did 8 - 10 years ago.

@Glenn Schroeder
Did you know about the "New Window" functionality? This will solve this for you I think. See the attached GIF video.

NewWindow.gif

matt wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:47 pm I really hate it when I get to the bottom of a tree and there are a bunch of Delete Face and Move Face features. Somebody usually inherited a design, and couldn't be bothered to go back and figure out the feature tree, so they just hacked and slashed.

So when I inherited a bunch of parts like this, I just remodeled all of them. It was easier than figuring out that tangled mess.

mike miller wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:22 am A few more......

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

mike miller wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:22 am

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

dpihlaja wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:42 am

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:16 pm

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:42 am

Yeah, that brings up another pet peeve......"Don't mate to the pattern instances, don't mate to the pattern instance......repeat."

I gotta admit, I do this sometimes. I've also recommended avoiding it, but it isn't unusual for me to have an Assembly that's well over 100' long, and mating back to a component at the other end sometimes just isn't practical.

I do believe I have fewer of those mate errors that go away with a rebuild when doing this than I did 8 - 10 years ago.

@Glenn Schroeder
Did you know about the "New Window" functionality? This will solve this for you I think. See the attached GIF video.

NewWindow.gif

dpihlaja wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:33 pm

mike miller wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:22 am

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

I made the under defined sketch entities a bright obnoxious red color so that they would stand out better:

image.png

image.png

dpihlaja wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:33 pm

mike miller wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:22 am

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

I made the under defined sketch entities a bright obnoxious red color so that they would stand out better:

image.png

image.png

matt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:37 am

dpihlaja wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:33 pm

mike miller wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:22 am

• Bright, obnoxious colors that won't be applied in real life anyway

I made the under defined sketch entities a bright obnoxious red color so that they would stand out better:

image.png

image.png

You guys would go nuts on my surface models. First you'd go nuts that half the sketches have something underdefined. And then you'd go nuts defining the endpoints of centerlines, spline points, endpoints of lines that only need to go past the material, etc...

As someone who underdefines a lot of stuff, I can tell you that something that is underdefined is less likely to move than something that is connected to the wrong thing.

Machine design is a different thing. Most or all features are solid, most or all lines have a geometrical purpose other than satisfying CAD requirements. For those models, I fully define, and even centerlines I try to set up so they are defined by the rest of the sketch.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:09 am
I learned years ago that in many cases it's not necessary to restrain the end points of center lines, and in fact, as long as the location of the line itself is fully defined the sketch will show as fully defined even if the end points aren't.
image.png

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:57 pm

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:09 am
I learned years ago that in many cases it's not necessary to restrain the end points of center lines, and in fact, as long as the location of the line itself is fully defined the sketch will show as fully defined even if the end points aren't.
image.png

Sometimes that little status block lies.