Comments on: 3 Ways To Model The Same Thing http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/ Welcome to CADFanatic - A Blog About SolidWorks & the 3D CAD Industry in General Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:35:09 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: itjobs1 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-522 itjobs1 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:36:38 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-522 Great idea<br>thank you<br><a href="http://www.staffingpower.com" rel="nofollow">www.staffingpower.com</a> Great idea
thank you
http://www.staffingpower.com

]]> By: itjobs1 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-490 itjobs1 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:36:38 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-490 Great idea<br>thank you<br><a href="http://www.staffingpower.com" rel="nofollow">www.staffingpower.com</a> Great idea
thank you
http://www.staffingpower.com

]]> By: jaiswal utsav http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-472 jaiswal utsav Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:58:27 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-472 hi there <br>my name is jaiswal utsav.i anm a nechanical engineer<br><br>instead of using cut,it would be better to make the sketch 1st sketch in such a manner so that when u create a rvolve <br>it would result in the desired feature ,at once hi there
my name is jaiswal utsav.i anm a nechanical engineer

instead of using cut,it would be better to make the sketch 1st sketch in such a manner so that when u create a rvolve
it would result in the desired feature ,at once

]]> By: Brian http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-455 Brian Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:27:44 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-455 All of the methods but one shown in my post above and including the groove in the main revolve are equally easy to modify with a double click on the sketch or feature or a click and drag with Instant 3D on. The only exception is for the offset cut; AFAIK, that one would require going into the feature definition to change the location. All of the methods but one shown in my post above and including the groove in the main revolve are equally easy to modify with a double click on the sketch or feature or a click and drag with Instant 3D on. The only exception is for the offset cut; AFAIK, that one would require going into the feature definition to change the location.

]]> By: burhop http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-454 burhop Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:56:23 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-454 Which option is best if you think you want to modify it later? An o-ring will likely always be circlular but you may want to move it higher or lower in the cylinder. Which option is best if you think you want to modify it later? An o-ring will likely always be circlular but you may want to move it higher or lower in the cylinder.

]]> By: Brian http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-453 Brian Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:46:20 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-453 As far as modeling reflecting real world procedures; I would not necessarily agree with this. If you modeled everything as it would be actually be made, you would start with a billet and start cutting away - not that there is anything exactly wrong with that, either. I've actually done a few models this way when dealing with structural shapes, and know others that have too.<br><br>I suspect that in this particular case, most folks would just model the groove in with the original revolve... As far as modeling reflecting real world procedures; I would not necessarily agree with this. If you modeled everything as it would be actually be made, you would start with a billet and start cutting away – not that there is anything exactly wrong with that, either. I've actually done a few models this way when dealing with structural shapes, and know others that have too.

I suspect that in this particular case, most folks would just model the groove in with the original revolve…

]]> By: Brian http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-447 Brian Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:27:44 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-447 All of the methods but one shown in my post above and including the groove in the main revolve are equally easy to modify with a double click on the sketch or feature or a click and drag with Instant 3D on. The only exception is for the offset cut; AFAIK, that one would require going into the feature definition to change the location. All of the methods but one shown in my post above and including the groove in the main revolve are equally easy to modify with a double click on the sketch or feature or a click and drag with Instant 3D on. The only exception is for the offset cut; AFAIK, that one would require going into the feature definition to change the location.

]]> By: burhop http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-446 burhop Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:56:23 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-446 Which option is best if you think you want to modify it later? An o-ring will likely always be circlular but you may want to move it higher or lower in the cylinder. Which option is best if you think you want to modify it later? An o-ring will likely always be circlular but you may want to move it higher or lower in the cylinder.

]]> By: Brian http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-445 Brian Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:46:20 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-445 As far as modeling reflecting real world procedures; I would not necessarily agree with this. If you modeled everything as it would be actually be made, you would start with a billet and start cutting away - not that there is anything exactly wrong with that, either. I've actually done a few models this way when dealing with structural shapes, and know others that have too.<br><br>I suspect that in this particular case, most folks would just model the groove in with the original revolve... As far as modeling reflecting real world procedures; I would not necessarily agree with this. If you modeled everything as it would be actually be made, you would start with a billet and start cutting away – not that there is anything exactly wrong with that, either. I've actually done a few models this way when dealing with structural shapes, and know others that have too.

I suspect that in this particular case, most folks would just model the groove in with the original revolve…

]]> By: Edwin Muirhead http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-444 Edwin Muirhead Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:21:36 +0000 http://www.cadfanatic.com/2009/08/3-ways-to-model-the-same-thing/#comment-444 Great idea comparing methods, though an o-ring groove is usually created as a "revolved" feature in the real world (turned), so shouldn't the CAD model follow this?<br>Ed Great idea comparing methods, though an o-ring groove is usually created as a “revolved” feature in the real world (turned), so shouldn't the CAD model follow this?
Ed

]]>