|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:Can you report back if you do get a chance to check out On Shape? I'm getting more and more sick of dassaults poo poo so onshape is looking more appealing than it used to. I play with it routinely, you can make a free account that’s fully featured design wise. The PLM stuff and simulation stuff is paywalled, but you have virtually no restrictions. Files are public, but unless you’re insanely verbose nobody’s reasonably going to find your thing.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Spaghett posted:
My first job was 100% making drawings for an on site machine shop. After I had the basics down I'd take drawings out to the machinists to see if they understood and they'd set me straight pretty quick if I made anything confusing. Every now and then they'd tell me to do something that the engineering manager would yell at me for, so I didn't take all their suggestions. Not a great job but after that my drawings were so much better than they would have been. I'm also down to do some drawing review if you want another opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:My first job was 100% making drawings for an on site machine shop. After I had the basics down I'd take drawings out to the machinists to see if they understood and they'd set me straight pretty quick if I made anything confusing. Same here. Sadly I haven't worked at a company that made their own parts since 2006. Such is the way of things. Also it's hard to tell newbies that their drawing sucks without a greasy old roughneck to back you up. There's more to it than just making sure everything is dimensioned. Is it dimensioned well? Are the dimensions in the place where someone looking to make a feature will naturally look for it? Can they easily picture how the part looks in reality? I work with a guy who has never worked with machinists and he refuses to put hidden lines on his drawings. Claims they taught him that in school because the drawings "look cleaner" and "they really aren't necessary". Que him reworking an entire order of conical spacers because guess what? if you don't put hidden lines on the drawing it looks like there's no hole in it! Sure, the diameter callout says "thru" so it's technically correct - but you hindered clarity and that makes the fuckup your fault. LloydDobler fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
I can understand working from hidden lines removed as your default and changing that for views where it makes sense, but what??? Never hidden lines???
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:My first job was 100% making drawings for an on site machine shop. After I had the basics down I'd take drawings out to the machinists to see if they understood and they'd set me straight pretty quick if I made anything confusing. That was 6 years of my life, too! I made multiple trips to the floor every day to either diagnose quality issues or get scolded for bad drawings. Thankfully, we were all friendly and liked teach each other so i feel like we mutually benefited. I haven't worked there in close to 3 years (which is a huge victory since that job sucked). I sometimes call the retired quality inspector for advice on weird gd&t stuff (and also to hear his delightful, tough guy Chicago accent). LloydDobler posted:
Lol gently caress ya. Is this person a drafter or an engineer? I used to peer review the drawings of a drafter that would intentionally put gently caress ups into his drawings to see if you were paying attention. I asked him what would happen if one of them got through to production, especially now that we know he's loving things up on purpose. His face went kinda blank and I'm pretty sure it was just quiet until we all finally went back to work. One of his gently caress ups was so dumb that we almost missed it. We made pumps and some of those parts have very precise countours in them. He somehow managed to translate the 50 year old, 2D drawing into a mirror image of itself in 3D. When confronted, he replied, "Gotcha" while trying to play it off like it was on purpose. We all saw right through that poo poo, but it was later confirmed when we saw him redrawing it all from scratch in the correct orientation. Probably 2 weeks later, he rage quit because his drawings kept getting sent back due to gently caress ups. The jokes on him, though. We were gonna fire his rear end soon and if he had held out, he probably could have gotten severance and unemployment. Too bad he was as arrogant as he was bad at drafting. Another guy that hosed up as often as the aforementioned drafter, but much with less experience, stayed with us for 4-5x as long as he did simply because he was nice and eager to learn how to do better. Sadly, we just couldn't teach him to stop "improving" things we didn't ask him to "improve." Like, he just up and changed a bolt pattern on a pipe flange for some reason. It made no sense and when confronted on it, he said he thought it was wrong on the original print and that his new pattern was much better. When we showed him the literal ASME standard that's defined these bolt patterns for nearly 100 years, he sorta shook his head and said, "well I still think it looks wrong." Lol, okay guy. I guess I'm sharing this to let all you nervous goons out there know that you can be an engineer or a drafter and still be either an rear end in a top hat or a dumbass, but never both. Preferably neither, but that's a little rare. Myself, I vacilate between the two and only turn into an rear end in a top hat when i know I'm not being a dumbass and people are treating me like a dumbass. It would probably help if I stopped being such a dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:I can understand working from hidden lines removed as your default and changing that for views where it makes sense, but what??? Never hidden lines??? Ya i feel like that rule only works if you're gonna do a section view to show the feature and there's some kind of indicator of orientation within the section view. Otherwise, what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
JFC, triple posting? That deserves a probe, for sure. https://www.amazon.com/2018-Ultimate-Pocket-Guide-2nd/dp/1468601644/ This is a good reference i picked up a year or two ago for gd&t stuff. It has tons of examples for each kind of feature and geometric tolerance you can imagine. The big differences between 2018 and 2009 are the removal of concentricity and symmetry. Concenctricity can almost always be better described by total inline runout. Symmetry is just lazy dimensioning and only describes features relative to another feature of similar shape/size. This has all sorts of implications for things like position and perpendicularity that are instead better described with those terms. Just an FYI. Also, most people haven't fully switched from 2009 to 2018 (or 1994 for that matter). Edit: a free guide would be https://www.gdandtbasics.com. they usually have some good resources there and plenty of examples. I just don't think it goes deep enough for someone wanting to do the "Real" GD&T© you see at like aerospace companies. If you're a noob (or just curious), check out the site. If you're pro, I recommend buying the book. It's at least good for settling arguments. Spaghett fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 01:38
|
|
|
Speaking of drawings. Where I work I know the customers that make great ones, and then theres everyone else. Also I kinda remember there were rules about it in drafting class but that was almost 20 years ago. Iirc in old school t Square drafting you'd dimension edge to hole, then from that hole to the next one, and on and on. Was that so on a manual machine you just had the measurement from one move to the next? All the awful prints do that or just dimension off whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 01:39
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:Speaking of drawings. Where I work I know the customers that make great ones, and then theres everyone else. Here's the proper way to position holes: https://www.gdandtbasics.com/true-position Doing it the way you describe can lead to tolerance stackup errors. If every single hole came in at the top of it's tolerance, then the last hole would be way off relative to the edge of the plate. Similar story if you go on the low end of the tolerance. If we only measured the first and last hole, that wouldn't describe what's going on in the middle if their tolerances are all over the place. Instead, set your edge as a datum then draw those same span dimensions but with a basic dimension block around it (literally, it's just a square that goes around the dimension). Lastly, add the positional callout. Read up on that link for a better understanding of the issues it solves and how to properly use it. But ya, it's probably to make it easier for the manual machinists or the CNC programmer. In my experience, most modern drafting is done with the quality inspector in mind rather than the manufacturer. I also don't know of many modern shops that use manual machinery or manual programming. Most of it's done with CAM software and good templates built up over years of experience. Some of that CAM software can get it as easy as "import STEP file, choose part material, choose machine to run it on, review the generated program, GCode poops to CNC." Sadly, there's just not as much human involvement as there used to be so we have to draw for a new audience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
I’m kinda amped to do more MBD work because holy poo poo is STEP 242 the crazy cyber future I want to live in. Then there’s CAM software that’ll automatically read those callouts and CMM machines, too. The new 3DX Drafter role will do automatic MBD of the file you’re documenting in 2D which is so goddamn cool. I think SOLIDWORKS DimXpert will only translate from the drawing, not do it simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
So with Fusion or similar should everything always be a parameter? How do I get in the habit of doing this? Any advice? The UI doesn't seem super conducive to it because I can't just leave the parameters screen open at all times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
slurm posted:So with Fusion or similar should everything always be a parameter? How do I get in the habit of doing this? Any advice? The UI doesn't seem super conducive to it because I can't just leave the parameters screen open at all times. You really only want things that are going to change frequently to be parameters, or things that might vary by supplier. For instance, if I’m making something that’s going to be injection molded, I would make the draft angle a parameter. That way I can easily shop around to different suppliers or something. Another good one is boxes. I have a box configurator in SOLIDWORKS that allows me to input the width, height, and depth of whatever it is I want to store. The box panels automatically resize and I can just take the DXF to the laser cutter to make my thing. So not everything, but some things. Fusion 360 also calls parameters what other software would call variables. It’s confusing because every software in this class is parametric design software. That just means you enter things like sizes, angles, and constraints as parameters while you design not necessarily that everything needs to be a changeable parameter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
I've also seen it called expressions. I think it goes something like this: NX: Expressions Inventor: Expressions CATIA: Formula Fusion 360: Parameters Man, a simple translation chart for features that are basically the same between CAD packages would help a ton when starting up with a new software. Like, 80% of the time, I'm just hunting around for the features that I know exist, but they're called something asinine. I guess I'm mainly complaining about CATIA and Dassault. As another piece of advice for parameterized modeling, I often make a "skeleton sketch" that has almost all my main features laid out in 2D. So things like the hole patterns, outermost or innermost bounds, and weird features that interact with each other (such as o-rings in a groove) can all be on one, big, stupid, mega sketch. I'll parameterize the hell out of that thing or make it so it's easy to edit all of it one place. Then, I'll drive all my features off projected lines/points from the mega sketch. Probably half of my sketches are completely projected lines from another mega sketch. I also try to setup datum planes and axes based on either the mega sketch or a variant that's tied to it. It makes it easier to adjust the whole model from one or two sketches while you're still trying to lay things out. Yes, this is super complicated and requires you have a good idea of what you're making from the beginning. However, if you're going back at a part to clean it up, doing this is a major time saver when prototyping and you need to make poo poo fit better. Edit: Probably the model I'm most recently proud of is a big electrical box full of widgets, busbars, and fasteners. The whole thing is hand assembled so access to everything was a necessity, but we also needed to make it super compact and layered. To do this, I had a main sketch with the outermost bounds of the box captured and small little bolt patterns (usually rectangles or circles with one or two of the bolt holes oriented with respect to the circle or rectangle). From there, I constrained all my components in the assembly to this sketch and those points. I similarly made another sketch going in the perpendicular direction for the different layers the components would sit on. Afterwards, if I wanted to move a component, I just hopped into the sketch and changed the position of the bolt pattern's anchor point then boom. The part would move to the correct position. This gave me the ability to move stuff all over the place without having to gently caress with constraints or another mating component. The best part was when I went to make the mounting plates. Since I had that sketch, I copied & linked it so I didn't have to redraw the sketch and position all the bolt holes. It wasn't parameterized in the traditional sense (using the parameter spreadsheet thingy), but it captures the spirit of parameterized design. If I wanted to make variations on this product in the future, I can simply branch/duplicate the models, make sure the linked sketches are behaving, then edit it like I did before. No more starting from complete scratch. It's sorta like code reuse for programmers, but with physical products. Spaghett fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
I'm glad to hear the standard isn't Super Dogmatic Parameterization to where you're basically doing CAD from a spreadsheet. I will have to go back to using a Mega Sketch I think, I have been trying to get away from doing too much of that but I think as an overall layout it would be a good plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
Mega sketch is the The Way. At least until you've mastered surfacing and then you can go full blown skeleton master modeling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:Mega sketch is the The Way. At least until you've mastered surfacing and then you can go full blown skeleton master modeling. Learning this is my next goal, especially since I keep hearing about how good CATIA is at surface modeling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Spaghett posted:Learning this is my next goal, especially since I keep hearing about how good CATIA is at surface modeling. I've never used CATIA but I've done extensive work with master modeling in solidworks and Creo. Creo had an actual built in system for battery modeling, always heard it called "skeleton" modeling. SWx you have to play some games with multibodies but you can achieve the same effect. On larger and more intricate assemblies it's practically the only way to do it, especially if you have a large team.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:I've never used CATIA but I've done extensive work with master modeling in solidworks and Creo. Creo had an actual built in system for battery modeling, always heard it called "skeleton" modeling. SWx you have to play some games with multibodies but you can achieve the same effect. Lol funny enough, I'm designing a battery so this fits the bill perfectly. The multi-body thing is really awesome. I have a plastic part that's meant to hold a bunch of stuff together so the opposite sides of all the components all sit on the same plane. Each component is a unique hell to add so I'm making each section as a separate body. When I'm done, I'm going to connect them all together into a single part. It certainly keeps the problems contained, but my god is it hell to setup the first time. Unrelated, I had another thought about the mega sketches. Since everyone practically does it, it would be super helpful if sketches had layers similar to how AutoCAD does it. A lot of the older drawings I worked on were simple, 2D AutoCAD sketches of big, complex components. Having to discern different features stacked on top of each other is a lot easier when you can gently caress around with the line color and such. Does anyone know of a feature like that for a sketcher tool on anything that isn't Autodesk? Preferably CATIA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
Spaghett posted:Lol funny enough, I'm designing a battery so this fits the bill perfectly. The multi-body thing is really awesome. I have a plastic part that's meant to hold a bunch of stuff together so the opposite sides of all the components all sit on the same plane. Each component is a unique hell to add so I'm making each section as a separate body. When I'm done, I'm going to connect them all together into a single part. It certainly keeps the problems contained, but my god is it hell to setup the first time. Just don't be like my coworker who abuses the SWx multi body tools in place of assemblies. He'll literally create entire complicated assemblies as single parts, including importing other part files like fasteners. Any time I work with him I have to force him to create actual assembly files, it's incredibly frustrating. On top of that his model style is so obtuse it's hard to tell how the hell he designed it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:Just don't be like my coworker who abuses the SWx multi body tools in place of assemblies. I'll put it this way: If I saw a model like that, I'd just delete it. Not a loving chance I'm letting that poo poo slide. Good on you for keeping on his rear end. You made a good point, too. Communicating design intent and where features derive their value is super important to good model making. I'm now in the habit of renaming every feature and sketch so it's super clear what each thing in the model tree controls. Otherwise, it's a bunch of "Pad1, Pad2, Pad3, Shaft1, Pad4, Fillet1, etc." Nobody likes hunting through that poo poo. Sometimes, you get lucky and right clicking the feature on the model and selecting "find in tree" or whatever will take you to the correct place, but it never works when you need it to. That's just how the world works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
Since I'm clearly not getting any work done today, I had more piece of unrequested wisdom to share. If you're making big, complex assemblies, please do not model the loving threads on the screws or whatever. I had an assembly with thousands of fasteners in it and some dumbo imported models with threads on every single feature. Same goes for any repeating, common element with unnecessary, complicated features/surfaces. That poo poo eats up hard drive space and RAM like nobody's business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Spaghett posted:I'll put it this way: If I saw a model like that, I'd just delete it. Not a loving chance I'm letting that poo poo slide. Good on you for keeping on his rear end. One nice feature of NX is "feature groups", which are just folders in the model history tree you can dump features into. You can name them, apply colors to groups independently, I adore them for complex models where clusters of features can be easily lumped together A poo poo feature is that, somehow, features can get jumbled so they no-longer appear in timestamp order and it can be a nightmare to fix
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
We had a hardware library with the threads configured so that you could either import cosmetic or fully modeled, depending on how pretty and close up your presentation was going to be vs how large the model is. I prefer cosmetic threads because you can grab the cylinder OD for constraints and measurements but I prefer the modeled threads for prettiness when I need a picture to pop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:One nice feature of NX is "feature groups", which are just folders in the model history tree you can dump features into. You can name them, apply colors to groups independently, I adore them for complex models where clusters of features can be easily lumped together Man, I miss using NX. I never thought I'd say that, too. Those feature groups were loving incredible. You're absolutely correct about how messed up they can get, though. That bit my rear end more than once.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
Drawing chat: At work, all our designs ultimately become a drawing package and they all go thru one VP for approval before leaving the dept. This means our drawing standard is the VP's style. That leads to convos with new hires where I agree they're technically using some standard correctly but the boss wants it his way. We also have slight style differences depending on the process: machining, fabrication, water jet, or grinding. Most of them work off the sldprt file in mastercam and ignore the drawing until the inspection at the end of the job. SW performance: Lately I've added Assembly Visualization and Performance Evaluation to my workflow when checking designs. It is very easy to see the downloaded vendor cad is way too detailed, make a screenshot, and have the designer defeature it. I had one where 8 cam followers were double the triangles of the hundreds of screws in an assembly. Usually there are only a handful of components that have a huge impact on model performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
Spaghett posted:Here's the proper way to position holes: https://www.gdandtbasics.com/true-position I know gd&t. The shop I work at is weird. We have gray beards running full manual to cam programmed 5 axis machines in the same building. Hell we even have 3 guys programming their protoraks with fusion. 3d model with a gd&t print is the way though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:I know gd&t. Oh my bad. I misread your post as asking for the correct way to do it. I gotta post less and read more. We had a similar thing in the shop I worked at, but they made us get rid of all the manual machines. Another division had an injury and since it was on a manual machine, it must mean the machines are evil. It pissed off all the old guys and cut into my after work lathe time. Oh well. But hell ya, 3D model with GD&T prints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
Np, my post wasn't super clear. I do think most of our manual stuff will go away but mostly from retirements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:Mega sketch is the The Way. At least until you've mastered surfacing and then you can go full blown skeleton master modeling. I will add the corollary that doing One Mega Sketch and turning that into One Mega Feature yields much pain. Convert entities/project/use from that big boy master sketch! Spaghett posted:Learning this is my next goal, especially since I keep hearing about how good CATIA is at surface modeling. oXDemosthenesXo posted:Just don't be like my coworker who abuses the SWx multi body tools in place of assemblies. There’s an astonishing amount of this in my life, combat robotics folks truly hate learning to use CAD correctly. Re: NX Feature Groups, there’s some neato stuff that CATIA does similarly with their geometric sets. In the xApps they only have Ordered Geometric Sets. You can Accidentally Really gently caress Up your parts if you’re not being sufficiently clever about it, but I think you can do similar things. Also also in the xApps, there’s a lot of neat master modeling workflows that can happen, too. Somewhat like Fusion (maybe CATIA also? Never actually fired it up, I know more about the kernel than the UI  ) xDesign has a unified part and assembly interface. You can do big master sketches at assembly levels if you care to, and not just create components from features, but create components the geometry of which are linked bodies to that original assembly’s features. It’s a little weird to explain, but basically it lets you do “Save Bodies” workflows from SOLIDWORKS in an Assembly-native environment, and you get the associativity benefits while also proving things out in the Assembly workspace.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
I'm self taught so I probably do everything wrong, but I only work for myself too. I would say my work flow is what feels natural to me, alternatively making it up as I go. I usually do stuff like making profiles and extruding them, or a revolve which I did just last night for what I am working on now. I didn't bother using any parameters here because they won't change. It's a model of a part I got infront of me and how I will repair it. Looking at how I work there's a lot of making a sketch, extruding it, then making another sketch on the face of the new part and so on it goes... I have no idea if this is bad practice. This is what I was working on last night, I basically need it so I can make some 2D paper drawings to have to hand while at the lathe.   Actual parts, it's a plunger or piston for a 1970s pressure washer. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 10:18
|
|
|
That’s basically the workflow! Sketch > feature > sketch > feature. Making your sketch on the face of another feature ensures that if that base feature changes, it’ll take your new sketch with it. There are tools that usually fall under the category of “direct editing” that tend to break models when something upstream gets edited. These are things like move/offset face, delete face, things like that. They can also introduce drawing or manufacturing challenges because the way math accomplishes these isn’t always the way manufacturing does. They’re intended to get you out of a jam or fix imported parts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I'm self taught so I probably do everything wrong, but I only work for myself too. I would say my work flow is what feels natural to me, alternatively making it up as I go. I usually do stuff like making profiles and extruding them, or a revolve which I did just last night for what I am working on now. I didn't bother using any parameters here because they won't change. It's a model of a part I got infront of me and how I will repair it. For basic modeling this is perfectly fine. I do this professionally and 3/4 of my models start out that way and I only move on to more sophisticated modeling when I need to. For fairly simple machined parts like you're doing that straightforward method works great. NewFatMike posted:There are tools that usually fall under the category of “direct editing” that tend to break models when something upstream gets edited. These are things like move/offset face, delete face, things like that. If I ever see a trained engineer that uses these features anywhere outside the last 10% of a feature tree as a bailout, I immediately assume they don't know what they're doing. I was straight up told to never use them at my first job lol. This is for solid modeling, surfacing is the wild west.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
I loving hate offset face and how Fusion always thinks I want to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2023 13:37
|
|
|
I tried the CATIA ordered geometric set and I tried using bodies as a "feature group" of sorts. This is all on a weirdly complicated injection molded plastic mounting panel. I gotta say, I'm beginning to like this a little more than feature groups in NX. When you do the assemble step at the end, everything is neatly packaged in the tree. Making changes to one body doesn't seem to explode features in other bodies quite as easily as it might have before. I made the mistake of trying to do a multi-section solid to attach each section together. I'm not gonna do that again. I think I'll make a surface that connects everything then thicken it to mate with the different bodies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
I’m not sure if it’s 1:1, but this is how the 3DX structures are set up, and because it all runs off the CATIA geometric modeler kernel, I’m imagining it has to be pretty close. This is from the WORLD talk describing the data hierarchy: A lump is more or less equivalent to a body. A domain is somewhat harder to explain, but it’s kind of like a feature. Multiple features or lumps, however can belong to one domain (for instance, applying a fillet to multiple bodies would put them in a single domain). Sets are where they ordered geometric sets come into play. On the browser apps, you can do some neat stuff like run a generative design simulation on something solid modeled, put the mesh output into the subdivision surface modeling app to sculpt around, then pull it back into the solid modeler with both the fixtures/mounting points/whatever as one ordered geometric set and the sculpted element as a separate ordered geometric set so you can edit them both independently but output it all as one component (physical part). Physical part is doofy because it’s both an assembly and component level classification, so they ended the talk with a fractal of that image above because you can do indefinite subassembly and component counts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
Slight suspicion Michael might be reading this thread. It's good to see this info on technical drawing from 3D models is getting out there in that corner of the 3D printing world, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLw1NczPtYA
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:If you’re not going to do any letters that connect the nubbins on the inside of letters like A and O, you’re pretty free. Best practice is to dissolve the text inside your sketch using that command, that way when you export a DXF, overlapping lines and other typeface artifacts should be gone.  I decided not to go with stencil letters. In the end, thin tabs in heavy steel seemed bad. It's perfectly manufacturable, because we have lasers, but I don't think it would look great. Simple letter forms are better. SendCutSend's yellow zinc chromate looks great, better than the pics on their website. Above image is straight out of my iphone, with no enhancements/adjustments of any kind. (Though I did position the pic to best catch the light from the window.) More in the the minivan thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 06:26
|
|
|
ryanrs posted:
That’s looking great! Awesome template design in that minivan thread, too. I’m glad you went with L and r — I think it’s charming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Hey strangers or people I know from other threads. Is anyone familiar with a free or cheap software for creating things to send to SendCutSend? I just have need for one part right now that's beyond what I can fab and have look nice so I'd like to give it a whirl. Simple two dimensional piece, no bends. I need to draw in radiused inside corners, and square cutouts for square shouldered bolts. I've used CAD in school so anything that allows keyboard inputs to augment the pointer is preferred. This piece is so simple it would take a professional about four minutes with me explaining it for two of those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Free sheet metal tools, runs in the browser: https://www.onshape.com/en/ It’s been my go to recommendation for folks getting into CAD. Fusion 360 is very popular, but Autodesk (the parent company) is wretched.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 22:40
|
|