cosmetic threads - bug?
jk
views. One of the section views has a jog in it. In the first part of
the section, tapped holes are visable; in the part of the section after
the jog, no tapped holes are visable or in the backgroumd. This section
shows no other hidden lines.
My problem is that in the portion of the section view where I would not
expect to see the tapped holes, I still see the cosmetic threads. When
I delete them , I also lose the cosmetic threads that I want to show.
Another interesting aspect of this is that it's not consistent. There
are some cosmetic threads that are showing up in error that I CAN
delete without losing the ones I want. I'm talking in the same view. I
was able to get rid of half of the bogus cosmetic threads without
losing the ones that are correct, but not all of them.
When I imported them I unchecked the box about importing to hidden
views, so that is not the problem.
If anybody else has seen this and solved it, I sure would like to hear
from you. Right now my drawing looks very unprofessional, and it's
making me cranky!!
--------------------------DUH------------------------------
As I was reading this over, I think I may have thought of the cause,
but not the solution. The cosmetic threads that are giving me the
problem were from an Insert/Feature/Mirror. The ones that I'm trying to
make disappear were the original ones, and the ones I want to stay were
mirrored. If this is the problem, then that would mean that we have to
think ahead to our drawing when we create our geometry. Perhaps the
solution is to find another way to get all of your threads into your
model without mirroring.
Anyways, any comments are still welcome.
JK Mold Design
Sacramento, Ca
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jk
> The cosmetic threads that are giving me the
> problem were from an Insert/Feature/Mirror. The ones that I'm trying
to
> make disappear were the original ones, and the ones I want to stay
were
> mirrored."
If I reply to my own post does that mean I'm talking to myself???
Actually the ones that I am trying to delete are the copies; not the
original ones. That makes it a bit more aggravating. I think this
warrants an enhancement request. Why would any design software want to
show items that are not there??
jk
thread misses the point. The real problem is that the cosmetic thread
has no business being there in the first place. It is on the wrong side
of the section line. If that's not a bug , then what is?
--
William Wicker
wrote:
>In article <lUXt5.17339$Qx4.8...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>,
> "Jason Swackhamer" <Swa...@home.com> wrote:
>> JK -
>>
>> When I reported this as a bug to our VAR a few weeks ago, SWX wrote
>back:
>>
>> "This is not really a "bug" so to speak because a cosmetic thread is
>> actually
>> an "Annotation". So, If it gets mirrored to a place there you do not
>want
>> to see it, you can pick and delete it from the view."
>>
>> This indicates that they think that the mirrored cosmetic threads are
>> individually selectable which of course they aren't. So it looks like
>we're
>> stuck with messy drawings or tedious work arounds (ie sketch the
>cosmetic
>> threads into the drawing views).
>>
>> I've gotten busy and haven't followed up, but I'll try again at
>having this
>> treated as a bug.
>>
>> -Jason S.
>>
>I just received an SPR# on this from SWX, through my VAR. What SWX said
>was that they recognize that cosmetic threads should behave like other
>features, and they will be looking into it. My VAR said I should stay
>away from mirroring cosmetic threads until this is resolved. This will
>not help my productivity, so I hope there is some sort of resolution
>soon.
>
I've had good results using a circular pattern with a 180 degree
rotation (when this works, of course.)
>I also had an idea about a different way to show a tapped hole. It
>would require a new option in the Hole Wizard. What I have in mind is
>having a couterbore on a simple drilled hole. This would show the tap
>drill correctly, and the depth of the counterbore would be the depth of
>the thread. This needs to be done in two steps now, and is not
>practical from a productivity standpoint. I used to do it this way
>anyways, but switched with SWX2K because the hole wizard worked so well.
!!WARNING!!
This Can Be Dangerous!
I have personally had instances (in through holes) where we used this
approach, and ended up with (lots of) holes drilled at the major
diameter, not the tap-drill diameter. Can you say, "Helicoil"? Now I
religiously use the tap drill size only. Now if the shop fails to tap
the hole, it is at least easily reworked.
William.
jk
>
> !!WARNING!!
> This Can Be Dangerous!
> I have personally had instances (in through holes) where we used this
> approach, and ended up with (lots of) holes drilled at the major
> diameter, not the tap-drill diameter. Can you say, "Helicoil"? Now I
> religiously use the tap drill size only. Now if the shop fails to tap
> the hole, it is at least easily reworked.
>
> William.
>
problems on the CAM side. (although I'm sure I'd hear about this one.)
I guess cosmetic threads may be the way to go after all; just wish they
didn't cause me these problems in drawings.
jk
--
Debbie Dowding
news:8poa0s$uht$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> would require a new option in the Hole Wizard. What I have in mind is
> having a couterbore on a simple drilled hole. This would show the tap
> drill correctly, and the depth of the counterbore would be the depth of
> the thread. This needs to be done in two steps now, and is not
> practical from a productivity standpoint. I used to do it this way
> anyways, but switched with SWX2K because the hole wizard worked so well.
> JK Mold Design
> Sacramento, Ca
Try selecting "no cosmetic thread" for the cosmetic thread property. This
shows a counterbore where the threads should be. I personally find it
extremely annoying, but I think it is what you are looking for. As a side
note, the pipe tap used to be drawn this way in hole wizard, and I always
got questions asking what the heck is going on with the holes.
Deb
jk
Jason Swackhamer
> was that they recognize that cosmetic threads should behave like other
> features, and they will be looking into it. My VAR said I should stay
> away from mirroring cosmetic threads until this is resolved. This will
> not help my productivity, so I hope there is some sort of resolution
> soon.
>
> I also had an idea about a different way to show a tapped hole. It
> would require a new option in the Hole Wizard. What I have in mind is
> having a couterbore on a simple drilled hole. This would show the tap
> drill correctly, and the depth of the counterbore would be the depth of
> the thread. This needs to be done in two steps now, and is not
> practical from a productivity standpoint. I used to do it this way
> anyways, but switched with SWX2K because the hole wizard worked so well.
> --
> JK Mold Design
> Sacramento, Ca
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
The thoughtful work that went into the initial development of Solidworks is
evident throughout their releases and makes using it generally a
pleasure--however a few things make it seem as though an alien developer
infiltrated their ranks, hosing up the implementation of some commonplace
mechanical feature. Cosmetic threads fall into this category (although in
all fairness they do improve with each release). Along with the pattern
problems mentioned above, there's the cosmetic thread problem where the top
edge does not lie in a planar surface perpendicular to the tapped hole, and
the cosmetic thread problem where the new hole's cosmetic thread has to be
added to the drawing.
Why SWX treats cosmetic threads as annotations is a complete mystery to me.
After all, who is going to add tapped holes to their model and not want them
to show up in their drawing? I waste more paper because I've forgotten to
insert cosmetic threads between the first iteration of a design and the
next.
Now (rant ends) if cosmetic threads were surfaces whose edges, silhouette
and explicit, were always displayed as dashed, wouldn't this eliminate all
these problems? They would be hidden or displayed, whether patterned or not,
with hidden line display turned on or off. They could be cut along with the
drilled hole by any cut extrude. No longer being annotations they wouldn't
explicitly have to be added to any view when added to the model.
Doesn't this seem possible?
-Jason S.
Darryl Jenkins
annotation be shown then the major dia is put in as a counter bore, ala
Williams description.
This showed up well when I had a section across a blind tapped hole.
I found out before it hit the CAM program, put the "Helicoil" back in the
pocket for now...lol
Darryl
>
> >I also had an idea about a different way to show a tapped hole. It
> >would require a new option in the Hole Wizard. What I have in mind is
> >having a couterbore on a simple drilled hole. This would show the tap
> >drill correctly, and the depth of the counterbore would be the depth of
> >the thread. This needs to be done in two steps now, and is not
> >practical from a productivity standpoint. I used to do it this way
> >anyways, but switched with SWX2K because the hole wizard worked so well.
>
miry...@my-deja.com
office using differing methods to represent a thread.
In the end I raised a standard of using the feature pallette simple
holes. Use the root or core diameter for the main hole but then csk
(chamfer) a feature that gives you the correct hole diameter at an
angle of half or one degree. One other advantage of this is that you
can actually raise a dimension from it. If you need to show thread
lines in section then the start point for the lines are already there.
(I tend to show the lines only on the hole that is featured for the
dimension or note.
Hope this helps
david
In article <8p9a9b$vb1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,