Horizontal Modeling

Does anybody use this modeling technique? if so any comments?



http://www.designnews.com/article/CA328027.html


Steve R

 

Sounds very promising, but it doesn't explain what the method actually
is.. or do you have to take a course for it? and not able to tell
anyone elsE? hehe.. i'd love to have more info on it, as we're
struggling with different modeling method right now at work.. I'd love
to find a more efficient way to make changes after the fact like
discussed in the article.

 

Sent you a PDF that goes into more details.

 

Basic concept..... Do you model with a long, skinny feature dependancy
tree (vertical) or a wide, flat feature dependancy tree (horizontal).
I know that this has been discussed on this forum in the last few
years at some point.

Nothing particularly new, but is an interesting concept that I beleive
has a ton of merit.

Regards,

Anna Wood

 

"Does anybody use this modeling technique? if so any comments?"

Can't seem to find it in the SolidWorks 2007 on-line manual. ;>)

ROTFLMFAO.

I think their choice of using myigetit.com to teach it is excellent!

How soon before Mastercam and Gibbs get someone to do the same for
thier shit documentation?

I'm sure there is something I could learn from a course in skeleton
modeling. How soon before it's available?

 

Maybe when Mastercam stops outselling all other CAD/CAM systems,
they'll start listening to the insane, uninformed rants of some half-
witted lunatic on an internet newsgroup?

I'm having a hard time selecting chains in Mastercam.....maybe you
could tell me a little bit about how YOU do it.....

HA!

 

Go get yourself a copy of xsi, it has built in tutorials, all geared around
"skeleton" modeling.
Then you can use those skills in the other cad/cam products you have.

 

It's modeling without your main features being tied to each other,
hence the term (feature in-dependent) It is dependent on something
though, usually a sketch, plane or another part. Here's a .pdf that
describes Delphi's process.
http://techcon.ncms.org/01con/Delphi-Burke.pdf (7.20 MB)

Horizontal Modeling is just one word for it, you may also know it as
Skeleton Modeling, Tier modeling, Sketch Assembly modeling, CAD
Neutral Modeling, or Body Modeling.

Josh
www.solidsmack.com

 

Usually Jon when you are taking lessons from a company in Bankruptcy
Court since 2005 its what not to do.

Usually Jon when you recommend company's follow the lead of another
you shouldn't be recommending they follow a company removed from the
NY Stock Exchange in 2005 and still in Bankruptcy since 2005.

Tom

 

I have been using this method for complex parts since 1999. These guys
just coined the term. Were SW falls short is in having a feature tree
in which it is hard to see whether you are working horizontally or
vertically. There are addins for SW that allow users to see whether
they are using horizontal or vertical modeling. You can also use the
highly under-utilized parent/child menu pick to assess methodology.
Even starting a delete operation and not finishing it will give a
quick list of dependencies and give insight. That being said it is
still difficult in SW to do pure horizontal modeling because of poor
visibility in the feature tree.

TOP

 

Someone digs this up about every other year. This doc was produced
using UG, but I have seen the technique mostly used by Pro/E users.
You know when you import a Pro/E native file, you get a bunch of
planes? I think Pro/E must teach this method. It is an extremely
conservative way of working, very slow and it seems like you do all of
your work twice and have to think about it hard before you actually do
anything. The big benefit comes when you start making changes. Face
and edge ids depend on intersections, and when the intersections
change, so do the ids. This makes it difficult for models to cope with
big changes.

What this article is calling "horizontal" modeling is just a set of
best practice rules for creating relationships in parts and
assemblies. Essentially, you work by first creating one or two or
three sketches on the XYZ planes that locate the major features of the
part, and where ever you need a sketch, you make a plane. So you never
sketch on a face or reference an edge or model vertex. In SolidWorks
there are limitations to how far you can go with this technique. You
have to select model entities to create fillets, chamfers and other
features, and it is really only well suited to prismatic parts,
because in more shapely parts you have to reference faces to match
curvature, and edges can only be defined by face intersections, not by
an independent layout sketch.

I use portions of the method, primarily layout sketches. Recent
versions of SolidWorks make it easier to reuse sketches, and use only
portions of sketches, which help a lot. But with surface modeling, you
are building from existing edges, and it is difficult to reconcile the
methods. I submitted an abstract to present at SWWorld this year on
"SolidWorks Relationship Counseling", where I plan on talking about
the method of using layout sketches and planes, and always making
relationships to things as high up the tree as possible. You can use
the concept in parts and assemblies. This is essentially the same as
what is being discussed in the article and the pdf.

SolidWorks, when it was introduced in 1995, focussed on "ease of use"
in comparison to Pro/E and UG, so they didn't worry so much about best
practice. Best practice is conservative, it is slow up front but if it
saves you time it will be on the changes. SolidWorks wanted to be
quick and easy, so they advocated a very "fast and loose" method of
working from model faces instead of planes and using model edges
instead of layout sketches. I don't think SW corporate has ever out
grown this "fast and loose" attitude. This is why users are so
surprised when they come across stuff like "horizontal modeling".

 

It is essentially removing the dependency on "history" from the model as
there is very little. Most features planes and sketches are constrained to
default origin planes/coordinates. Makes for little if no design intent
though.

 

"There are addins for SW that allow users to see whether they are
using horizontal or vertical modeling."

This is basic functionality. One should never have to buy an add-in
for basic functionality!

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/spend-a-littleo.html#comment-76366100

 

"Interesting news to me. I remember when it was Cadpo and they were
taking over the whole world of aftermarket training. Guess everything
has a shelf life."

They need money. Many people need cheaper training. Who cares if they
went bankrupt. Seems like the cadcam user wins. From what I've seen of
their training it's excellent.

 

The first time I tried to defeature a Pro/E model I found out about
just how hard not using horizontal modeling can make things. Although
Pro/E had some neat features for reordering the interface was very
difficult to use because every feature had a number, not a name. You
had to know what feature the numbers referred to. That is one reason I
fell in love with SW way back when. But times have changed and the
complexity of the models I make has increased. Now many people push SW
and in this area it needs a facelift.

TOP

 

jb (below) actually makes some good points, implications.
Many good software companies, almost by dint of being good, went belly up.
It seems going bankrupt/removal from NYSE does not reflect a bad company/bad
product, but a corporate structure short on MFQ--MuthaFucka Quotient, and
thus unable to survive among other entities with much higher MFQs.

The Consumer, in their infinitiesimal wisdom, create and perpetuate this
scenario:
**** me, and I'll reward you, it seems.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

 

"Now many people push SW and in this area it needs a facelift."

It does not look to me like the SolidWorks Feature Mangler got a
"facelift" in SolidWorks 2008.

Perhaps I missed something in reading the 2008 What's New pdf because
the only serious Feature Mangler update to me appears to be a filter.

 

"Go get yourself a copy of xsi, it has built in tutorials, all geared
around "skeleton" modeling. Then you can use those skills in the other
cad/cam products you have."

I don't doubt it but my plate is beyond full. Have plenty of clients
that want stuff done in SolidWorks and I have to focus my time there.

 

It's weird, but I learned a lot about solidworks from using xsi. The
difference is I think the documentation on each software is geared towards a
different modeling approach for different modeling applications.
All I can say is thank you shareaza.

 

"Plenty of clients...."

HAAAA!!!! So in other words, you got fired from your job as an
operator, changing parts on that "half million dollar horizontal
machining center" that you were so proud of? Was it because you
couldn't find that 12th pallet?