soliciting suggestions for SolidWorks World Presentation

What comes to mind, lately, as a sexy looking HTE (hi-tech electronics)
or gadget that is shapely and appeals to that innate desire "I gotta
have it"?

I'm looking for suggestions as to what I could highlight as a product
in some of my sessions at this year's SolidWorks World. The sessions
would be similar to pass presentation where I would be discussing and
demonstrating modeling techniques for Consumer Product Design.

In past year's I've highlighted computer mice, game controllers,
joysticks and PDA, so before I'm accused of getting kick-backs from
Logitech, I'd like to do something else this year.

Additionally, for those of you that will be attending, and for those of
you that could eventually get a copy of the presentations, what topics
in the area of part modeling would you like to know more about?

Would appreciate your suggestions

Regards
Mark

 

Mark,

I hope you'll take this in a light hearted way.

Muggs requested a Toolbox presentation. There seems to be a lot of
"that" going around right now. I know it's not incredibly sexy, but it's
a painful topic that goes unaddressed (other than the hysterical rant
stuff on my website). If someone could do a presentation on how to avoid
problems with Toolbox, I think it would be very popular, and more than
that, highly useful. Not the standard sunny corporate tap dance where
"toolbox saves you money". I'm talking about addressing real problems,
like "here's how to keep toolbox from eating your lunch".

Muggs suggested I do it, but even I'm sick of that high pitched, shrill,
whining sound I make when I get going on the topic. Maybe Joy?

 

How about a 3D Connection Space traveler. I have one sitting on my
desk and it involves some challenging materials (I think) for
PhotoWorks. The ring of transparent buttons that also need to
illuminate and appear realistic would be a good example for people.
Mine also has a brushed stainless base which is a material that people
seem to have difficulty with. The environment set up would also be
good to show since your dealing with shiny, semi reflective surfaces as
well as transparency, illuminated features and matte plastic.

The model is real complex so it lends itself well to a 60 or 90 minute
time limit.

Anyway, just a thought.

Rob

 

Some examples pf products we have designed recently using Solidworks
(including all the difficult surfacing):

Consumer product - hairdryers, curling tongs, straighteners, clippers,
mobile phones, 3D point-of-sale, kitchen wares (foil cutters, kettles, wine
bottle stoppers), scientific equipment.....

Transport: Aircraft seats, aircraft interiors, car dash board and interior,
water craft, airport toilets and interiors,

Structural packaging: blow mould bottles, handle-eye bottles, chocolate
packaging.

I dont know if these appeal as such , but they are things that you can
design in Solidworks. Bottle surfacing is very tricky in the handle-eye
arena, but not necessarily 'sexy'. How about a beer font? Some of those have
very curvey 'sexy' shapes, plus most SW users appreciate beer.....

 

Might I suggest extreme sports equipment-helmets vests, paintball guns,

 

Of course there is the Number 19 chair.

 

Cool suggestion, Parel.
I have a pair of ski-goggles on my desk that have a lot of very
complicated surfaces - might also be a good demo for flex/deform
(something I know Mark has discussed in the past) since the thing gets
bent. Pretty interesting parting line, too
Paintball and moto-cross facemasks are similarly interesting - modeling
the shutoffs for the vents is a neat trick to show.
I have done industrial face masks/respirators in the past (and am
working on something similar now) and can vouch for them being pretty
hard models to get traction on. It would be really interesting to see a
Biasotti approach to the problem.

Ed

 

The goggles are good idea although I actually wouldn't have the
conscience to use flex because ya know that a real designer would be
designing them from a 3D face profile to start with ( I won't make
that mistake again, huh Ed ) But that gives me another idea, - how
about I scan someone's face in using the NE scanner and create an
accurate reference surface to model to and then go from there forward
to create the goggles.

Great suggestions

Mark


Mark

 

oh, grate. now we have all the designer prittyboyz congratulating one
another. Like some privasy, fellas?

mr clone parel

mr "i can talk lowder and way longer than u" 1701

mr "lets all be pritty" mb

How about you model somehting engineers can relate to? Why do you have
thousands of engineers show up and make them sit through something which
is largely irrelivant to them? Shirley you know the word "target
audience"? Why not model an engine? a Transimition? Aircraft parts? In
detail, not looking like 3 extrudes the way SW usually shows mechanical
parts. A turbine housing, impeller, blades. Turbocharger involute.
Manifold sgetti. It has plenty of cool shapes in the castings, and isnt
girly. geez, Im sick of girly stuff. Make it relivant.

Daisy.

 

I've modelled several sets of silverware for ID companies over the
years and can attest to the challenges of modelling soup spoons, forks,
knives etc. I learned a lot of useful stuff doing that (starting in
mech. desktop)

Zander

 

I have a napkin doodle I don't want that you can take ideas from and
use as your own.

 

For your convenience - Daisy's post edited to the relevant stuff
(nastiness ejected):

"How about you model somehting engineers can relate to?
Why not model an engine? a Transimition? Aircraft parts? In detail, not
looking like 3 extrudes the way SW usually shows mechanical parts. A
turbine housing, impeller, blades. Turbocharger involute. Manifold
sgetti. It has plenty of cool shapes in the castings,"

Ed speaking now - not a bad point. Most of the audience is engineers.

Of course, one should acknowledge that a good presenter (like Mark)
would respect the intelligence of their audience enough to allow that
his/her audience will figure out that the principles shown in a
challenging sample do apply to their industry.

The whole point of this thread, as I see it (and I commend Mark for
asking) is to develop a single sample part that is challenging enough
to educate the broadest audience on the priciples that will have the
broadest application to help them with their jobs. That's a tough nut.


Ski Goggles aren't bad - tough parting lines, wild 3d curves, and a
little master model junk with the lenses (and maybe some in-context
stuff with the headband clips). Plus, if you can loft that, you can
loft a manifold.

But, to Daisy's point, keep open for suggestions on more technical
options.
Ed

 

You really have no idea how fake you sound, do you?

Most engineers don't design engines, believe it or not. So an engine
still allows most of us to exercise our feeble imaginations.

....and a lifeless monotone drone will still put them to sleep.

Who makes "single parts"? Tire manufacturers? If you want to be
relevant, you have to avoid that inherent designer attraction to make
the world in a single part.

So aim wildly left where you're sure not to hit anything but the
fringes. Makes sense to me. ;o/ Sure beats aiming down the middle where
people on both sides of the aisle might be able to relate.

Mainly because their your highnesses idea?

No, 1701, you see, you really miss the boat. "Wild" 3D curves are not
relevant to 90% of the blokes who will be there, and are not something
engineers relate to. Is this a marketing event? No, this is primarily an
event for engineers and mechanical designers with some other sorts also
in attendence. Is this an event for mb to pad his resume a little? No.
Its for engineers to take something useful home with them. Even complex
but controlled curves of complex engineering shapes are closer to the
ballpark, although still irrelevant to most.

Freeform curvature takes a completely different type of discipline than
closely controlled curvature, so I dispute your claim. How many
designers cant draw a straight line or a circular arc to save their
lives? About half in my experience. (Although, admittedly, I don't read
as many magazines as 1701).

Your too kind, bestowing royal blessings on mb and my humble self in the
same message.

Daisy.

 

Mark,

Along the lines of what Mr. Pot said but without the sarcasm it seems
that much of the emphasis in parts modeling from SW is on the flashy
stuff that perfume bottles and the newest gotta have toys are made of.
While that is not a bad thing, I'll bet the majority of SW users have
very different concerns regarding parts modeling, things that might be
considered boring to some. Most of the places I have worked or worked
with either have no ID person or have one or two to many regular
designers. Just to list a few:

1. Non ID users who make complex parts:

Plastic mold design
Casting and pattern design
Forging and forged part design
Thermoform mold design
Gear design
Certain weldment designers
Aerospace design
FEA users

2. Non ID users who make primarily prismatic parts that have to live
with many other parts

Machine designers (this is a huge number of SW users)
Automotive designers (includes truck and RV markets)
Farm and construction machinery design (these should probably be in 1.
above also)
Boat designers (these should probably be in 1. above also)
Electronics designers
Tool and Fixture designers (another big segment)

My point is that for every ID user there are many more that use SW in
more of a production environment that have to use SW to get parts out
in great numbers. For example if I spend a day or two on a "swoopy"
casting, that is expected, but if I spent that same day on the other
499 parts in a typical machine we would never get out a product. In
terms of downstream use within SW many users have a lot of concern
about the final behavior of the part in an assembly and ultimately in a
drawing which implies the ability to defeature without messing up
mates, etc.

To illustrate my point consider the manifold that I have sent in to SW
many times. It is a single forging. It takes a long time to rebuild and
has several configs. It has to fit within tight dimensional
constraints. There are four of them on the final engine. There are
four heads on the engine of even greater complexity that bolt to a
block that is complex. Count in the other manifold, crank, rods,
pistons, valves, valve train and accessories, put it together in an
assembly, make a drawing and SW is swamped.

The guy that makes the crank or rod forgings for this engine has a
whole different set of complex part problems which includes making
variations (configs) of a part in which topology does change from
config to config, but volume doesn't.

I think there are lots of SW users doing this other kind of stuff that
would be more than happy to see how to get the stuff out the door
predictably, quickly and without kludges. We know from SWW that on
even the simplest parts there are maybe 1-2% that can get stuff out
really fast and another 25% who are acceptable which leaves 75% who
would sorely like to get the SW mojo in their part modeling. I would
call this modeling swoopy stuff within constraints and I would pick
something like an automotive floor, dash or door panel as being
representative.

 

Zander, it's very interesting that you mention this because I'm in the
middle of producing a video on Boundary and the example is a piece of
silverware.

Stay tuned.

Mark

 

To the issue of relevancy of what I present - there are many
different levels of presentation being presented at SWW this year that
perhaps will cover castings, gears, machine design forging etc. but
I'm specifically addressing many users that have asked me to present
in the area of complex molded parts; an area in which there is not as
many tutorials, examples and training as there is for machine design.
My intention is to focus, if you will, on the injection molded process
and pick an object that best represents a moderate to complex example
for this. There are other presentations this year that will address
other vertical industries (medical, machine, process and power.) We
know from past SWW's that this area (advanced modeling) is very
heavily requested as is evidence by Ed's and Matt's presentations
being some of the most requested.

Hopefully in the presentations that I give and this year (and in past
SWW), I'll try to speak to the manufacturability along the way. I
think a lot of it actually does speak to manufacturing, but I'll make
sure to keep that in mind.
I still like the ski goggles example because it can involve both
moderate and complex modeling as well as different manufacturing
techniques; i.e. the lenses can be sheet metal technique to have them
eventually dye cut sheet.

Regards

Mark

 

Mark,

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was asking you to show users how
to model gears or castings. I was talking about modeling complex parts.
And to put a finer point on it taking that through the full
documentation cycle of documenting the part, the tooling to make the
part, the other parts that have to work with that part, etc. It is not
so much the idea of manufacturability as it is the idea of
documentability in SW of every step along the way. Put the googles or
whatever in the context of the overall documentation process.

TOP
pedaling hard just to keep up

 

In my experience with the engineers I work with, this would be a good
presentation or series of presentation.
But it would likely have to be a different presentation that couldn't
focus much on the modeling because that alone would take a full session
(or two!).

For comparison, Mark had to take two 1.5 hour sessions just to talk
about the tools and processes required to model a video game
controller.

I've had to pick away at the subject of Curvy Stuff over 6 years of SWx
Worlds, one or two sessions at a time, repeating myself as little as
possible, to cover what I thought needed to be covered (not even being
a blowhard - most of my session reviews said I go through too much too
fast, but as far as I'm concerned the real learning happens after the
session with a slow, personal review of the session materials).

Last year I attempted to attack the same hole in SWx World
presentations that you have mentioned (its inescapable - most of the
audience are Engineers) and tried to bring the context of 'Curvy Stuff'
that year towards bridging the gap between the objectives and the
deliverables of the ID the Engineer so they can work together. That
was 3 hours right there, with NO time spent on the original modeling of
a product (just ribs, shelling, draft, etc in the second session), and
it still didn't cover drawings hardly at all, assembly, data
management, tooling (beyond modeling parts with respect to complex
shutoffs), etc.

To take a sample all the way to tooling - that's a drawing
presentation, a data management presentation, probably an analysis
presentation (Cosmos ond Moldflow), a moldmaking presentation (not just
core/cavity, but include the base too), an assembly presentation (top
down, master model, whatever) etc...

Paul, I think it is a good idea. And perhaps I'm missing something -

Would you consider posting an outline (sometime) of what you would like
to see?
And i would suggest you add times for each part of the outline - for
instance, phase 1 - model the part (x minutes), phase 2 add
manufacturing details (x mintues) etc? And suggest how, in the time
alloted, anyone could go into detail on the ticks and pitfalls that
would substantialy exceed what one could see in a trade show demo?

Not a slam, just looking for an idea on what you think could be done
within the constraints of SWx World. You've been going for at least 6
years, so you have a good idea of what can be done.

Ed

 

This conversation seems to be going a direction which was not originally
intended. Mark started with the request for an idea for a part to use in
a consumer product presentation. I don't believe the engine or other
more mundane part suggestions are appropriate for that type of presentation.

I think the original complaint about this was based on a mis-reading,
assuming that Mark was asking for a *topic* to present on.

Based on that (the mis-reading), there is some validity to the sanitized
argument. While I stop short of agreeing with all or most of what that
person said, I do agree that there is a real lack of information coming
from SolidWorks Corp about everyday modeling. This is not new, the lack
has always been there.

So, if we continue with the misreading, and assume that someone from SW
would volunteer to do a presentation based on a topic chosen by users,
using a model chosen by users, I think the request for a presentation
based on a more mechanical assembly like an engine with sand castings,
die castings, forgings, powder metal, sheet metal and machined parts is
extremely valid. An engine would be great.

It sounds like you are dismissing the idea because it couldn't be done
all at once with fine-toothed detail. That may be true, but it doesn't
mean you just abandon the project, the same could be said about any but
the simplest design task. This could be done in several ways,

- doing one part in detail
- hitting highlight techniques from several parts
- covering ideas by process
- etc.

Still, regardless if Mark's post was misread or not, and regardless if
consumer products are already over represented and under relevant, I
think a compromise middle ground could be found and used successfully by
Mark. Something which is both cool and relevant.

I'm thinking of something like a mt bike rear derailleur, or a fishing
reel, or even (gasp) pistol parts. These have gorgeously sculpted
shapes, and are structural and mechanical. They are made of metal, with
hinges, springs, pulleys, chains, standard hardware, involve complex
motion, and are something that almost anyone can relate to.

Personally I prefer the "wow that's cool" engineering mentality over the
"wow I gotta have it" consumer mentality. If I were in Mark's shoes, I
would try to reach out and include the audience rather than keep asking
them to imagine that what I'm talking about is relevant.

 

Matt,

Well you guessed it, I'm pushing a little. I've done a whole bunch of
stuff with SW over the years including curvy stuff that has been shown
prominently at SWW though you probably wouldn't know that I had
anything to do with it. And it was in doing this kind of stuff and
having to link it to other parts and processes that has formed my
thinking.

I know a bit about Mark's background and it is most well suited to the
ID side of things. Perhaps we need another Mark of Manufacturing to
rise up and deal with the so called mundane side of
modeling/documentation cycle. There are probably people at SW with the
task of integrating part to assembly to drawing (PAD). On the other
side, even in the realm of complex modeling where Mark would be the
expert, there is a side that frequently gets short shrift. Suppose for
a moment that instead of ski googles you had to do the radiator support
for a Buick or a shock tower stamping for a Chevy or a jet engine inlet
fairing. Yeeeech...boring you say. Just try it. Not only would you get
into swoopy, but you would have to hold profiles to toleranced
dimensions. And in the case of the jet engine fairing you might have to
layout a series of accurately placed dimpled holes for rivets on the
swoops. Mmmmm, yummy. This kind of stuff can make the hair fall out.

Well Matt, I did give a consumer product suggestion too. The Number 19
chair. And I'm sure that what Mark presents will be invaluable. So I
better get off my soap box.