USER FORUM
(you are viewing a thread; or go back to list of threads)
What am I not understanding? (by Nigel)
Hi all and advanced warning that my question(s) probably have easy answer(s) but am struggling and would appreciate some guidance and hopefully encouragement to stick with SolveSpace.
Also message to the moderator(s) to feel free to reject this post if considered 'inappropriate'.
Am relative newbie to CAD wishing to use for own design of parts for 3D printing. During the past couple of months I have spent MANY hours trying to complete what should be a very simple task, design of a bracket to attach proximity sensor to printer for ABL.
I have read LOTS of documentation, viewed what seems like dozens of video's and tried a variety of applications. Plenty of time spent trying to become proficient with FreeCAD but that is its own nightmare. This week I again attempted to use SolveSpace (probably as much cumulative time spent as with FreeCAD) and whilst understanding the principals (from a layman's perspective), continually battled with moving beyond the basics. Have followed the tutorials and even printed and bound the reference material (along with other resources found).
The single biggest issues being associated with sketching individual items on an existing model and the failure to extrude as expected when sketch has been completed (many times with something semi working more by chance than knowing what I did).
Included in my efforts have been using FreeCAD to split an existing model (has incorrect sensor attachment) which eventually worked but moving forward to append new part just did not happen.
Oh, key reason for abandoning FreeCAD includes unacceptable crashing of recent release of V1, the number of crashes and lost work became too frustrating.
SolveSpace 'feels' good even although missing some supposedly 'must have' features and has yet to crash (running on a old Linux machine, an old Win7 machine and also a MacBook Pro). Am not multitasking, was wanting to verify system runs equally well on various machines - it does :-)
Did fleetingly try OpenSCAD but not being a programmer (background is electronic engineering - now in my mid 70's), that was also a disaster.
Earlier today I tried OnShape (have also tried the 'other' suspects like Fusion360, Tinkercad etc. but all left me unimpressed) and wow! From sign up to the attached took less than an hour! Attached model has basic required shape but missing mounting hole (18mm metic for sensor - seems there is no easily available internal threading option with OnShape) and some 'odd' chamfering here and there as was 'experimenting'.
The ease with which I created the rough model using OnShape and the positive reports from seemingly all who use SolveSpace is the reason for this post as I want to use SolveSpace, but my old brain is clearly doing something wrong.
Any and all feedback welcome and no issue with concluding 'I am the problem'.
Many thanks in advance.
Also message to the moderator(s) to feel free to reject this post if considered 'inappropriate'.
Am relative newbie to CAD wishing to use for own design of parts for 3D printing. During the past couple of months I have spent MANY hours trying to complete what should be a very simple task, design of a bracket to attach proximity sensor to printer for ABL.
I have read LOTS of documentation, viewed what seems like dozens of video's and tried a variety of applications. Plenty of time spent trying to become proficient with FreeCAD but that is its own nightmare. This week I again attempted to use SolveSpace (probably as much cumulative time spent as with FreeCAD) and whilst understanding the principals (from a layman's perspective), continually battled with moving beyond the basics. Have followed the tutorials and even printed and bound the reference material (along with other resources found).
The single biggest issues being associated with sketching individual items on an existing model and the failure to extrude as expected when sketch has been completed (many times with something semi working more by chance than knowing what I did).
Included in my efforts have been using FreeCAD to split an existing model (has incorrect sensor attachment) which eventually worked but moving forward to append new part just did not happen.
Oh, key reason for abandoning FreeCAD includes unacceptable crashing of recent release of V1, the number of crashes and lost work became too frustrating.
SolveSpace 'feels' good even although missing some supposedly 'must have' features and has yet to crash (running on a old Linux machine, an old Win7 machine and also a MacBook Pro). Am not multitasking, was wanting to verify system runs equally well on various machines - it does :-)
Did fleetingly try OpenSCAD but not being a programmer (background is electronic engineering - now in my mid 70's), that was also a disaster.
Earlier today I tried OnShape (have also tried the 'other' suspects like Fusion360, Tinkercad etc. but all left me unimpressed) and wow! From sign up to the attached took less than an hour! Attached model has basic required shape but missing mounting hole (18mm metic for sensor - seems there is no easily available internal threading option with OnShape) and some 'odd' chamfering here and there as was 'experimenting'.
The ease with which I created the rough model using OnShape and the positive reports from seemingly all who use SolveSpace is the reason for this post as I want to use SolveSpace, but my old brain is clearly doing something wrong.
Any and all feedback welcome and no issue with concluding 'I am the problem'.
Many thanks in advance.
(no subject) (by Paul)
I noticed you said: "The single biggest issues being associated with sketching individual items on an existing model and the failure to extrude as expected when sketch has been completed"
I used to run into problems with extrusions not working too. The best way to ensure that an extrusion works is to make sure you've got a 2D sketch *in a workplane* and that it is a closed sketch.
Once you have a 3D model, you can select an existing workplane and then menu->New Group->Sketch in new workplane (or Shift->W) which I may create a new workplane (I'm not sure) but will create a new group.
Another way to create a new workplane is to select 2 (non-parallel) lines and a point on the existing model, and then Shift->W to create a new sketch in a new workplane. This creates a new workplane passing through the point you selected with a normal perpendicular to the 2 lines.
While making your 2D sketch, you can (via the Sketch menu) do some geometry in 3D, but it needs to be construction lines if you're not in the workplane. You can (via sketch menu) switch back to drawing in the workplane, but I almost never use the 3D option.
If you have a closed sketch in a workplane, the extrusion *will work* although combining it with the existing geometry may fail due to NURBS bugs. In that case, forcing the group to triangle mesh will usually fix it, although you'll lose the ability to save a STEP file and will have lesser performance. There are other workarounds for NURBS failures, but that depends on the exact situation.
I used to run into problems with extrusions not working too. The best way to ensure that an extrusion works is to make sure you've got a 2D sketch *in a workplane* and that it is a closed sketch.
Once you have a 3D model, you can select an existing workplane and then menu->New Group->Sketch in new workplane (or Shift->W) which I may create a new workplane (I'm not sure) but will create a new group.
Another way to create a new workplane is to select 2 (non-parallel) lines and a point on the existing model, and then Shift->W to create a new sketch in a new workplane. This creates a new workplane passing through the point you selected with a normal perpendicular to the 2 lines.
While making your 2D sketch, you can (via the Sketch menu) do some geometry in 3D, but it needs to be construction lines if you're not in the workplane. You can (via sketch menu) switch back to drawing in the workplane, but I almost never use the 3D option.
If you have a closed sketch in a workplane, the extrusion *will work* although combining it with the existing geometry may fail due to NURBS bugs. In that case, forcing the group to triangle mesh will usually fix it, although you'll lose the ability to save a STEP file and will have lesser performance. There are other workarounds for NURBS failures, but that depends on the exact situation.
Thank you (by Nigel)
Hello Paul and thank you for your feedback and suggestions - much appreciated.
I will certainly persevere at using SolveSpace as out of all the applications tried, it seems to offer all that I 'think' I need without unnecessary bloat (or random crashing).
Again thank you for taking the time to reply.
VBR
I will certainly persevere at using SolveSpace as out of all the applications tried, it seems to offer all that I 'think' I need without unnecessary bloat (or random crashing).
Again thank you for taking the time to reply.
VBR
Update (by Nigel)
Good day Paul and SolveSpace forum readers. Update: Have been experimenting and eventually noticed by turning off the extruded shading AFTER creating new sketch (that fails to extrude as expected), that the new sketch is not being created on the expected plane, but on the original (e.g. X Y) plane. This is obviously why having problems extruding. Have re-read reference document and understood that possible to create a new workplace ANYWHERE and have attempted by say selecting a face of the first extrusion, then a point and two lines followed by shift -W but still end up with the 'new' plane not where expected (and thus the 'model' does not resemble what I expected). Experimenting continues with high 'expectations <grin> that will eventually master being able to effectively use SolveSpace...
Progress! (by Nigel)
Hi again :-) A positive step forwards re using SolveSpace <HUGE smile>!
Now that I am selecting the correct references for the new workplane e.g. point and two lines BY HAVING SHADED VIEW OF MODEL turned OFF, the expected extrusion when sketching in a new workplane is generated.
Not sure (yet) why there is a 'floating' outline of sketch (attached image of experimenting shows) some distance from the workplane where sketched, but am chuffed to be making progress.
Thanks again Paul for nudging me in the right direction.
Onwards with climbing the learning curve!
VBR
P.S. Progress confirms you are never too old to learn, even if the simplest of tasks takes some time.
Now that I am selecting the correct references for the new workplane e.g. point and two lines BY HAVING SHADED VIEW OF MODEL turned OFF, the expected extrusion when sketching in a new workplane is generated.
Not sure (yet) why there is a 'floating' outline of sketch (attached image of experimenting shows) some distance from the workplane where sketched, but am chuffed to be making progress.
Thanks again Paul for nudging me in the right direction.
Onwards with climbing the learning curve!
VBR
P.S. Progress confirms you are never too old to learn, even if the simplest of tasks takes some time.
Linked image prev post incorrect (by Nigel)
Sorry, seems there is an error with image attached to my last post. Looked fine on notebook but checking image saved to forum it is not the same as the prepared version :-(
Sincere appologies re last post... (by Nigel)
Seems problem is with my browser cache as image now seems correct?!?
Sorry for taking bandwidth.
VBR
Sorry for taking bandwidth.
VBR
(no subject) (by Paul)
The element you point to in the picture is the end of the extruded circle. You have not constrained the length of it and it has gone beyond the solid object. There is no surface visible because it's a difference extrusion (cutting a hole). If you switched to a union and dragged it to the same position there would be a round post there.
Try dragging the center point of the circle.
Click the center point and then the face of the object and Shift - O for point on face constraint. This will lock the circle to the surface and will adjust even if you go back and change the height of the block.
Or constrain the center line of the cylinder to equal length of an edge of similar length. Or set the length to a specific value.
p.s. did you realize that extrusion lengths can be dragged with the mouse if they are not constrained?
Try dragging the center point of the circle.
Click the center point and then the face of the object and Shift - O for point on face constraint. This will lock the circle to the surface and will adjust even if you go back and change the height of the block.
Or constrain the center line of the cylinder to equal length of an edge of similar length. Or set the length to a specific value.
p.s. did you realize that extrusion lengths can be dragged with the mouse if they are not constrained?
Feedback sincerely appreciated. (by Nigel)
Thank you again Paul for valuable feedback. All noted, especially for reasoning behind the 'extrusion' being beyond the 'solid object' - makes sense.
Yes, had already learnt that can drag or constrain length of extrusion(s) but had not figured out what initially happens prior to element length being set.
Next exercise is to construct multiple extrusions (on each other) using different workplanes using specific dimensions i.e. real world modelling.
I also need to learn how to create an 'internal' thread in an extruded part that will enable a proximity sensor to be mounted (in custom bracket), but before that happens need to master some other essential skills.
It may take some time, but I am determined to become competent at using SolveSpace so as to use my 3D printer to make functional parts (have zero interest in making 'ornamental' items).
Sincere thanks again Paul for your valuable feedback.
Wishing you and your family a fantastic Christmas!
VBR
Yes, had already learnt that can drag or constrain length of extrusion(s) but had not figured out what initially happens prior to element length being set.
Next exercise is to construct multiple extrusions (on each other) using different workplanes using specific dimensions i.e. real world modelling.
I also need to learn how to create an 'internal' thread in an extruded part that will enable a proximity sensor to be mounted (in custom bracket), but before that happens need to master some other essential skills.
It may take some time, but I am determined to become competent at using SolveSpace so as to use my 3D printer to make functional parts (have zero interest in making 'ornamental' items).
Sincere thanks again Paul for your valuable feedback.
Wishing you and your family a fantastic Christmas!
VBR
Learning tool (by Ronnie)
Hi OP
I was also on this learning curve. I've found Solvespace probably the easiest of all CAD software to learn so far. It's simplicity is actually deceptive as you have all the mathematical operators you need to create 99% of the things you need very easily.
Master constrained sketches and everything else "just works". Assemblies are surprisingly easy and work for most non-professionals - of course I'd use Fusion or Solidworks if I'm designing an engine or something but for everything else (3d printing or hobby cnc I've not had an issue)
There are some missing pieces of a 'pro' cad package but I've used Fusion360 and Freecad and I'm 2x as productive due to the constraints solver here.
Good luck
I was also on this learning curve. I've found Solvespace probably the easiest of all CAD software to learn so far. It's simplicity is actually deceptive as you have all the mathematical operators you need to create 99% of the things you need very easily.
Master constrained sketches and everything else "just works". Assemblies are surprisingly easy and work for most non-professionals - of course I'd use Fusion or Solidworks if I'm designing an engine or something but for everything else (3d printing or hobby cnc I've not had an issue)
There are some missing pieces of a 'pro' cad package but I've used Fusion360 and Freecad and I'm 2x as productive due to the constraints solver here.
Good luck
(no subject) (by Ali)
I just started learning and using SolveSpace last year myself. My purpose is also to make parts with 3D printing. As others have said, learn constraints, unions, assembly, and NURBs to get your head around SolveSpace. I started with OpenSCAD due to my programming background. It served me well, however, SolveSpace simply gets me just get right at making the parts. Plus there are more people who understand the constraints based method of CAD versus the programming method. I am slowly learning FreeCAD due to the functions it offers beyond constraints: python scripting, FEM analysis, etc.. I also wish you luck. The forum here is very helpful.
Post a reply to this comment: