Solid Edge Community Edn. - Gen. Qs. Thereof

John -

I can transfer files from CD to a computer without CD drive, via a USB device and spare PC.

Dave, Ian -

You have highlighted the problem! My present PC will run WIN-10 but its RAM and monitor are not sufficient for the new editions of large-scale programmes like CAD.

I'd be better stumping up for a new PC and keeping this as an off-line spare.

My stumbling-block now? I can't find my CD holding a licensed MS 'Office' copy, for putting on the new computer! I am not sure if simply copying 'Word', 'Excel' and some other programmes, from their SSD reserves, would work.

Nigel: There is a very useful free program called Belarc Advisor. If you download and run it you will get a very comprehensive listing of your computer's hardware, as well as some useful info about your software licences, versions, and usage.

Gary -

Thank you for that!

I have just installed it - with a bit of faffing because I wasn't quite sure what was loading where.

It came up with a formidable list of despair - lots of Important and Critical up-dates not installed, and now not available of course.

One nugget that emerged though concerns the two places for Memory Modules I take to be the RAM, as the numbers tally. One is described as holding the 4069 Mb, 3968 Useable, presumably the 4.00GB RAM I'd gleaned from MS' own Control Panel tools.

The other slot is empty.

Might this mean that if I could obtain and plug in a second memory chip, it would make the total up to the ~8GB wanted?

If so, might it give a route to up-dating the system, including installing WIN-10, without having to replace the PC itself?

The modern CAD packages want a somewhat higher screen resolution than my monitor's, which is otherwise fine for everything I do; but would that matter, if I accept it may not show the maximum rendering standard the programme can provide?

Nigel,

I have bought memory modules from Crucial.com several times. A Google search will take you to their website, click on the flag then select UK. Scroll down to the bottom and click on "Find my Updates". This will download a scanner. Running the scanner will identify suitable memory modules and a solid state disk. You can buy whatever you wish. My 8 Gb module cost £49 and a 1 Tb SSD another £119. I bought the SSD to cure a long standing issue with the original hard disk. The SSD has transformed my machine, cold boot up up in seconds and no more lock ups while the hard disk load goes to 100% for ages.

Do you really need a new monitor? If you were happy with your TC display, I would expect SE to display in the same way. I frequently run SE on my laptop screen. The second monitor is nice to have, especially when you start assembling models but not essential.

It would seem that I may not have needed update to windows 10 Pro. However my laptop is much improved and it probably cost less than the cost TC and its training pack which I bought, only to find that I could not master TC.

Gordon 

Edited By GordonH on 31/12/2021 01:29:58

Edited By GordonH on 31/12/2021 01:32:45

Nigel: Yes, you can add another 4MB to make 8MB.

If you right-click anywhere on your desktop that is not an icon, then click Display settings it will show the current and maximum resolution of your monitor.

Whether it's worth doing is another question!

Some of Nigel's problems are likely explained by his machine only having 4Gb of RAM, others by his comment that Belarc 'came up with a formidable list of despair - lots of Important and Critical up-dates not installed, and now not available of course.'

I suspect running other system utilities would find the disc storage is fragmented, the Registry is full of dud entries, DLL and Driver clashes, a bunch of unnecessary services, perhaps some malware, and a that the CPU and GPU both max out when running CAD.

In my professional career, industry best practice was to replace laptops after 3 years (because they get bashed about), workstations after 5 years (apart from being slow, they become incompatible with new printers, networking, and applications, and the cost of maintaining them rises steeply.) Servers, which are mollycoddled in a comfy computer room, last 7 years. The best way to keep old computers going is to never change anything!

It's not worth Nigel upgrading his old computer if he intends trying SE(C) or anything else modern. The money is better spent on a new computer which will come with a much faster CPU and graphics, a clean disc and Registry, and compatible software.

If the memory is upgraded, best to buy 8Gb of the same type rather than mixing two different 4Gb modules. Mixed RAM is accesses at the fastest speed both modules support, which is likely to be sluggish.

While it often makes good sense to repair old mechanical kit, old computers are a good way of throwing good money after bad.

Dave

Nigel: Check the display resolution and report back with your Belarc numbers. This forum will then be more able to guide you for your next step, whether to upgrade or replace?

Dave -

I think you are right!

The computer is perfectly happy with TC 19 Deluxe because its abilities are well above what is asked for in the programme's handbook. It would not take the new version though (2021 Deluxe).

19 Deluxe was written for XP and 1Gb processor and would probably run on my former, XP-laden, works machine.

Gary -

I don't know the graphics-processor specifications. Belarc simply says " Intel(R) HD Graphis [Display Adaptor] " and telling me the monitor's make, size and serial number.

The monitor is rated at 1440 X 900 resolution.

I don't know but guess it would not do more powerful rendering full justice, and would tend to make low-anggle diagonal lines more pixellated than sometimes happens now.

Have just abandoned another attempt at 3D drawing in TurboCAD.

Are other packages simpler?

The cylinder-block for my waggon's vertical compound engine, copying from the 2D elevations. I also converted it to close round-number mm dimensions for simpler drawing.

1) The bounding rectangle (the whole thing is a cuboid of stock cast-iron bar).

2) Circles for the cylinders, with small ones round them for the cover stud-holes (5 alone for each, plus central shared one),.

3) Extrude all 14, making the "holes" slightly over-height. Stick a little sphere to the block's front lowest corner as a landmark when twiddling the thing from view to view.

4) Work out the height move and laboriously copy all 11 stud holes to the top surface, protruding fractionally. (Ignore symbolising the threads.) Drop the lower holes and over-length cylinders similarly. The protrusions allow the the next stage...

5 .... Subtract all 24 "holes" to make holes. If left flush they tend to stay hidden under the surface.

Now then.... That's a big lump of cast iron, so rectangular recesses in the sides to lighten it a bit. Leave the corner radii to the slot-drill, and anyway the recess starts life on the drawing as...

6 ... a "Box" library figure, so naturally has sharp corners.

7. Assemble the box-to-be-recess to the block by top edge-to-edge mid-points. It's now face-to-face, centrally by length.

8 Centralise it vertically by sliding it down by [ (block height - recess height) / 2 ].

9. Slide the box into the block by the appropriate axis-move, leaving a tiny protrusion.

10. Subtract box from block to create the recess.

11. Turn the lot round and repeat Steps 6 - 10.

Fine so far. The basic rendering even makes it look like a part-made cylinder block. Next the ports.

11. These need something like the above, complicated by being a "thick" box flanked by two thin ones to be placed on their respective port-faces, centralising across, setting to heights, sinking in and subtracting. More sums.

I had to abandon it with the 6 boxes floating vaguely in or around the block, but I could not move them to their correct places.

I realised that even if I solved that, I have no idea at all how to draw inclined passages in a 3D model, but I want the design to suit the real engine not a CAD exercise. Four 4 drilled ones per port, in pairs flanking the cover stud. (I think I found that configuration in one of Luker's designs.)

The PC still needs up-dating to WIN-10, but if other CAD packages are as difficult in 3D I may as well keep my TC 19 Deluxe and use only its orthographic mode.

Pictures would help......

But the stud holes would be created directly onto the required surface, just like you would physically drill them. And you only need one, created using a hole command that controls the diameter, depth, thread size, and even the drill point you expect. Then it's another editable command to add however many you need around the circle.

And I have no idea why you're creating and moving a box around that isn't even the shape you want.

Once again, you need to stop thinking combined drawing elevations, and start thinking 3D object because that's what you actually want.

Something like this, a sketch that's one rectangle, two equal circles, two extra construction lines, and a symmetry constraint extruded to a solid:

Add an M5 hole 6mm deep

and a pattern of 7(because that's a horrible thing to calculate) around the bore:

So that's one simple sketch, an extrude, one feature(the hole) and a pattern. Any of those four operations can be changed, so you could make the thread imperial, a more reasonable pattern of 6 holes or the block 87.65748380mm long instead of the 75 I chose. Relieving the edges between the bores would be drawn on the face to the required shape, and extruded through the block to cut them out. That could be done on the original sketch, but would make it a bit busy. You would round the four outer edges of the block with one fillet operation that gives full control of the radius applied.

This is far simpler and easier to do than your painful description. Alibre or Solidedge wouldn't be much different.

Edited By Nicholas Wheeler 1 on 01/01/2022 01:10:51

Regarding putting the small hole son the other end, I just click "mirror" and select the axis to mirror them in and they all appear on the opposite side.

As for dragging a rectangle about to centralise I just click the symmetric icon and then axis and two opposite sides of the rectangle and it will then move to a symmetric position.

As to whether one is easier to learn than another really comes down to the individual and for your posts over the last couple of years I fear any package will be difficult for you.

I know you are not keen on videos but here is what I think you are describing. You will see I use the circular pattern and mirror a lot as there is little point in drawing things more than once. You mat want to watch direct on youtube and slow the screen speed down as I did not do it slowly for demo purposes

I learnt from watching a few videos and that seems to be the way most people do it, as you say you can't that will be a stumbling block no matter which direction you go in.

Nigel, from your description, it seems that using Boolean operations in TC to cut material away (rather than using cut operations) is a complication you could do without. I don't know what tools are available in TC, but others may be able to help with that.

One thing I would comment, having seen Jason's video, there is no single correct way to model anything. For example Jason uses patterns in his sketches a lot. If I were doing the same task, I would usually create (for example) one hole, then pattern the hole (that is the 3D feature) rather than pattern in the sketch. There are pros and cons to each - both produce the same result.

Ideally it would be great if experienced users of TC and SE would show you live how to produce something like your engine block. That would give you an idea of if one really is easier to use/learn than the other, or whether they are equally complex form your perspective. The exercise could include things like angled drillings, and you could ask questions throughout. As that would be a viewing exercise, your current PC should be able to cope (a headset or microphone & speakers would help enormously).

Hi Jason

Great video you made there which shows the Mirror function to it's best, certainly a time saving command.
Also the use of Planes is clearly defined demonstrating placement of Sketch to extrude.
Something I gained from the video is that you Extruded the original Sketch with a centre plane which is an advantage if you want to Mirror features from the opposite end of the model.

You are correct to suggest viewing at a slower speed, especially for viewing the function icon selection,
I also use a version of Alibre but a good deal older so Tools layout differs and I certainly can't draw as quickly as you did in the video.

With some audio description of the operation added it would be as good as teaching videos from Alibre, could I suggest you add something like Sketching and Extruding in Alibre to the video title, good learning aid to new Alibre users.

Emgee

Nigel: Could you draw a rough pencil & paper sketch of what you're trying to do, and post it here?

Just looked at Nigel's album, the engine is at the front, cylinder "block" at the top and valves should have been on the ends so a quick edit of my sketch needed too.

holes for valve chest studs added, drilled passages in place of cored rectangular ones and a bit of fancy weight saving thrown in for good measure

Edited By JasonB on 01/01/2022 15:50:06

Gary -

I tried to copy as a jpg image what I'd drawn but it loses the rendering, leaving a confusing wire-frame. However -

- Thank you Jason.

Yes - nearly as I have it although I am making the valve-chests as separate parts, not integral as you have them. Also the two side-recesses I have drew are simply flat-bottomed, not profiled.

I have provided my covers with 6 studs, with the steam passages as two drillings on each side of the outermost studs (rather as on Luker's 'Ballarat'. It is not easy to tell on the photo the prototype cover fastenings.

The only significant difference between your 3D image and mine is the valve-chests.

'

Now, what CAD package do you use? It's clearly not TurboCAD 19 Deluxe. The green rectangles are very different from TC's 'Work Planes". TC uses only one work-plane at a time, visible on request, but its system of co-ordinates, WP and view-direction menus allow building onto any selected facet of the drawn object. Only, it is a very confusing, baffling system.

The default WP, called "World", is the imaginary floor for Extruding 2D upwards to form the 3D image. Extending an extrusion beyond the end surfaces, then Subtracting it, is the only way to show a hole in an 3D object.

====

Nicholas -

Your illustration is nearly as I have reached so far, although lying on its side. And with 6 studs, because that's a nice thing to draw! (And probably original, though hard to know for sure.)

Mine is fully extruded from a construction of rectangle and circles - the only practical method in TurboCAD.

(The alternative way, assembly from library solids, is harder. It may fail too, because TC uses at least 3 internal ways to generate 3D figures; with correspondingly different, often unexpected, results.)

'

... and David Jupp-

"Box" is TC's term for an editable cuboid from its solids library. To form the side recesses and ports, the available method is to sink a "Box" into the surface, then Subtract it from the surroundings.

It worked for the recesses but I was unable to repeat the exercise for the 6 ports.

'

I must admit I had not thought to use Mirror. I have just tried it - it does work in 3D. Nor to use Radial Copy for the studs, probably because I was preoccupied with them not breaking into the passages.

That is why I am trying to re-design the block: I started making it years ago, from some basic drawings, and it is accumulating all sorts of physical problems I did not foresee!

The methods I use in TurboCAD work, but are slow, clumsy and not as TurboCAD intends.

===

A note on terms and concepts:

TurboCAD (or at any rate 19 Deluxe) does not have "Constraints", "Sketch" or "Symmetric".

It does let you connect entities, symmetrically or otherwise, very efficiently and accurately, using the "Reference Point" embedded in any library or drawn entity; but I have never been able to make that work.

Instead I have to use its simple "Assemble" by, say, vertices; then calculated cross- moves.

Boolean Adding and Subtracting are fundamental in TC for combining inter-leaved entities into single ones. Eg, rectangles into the sections for angle- and channel- material.

TurboCAD is meant to be driven without doing its sums for it!

===

Re. live discussion: Sorry, but I do not have the equipment. (I have just sent an apology for absence from a forthcoming AGM to be held in Zoom.)

One member here has kindly offered me a memory-card to try in my PC. The computer, only 8 years old, will already take WIN-10 but if the RAM extension works, installing both will extend the computer's useful life and let me try SolidEdge; without needing a completely new system.

That was done to show how a typical 3D CAD package would be used to model the part, I used Alibre but Fusion, SE(3D) would be much the same as would other 3D packages.

Pity none of the SE users have not commented or shown how it can be done

Nigel

A good starting point for SE, tutorial video for I believe SE community edition can be found at the link below.

**LINK**

Emgee

I'm very familiar with Fusion and, not being a SE user, took a look at Emgee's link and found it rather like a magician pulling rabbits out of a hat. So I looked around to see if there was anything that suited me better, and found **THIS** link, which is the 1st of a series. You can skip the 1st 5 minutes 'cos it's all about downloading SE, but the rest is fine.