CSWP Surfacing Exam


Well, I took the brand new CSWP Surfacing Exam and aced it. Frankly anything else would have been an embarassment. At least one of the parts used on the test was almost exactly a part I had modeled for the SW advanced surfacing training book. The exam is not easy. If I had not been the guy who modeled one of the parts, I probably would have missed a couple of questions. I don’t think everything they ask you to do is crystal clear, but this test is an improvement over all of the other CSWP tests I’ve taken because it is less prone to compounded errors. Also, for you aeronautical guys out there, much of what they ask you to do is framed in plastics terminology. It may not be obvious to SolidWorks that not everyone who does surfacing also does plastics. There are many applications for surfacing that do not require knowledge of plastic design or manufacturing techniques or terminology.

How do you study for this test? Well, it seems to be built around the Surfacing training manual. You could also use the Surfacing Bible. I looked through the list and there were 3 or 4 other folks who have already passed it. Let’s see how many Dezignstuff Blog readers we can get certified. Chime in here when you take it! It only costs $20, so give it a whirl! Best of luck.

22 Replies to “CSWP Surfacing Exam”

  1. Matt, Is there any way to get my hands on the advanced surfacing training manual? I can’t find it on the SolidWorks site. The price for your Surfacing Bible isn’t too bad, but it looks like the manual will be more directly applicable to the CSWP-SURF exam.

    I just blew $20 on the exam because work interrupted in the middle of the exam. I answered 8 of 19 questions and got 7 of those 8 correct. I wish I knew which one I got wrong! And I really wish I could keep the exam questions so I could study for it. The sample exam on the SolidWorks site doesn’t really seem all that similar to the real exam.

    I was just starting on the bicycle frame section when I ran out of time.

  2. I just completed the CSWP Surfacing exam today (C-PQFQAT4TGH), and passed although I ran out of time to complete two questions. If I had an additional 15 more minutes, I think I would have received a 100%.

    I saved the bicycle frame for last, and the only areas where I lost points were Loft / Blended surfaces and Filled surfaces. As I use these feature tools frequently, I think I would have answered them all correctly with a little more time (15 minutes). The sketches used up time which I otherewise could have devoted to the surfacing tools themselves.

    Anyway, except for some SW VAR employees, I did not yet see any other CSWP Surfacing Specialists for Ohio other than myself listed online. Is the CSWP surfacing exam more difficult than the other CSWP exams?

  3. Just reviewed my exam I took a month ago – 210@255 / 63 min. The trouble was with bicycle framing in the last question – that Filled Surface could not be done 🙁

    BTW Matt, in your book related to Surfacing (have not purchased it yet, but was able to list through the example files you created for it), the ladle example starts from a projected curve made of 2 sketches – the question is that the sketch splines do not follow the sketch pictures. I understand the ladle is shot under a certain angle (i/e not front-to-front), but how did you achieve such a projection on the plane? Because if I try to follow the picture, I get some surface that is not close enough.

    Also, in a bottle example I noticed that the side picture of the bottle shows us the body IS NOT symmetric related to the Right plane, and you did it that way. Maybe it is “as-it-is-to-be”, but I am preparing to take the CSWE exam and want to take it my best.


  4. Hey Matt,
    I know it is kinda late…But I’ve made a promise to my self that I will pass the test, even though I failed back in March ’09.
    Here is my score:
    255 @ 64minutes.
    Let me know if you’d like to see a screen shot…

  5. @matt
    thats my point, i saved the screen shots with my answers and have been thru all of them and there is no mention of using move face. If you do not want to give anything away, email me and we can discuss off line… incase you want to check (C-352G9BYMYP) here is my cert #

    Thanks for your help

  6. Hey Matt,

    I just completed the surfacing exam and scored a 240, i was hoping for a 255 but this darn MOVE FACE was a “0” can you email me and let me know what i missed? i have been thru this thing backwards and forwards and don’t know what i missed… By the way, GREAT BOOK, your surfacing bible…..

    Have a GREAT weekend.

    1. Richard, thanks for the comments! 240 is a 94%, which is fantastic! You know, my memory is awful. I don’t remember the move face questions at all. All it can do is translate, offset or rotate faces, and extend or trim adjacent faces as necessary. Maybe you could jog my memory on that without giving it away?

  7. I just need to say thanks for your blog and your classes at Solidworks world and your Bibles. I just passed with a 235. With the time given I couldn’t get the fillet right. How does it feel to be a Hero!

  8. Hi Matt,

    I’m happy to announce that my score was 220.
    I scored 0% on Move Face. I didn’t expect this to be in the test, but after the results I realized what I did wrong.

  9. @Linsd

    Yeah, well, if you wanted to trip me up, the XXX part was a bad choice. I’ve made so many different versions of that part that it was a little startling to see it on the test. Also not sure how you expect people to figure out the little trick in there. I thought it was kind of an obscure technique, and it almost threw me off on the test because I didn’t think you guys would put something that obscure on the test, even if the technique is used elsewhere in the same sketch… trying to be vague enough here not to give anything away.

    Anyway, my score is on the books, you can’t make me take it again!


    I think there was one trick that was unfair to anyone who hasn’t taken the advanced surfacing class, and its easy to see how you might have got some of the questions wrong if you didn’t catch it. It’s not straight forward at all. You’re right in your criticism of the test process, but Jeff Ray wanted “Scalability”, meaning in this case mostly “quantity”. And to do that, you have to have an automated test. Still, I think it could be executed better. I think the guys in the certification area made some initial mistakes, and are in the process of getting it figured out, both in the content of the exams, and the means of delivery.

  10. Hi Matt, that was impressive.
    I only score 200, just enough for not wasting the free coupon.
    Filled surface 67%, Loft/ blend surface 50% , Move surface 0.
    And I have no idea where I made mistakes.
    Again, online test has it’s limitations, e.g. You can finish the model with another CAD software, you can use loft to do the boundary surface job and get close result ,so end up it can’t really tell anything meaningful.

  11. @Sonicson
    Considering I barely passed the new CSWP and had a modest score on the sheet metal test, I wasn’t sure what to expect here. To me it means the people writing the tests are doing a better job now than a year ago.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: