Templates and Formats for Drawings
The “templates and formats” question is one that continues to plague users. It’s confusing, although I don’t think it should be.
Templates are the things you select to start a new drawing, from the New dialog:
Drawing templates are the “start files” that hold the document settings for a drawing. Anything that is saved in Tools, Options, Document Properties, is saved with the template.
Drawing templates are saved to a filetype with the extension “*.drwdot”. Part and assembly templates are *.prtdot and *.asmdot respectively.
The Format includes the drawing border, title block, standard annotations and stuff like that. Here is the dialog for selecting a format:
You can change the format on a drawing, but you cannot change the template. Once you start from a template, you can change the individual settings that came from the template, but you cannot change the template used to start the drawing. This behavior is exactly like parts and assemblies. Many people submit enhancement requests about this, because it would be useful to be able to change your template, just to get a new set of settings, such as units.
Parts and assemblies do not have any equivalent for formats, formats are used only on drawings.
If you click Cancel on the dialog shown above, you simply get a blank format that is local to the current drawing. When you do this, you still get a sheet of paper with a size, and you still have a “sheet format”, but the format is blank. If you need to prove this to yourself, create a new drawing from a template (which doesn’t have a format on it already), and click Cancel when prompted to select a sheet format. When the drawing opens, right click on the sheet, and select Edit Sheet Format.
This can be a little confusing because in the Drawing Manager Tree, if you have cancelled out of the Format selection, no format is listed for the sheet. As soon as you click Edit Sheet Format, a blank default sheet format is created.
Notice that after I edited the sheet format, several items were added to the drawing. These added items are all anchors for various types of tables.
Now if you edit the properties of a drawing without a format, this is what you get:
You can still change the size of the sheet, but the info for the format is all grayed out.
Ok, so Templates can exist without Formats. Formats are not necessary. Formats hold the drawing border and anchors for tables.
The next part of this is the part that can make your life a lot easier so you don’t have to mess with this stuff. You can save Formats inside your Templates, so that when you make a new drawing, you never even see that Sheet/Format Size dialog!
Here’s how I do it. Create a new drawing from your favorite template, and put your favorite format on it. Now save the new drawing as a template. That’s it! You can do one of these for each size of drawing, and one for each type of units that you will use. Here is my list of drawing templates. You can see in the preview, that the selected one has a format on it:
Ok, so I’ve got drawing borders for several sizes, and those borders are saved into formats, and those formats are saved into templates.
Now you’re wondering “How do I make the drawing border for a C from the drawing border from a B?” This is the bad news. SW is very bad at this kind of thing. SW usually chokes when trying to create or edit drawing borders. Usually, I think most people get their borders from old Autocad drawings. I drew several of them in SolidWorks probably 8 years ago, and I’ve just used the same ones over and over since then. I would recommend using the DWG Editor software to do this if you need to manipulate the drawing border. This is the kind of thing you should only need to do once for your whole company. Setting these up can be an entire blog post all on its own.
Once you have the formats created, you can save them out as their own filetypes into your library. I strongly advocate keeping a library somewhere other than your SW installation directory where you save things that you will want to keep for use with later versions of SolidWorks. I have one Library directory where I keep templates, formats, library parts, and a bunch of other stuff:
I can copy this folder to a new machine, redirect all the Tools, Options, File Locations that I need to redirect, and model on! I even keep saved settings in the “settings” folder, so I can just reapply a registry file and instantly set up a new installation just like my standard set up. Notice that Templates and Formats are kept in here too. Do you see the various tabs on my New SolidWorks Document dialog? Each tab is made by adding a folder to the top level Templates folder.
Ok, just one more bit of setting up drawing templates. Predefined views. The way I set up my drawings, I can just click the “Create Drawing From Part” button, select the template, and I automatically get three ortho views and one iso. The way I do this is to have drawing templates set up with one Predefined view, and three Projected views, created from the predefined.
The next thing to learn is how to make links to the fields in your title block to get them to be automatically filled out by the custom properties in your part and assembly files. The goal is to automate the drawing templates to the point that you never need to use the “Edit Sheet Format” command.
I am with Evan Yares.
I have been intensively using both Works and Edge for almost a decade.
>>It is the same stuff that SolidWorks
>>already does and has been doing.
>>So is this anything new? No. It’s old news
I have not yet tried Edge’s synchronous technology yet but I will say that Edge’s old “Direct Edit” functionality in v18, v19 and v20 has always been better than the Works equivalent.
If you use “Move Face” command in Works you will find it limited compared to Edge.
I must say that in my view Edge often gets a hard time due to Works’ superior marketing and user base.
I feel that Works has better “frills” but Edge has a better “core”. This is evident in the fact that Edge is much more dynamic than Works. An example is that dragging and adjusting features can be done “realtime” in Edge – but not the same way in Works. Works is actually getting clunkier by the day in my opinion. This is unfortunate because in my current job I have to use Works.
I would say that Works is a little concerned about the future. They know that Edge was totally rewritten a few years ago in order to take advantage of new technology. During that time they were critisized heavily by Works as Edge did not deliver too many enhancements. We now have other new programs like Space Claim coming on the scene which I think could end up being a major player.
Works on the other hand just keeps adding the frills – I am not denying that some are really handy and superior over Edge – however they all seem to make SW clunkier. It will be a big job for Works to conduct a complete rebuild in order that they can continue to be at the cutting edge. Apparently the next version of Works will have similar “synchronous” and “spaceclaim” technolgy included. I guess we’ll wait and see.
cheers
Mal
Syney Australia
It’s to easy, It’s a toy. Real CAD requires a professional. Is that all you can handle? Sure it is fast, but it doesn’t have the power for real work
I heard that a lot from Pro E users about 9 years ago when I was using SW.
IF CAD get’s easier to use, sure, idiots who shouldn’t, will use it and produce junk (A 15 deg angle should be drawn with two triangles, not with a drawing machine and just a click.)
Easy to use CAD will also allow me and many other designers to work faster and better and reach more customers. Every time SW crashes I spend a little more time reading about Solid Edge. I don’t know if it is better, I don’t know if it is different. I am careful because IDEAS was a joke, but I am watching. and I will be saving my maintenance budget until I have tried it.
It will be very interesting to see where the Solid Edge’s Synchronous Technology goes in the future. This will certainly change the way other CAD packages behave in the future
Not to mention just the modeling side of things, I’ve also talked to many people that have had issues with trying to make drawings of large assemblies with Works.
Would you reather use the package that leases the kernel (Solid Works) or the one that owns the kernel (Siemens & Solid Edge)
****
What interests me is more how people buying software react to it. Solid Edge is solidly in the “also ran” category. If this marketing jive can lift them out of that, then I’ll have another look.
Ok, you’re some sort of Anti-SolidWorks partisan. This is an emotional argument, not a rational one. Both products have weaknesses.
I’d rather use the one that gives me more potential for business, and for now I have the right product. Go sell crap somewhere else.
I don’t believe you. The migration away from any use of Works by DOD is well founded and very well documented. Your all Worked up over mediocre software. Dassault is strangely quite these days. I believe they’re in shock. Your big extranvaganza in San Diego this summer outta be a lot of fun explaining to users why they are so far behind Solid Edge. Can you say ‘no R&D what so ever’. Solid Edge’s new tech appears give two options. One to use the parasolid as really intended and most importantly, the new tech appears not be tied to a feature based kernel like Works and many other Cad systems. Works NEVER had a direct editing feature and you know it. What that says to me is Solid Edge may be capable of deciphering ALL Cad systems. Works my friend is loosely based on someone else’s technology. Say after me…Siemens / UGS PLM the best there is bar none.
****
You took the red pill, didn’t you?
Hi Jolly,
I think only educational institute can get the SolidEdge educational version, individual student can not get it. I did request one month demo version of SolidEdge from reseller, he got me one after I sign three pages agreement as I am buying Jet fighter! And it did not work!
I am not sure about NX but the full functionality of Solid Edge is available to students.
I have seen the UGS video, I do not see any difference between Synchronous Technology and Spaceclaim, if Siemens want to improve their sale, they should make SolidEdge and NX available for students, even the Dassault high end Catia V5 is available for college student.
Matt,
I’ve read Deelip’s blog, ever since he started started it. Don’t believe the one where he says “Think twice before criticizing Evan Yares. This guy is huge and you don’t want to piss him off.” He was only joking. If you want to criticize me, that’s fine. I can take it, and I won’t get pissed off.
Bravo to Deelip for thinking to ask Mike Payne about the Siemens announcement. Mike and I have also had discussions about the software architecture and capabilities of SpaceClaim, both before and after the Siemens announcement.
Bottom line on SpaceClaim’s software is that there are a lot of capabilities in it that haven’t yet been exposed. Version 1.0 had limitations, for certain. I remember far worse limitations in SolidWorks 95. (Yes, I used the very first shipping version.)
SpaceClaim the company made a lot of mistakes in marketing and sales during their first year. They’ve regrouped, and are headed in a good direction.
I can’t argue that the SW Move Face capability is not good and useful, because it is very good and very useful. But it’s still different than what SpaceClaim or Siemens PLM are doing. Far too much technical detail to explain the differences here. Ditto for the differences between Synchronous Technology and SpaceClaim. If you’ve got some background in CAD software architecture, we could talk about these things off-line.
Rather than than asking me to substantiate every comment I make, it might be easier for you to just ask someone you trust whether I know what I’m talking about. I’m not going to drop names, but you could start with your contacts at SolidWorks.
****
I only really wanted you to answer one question: what is the difference between S.T. and Spaceclaim other than sitting on top of a parametric modeler? This is a blog by a CAD user for CAD users, and certainly you could put together a meaningful response on that level? “Too much technical detail”??? Put it in terms someone who uses CAD software can understand.
People I trust call you abrasive and arrogant. Is there something you would like to add to that?
dear HoffY
Cad is nothing without the knowlege of engineering and manufacturing.
its like the old instruments we used for manual drafting. it’s like a pencil, everyone can use a pencil and draw pretty pictures and impress others. But who can bring the pretty pictures into real world? a painter?
when an engineer uses cad he embeds his knowledge of engineering and manufacturing into the part.it’s hidden to the naked eye, but shows itself in later processes and in real world.
engineering and manufacturing is more than pretty pictures.
The demonstration video was deceptive at best.
1. They didn’t show the activity in real time. The only “side-by-side” comparison was also very deceptive. A) There was a lot of decisions that the ST made for the user which would’ve lead to issues in the real world. B) I could’ve made that change just by editing the sketch of the feature. They tried to make that seem like it was a lot of work. What would be a lot of work is the software deciding for me what I want to change, and then screwing it up because it decided something I wasn’t anticipating.
2. There’s nothing new in this. SolidWorks has had most of this functionality for years. It will have the assembly functionality in 2009 anyway. Direct editing has been apart of other packages for a long time.
3. “making changes like this in a traditional 3d modelling would require re-modelling”. Umm, lie. Just change the same dimensions they changed in the demo.
4. It displays a massive limitation. It makes too many decisions for the user. I bet anything more detailed than what was shown would take just as long as or longer than history modellers.
5. CONFIGURATIONS! Where are they? How is any of this useful for all but the most basic functions without configurations! Am I suppose to direct everything each time I need to show a different configuration?
6. It looks as though UGS based technology had to get rid of their history driven method because it was such a mess. A certain company (who shall go unnamed, but whose name is a tasty fruit) frequently exports their models to dumn formats and reimports them back into UGS because of how poor UGS handles its history. It looks like UGS knew this and just just finally up.
Matt, I’m totally with you.
How to make big splash in CAD industry?
1. Pretending does not know any other existing feature-free modelers.
2. Show you some “stunt” video of direct editing which is widely used in other CAD,like SolidWorks or Inventor and claim they are the best.
100x time faster? What a naive joke.
I watched the video, they said the Synchronous Technology is patent pending…humm. interesting…
****
Yeah, well, you can patent anything, and the patent is worth the paper its printed on minus a lot of attorney fees.
It is conceivable that direct modeling is faster than parametric modeling because direct modeling is only concerned about the end product geometry, not how it got to that point. 100x does seem to be an exaggeration, and only in the instances that MER is talking about in his comment.
Thanks for the comment!
I find this quite interesting, but maybe that’s because I’m currently attempting to add features to a 1,000+ feature injection molded part. Let’s just say it’s not going that smoothly! I’ve added the new features but now have other existing ones, that are completely unrelated, refuse to build, or build but still error. Trying to rearrange features now(5 minute wait for each move) or find a different way to build the features back in. Also have several ‘Combine’ features that error on every roll-back that I have to edit, then choose ‘Preview’ then exit for them to build (wtf?). Good times.
****
Yeah, when I did something similar in SW, I broke the model into several areas, and built each area as a separate body, then joined the bodies back together. That’s my only hint for working on parts this large.
Best of luck.
>>Synchronous Technology is simply direct
>>model editing added to Solid Edge and NX.
Nope. Both Solid Edge and NX already have direct editing. Have had it for some time. This is not just “more of the same.”
>>It is the same stuff that SolidWorks
>>already does and has been doing.
Nope. I don’t think you’d get anyone at SW to make that claim.
>>So is this anything new? No. It’s old news.
There are predicates, but this is the first time, that I know of, that this type of capability has been integrated into an existing feature-based parametric modeler. I may be wrong (about it being the first time)… but, in any event, it’s not “old news.”
>>It’s an answer to the vision of Spaceclaim after
>>the Spaceclaim vision was shown to be mostly hype.
SpaceClaim is mostly hype? That’s news to me. I would, however, be interested in seeing any evidence of that. You’ve got my email address.
>>Spaceclaim itself is a recycled version of modelers
>>like Sketchup, Keycreator, CoCreate, etc.
Kind of like Tony Stewart’s Nascar race car is a recycled version of a Toyota Camry?
SpaceClaim, Sketchup, Keycreator, and CoCreate are all very different modelers. They do *some* things that are similar, but they are at their cores very different from each other.
****
Evan, if you are going to say stuff like this you have to have something of substance to back it up, or I’ll relegate you to the Jon Banquer category that believes that just saying it with feeling makes it true.
The only argument of yours that interests me is how it is different from Spaceclaim aside from the fact that it sits on top of a parametric system. All of your other arguments are in the Jon Banquer style. How is the direct editing side of this fundamentally different? Maybe you didn’t read this http://www.deelip.com/2008/04/spaceclaim-reacts-to-synchronous.html.
Spaceclaim has restructured pricing and laid off employees which means that reality is not happening according to plan.
SolidWorks Move Face functionality is direct editing. The main functional difference between SW direct editing capabilities and Spaceclaim is how Spaceclaim deals with fillets/chamfers. This difference is significant, and is at the heart of the important differences between the two softwares. How these things are accomplished (aside from the parametric-direct distinction) is immaterial.
So we have direct modeling on top of parametrics, which is old news. And we have Spaceclaim functionality, which is also old news. Again, which part of this is news?
SolidWorm,
That doesn’t stop people with less of a clue from “impressing” those with even less of a clue about “writing” because they can create pretty pictures with “tools anyone can use”.
I’m with you Matt.
This doesn’t look all that revolutionary. Sure we could possibly get some handy things from it. But revolutionary, i highly doubt it. Take my favorite line (aside from the above one about anyone being able to use CAD), the part where they say you don’t need to know about how a part or assembly is made to make changes. Umm… last time i checked if someone makes a change WITHOUT knowing how things “are”, all hell brakes loose.
They SHOULD know what they are doing. Not only to use CAD at all, but to modify a design on any scale, you need a clue!
I really wish company’s would stop creating CAD for everyone. and Start creating it as teh tool for professional technical creators / designers / and the like, that it is meant for. Perhaps i speak for myself and i’m the only one in this boat. But i don’t want my CAD dumbed down. I want it efficient, powerful, and easy to use as possible given the technical nature of the beast. That just goes without saying (though perhaps i’m a dying breed, common sense seems to be going the way of the dinosaurs these days).
****
Exactly. Dumbed down CAD is a marketing move to sell to a broader range of people. The whole market is moving this way, although I don’t think it is catching on yet. Spaceclaim has struggled. They restructured pricing and laid off a bunch of people. Sales must not be stellar. UGS had this thing in motion well before Spaceclaims struggles started.
It remains to be seen if “everybody” wants to use CAD, or if management sees any value in having non-specialists making changes.
dear matt,
engineering apps are only a tool.
Tip of the day!
a good word processing application does not make someone a writer,it just makes a proficient writer more efficient.
This seems be different than what solidworks or even spaceclaim is doing. they have created what they call “The first ever history-free, feature-based modeling technology” (i dont think any of previous non-history based MCAD apps have both of them combined) with redesigned algorithms which they claim makes rebuilding parts 100 times faster!
I’ve been using Solidworks for over 10 years, and I’m impressed by the functionality demonstrated by Synchronous Technology within the up coming release of SolidEdge and NX.
I would love to give it a test drive and see how much it really improves work flow.
****
Doesn’t it look familiar though? The Move Face feature and the Instant3D gimmick in SolidWorks are part of what they showed. Some of how it handled fillets looked like something SW can’t do, but Spaceclaim does.
I might be protecting my job, but I don’t want everybody to start CADding. I’ve made this argument several times about give a monkey a wrench and expect him to be a plumber. I’m skeptical.