![change a circle in solidworks with bc change a circle in solidworks with bc](https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/3a8f2e1/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1024x768+0+0/resize/1760x1320!/quality/90/?url=http:%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fd3%2F6f%2F439a28d14147bc90f87bd52da4ea%2Fchristmastreephoto.jpeg)
![change a circle in solidworks with bc change a circle in solidworks with bc](https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-030-38901-7_2/MediaObjects/490361_1_En_2_Figbc_HTML.png)
I find the SolidWorks interface to be crude and yes, ‘childish’. For myself, using SolidWorks is like drawing with a crayon as opposed to being used to using a fountain pen. I also haven’t found many Pro/Engineer users that like SolidWorks. What I see is a tendency for SolidWorks models to never get cleaned up to produce a workable design. Pro/Engineer forces you to think ahead in your design, where SolidWorks allows ‘sloppy’ modeling.
![change a circle in solidworks with bc change a circle in solidworks with bc](https://it.apsc.ubc.ca/sites/it.apsc.ubc.ca/files/images/SW_Labels_DesignedWith.jpg)
What I hear is that it is difficult to transition from SolidWorks to Pro/Engineer. I see it every day – we have both packages here where I work. However, there are many more things I can make Pro/Engineer do that SolidWorks just can’t do. I really didn't get my head wrapped around it until I took a semester class at the local community college. That learning curve is very steep which is why many managers avoid Pro/Engineer like the plague. And yes, Pro/Engineer is difficult to learn – ask anyone of us who go back to 2000i or beyond. Pro/Engineer is a much more capable and advanced package – it simply has a great deal more functionality than SolidWorks will ever have. That is fine as some companies only require a solid modeling package like SolidWorks. It most cases, it will model CAD and produce drawings quite adequately. It is advertised to be easy to get new users up to speed on and indeed the learning curve for beginner CAD engineers is very fast. SolidWorks is designed for a mid-level engineering department with a fairly non-complex product line.
#Change a circle in solidworks with bc software#
After that, both software packages differ hugely. The only similarity is that they both use a sketcher, a model tree and are parametric / relational (parent / child). In my opinion, you really cannot compare SolidWorks to Pro/Engineer. If we go with something like Pro-E we will still have to find an Architectural program. IF we go with AutoCAD it will probable be Inventor, Arch Desk and Mech Desk. I would love to take a couple months off and get proper training but at this time we aren't too sure what software we will be using for the next 5-6 years.
![change a circle in solidworks with bc change a circle in solidworks with bc](https://media.cheggcdn.com/media%2Fd99%2Fd99ccaea-5d9c-4985-bc57-7f6a5834fbf0%2FphpB22SWs.png)
I have also completed about 3 -4 other tutorials that go from parts to assemblies. Completing the two day even gives us the ability to posses a lab set of Pro-E. It took us through the water bottle tutorial with lessons on Pro-E from the instructor. The only formal training I had was a two day instructor training session. They haven’t started doing much on them but soon will. I just set up three of my better students with demo copies of SW to get their impressions. I love it when you receive factual information and not just, as one of my students just said this morning, SW looks childish. KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet.Those are two excellent responses. This is one of my many British Drawing isms my Checker used to point out. Just remembered back in the UK we use to say equispaced not equally spaced. That said I’d be tempted not to bother with bolt circle or equally spaced and to use Positional Tol instead with the angle given, something like figure 5-8 in ASME Y14.5M - 1994
#Change a circle in solidworks with bc Pc#
You can also have a Pitch Circle, PC or a Pitch Diameter, PD but PCD isn’t listed. I thought I’d replied to this question in another forum but can’t find it now.Īt the risk of being accused of pedantry and assuming you’re working to ASME standards:Įqually Spaced should be EQLSP per ASME Y14.38-1999 Abbreviations & Acronyms.ĮQ is actually Equation per same spec and SP is Space (amongst others).īC is in the standard as bolt circle but not BCD (and no D isn’t the standard combination form for Diameter). The previous information is if you are stating that you follow the ASME Y14.5M-1994 standard. It is not in the standard, but that does not mean that you cannot use it. The three parts would look something like this, but in the proper locations on your print with tolerances, if there is not a sheet tolerance:Īlso, if it is clear that the BC is a BC, then you do not need to have BC on it. All three dimension items have a tolerance also. Use the quantity(9) times(X) degrees(40°). When your parts are much more precise (or even if they are not), then you will need to separate the hole callout, the BC callout, and the degree (spacing)callout. There is usually just a visual check that it looks OK. Nearly any QA department will ask how do you measure "EQ SP"? I would question why your checker allows this. We have had many items sent that used this callout and not functioned in the assembly. There have been many issues with "EQ SP".