I have a conflict with my boss, he wants me to use SW to model reality, to constrain all my parts according to the constraints that are found in reality. Namely constrain all the faces that come in support, constrain all the holes together etc .... In the idea, if a hole is not good I will see it right away...
I have always learned that SW is only a representation of reality, but is in no way reality, that overconstraining a play is not good. Which of us 2 is right? If I'm right, can someone give me a link to an article that proves it so that I can share it with them. If he's right, I'd like more precise explanations.
There is no documentation on this subject to my knowledge but SW is like the basis of mechanics, once the 3 axes (x,y,z) are blocked, the object no longer moves.
Adding more will only make over-constraints and a nice red building tree.
Indeed, it is better to avoid hyperstasis and even then SW tolerates quite well constraining the planes following the 3 axes (it's not the same song with Inventor). Otherwise, it is better to effectively constrain as close as possible to reality, depending on the type of conception, i.e. by limiting the use of reference entities.
Your boss's idea is good compared to the end but if it's just for problems checking hole alignments, there are other tools/methods: - for 4-hole patterns: constrain by the diagonal; - for more complex/irregular steps: there is a SW tool called "hole alignment" in the "evaluate" tab.
It is better to use interference detection and hole alignment to see the alignment of the holes than to overstress an assembly, if you have 50 holes to connect 2 parts> 50 constraints, good luck!
"I've never worked with all the real constraints, doing so is like working against the philosophy of the software"
He probably wants you to do this, to avoid oversights, or assembly problems. It's using over-constraint as an error checking system for the draftsman...
But it's still the fact of "misusing the software", normally we make cuts, or others, to check that we haven't forgotten anything (in the 3d, or the 2d...)
It's like those who use "coaxial, coincidental, coaxial (for a peripheral screw hole)"... a real plague for those who pass behind them, and who work on their own level of constraint...
@olivier42, you understand everything he wants me to use this to avoid mistakes. I showed him the interference and alignment checks of drilling. But that's not enough.
He really wants me to use solidworks to model reality and not as just a representation of reality. This small nuance makes our ideas about how to use the software very different.
Personally, I have always learned that SW is only a representation to design a product. That the software did not evade the logic of reality.
@gt22. Dsl but I don't prefer our designs to arrive on the net, so I wouldn't put the files as attachments. That said, what do you call the appropriate tools? I'm interested in that.
Often people use it indiscriminately, and then accuse the software of rambling/crashing.
Personally I never advise to use the external refs for "little things" not necessary... For example, making 4 holes on a rectangular sheet, it is better to use classic dimensions, a well-positioned base plane if a symmetrical part, reference geometry, etc...
Working the way your boss wants it to is completely against the principle of software.
It's designed to alert you when you're overstressing an assembly. You will therefore end up with multiple error messages when you modify your components and therefore waste a lot of time.
It can be an argument to convince him not to apply his method
I agree with gt22, smart functions can be a good solution in your situation.