So, they want me to learn SolidQuirks.....

1.  What should I expect?

You will be amazed just how similar they are.

You will also be amazed just how dissimilar they are.

2.  What are the shortcuts/tricks?

To each his own. Mine would not be yours. Find your path.

3.  What is the easiest/best approach to learn it quickly and fluently?

Start modeling, everything and anything....soup to nuts. Models, assemblies, drawings.

4.  Using surfacing and the advanced features like I do, what are the comparable features and building methods in SW?

Do not expect it to function like Creo. SW surfacing is not intended to function like you are used to in Creo.

Have fun....

...and the fun begins

You're gonna hate the quirks.

Everything else just takes getting use to.

New respect for Creo!

...and '16 has  A C T U A L  S C R E W  T H R E A D S !!!

if you don't need tapered threads...

Steven,

Do you mean like the Style feature where you can "sketch" something and then drag it off the original sketch plane? OR the fact that the sketch can created/manipulated in a non-orthogonal (I.E. the sketch view is not perpendicular to the screen)?

Unless you have some super secret knowledge about SW 3D Sketch, they seem to operate pretty much the same.

Do tell! ;O)

Video Link : 6474

Steven,

Are you using Direct or Parametric? What Rev?

I quickly looked at the links you included  The first link had an example that the guy (Don?) was done by tagging through pre-existing point (I.E Old, Old school Piping method) in an assembly. Another example was using intersected curves then running a Sweep. But, unless I am still dense, I think that functionality being asked for exists in Style Curve. The 3D curve can be constrained anyway you like, just like a regular sketch, just without being restricted to a sketch plane.

Does the video still miss the point?

Dean

I recently completed some SW training and as with most things there were some things I liked and some I didn't...

• My main takeaway was I now understand why so many SW Users have trouble when trying to move to Pro/E (okay, okay Creo).  IMO SW seems to be much, much more forgiving when it comes to poor modelling practices (references in particular) than Creo.  The implications are no less problematic but it takes virtually no effort to "force" something where Creo might want you to resolve it.
• The other thing was that the training I took instructed poor modelling practices... layer cake revolves in particular.  There seemed to be a focus on speed over stability.  What happened to the "old school" principles of a greater number of simpler features is preferable to a lesser number of complex features?
• Datums/Reference Geometry.  I rely heavily on Datums, especially coordinate systems as opposed to geometry for constraining both features and components.  SW processes "mates" before assembly features, and Reference Geometry (Datums) are considered assembly features so it would take two passes to "constrain" a component by an assembly datum.
• Geometric Tolerances appeared to be fully "dumb".  Where Creo limits you to valid specification of GeomTol you could apply anything in SW

Now what I did like were things that Creo seems to make more complicated than need be, or does not include an adequate "library" out of the box.  Things like materials, mass properties, appearances.  Overall the likes for SW were more immediate whereas the Creo benefits are much more subtle and many users may never encounter the need)

Training was done on SW 2015 which does seem to be much better than the 2004 version I previously used.  Like many of you, especially independent contractors I am also finding that Solidworks and Inventor have all but fully displaced Pro/E (Creo) in my local market which tends to be SMB's and start-ups.  Needing capability in SW and Inventor is just a reality.

Remember, it's not the strongest that survive it's those that are most able to adapt.

If you know me personally you know i could talk for hours and hours on the subject.    The fact that SW is not a modular based package simply put's it into a mid range category.  Creo on the other hand has many modules to purchase.  For example Tesla.  They had a company wide meeting to ask all their new engineers what software they wanted and they all chose SW.  A year or two into the development of a vehicle they realized SW did not have the option for Vaulting (PDM) their files nor G2 or G3 continuity.... I could keep going.    The same sales person that sold them SW a few years earlier sold them Catia NOW because that tool has all those options they were looking for that they didn't know they needed when they made the first purchase...  And Catia like Creo is modular based.

When the baby  grows up they don't want to play with blocks they want more powerful toys that they did not know they need at the time of the original purchase.  That sales guy made twice as much money selling them twice playing up on their ignorance.  To me that guy is the problem here not Testla's mistake in the purchase.    Granted SW has come a long way each year.   Now, SW has 20 percent of the advanced assembly in SW that Creo has in a separate module we call 'Advanced Assembly'.  Can  you imaging not using Simplified reps to retrieve a 17,000 part Orbital Assembly?  That's the way it was before 2014 of Solidworks.    My favorite quote is when teaching Solidworks folks Creo and we do it a great deal.....   "I'm an expert in Solidworks and have been for 15 years'   My response is "dude.  if you were an expert at solidworks back when that packager rally sucked I can't believe any word that comes out of you mouth in the future"  Harsh but true.

Soooo, I got on the SW forum today and posted up about learning it from Pro/E, and asked for advice and comparative advanced features and.......crickets.  Wow.  Maybe they didn't like that I claimed to be a expert Pro/E user?

I also posted a bunch of the pics I have here in my photo album.

I also found a thread where people were posting pics of things they did.  While I saw some assemblies with many parts, or parts with many features (a lot less of those), what I really did NOT see, was parts or assemblies with complex SHAPES.  Nothing really sculpted or obviously "surfaced".  In 115 pages, what VERY little I found was of the "hack and slash and add rounds" variety, nothing truly surfaced.  I think THAT tells me a lot about what I needed to know about SW's (lack of) Industrial Design capabilities.

But, from what I've seen over the years, tried myself, and have read here and elsewhere, this is pretty much what I expected.

Keir, Doug & Dean make excellent points to be aware of. What I'll add are two things;

1) The options or configuration settings are not stored in a file like the config.pro, they are stored in your user registry. So, if you have need to work with different environments (i.e. using different option setting for different customers, etc) then you are going to have to look at the SW tool for exporting preferences and keeping various sldreg files to load prior to loading SW.

2) Be aware, some of the options that you can set might just scare you that they are available. There are setting that allow you not to fully constrain/define sketches and features. Go through all the settings, learn what they do, and make intelligent decisions as to how you want to have them set.