X-screws, x-tools, x-nuts, x-hardware don't work

kate Morrical

The platinum is great, x-solids is kind of cool, but X-screws, x-tools, x-nuts, x-hardware don't work, it prompt 'unable to reconize command"...."', pls try again...', what's wrong with them?

Pieter Clarysse

Could you please enter a support request, so the right technical people can be assigned to solve this asap.

Rio Benson

Well, here it is the latter part of 2013 and this problem with X-Solids seems to still be around, at least on the 13.2.8 (X64) rev 30146 version that I recently purchased. What's more, I'm seeing a lot more stuff in X-Solids that's really rough around the edges and doesn't yet appear to be ready for public release. It's not as if I were a newbie at 3D modeling, either; I've been using 3D CAD exclusively for around 18 years on several different programs. While some of the X-Solids stuff works, on the X86 version anyway, 2nd iterations of commands seem to fail and others don't appear to be well thought out and clumsy; certainly not what you would call polished. The sad thing is X-Solids is what prompted me to buy the BricsCAD software, to start with. Anyone else having these problems with X-Solids, or are you all just hung-up on 2D?

John Gaunt

Hung up on 2d here. It's what they pay me to do.

Richard Webb

I use X-Solids objects quite often, with no problems. Part of the normal work-flow for a new project is a 3D mockup of the enclosure and its internals and that makes extensive use of X-Solids nuts, machine screws, PEM inserts, washers, standoffs, etc. Once the mock-up is approved, it becomes the basis for the 2D manufacturing drawings via QuickDraw. Works great. No complaints.

Except ... if they'd just add the PEM floating fasteners (AS, AC, etc.) I'd be happier. ;-)

Eric Fredrickson

My main use of X-solids is threads.  Unfortunately, these are not true threads.  It does not matter as much if you are just doing holes and calling out a thread on a drawing, but many of our products use external threads with flats and slots cut into them.  Two threads we use 3/4-24UNS and 3/4-27UNS are not available and I have been unable to generate them with lisp routines.  I am hoping that true thread detail is added and that the entire range of standard threads will be made available.

Rio Benson

To Richard Webb:  You can download all of the PEM fasteners, in various CAD formats, from the Penn Engineering website.  As a dwg based CAD platform, BricsCAD should be able to read 3D Autodesk Inventor files. If BricsCAD is unable to do so, they have no business implying they are anywhere near being a mechanical CAD solution, wouldn't you agree?  As an alternative, you could import the fasteners in an IGES format (dumb solid), which I do believe is possible.

To Eric Fredrickson:  Threads are, of course, 2D triangular shapes swept along a helical path.  If BricsCAD cannot generate a helix, then, once again, they should not be implying they are a mechanical CAD solution; i.e., helixes and spirals are basic to mechanical design.  As an alternative you could array any number of annular v-grooves internally or externally along a cylindrical shape that would closely represent threads, allowing you to make further modifications on them.

In General:  What I find to be particularly aggravating is when you edit a Composite X-Solid, no constraints exist between joined x-solids, nor do operations on primitives, such as the xshell command, maintain their relationship to the primitive; if you change the size of the primitive, these features merely disappear. That's clumsy, premature, and not at all professional.

John Gaunt

'BricsCAD should be able to read 3D Autodesk Inventor files' - if conversation with Inventor was the test, how many 3d programs could claim to be solutions?

The only contracts calling for other than dwg in my area of work, want Revit.

Damian Harkin

Hi Rio Benson
I think we're getting off the rails a little here.  Can AutoCAD read 3D Autodesk Inventor files? 

It's true we have a way to go.  X-Solids is an older and somewhat compromised technology (but it comes with a lot of handy hardware, section shapes etc).  It's also true there's a lot of things that can't be done in BricsCAD.  There's also a lot of users who can do more in BricsCAD than they can in AutoCAD for a fraction of the price. 

Threads are a standard and are usually specified, not drawn.  They are usually cut with a tap or die, not a boring bar.  It is usually a waste of time and actually misleading to model them as helical sweeps.  Are you going to model the nut threads with a running clearance over the bolt threads?  Why bother?  If you really need to do this then I'll agree BricsCAD isn't good enough for your work.  Fair enough - I wouldn't design a fighter jet with BricsCAD either.   But if you're just looking for reasons to bag BricsCAD, this is not a strong argument.

Eric Fredrickson

Damian, yes the most common use for threads involves tapping holes.  I agree that it is not worth the effort to detail a tapped hole or screw thread, a callout to the thread specification is all that is necessary.  We cast parts with external threads that are not just whole threads.  There are flats, slots, irregular shapes,holes, and other features that interrupt the thread.  I need to generate section views through these transitions.  In the 2D environment that we use internally, we have taken the time to draw these as accurately as possible since many of our employees have a difficult enough time reading prints.  The visual aspect of the drawing is important to them, if the drawing doesn't look like the part, they have problems.  I now find myself dealing with outsourcing our product.  The companies we deal with over there expect 3D models, not 2D prints.  Without true thread detail, the model is highly inaccurate and cannot be used.  I have been using Bricscad since version 4 and am very satisfied with it.  Generating a true thread either through the X-hardware or by using a swept profile along the helix is the last thing I need to be able to do what I have been doing in 2D in the 3D environment. Maybe there already is something available to do this, but the helix lisp routines I tried to use could not generate an accurate thread.

Jason Bourhill

Hi Eric,

To create these type of forms I believe you would need the SWEEP command, which has yet to be implemented in BricsCAD. I would hope that it is included in the not too distance future. Until then you can use Konstantin Sakellaris SWEEPX
http://forum.bricsys.com/discussion/17053

You would of course have to generate each thread form you require manually.

I assume if you are casting, then the thread form is relatively coarse. Usually with threads you give a tolerance class, which in turn can dictate the method to machine. From this I would assume that you would have to generate a physical thread form in the model that is inside the accepted tolerance band of the casting method, and also take shrinkage into account. That is quite a special case.

Regards,

Jason Bourhill

CAD Concepts

Eric Fredrickson

Jason, thanks for your input.  Yes, I know how special a case this is and don't expect it would generate updates to Bricscad, except maybe adding the Helix command that AutoCAD has (I don't have access to AutoCAD).  The 2 thread specs we use commonly are 3/4-24UNS-2A and 3/4-27UNS-2A.  These are actually much more fine than what is commonly used.  This is due to the fact that the panel nut used is only 1/8" thick so the thread has to be fine. What I generally do is draw the cavities for the tools, subtract them from a solid generated in the appropriate shape, and then factor in the .6% shrinkage by scaling down the resulting solid.  I have found this to give accurate results.  Our old cavities (40 years old) were made without compensating for the pitch shrink.  Compensation was through reducing the pitch diameter to a lower value.  Newer tools were constructed correctly by increasing the pitch by .6% so the resulting thread is accurate.  If I get an accurate thread, I will scale it up by .6% before subtracting it from the cavity I am generating.  I have downloaded sweepx to try.  I had downloaded a couple of lsp routines to draw the helix needed to sweep the thread profile but they are old routines.  Do you have a recommendation for maybe a newer lsp routine for generating helixes?

Richard Webb

The routine that I use is "HELIX.LSP  8/89  Tony Tanzillo". It's not mine so I won't post it but a web search on that phrase will turn it up pretty quickly.

It could be improved with the addition of error checking and really needs a prefix/suffix to save, turn off, and restore osmode etc. Note that if you don't turn off entity snaps (F3 toggle) then the generated helix can have some unusual wiggles. Also, read the code regarding the SURFTAB1 setting.

That said, it does a pretty nice job.