3D Newbe Help

I agree with Roy. I do a lot in 3D (sometimes just for fun!) and only use constraints on static assemblies when I'm doing something parametric (e.g., this example).

For the most part using ordinary snaps, snap tracking, temporary tracking points, or non-printing construction lines is sufficient. There are other tools available, such as Project Geometry as Jason Bourhill explains here which can really be a big help in some cases.

Strongly recommend browsing through the available tutorials and follow along on your own system.

Personally, I use the mechanical browser only to get the part into the drawing. At that point, it is a special sort of block. Then, I immediately explode it into a Solid, so that I can do things like drill holes in it. So, while I do a lot of work in 3D, I ignore the mechanical features of BricsCAD platinum, except as a parts library to start with.

I started on AutoCAD v10, back in the late 1980's. The basic manual was perhaps 1 1/2" thick, but well written compared to most modern manuals. The benefit of the book approach, is that I literally went through it cover-to-cover. Some parts, I would gloss over, but the process meant that I, at least, knew what was possible, and so would know to go back to that feature and re-read it if I though it might be helpful.

Yes, the video training, and searchable help files are a great, and very helpful, thing that has been added since the Acad v10 days. But in reality, most of the documentation for modern software, including BricsCAD, is not very well done (well at least up to my v14 of BricsCAD). People simply don't spend their money for software based on the user manual, so there is no incentive for vendors to invest in them.

With the demise of the well-written manual from a software vendor, 3rd party books have filled much of that need for the major software packages. I don't know if there is a particularly good book for BricsCAD. Perhaps someone else can provide a recommendation.

-Joe

An automated BOM can simply be done with blocks that have attributes. There is nothing else truly needed. It is important, however, that you fully understand whatever process and program you use. Otherwise, you may think your BOM is complete, when in reality it is not.

The processes used in Mechanical to create a BOM is very different from using blocks with attributes. If you see a list of a mechanical object, nothing in the description will actually tell you anything. That information has to be extracted by a special utility. That is part of the reason I was not motivated to use Mechanical, even though I have Platinum.

-Joe

@Charles Alan Butler said:
As a long time Lisper I can do my own BOM with blocks but was hoping that Parts would do that for me.

First, I think you have been too humble in your messages. I realize now that you are a very experienced CAD user. I am sure the 3D skills will come very quickly for you. Your own insight will be valuable to me. So, please share them here, and describe your own final decision, and why you rejected other approaches.

Looks like parts are not ready yet for prime time but I'll keep digging for now.

Let me emphasize that my experience is only up to version 14. And in reality, I didn't devote much time to it. Some of that was just weakness in the tutorials and the manual, which frustrated me, but may have been significantly improved. So, it is quite possible that the current version, both the manuals and the features are developed enough to make a difference.

I assume you make all your solids into blocks once in their final form & add the BOM info.

In my case, I have been making the models for every production drawing into a block that I used as an X-ref. Many of them were assemblies and weldments, which had their own manually created BOM. It was just too much effort to try to make every piece a block. Part of that is that there was no way to make the length of a piece of metal show up in a property. Also, sometimes I did not use a solid, because a mesh has the ability to allow you to stretch multiple 3D objects. Though, anything with curved surfaces, or holes put into them, are not easy to do as a mesh. I called this "user parametrics" because the user has to know how everything will change length or shape when they use the stretch command. You have to be careful to avoid doing things like stretching a piece of pipe perpendicular to its axis, or you end up with a pipe that is distorted. Years ago I worked at a large theater and used AutoCAD LT, that does not have 3d capability. I used it to design the framework for large mobile set pieces. For the wood flooring and skin, I normally used old-fashioned 2D "solids" (when the work "solid" was used it originally referred to a 3 or 4 vertex area that was filled in with a solid color) However, one of the tricks to make the drawing in 3D, was to give the 2D Solid a thickness. It would extrude to be 3D, even if it was not a 3D solid as we think of it today. An advantage of this was that, if you stretched a piece of wood that was 1/2" thick, it always stayed 1/2" thick, and flat to the plane where it was created.

I share this to emphasize that there are generally many approaches to the way to do a drawing. Sometimes trying to encode everything in the CAD program starts to make things cumbersome. A lot depends on the end goal. Putting in all the constraints to make a model fully parametric takes a lot of time. Also, it can be difficult to predict how a model might be changed in the future, and thus, all your parametric effort may be in vain. If a sheet metal part later gets changed into a stamped piece, or one welded from flat sheets, all your constraints are useless.

It appears that using PARTS to create steel shapes is handy, then explode them to modify as needed.
If that is the method & way I decide to go then Platinum is not needed.

In my case, I do feel that my upgrade to Platinum was unwarranted. Note that once upgrade, you generally have a higher upgrade cost every time you decide to go to a new revision level. So, the increased cost is not just a one-time fee. Though, in BricsCAD's favor, they don't have as much an ongoing increase in upgrade fees as some other CAD vendors.

Do you find Constraints useful in your work?

Very rarely do I find Constraints to be useful, and almost never use them. In past years I was close to being an expert with SolidWorks. There, of course, parametrics are pretty much demanded for everything. But, they also made them a lot easier to use. At least up to v14 of BricsCAD, they were just too cumbersome to use to any extent... at least for my personal situation. This can vary a lot among different users.

-Joe