engine design v8

[LeoVenuti93]

Hello everyone, I am a mechanical engineering student and I have to face a cad exam with solid edge, unfortunately online there are not many tutorials and I started with a simplified project of the v8 engine, drawn by solidworks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvile1ng63kI have performed all the components of the tutorial, and at the time of assembly I can not well and intuitively mount the various components. my first question is whether it is wrong to model in synchronous and in order and to compose a set with components deriving from the two different types of processing. the second question: why is assembly simple and intuitive in solidworks?

thanks in advance!
cordial greetings

 

[marcof]

Hello everyone, I am a mechanical engineering student and I have to face a cad exam with solid edge, unfortunately online there are not many tutorials and I started with a simplified project of the v8 engine, drawn by solidworks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvile1ng63kI have performed all the components of the tutorial, and at the time of assembly I can not well and intuitively mount the various components. my first question is (cut)
the second question: why is assembly simple and intuitive in solidworks?

Agreed that all the roads lead to roma, but eye not to circumnavigate the land... :smile:
I feel like making sure that if you follow a solidworks tutorial working on solidedge you will find the latter less simple and intuitive, because if the assembly procedures will be different enough to make them less intuitive since you have solidworks procedures in mind.
of course it is worth the exact opposite speech.

 

[LeoVenuti93]

Agreed that all the roads lead to roma, but eye not to circumnavigate the land... :smile:
I feel like making sure that if you follow a solidworks tutorial working on solidedge you will find the latter less simple and intuitive, because if the assembly procedures will be different enough to make them less intuitive since you have solidworks procedures in mind.
of course it is worth the exact opposite speech.

Certainly without doubt, I still can't assemble the components I don't know what it depends on, even because I did exactly the procedures in the tutorial.

 

[marcof]

Certainly without doubt, I still can't assemble the components I don't know what it depends on, even because I did exactly the procedures in the tutorial.

and vabbè, let's understand that you work with solidedge while the tutorial you follow is solidworks but we don't even neglect that "I can't assemble..." doesn't tell us what the difficulties you encounter (errori, you don't understand, it doesn't work the bond, it doesn't take the command etc.)
Come on, you're working for the thesis, try to be precise and rigorous, even when you come here to ask for advice, otherwise we have to resort to the usual crystal bowl to understand what you really need.

Let's see if I get close.
I don't have time to look at me an hour and pass toturial, but if you can't assemble two components and assume that you know how the assembly environment works, I have to assume that you're signaled errors like a mating overdoses the assemblies etc. I can therefore assume that you have shaped the parts individually and that their dimensions are incompatible for a proper assembly. for example a longer tree of the locations you shaped in the base, two faces of the non-orthogonal part that must coincide with two other orthogonal faces in part b, etc., etc.

but these are hypotheses because you haven't told us what it means" I can't assemble the components"

 

[LeoVenuti93]

and vabbè, let's understand that you work with solidedge while the tutorial you follow is solidworks but we don't even neglect that "I can't assemble..." doesn't tell us what the difficulties you encounter (errori, you don't understand, it doesn't work the bond, it doesn't take the command etc.)
Come on, you're working for the thesis, try to be precise and rigorous, even when you come here to ask for advice, otherwise we have to resort to the usual crystal bowl to understand what you really need.

Let's see if I get close.
I don't have time to look at me an hour and pass toturial, but if you can't assemble two components and assume that you know how the assembly environment works, I have to assume that you're signaled errors like a mating overdoses the assemblies etc. I can therefore assume that you have shaped the parts individually and that their dimensions are incompatible for a proper assembly. for example a longer tree of the locations you shaped in the base, two faces of the non-orthogonal part that must coincide with two other orthogonal faces in part b, etc., etc.

but these are hypotheses because you haven't told us what it means" I can't assemble the components"

the dimensions are correct because I have checked them several times, the first " mistake" or however the first difficulty is the one encountered in the insertion of the pin in the biella, with axial alignment pin and biella aligned but the pin was not symmetric towards the hole... I circumvented the problem by moving the coordinates of the baricentro of the pin (rodimental thing, for a modern instrument like solid edge, I think there is another in solidworks the pistons/belts are rotated simultaneously and aligned together. That's how I stay.

 

[Be_on_edge]

I suggest you follow some tutorials on how to assemble the pieces in solid edge.

and above all not to follow a tutorial simply by pressing the buttons, each single action should be understood otherwise you will not learn anything.

 

[LeoVenuti93]

I suggest you follow some tutorials on how to assemble the pieces in solid edge.

and above all not to follow a tutorial simply by pressing the buttons, each single action should be understood otherwise you will not learn anything.

I have seen some tutorials, I should have solved for now, however coming from rhinoceros, solid edge seems more difficult and less intuitive....in rhinoceros to rotate any object there is the wheel command in solid edge...transcina or move it intuitively does not correspond to a rotation... now I have seen that there is also the component wheel option!

 

[marcof]

I have seen some tutorials, I should have solved for now, however coming from rhinoceros, solid edge seems more difficult and less intuitive....in rhinoceros to rotate any object there is the wheel command

It has nothing to do with a cad as if or swx so forget it. I repeat: do the tutorials of the program, not those youtube that could also serve to model a complete 747 but do not serve to understand the logic of the program.
to understand the logic of the porgram you study the individual functions, try them and understand how they work. when I started with swx, in 2000, I did for two weeks only the tutorials and tried for the sketch environment, parts, and together the various main commands to understand Good what they needed, what options they had. after I started working immediately, without official courses and without wasting time. after six months I had an intensive day with the dealer only for top-down modeling together, to find out that 95% of what explained me already knew.
if sudden too much starting immediately with elaborate projects are guaranteed frustrations.

in solid edge...translating or moving and intuitively does not correspond to a rotation... now I have seen that there is also the component wheel option!

I'm ready to bet the one you think the comado rotates when you make the assembly you don't need anything. while assembling the composted by the constraints in the right succession and leaving the degrees of freedom they serve. at that point you transpose any component of those furniture and everything moves as in reality.

 

[marcof]

the dimensions are correct because I have checked them several times, the first " mistake" or however the first difficulty is that encountered in the insertion of the pin in the biella, with axial alignment pin and biella aligned but the pin was not symmetric towards the hole... I have circumvented the problem by moving the coordinates of the baricentro of the pin (rodimental thing, for a modern instrument like solid edge, I think there is

move the coordinates to mount a component is not rudimentary, it is barbaric :smile:. if your component is symmetrically shaped than the main planes, those you need to define some constraints symmetrically. if it's not modeled like that... refractive, even if you could use other geometry created specifically to symmetrical a cylinder inserted into another. You need to know memory what constraints you have in the program, then looking at your component you know immediately if you miss the reference geometry.

Another problem is that in the photo, in solidworks the pistons/bielles are rotated simultaneously and aligned together. That's how I stay.

also in swx you can flip a component, so you can decide to reverse the orientation of a coincidence between faces, coaxiality, concentricity etc. have you looked at the options of the constraints that you enter via?

 

[MOCE]

Hi.

as you have already been told do the program tutorials you use, because which user of both I can assure you that although extrusions, holes, pockets, revolutions, etc. they make them equally both; the dynamic with which each command is executed changes deeply from if to sw especially if in the first one uses the synchronous environment. I already use them 8 hours a day every now and then impallo me by making confusion between what I can do in an environment and what in the other I do not dare to imagine who has to learn from scratch with a tutorial of another program.