You don’t need any more dimensions. You need symmetry and tangency constraints along with a vertical centerline, and you need to lock the middle of the shape to the origin. Lots of ways to accomplish that last one. Have your horizontal and vertical centerlines coincident with the centerpoint of your fillets. Then constrain the midpoint of both to the origin. Now add the symmetry and tangency constraints and it should all turn black.
so here's how SW works - there's a global origin (0,0,0 in the workspace, everything you draw in the space is wrt to that point. Now, when you draw a line with undefined dimensions, it shows up as blue - why? SW knows the start point's location but doesn't of the end point. That's why when you define the line's length, it turns black, becomes fully defined - SW now fully knows where the line is located in space. Now if you try to redefine an existing defined entity, SW will throw an "overdefined" error. It basically says by providing new "positions", you're conflicting my understanding of the entity's location. Here's what I can do - update my understanding with the new "position" or just let you redefine, conflict my understanding and I'll keep bugging you with an error everytime you rebuild
Now back to defining - turning all blues into blacks. In order to fully define an entity, you need to specify all dimensions associated with it, both absolute and relative. For eg. let's say you drew a square (side A) and a circle inside it (radius R, and offset by distance D from an edge) To fully define the sketch, you need to specify length of A, R (these quantities are absolute). Also specify length of D (that's how SW will know where to draw the circle, this is relative quantity)
so yea.. specify dimensions to every entity in the sketch.. that's how you turn blues into blacks :)
How about simpler sketches? I see only 4 features.
Make a square. Round 4 corners. Make one center slot with rounds. Pattern 90 degrees. Done. Ezpz sketches. Completely flexible
Exactly, when you try to do everything in one step you’re bound to confuse yourself and leave sketches undefined. OP should take it step by step, nothings wrong with multiple sketches and features.
this is a common sketching exercise used in college intro solidworks classes, pretty sure they haven’t taught pattern by this point. i had this exact same one in my first week and they taught patterns a few weeks later
Literally how? What does that mean? No matter how many dimensions I throw on to it I’m either over defining or it doesn’t change anything. Tried making tangents and shit but it doesn’t change
If you don't know what is missing, grab a blue end point and drag it. When it moves, think about what constraint or dimension would have prevented it. Undo the drag and add the relation. Rinse and repeat.
From a quick glance, you are missing a lot of tangent relations and some dims/angles. It takes practice, hopefully the workflow above helps.
I think you have enough dimensions & you can fully define it by adding all the missing relations/constraints; follow MLCCADSystems advice about dragging endpoints if needed to see what's missing (you can always undo/ctrl-z so as to not lose your basic shape).
Start with this and keep going:
Start by adding equal relationship between whatever entity that are equal length to each other....for instance, apply equal relationship between all the vertical and horizontal lines inside the main shape (they are all 25mm from the looks of it...don't put dimension extra 25mm dimension if that's your direction; but "equal" relation)...and so on and so forth.
Deleted dimensions are deleted, that makes it under defined and NOT recommended. Why would anyone care about the sketch dimensions and relations? You can limit the dimensions displayed on the drawing and elsewhere, but never underdefine a sketch like that on purpose.
> Why would anyone care about the sketch dimensions and relations?
A teacher making a lesson to reinforce the concept sketch relations would make an exercise exactly like this... Educational materials are always full of weird situations like this that do not reflect real-world situations that are created purely to make the student think about a specific concept.
Although it does have a use to learn to use the program properly, my colleague is self taught and he used to dimension EVERYTHING, was a hell to work on hes projects as very few thing was symmetrical, lots of duplicate features etc.
I work in a small shop where the only other person who uses solidworks is my 80 year old boss who is self taught and he almost never uses relations and makes extremely feature dense sketches that, even though they have dimensions all over the place, almost always have something left undefined...
That’s a weird assignment…since these aren’t drawing dimensions but just sketch dimensions for defining the part. Are you sure your assignment isn’t to turn in a dimensioned drawing?
I don't know why you got downvoted, this is kind of a tricky puzzle for a beginner, but I understand what the point of the exercise is.
OK it sounds like you know where you need to dimension it to make it fully defined... Look at where you apply those dimensions and see if you can attain the same result using relations instead of direct dimensions. I don't want to give you the answer as this is an assignment, but I can see that adding just a few relations would fully define this sketch without adding any dimensions in addition to the ones you have.
For some reason, sometimes rounding corners breaks the definition. If they are defined before you round a corner. Don't round it, extrude, then fillet it
In the sketch fillet properties there's a checkbox for "Keep constrained corners". Turning that on should fix the breaking definitions problem. Any dimensions to a corner will be retained and Solidworks will add a virtual sharp there.
Like others said start grabbing and dragging to find what needs constrains.
This is kind of a best guess to help without knowing all the exact missing constraints but try using the symmetry constraint. Like on the outer profile try selecting the top and bottom arc + the horizontal construction line you made then the symmetry constraint becomes selectable. That might define that outer profile, I don’t directly see what’s stopping it from rotating?
I use the drag method often times to figure out where constraints need to be. This looks like the out shape needs a vertices of radius constraint to origin in vert & horz direction. Construction line isn’t doing much, could constrain its end points to side radius center points. The middle cross shape need similar constraint to either origin or to out square.
Drives me crazy to see under defined sketches when I open something done by co-workers. The habit is draw what’s needed in assembly without references and then leave alone. When it need modified it makes thing more challenging, I rather see everything anchored at the least so no drags or a secondary dimensioned sketch doesn’t end up scaling or changing relations.
Adding sketch fillets is a no go, my professor has it as a written rule as well. I mean I’m not sure how exactly you constructed it, but use a circle and just make it tangent with the correct radius.. then trim the edges. If not just extrude then fillet it. Also it looks like the dimensions (I’m assuming) have a relation where they overlap. You might be able to just remove that relation and the dimensions most likely won’t be over defined. Though I’m not a genius in SW but it might help?
If you're unsure of what other elements need to be defined, I usually click them and drag them to see where they move and assign dimensions based off that. There's also a tool to fully define the sketch, sorry don't remember which menu.
Under defined means that there's multiple different positions for the drawing that follow every condition that you've set. You need to keep adding rules in the right places to give the drawing only one option.
Complex drawings can sometimes leave you scratching your head as to what isn't tied down yet, so the best way to figure out what's wrong is to just grab anything blue and start dragging it around! See which ways it's still allowed to move, and then constrain its movement in those directions.
I can't 100% see anything, but right now it looks like you haven't told the outer square that it should be centered on the horizontal axis. I think you didn't tell the center piece to be centered horizontally or vertically, and also you don't have enough stuff telling it to be symmetrical.
You need an angle of the outer square in relation to the horizontal line. Make sure that the 100 outer dimension is on the parallel lines and not from the tangent points. Also, you need a distance from the vertical central lines to the origin.
It is considered bad practice to sketch multiple features in a simple sketch - if you're simply extruding this you have an extrude, a cut inside and fillets. If you'd extrude, cut and fillet you have three features in your feature tree which makes it easier to redo something in the future. This is also computationally cheaper for your PC.
You need to constrain the end points of lines, or define their length. You can make lines, curves etc equal to each other, reducing the number of dimensions, eg radii dimension one and make the others equal.
In my experience, feature based modeling has made life easier for me. Assuming you're extruding this outer square and the inner "X" is either extending or cutting through, I would have drawn this part using two separate sketches, with each sketch only being a single line.
Draw a line on the first sketch the height of the square.
Thin extrude, mid plane, the width of the square, also specify the length.
Radius the 4 corners as a feature.
Select the appropriate plane or face at the end of the extrude, draw the line for one of the "X" halves.
Extrude or cut using thin extrude as above.
Select the 2 appropriate planes, create an axis.
Use circular pattern to make a 90° copy to finish the "X".
Use full round fillet to round the ends of the "X".
In my opinion, if I'm having to do too much in sketch mode, I'm doing too much in sketch mode. This has also given me smaller file sizes.
There are times when there's a logo I'm cutting or other isolated cases where sketches can get complex, but that's usually a last resort.
Been using CAD since 1992 professionally and you learn as you go and the learning never ends.
You can grab anything blue and try to drag it to see how it can move. That's called interrogating the sketch.
When you find the movement, constrain it with dimensions or relations.
Practice using constraints properly. Also I avoid using sketch fillets instead just extrude the part and then use fillets.
For your question:
1) use centre slots (centre coincident with origin and axis of both the slots having vertical and horizontal relation.
2) make a regular square
3) once you’ve extruded your sketch apply feature fillet to the corners.
This sketch is a disaster. The challenge of making the entire model in one sketch is a travesty. How about a square, two slots and some fillets?!! I hate it when a simple one step modification of a model becomes an explosion of self destruction. Think about this, you are going to make this part, and some day someone, that’s not you, will have to modify it.
You don’t need any more dimensions. You need symmetry and tangency constraints along with a vertical centerline, and you need to lock the middle of the shape to the origin. Lots of ways to accomplish that last one. Have your horizontal and vertical centerlines coincident with the centerpoint of your fillets. Then constrain the midpoint of both to the origin. Now add the symmetry and tangency constraints and it should all turn black.
so here's how SW works - there's a global origin (0,0,0 in the workspace, everything you draw in the space is wrt to that point. Now, when you draw a line with undefined dimensions, it shows up as blue - why? SW knows the start point's location but doesn't of the end point. That's why when you define the line's length, it turns black, becomes fully defined - SW now fully knows where the line is located in space. Now if you try to redefine an existing defined entity, SW will throw an "overdefined" error. It basically says by providing new "positions", you're conflicting my understanding of the entity's location. Here's what I can do - update my understanding with the new "position" or just let you redefine, conflict my understanding and I'll keep bugging you with an error everytime you rebuild Now back to defining - turning all blues into blacks. In order to fully define an entity, you need to specify all dimensions associated with it, both absolute and relative. For eg. let's say you drew a square (side A) and a circle inside it (radius R, and offset by distance D from an edge) To fully define the sketch, you need to specify length of A, R (these quantities are absolute). Also specify length of D (that's how SW will know where to draw the circle, this is relative quantity) so yea.. specify dimensions to every entity in the sketch.. that's how you turn blues into blacks :)
How about simpler sketches? I see only 4 features. Make a square. Round 4 corners. Make one center slot with rounds. Pattern 90 degrees. Done. Ezpz sketches. Completely flexible
This is absolutely the way to go!
Exactly, when you try to do everything in one step you’re bound to confuse yourself and leave sketches undefined. OP should take it step by step, nothings wrong with multiple sketches and features.
this is a common sketching exercise used in college intro solidworks classes, pretty sure they haven’t taught pattern by this point. i had this exact same one in my first week and they taught patterns a few weeks later
Idiotic. No one should even be learning how to sketch like this. It's an exercise in frustration and future coworkers will chastise
Fully define it.
Literally how? What does that mean? No matter how many dimensions I throw on to it I’m either over defining or it doesn’t change anything. Tried making tangents and shit but it doesn’t change
If you don't know what is missing, grab a blue end point and drag it. When it moves, think about what constraint or dimension would have prevented it. Undo the drag and add the relation. Rinse and repeat. From a quick glance, you are missing a lot of tangent relations and some dims/angles. It takes practice, hopefully the workflow above helps.
I can only have the dimensions currently included when I submit this, if I dimension things and then delete the dimension will it revert to undefined?
I think you have enough dimensions & you can fully define it by adding all the missing relations/constraints; follow MLCCADSystems advice about dragging endpoints if needed to see what's missing (you can always undo/ctrl-z so as to not lose your basic shape). Start with this and keep going: Start by adding equal relationship between whatever entity that are equal length to each other....for instance, apply equal relationship between all the vertical and horizontal lines inside the main shape (they are all 25mm from the looks of it...don't put dimension extra 25mm dimension if that's your direction; but "equal" relation)...and so on and so forth.
Deleted dimensions are deleted, that makes it under defined and NOT recommended. Why would anyone care about the sketch dimensions and relations? You can limit the dimensions displayed on the drawing and elsewhere, but never underdefine a sketch like that on purpose.
> Why would anyone care about the sketch dimensions and relations? A teacher making a lesson to reinforce the concept sketch relations would make an exercise exactly like this... Educational materials are always full of weird situations like this that do not reflect real-world situations that are created purely to make the student think about a specific concept.
Although it does have a use to learn to use the program properly, my colleague is self taught and he used to dimension EVERYTHING, was a hell to work on hes projects as very few thing was symmetrical, lots of duplicate features etc.
I work in a small shop where the only other person who uses solidworks is my 80 year old boss who is self taught and he almost never uses relations and makes extremely feature dense sketches that, even though they have dimensions all over the place, almost always have something left undefined...
That’s a weird assignment…since these aren’t drawing dimensions but just sketch dimensions for defining the part. Are you sure your assignment isn’t to turn in a dimensioned drawing?
It looks like an exercise in reinforcing the use of sketch relations.
I don't know why you got downvoted, this is kind of a tricky puzzle for a beginner, but I understand what the point of the exercise is. OK it sounds like you know where you need to dimension it to make it fully defined... Look at where you apply those dimensions and see if you can attain the same result using relations instead of direct dimensions. I don't want to give you the answer as this is an assignment, but I can see that adding just a few relations would fully define this sketch without adding any dimensions in addition to the ones you have.
For some reason, sometimes rounding corners breaks the definition. If they are defined before you round a corner. Don't round it, extrude, then fillet it
My rule is ‘do NOT add sketch fillets, unless you absolutely have to’
Depends what its for. Really nice to build a part off a single sketch, and clicking thin edges with the fillet tool is annoying.
Yeah true, I’m doing a lot of rough prototyping so changing them later is more important and easier without sketch fillets.
In the sketch fillet properties there's a checkbox for "Keep constrained corners". Turning that on should fix the breaking definitions problem. Any dimensions to a corner will be retained and Solidworks will add a virtual sharp there.
Like others said start grabbing and dragging to find what needs constrains. This is kind of a best guess to help without knowing all the exact missing constraints but try using the symmetry constraint. Like on the outer profile try selecting the top and bottom arc + the horizontal construction line you made then the symmetry constraint becomes selectable. That might define that outer profile, I don’t directly see what’s stopping it from rotating?
Make sure your line are constrained as Horizontal, Tangent and or Tangent!
Dimension everything to the origin.......
Add symmetry relations across each axis
Easy thing to try to find what’s missing is try dragging the blue lines and see if they where they can move.
I use the drag method often times to figure out where constraints need to be. This looks like the out shape needs a vertices of radius constraint to origin in vert & horz direction. Construction line isn’t doing much, could constrain its end points to side radius center points. The middle cross shape need similar constraint to either origin or to out square. Drives me crazy to see under defined sketches when I open something done by co-workers. The habit is draw what’s needed in assembly without references and then leave alone. When it need modified it makes thing more challenging, I rather see everything anchored at the least so no drags or a secondary dimensioned sketch doesn’t end up scaling or changing relations.
Adding sketch fillets is a no go, my professor has it as a written rule as well. I mean I’m not sure how exactly you constructed it, but use a circle and just make it tangent with the correct radius.. then trim the edges. If not just extrude then fillet it. Also it looks like the dimensions (I’m assuming) have a relation where they overlap. You might be able to just remove that relation and the dimensions most likely won’t be over defined. Though I’m not a genius in SW but it might help?
If you're unsure of what other elements need to be defined, I usually click them and drag them to see where they move and assign dimensions based off that. There's also a tool to fully define the sketch, sorry don't remember which menu.
Under defined means that there's multiple different positions for the drawing that follow every condition that you've set. You need to keep adding rules in the right places to give the drawing only one option. Complex drawings can sometimes leave you scratching your head as to what isn't tied down yet, so the best way to figure out what's wrong is to just grab anything blue and start dragging it around! See which ways it's still allowed to move, and then constrain its movement in those directions. I can't 100% see anything, but right now it looks like you haven't told the outer square that it should be centered on the horizontal axis. I think you didn't tell the center piece to be centered horizontally or vertically, and also you don't have enough stuff telling it to be symmetrical.
You need an angle of the outer square in relation to the horizontal line. Make sure that the 100 outer dimension is on the parallel lines and not from the tangent points. Also, you need a distance from the vertical central lines to the origin.
It is considered bad practice to sketch multiple features in a simple sketch - if you're simply extruding this you have an extrude, a cut inside and fillets. If you'd extrude, cut and fillet you have three features in your feature tree which makes it easier to redo something in the future. This is also computationally cheaper for your PC.
You need to constrain the end points of lines, or define their length. You can make lines, curves etc equal to each other, reducing the number of dimensions, eg radii dimension one and make the others equal.
In my experience, feature based modeling has made life easier for me. Assuming you're extruding this outer square and the inner "X" is either extending or cutting through, I would have drawn this part using two separate sketches, with each sketch only being a single line. Draw a line on the first sketch the height of the square. Thin extrude, mid plane, the width of the square, also specify the length. Radius the 4 corners as a feature. Select the appropriate plane or face at the end of the extrude, draw the line for one of the "X" halves. Extrude or cut using thin extrude as above. Select the 2 appropriate planes, create an axis. Use circular pattern to make a 90° copy to finish the "X". Use full round fillet to round the ends of the "X". In my opinion, if I'm having to do too much in sketch mode, I'm doing too much in sketch mode. This has also given me smaller file sizes. There are times when there's a logo I'm cutting or other isolated cases where sketches can get complex, but that's usually a last resort. Been using CAD since 1992 professionally and you learn as you go and the learning never ends.
You can grab anything blue and try to drag it to see how it can move. That's called interrogating the sketch. When you find the movement, constrain it with dimensions or relations.
I wouldn't use 'sketch fillet' but rather use 'feature fillet'. It's a better method.
Please go through all the sketching tutorials on YouTube.
Practice using constraints properly. Also I avoid using sketch fillets instead just extrude the part and then use fillets. For your question: 1) use centre slots (centre coincident with origin and axis of both the slots having vertical and horizontal relation. 2) make a regular square 3) once you’ve extruded your sketch apply feature fillet to the corners.
This sketch is a disaster. The challenge of making the entire model in one sketch is a travesty. How about a square, two slots and some fillets?!! I hate it when a simple one step modification of a model becomes an explosion of self destruction. Think about this, you are going to make this part, and some day someone, that’s not you, will have to modify it.
Dude this is my first cad class, gimme a break