Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Solidworks

  1. #11
    John McGinnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kalispell, MT
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Cory Puuri View Post
    I had read/heard that Cirrus, Synergy, Sonex, Zenith and Sam have all been designed in SolidWorks. Any designers from those companies on this forum?
    Cory, 100% of Synergy was designed in SolidWorks. Tens of thousands of part files were required to do the job, not because of complexity/part count, but because of the way complexity grows exponentially over time and with scale.

    Knowing this up front helps; for example, we made the decision to keep all master files in the oldest possible format, not allowing them to be replaced with later versions by opening/saving them in newer releases of the software. Once migrated, there's no going back and that can cause huge unexpected pain.

    Presently we design and develop airframes, parts, and systems for numerous clients as well. Anyone wanting to gain performance, efficiency, or just go faster is welcome to reach out.

    Enjoy your learning curve!

    John

    Name:  synergy_bjet.jpg
Views: 1638
Size:  11.9 KBName:  Edge540.JPG
Views: 1699
Size:  51.1 KBName:  IMG_0229.jpg
Views: 1660
Size:  81.6 KB
    John McGinnis
    CEO Synergy Aircraft

  2. #12
    SOLIDWORKS Support Volunteer Jeffrey Meyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    209
    Great, beautiful stuff. John.

    Without wishing to appear prying, a few questions:

    1. In what version of SW are your master files stored?

    2, I fully appreciate (and endorse) your policy of keeping your master files in the oldest possible format because SW is not "backwards compatible". But at some stage you will probably want to use the newer functionality of the later versions. My question: What is your policy in this regard?

    3. I assume your answer to the above is that for newer projects you will use newer versions of SW. But then how do deal with the problem of running two (or more) versions of SW on your network?

    4. The screen shots you posted seem to be CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) results. If so what CFD software do you use? I'm asking because in my experience running a CFD analysis on a whole aircraft requires horrendous computational resources in order to get any meaningful results (if at all!) in any reasonable time. For example, a rough simulation of the propeller alone is a major operation.

    Jeffrey

  3. #13
    John McGinnis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kalispell, MT
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Meyer View Post
    Great, beautiful stuff. John.

    Without wishing to appear prying, a few questions:

    1. In what version of SW are your master files stored?

    2, I fully appreciate (and endorse) your policy of keeping your master files in the oldest possible format because SW is not "backwards compatible". But at some stage you will probably want to use the newer functionality of the later versions. My question: What is your policy in this regard?

    3. I assume your answer to the above is that for newer projects you will use newer versions of SW. But then how do deal with the problem of running two (or more) versions of SW on your network?

    4. The screen shots you posted seem to be CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) results. If so what CFD software do you use? I'm asking because in my experience running a CFD analysis on a whole aircraft requires horrendous computational resources in order to get any meaningful results (if at all!) in any reasonable time. For example, a rough simulation of the propeller alone is a major operation.

    Jeffrey
    Thanks Jeffrey. As a licensed user with multiple seats I have run every version of SolidWorks since 1996, and without being too specific, (1) froze the software date with the first Synergy release candidate. I did subsequently use newer versions (not much, because the primary required utility has been adequate for a long time), mostly to collaborate with outside contractors and volunteering engineers. I'm currently subscribed and running 2015 and 2016.

    My policy (2) is to utilize the master software for all master files and assemblies. Once final, they are exported as dumb bodies so they can be used in any subsequent operation on any version without possible migration back to an unapproved state. Similar final parts are brought into the older software for assembly as required.

    200,000 parts ago I'd have joined the chorus regarding not limiting future bi-directional, updateable, interdependent, or top-down design intelligence by such caveman methods, but with 20+ years of will-CAD-to-eat experience comes a certain skill with the flint.

    No problem with multiple versions on the network as we exclusively use standalone software. (3)

    4. The image above is a Solidworks rendering combined with a CFD rendering in which the aircraft itself was hidden. We have the "horrendous computational resources" and proprietary algorithms required to run entire aircraft with moving parts and complex geometries in a (?) reasonable (?) time... (you know, like lofting in SolidWorks, way back in the day ;-)

    You're absolutely right about the challenges and significance of wielding such powers of analysis, but our system is two orders of magnitude more advanced in terms of time to accuracy. Now that we're mostly done creating it, others can avail themselves of the resource we spun off: mvAero Since Oshkosh we've been busily cranking out such things for other clients.
    John McGinnis
    CEO Synergy Aircraft

  4. #14
    SOLIDWORKS Support Volunteer Jeffrey Meyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    209
    John, salt of the earth

    I'm somewhat familiar with these issues because I've been using and developing CAD/CAM software (in FORTRAN) since the 70's and 80's. But there's and old saying that says "don't make it if you can buy it", so I've been using SW for as long as I can remember. SW is very easy to learn and it's certainly adequate for every day use by EAA members. The more specialized stuff like your applications need specialized software. The small yearly incremental increases in functionality in SW are not usually worth the high subscription prices, and are highly unlikely to provide extensive solutions for your specialized needs.
    Good to know that we can turn to guys like you for the special projects.

    Jeffrey

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •