I just started using SWMotion and this demo has really helped. But seeing that even a VAR finds the behavior inconsistent is kind of troubling. It seems like there are much better/easier ways to deal with this issue. For instance, why not have checkboxes in the analysis tab that lets us activate/deactivate DoF's for a specific mate. I know that this isn't possible in the code right now but that is surely better than trying to figure out what to replace or even ignore.
If you are doing a lot of these types of analyses, you may want to consider a standalone tool that is dedicated to and optimized for performing these studies. Motion Simulation is based on the ADAMS solver but is integrated into the SOLIDWORKS interface. Here is a link to the standalone ADAMS tool: hexagon.com/products/product-groups/computer-aided-engineering-software/adams
Hello sir. How can ı get the contact with you? I need a help about rolling motion animation in solidworks. For example ı want to create sheat metal moving animation on roller with realistic behavior? Thanks in advance.
You can inquire about our support or professional services on our website, fill out the form here www.mlc-cad.com/service-inquiry/ and we'll be happy to discuss your project.
I am a little bit confused between 8.45 and 9.25. In 8.45 min you are saying 5 lb is expected but then in 0.25 min you are saying it is not expected. Could you please clarify?
There is a common error that happens when you have redundant mates that I was trying to recreate as an illustration, but the solver gave me an ACCURATE answer. I WANTED to create an incorrect result to show you what it looks like when the error happens, but it overcame my poor study setup and gave me accurate results instead. -5 lb is the correct and intuitive answer. I was expecting to see an incorrect one but failed into the correct answer.
there a question that crashe me, why the force applyde for the right side should be 10 and the other side should be 0 😢 there is 10 forward to ground so its should 5 for right side and 5 for the left side
I'm not sure I follow your question, is there a specific point in time in the video that you are referring to, or do you have a general question? Let me know more about your question or follow up with your local support provider to discuss your question.
The intended takeaway from this video is that large complex assemblies with many mates that were suitable for modeling and design are not inherently ready for complex kinematic analyses with no additional work. Some redesign on mates and assembly hierarchy and a basic understanding of mate assumptions is helpful in getting fast, accurate results. Using any third-party tool is likely to require the same effort and understanding along with a lot more manual setup, and will still utilize the same underlying equations if it is a similar type of analysis tool.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video!!! Thank you for practice files :)
I just started using SWMotion and this demo has really helped. But seeing that even a VAR finds the behavior inconsistent is kind of troubling. It seems like there are much better/easier ways to deal with this issue. For instance, why not have checkboxes in the analysis tab that lets us activate/deactivate DoF's for a specific mate. I know that this isn't possible in the code right now but that is surely better than trying to figure out what to replace or even ignore.
If you are doing a lot of these types of analyses, you may want to consider a standalone tool that is dedicated to and optimized for performing these studies. Motion Simulation is based on the ADAMS solver but is integrated into the SOLIDWORKS interface. Here is a link to the standalone ADAMS tool: hexagon.com/products/product-groups/computer-aided-engineering-software/adams
Hello sir. How can ı get the contact with you? I need a help about rolling motion animation in solidworks. For example ı want to create sheat metal moving animation on roller with realistic behavior? Thanks in advance.
You can inquire about our support or professional services on our website, fill out the form here www.mlc-cad.com/service-inquiry/ and we'll be happy to discuss your project.
I am a little bit confused between 8.45 and 9.25. In 8.45 min you are saying 5 lb is expected but then in 0.25 min you are saying it is not expected. Could you please clarify?
There is a common error that happens when you have redundant mates that I was trying to recreate as an illustration, but the solver gave me an ACCURATE answer. I WANTED to create an incorrect result to show you what it looks like when the error happens, but it overcame my poor study setup and gave me accurate results instead.
-5 lb is the correct and intuitive answer. I was expecting to see an incorrect one but failed into the correct answer.
That's nice can we have practice files ?? Thank you awaiting to your kind reply
Some of the files used in these videos are for demonstration only, not for distribution. I will check on this file to see if it can be shared.
@@MLCCADSystems if it is shared we will be really grateful to you
A link to the files was added to the description of the video, here you go! bit.ly/34hiUKg
@@MLCCADSystems thank you so much
there a question that crashe me, why the force applyde for the right side should be 10 and the other side should be 0 😢 there is 10 forward to ground so its should 5 for right side and 5 for the left side
I'm not sure I follow your question, is there a specific point in time in the video that you are referring to, or do you have a general question? Let me know more about your question or follow up with your local support provider to discuss your question.
@@MLCCADSystems on 9:25 you said it not supposed to happen, it supposed to be 10 for the first dide and 0 for the second one, why?
Can we conclude from this that Solidworks is bad at motion analysis and to use something else like Ansys?
The intended takeaway from this video is that large complex assemblies with many mates that were suitable for modeling and design are not inherently ready for complex kinematic analyses with no additional work. Some redesign on mates and assembly hierarchy and a basic understanding of mate assumptions is helpful in getting fast, accurate results. Using any third-party tool is likely to require the same effort and understanding along with a lot more manual setup, and will still utilize the same underlying equations if it is a similar type of analysis tool.