Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
DCG Project 2013
Comments
-
-
-
What does the brief mean by "rendered pictorial"?
It means the Solidworks assembly with the colour/appearance added in, when doing the drawings you can change it so that the appearance is there on the drawing.
That's what it means by rendered, then you just use an isometric view (or more than one on the same sheet, for example the front and back of the lectern) for the pictorial part
Not to be confused with the photorealistic views, which are separate to the drawing sheets.0 -
Thanks, so it just goes on the same sheet as the orthographic views? My teacher seems to think that it means you open up your solidworks assembly, save it as a jpeg and use that, however looking at examples of old projects, I don't see that occuring at all.It means the Solidworks assembly with the colour/appearance added in, when doing the drawings you can change it so that the appearance is there on the drawing.
That's what it means by rendered, then you just use an isometric view (or more than one on the same sheet, for example the front and back of the lectern) for the pictorial part
Not to be confused with the photorealistic views, which are separate to the drawing sheets.0 -
-
-
-
-
Starting output 1.... Ohhh b*llox!
All solidworks finished, photorealistic done, eDrawings done, Exploded and normal assemblies done
Must do working drawing, sketches and re-do all the outputs due to a friend having looked at my project. DCG teacher had said it was good but apparently the fella that took a look at mine said my outputs would get about 30% of the possible marks
Felt like crying haha Shall be working flat out for the next week so!! 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
eoinryan8975 wrote: »oh jesus, how long did it take and what did you call them ?
If you open up your assembly and name them from the design tree by expanding all the individual parts and save the whole thing together shouldn't take more than 7 or 8 mins... if you open every part seperately then it will probably take nearly 20 mins.
Depends on how many parts you have though obviously. I had 15 in part A and 26 in part B but usually they only had about 4 or 5 features each
EDIT: Could be wrong about naming them from design tree BTW. I named mine by opening each part seperatley so confirm it with someone before hand. Wouldn't like to break your project on you like :P0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Found This Fork Sir wrote: »
I envy you! I wish I started seriously working earlier.
You'll get there
Same thing happened to guy in my class yesterday, he has to all part B!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Eurovisionmad wrote: »looking back on my concept design I probably bit off more than I could chew, it had over 15 parts,
Don't mean to toot my own horn but mine had just shy of 30 :P 4 of them were only cuboids with a domed top and connections as they were only lights but I still like the thought of having 30 parts
My assembly says I have 83 parts and 250 mates :L Exploding it was a c*** tho! Took ages to build so for someone starting now I'd say have 5 parts and make them look alright. Make sure you base it on a theme or target audience. Just stick to the guidelines on the paper and you'll be grand. DO NOT do sketches in school until you finish you solidworks. Do the outputs and sketching at home until you finish the solidworks because you need to use your time wisely. Pick up as many parts as possible. Don't forget to explore the brief either!! It's easy and worth a few marks so take them quick 0 -
Lawless2k12 wrote: »
Don't mean to toot my own horn but mine had just shy of 30 :P 4 of them were only cuboids with a domed top and connections as they were only lights but I still like the thought of having 30 parts My assembly says I have 83 parts and 250 mates :L Exploding it was a c*** tho! Took ages to build so for someone starting now I'd say have 5 parts and make them look alright. Make sure you base it on a theme or target audience. Just stick to the guidelines on the paper and you'll be grand. DO NOT do sketches in school until you finish you solidworks. Do the outputs and sketching at home until you finish the solidworks because you need to use your time wisely. Pick up as many parts as possible. Don't forget to explore the brief either!! It's easy and worth a few marks so take them quick
why would you do so may parts. part b can all be one part it makes no odds. no minimum amount for part b so no point doing a million parts to impress your peers. You'll only lose marks on efficiency because lets face it what concept design can justify that many parts. I wouldn't manufacture it all im sayin0 -
-
-
-
Lawless2k12 wrote: »I made a novelty lectern so added extras and parts were necessary. You can't really make a steel casing with a speaker all in one part as that's not really realistic. Lights all need to be different parts, screens are different, wheels and bolts and nuts and microphones and steps and head pivots and manouevering stands are all different parts so yeah... that's why mate. When you think about it, most lecterns in real life that are equipped with multimedia features have dozens are seperate parts that must be made in manufacture
alright "mate". As it happens this question has come up a dozen times already. For the concept design in particular, you need not worry about specifics and interior realism, more communicating the actual idea effectively so extrudes here and there, and not separate parts is advisable. There is a reason the minimum for part a is 5. It's a minimum, yes, but also a guideline, no point in allowing students design a multimedia lectern and then allocate a separate part to each individual key on a keyboard is there? that would be ridiculous but that is the logic you have used for this argument so interesting to hear you defend it. 0 -
JackTheGrinder wrote: »alright "mate". As it happens this question has come up a dozen times already. For the concept design in particular, you need not worry about specifics and interior realism, more communicating the actual idea effectively so extrudes here and there, and not separate parts is advisable. There is a reason the minimum for part a is 5. It's a minimum, yes, but also a guideline, no point in allowing students design a multimedia lectern and then allocate a separate part to each individual key on a keyboard is there? that would be ridiculous but that is the logic you have used for this argument so interesting to hear you defend it.
Slagging my words now ay?
And I obviously don't mean every key on a keyboard.
My design is a vehicle... vehicles tend to have many parts. If I was stuck for time I'd make 5 or 6 basic parts and do a somewhat quick job on it but I had plenty time so I decided to make it a bit more complex and make bumpers seperately and make the tyres seperate, axles, lights, mic, alloys, speakers, bolts, nuts, grill etc..
So the logic you assumed I used is not exactly true
I also had a friend and corrector take a look and he said my design is way up there as regards quality and detail due to the effort made so me thinks my point is well made. Obviously someone with less parts can score just as well but as I said I had plenty time so I used it!
Thank you, come again 0 -
Advertisement
-
Lawless2k12 wrote: »Slagging my words now ay?
And I obviously don't mean every key on a keyboard.
My design is a vehicle... vehicles tend to have many parts. If I was stuck for time I'd make 5 or 6 basic parts and do a somewhat quick job on it but I had plenty time so I decided to make it a bit more complex and make bumpers seperately and make the tyres seperate, axles, lights, mic, alloys, speakers, bolts, nuts, grill etc..
So the logic you assumed I used is not exactly true
I also had a friend and corrector take a look and he said my design is way up there as regards quality and detail due to the effort made so me thinks my point is well made. Obviously someone with less parts can score just as well but as I said I had plenty time so I used it!
Thank you, come again
While I admire your ability to retract your initial argument and somewhat revise your words, I can of course concede that the more effort the better it looks to the examiner. It is however dangerous to advise people to do such a volume of parts because a) there is more chance they mess something up and b) this isn't fair on those who assumed 5 parts would be ample and now find themselves below standard. Personally I think the SEC should set a maximum and people like you should be forced into sitting an applied leaving cert for those less capable of following guidelines and structures. The latter sentence is of course intended as a joke. However, feel free to take offence and send me an angry reply. "mate". 0 -
-
JackTheGrinder wrote: »While I admire your ability to retract your initial argument and somewhat revise your words, I can of course concede that the more effort the better it looks to the examiner. It is however dangerous to advise people to do such a volume of parts because a) there is more chance they mess something up and b) this isn't fair on those who assumed 5 parts would be ample and now find themselves below standard. Personally I think the SEC should set a maximum and people like you should be forced into sitting an applied leaving cert for those less capable of following guidelines and structures. The latter sentence is of course intended as a joke. However, feel free to take offence and send me an angry reply. "mate".
Don't know how I retracted an argument... If you'd care to explain maybe?
And no where did I say "Everyone should make a thousand parts". I simply said I made about 30.
Well I actually laughed at that as I assumed it was meant as sarcasm so nicely done.... mate!0 -
-
JackTheGrinder wrote: »Not going to argue all night big guy. Sarcasm really? Might want to look up the definition of that one "mate" because that's not what that was...
Ooohh well someone's a narky little lawd then aint they? There was me thinking this was just a light hearted discussion.
To be quite honest I wouldn't bother arguing all night in your shoes because you can't win. Neither can I. My points are valid, yours are valid. You just started an argument for some bizarre reason where no one could win out. So off ya go to bed before it's past your bedtime
Oh well I do apologise fine sir. I did not realise I was speaking to Mr. Collins himself. Didn't see what other way to describe that silly comment 0 -
Lawless2k12 wrote: »Ooohh well someone's a narky little lawd then aint they? There was me thinking this was just a light hearted discussion.
To be quite honest I wouldn't bother arguing all night in your shoes because you can't win. Neither can I. My points are valid, yours are valid. You just started an argument for some bizarre reason where no one could win out. So off ya go to bed before it's past your bedtime
Oh well I do apologise fine sir. I did not realise I was speaking to Mr. Collins himself. Didn't see what other way to describe that silly comment
haha 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement