Chris, I got a coral file from jim and not being anexpert with Coral could you explain to me how you have been getting his data into solidworks? Are you measure from corol and creating the file new or are you importing the data?
I’ll spend some time later and see what i can figure out.
Rob,
I open them at work in Corel and do a “save as…” as a .dxf, then use the dxf for measurements and build the model from scratch in SW. Ask Jim, maybe he can save them out as .dxf’s for you.
Chris
Chris - thanks. I played with coral last night and got the dxf out and looked it over. I had expected a lot worse from what jim had said. Have you found away to get the circles to come thru as circles? I ask because the hole spacing is hard to get when you have straight line segments and not arcs.
Jim - I got the file and will start building asap. I had one question, why the square holes? I would thinkg thing would shift around on the assamblies.
Oh that’s easy… Square holes cut so much faster than circles on the laser. There are no issues with slop as I’m very careful with the size of the square holes. Without going into Bezier curve interpolation which also slows the cutting. Think about it this way. Any circle is just a multisided polygon (hmmm is that redundant…) when the computer is involved. I just reduced it from a 64 (or whatever) sided poly to a 4 sided one. I do use 8 and 12 sided polys when I need a little more precision though.
No unfortunately, as you’ve found, the vector info from Corel gets exploded into line segments in the conversion to dxf, and as Jim mentioned, they’re drawn as multisided polys (?) (on a side note, there’s also a dimensioning tool in Corel and if you turn on “snap to objects” with a high sensitivity setting, it works ok).
After opening the dxf, I’ll either try and pick two intersection points of the circle line segments and get a diameter, or I’ll create a 3-point arc and get the radius/diameter. Sometimes the measurement’s not exact e.g. 2.2462 but it’s usually easy to tell what it should be i.e. 2.25.
Rob, 'cause I’m somewhat new to SW, what are the advantages/disadvantages of individual part files vs. multiple configurations for parts? From a newbie perspective, these are my initial thoughts; I guess with fastners it’s not really an issue because they’re standard, but for things like the HBKR top and bottom plates where they share design features, if they were in individual files and a shared feature changed, you would end up having to update two files instead of one.
I understand it would make sense to model each indiviual part Jim sells, but another part where there could be an issue; the 4-40 threaded rod. Jim sells them in 12" lengths, then I guess the user cuts them to size. For the casual user of SW, wouldn’t it be easier have several configurations for standard lengths that they can pick instead of having to go in, modify the length dim and save as a new file (and avoid having 20 different rod models)?
Consider too the servo models, do we really need individual files for each type of servo? There’s potiential here for the number of models to grow exponentially.
Anyway, I’m rambling. Let me know your thoughts.
Cheers,
Chris
Yes, I’m a big fan of setting up a grid and turning on snap to grid. With a few exceptions all of the laser cut parts will “fall into” a normal 32 points per inch grid. I try to keep everything lined up to the grid pattern. Makes for easy editing that way. But honestly I don’t think a deviation of a few thousanths of an inch will adversly effect anything on the finished models. 
chris - I found the tools to dimd. It is much quicker to just import the dxf file and us it to create and refine the sketches in sold works. I delete the segments and recreate the radius and holes.
First the reason that I do things the way I do in solidworks is from years of building 3d models and the problems I have had and seem at other companies. To may configurations can get dangerous, in that there are two many things to keep track of, on complicated parts. The standoffs, threaded rod, and even your body plates are small and simple enough that you may not have any problem. I did my standoffs in one file with configurations and a design table. Parts like that where there are only a few items and the length changes are good for me. This is a hobby thing and having a number of files for something like that is silly.
As for the Fasteners. I have had the pleasure of having to fix some large assemblies, 200 plus parts and fastners becuase someone had used one file to model a Bolt with 20 configurations. For some reason all of the bolts in the assembly changed to one configuration all the same length. Not a fun project to fix. The other reason I us one part file for fasteners is that I can get all of the numbers descriptions and data to print nicley to a BOM. So when I need to figure out how many 1/4-20 x .500 lg bolts I need the software does it for me. Grant it for the what we are doing it may not be a big deal, but I try to learn my leasons once. 
For the body parts, the way you did the frames is fine, again this comes from learning the hard way from othet poeple. If you want to change something on only one of the 2 or 3 configurations of the part you need to makes sure you are not screwing up other configurations. The other reason is that is you get a trashed file you lose all of the models not just one. All have happened not all to me thank god.
Again the servo motors, if the file gets corupt you lose them all not just one. Just remember, that once you have one finished it’s a simple saveas and you are almost done with the next size or oposite piece.
Again this is my learning over the past 16 yrs of modeling. I work with people who seem to think the heck with it and just plow forward with new features and more complicated parts.
For me it’s that old saying KISS, keep it simple stupid. 
But that’s me.
So I would say maybe for this group, Standoffs, Threaded rod, parts like that would be great. The other thing you might want to remember is that if you build you servos or anything in one file with configurations people can still break them out and not lose the mates they have in the assembly, do a replace part.
Talk about rambling
Hi Rob,
Thanks, what you’ve said makes total sense. I’ve also seen new “helpful” features/functions in software get implemented, then fall over and we’ve ended up going back to what we used to do because we could trust it.
So many questions 
;
So, where to from here? Which parts do we include configurations and which ones do we not?
Sorry I don’t quite understand what you mean on this comment though;
My question on fastners, you noticed I used the toolbox, is that not the best idea? do you model your’s from scratch? (I was too lazy to look it up in an engineering handbook )
Cheers,
Chris
Do we really need each servo style modeled anyway? Minor changes from one to the other aren’t really important. And they all fit the brackets.
Very true. I can be a stickler for detail sometimes
That sounds sounds good for the models. Your frames are fine. If you keep the two matting ones together. I would not add any more to it.
I am kind of a hardcase about details also. I for one hate it when I use a model that is a rough size, then when I get the real thing in it does not fit because something was missing, a bump or tab that was not modeled.
As jim says the ones he sells fits all his stuff. For me, I would use the model survos for other hobby stuf, rc boats, animatronics, So I would want them to match the real thing and would prefere to have them in their own file.
But, because of the way SolidWorks works, I can take you one file multi configuration file and create my own files having just one servo in it. As I said before, if the one file is corrupted I only lose the one and it only effects the assembly that type of servo is used in, not all of the assemlbies.
As for your sketch holes in the frames. What i did was mate up two hex standoffs and used your patterned square holes to create a parttern of the stand offs. But the sketchs are just as good. I would have done the sketch thing if I had built them. You learn to work with the models you get to save time.
Almost forgot. We use toolbox to create the fasteners, then save them to their own file and clean up the extra stuff in the model. Your fastener setup was fine. If you look at the feature tree you will see that there are some features suppressed in the fastener. You can delete the surpressed stuff and delete the equations that give you an error. This will clean up your file and make it smaller.
Hi guys thought I would show you what I did.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2686/scouttorso23vz.jpg
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7732/hexround3dof5ca.jpg
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3792/hexapodexample23dolegs7pm.jpg
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2493/alumtubearmassy5tf.jpg
Some of the parts, L-bracket, rivets are mine creation. I didn’t have the dims but they line up and look ok. I still need to refine the way the models are built to make it easy to build assemblies with them.
Wow, someone has been busy . The assemblies look great Rob.
Chris
ya I was playing with them this weekend and my son say them and wanted me to build somemore, while he watched. Good raining day thing to do.
Plus I need to do something while I say some money to get some stuff.
I would like to get somemore parts to model plus get the servo horn dims and some of the gears modeled up.
It seems that the lowprofile bearing / gear assy is missing parts so I get errors with that assy.
Jim I just ran across your threaded about a 4 servo biped. Do you have any more pictures of it? I would like to try and model that one up. It looks like a good starting point for kids and me.
hi guys, does anyone know if the AHC-03 hub has tapped holes and what they are? I was looking at a gripper Jim came up with it shows no nuts on the inside. So th ehub must be tapped
Any ideas?
Them thar holes are tapped with 2-56 threads.
I thought you would like to see what is next.
3D Model Hand A (not finished)
img145.imageshack.us/img145/1404/rh013xw.jpg
I will be getting these models to beth as soon as I get Lynxmotion numbers and descriptions to rename files.
Rob, you’re a machine, I certainly can’t keep up with you’re modeling prowess
Ok, so I’ve been having a think about the whole assembly and file structure issue… (prepare for extended ramble)
Jim, with Rob forging ahead on the assemblies, I think the best option would be to avoid uploading assemblies as zip files containing the assembly file and the part files used in the assembly, and just upload the assembly files and part files separately. This will avoid duplication of common parts used in multiple assemblies (sorry if this was already obvious, wasn’t sure if this was apparent from prev. posts).
So, I’d like to send my fixed HBRK-01 chassis assembly to Beth and Jim, but I’m reluctant too because my fastners and standoffs aren’t the same ones Rob’s using. Considering Rob’s experience, and the amount of stuff he’s already modeled, I would say upload everything Rob’s got (of course provided that’s ok with you Rob )
Rob, what naming convention are you using for the parts? have you been getting individual part numbers from Jim and Beth? How have you been arranging your files?
Here’s a possible start to a directory structure:
\Servos\ - servo assemblies and internal parts, servo horns, arms
\ASBs\ - SES brackets
\Hubs\ - aluminium hubs
\Tubing\ - tubing
\Feet\ -
\Lexan\ - Lexan frames
\Misc\ - threaded rod, hex standoffs, square bars, rubber end caps
\Bearings\ - bearings, pillow blocks
\Fastners\ - nuts, bolts, screws
\Ball and links\ -
\Assemblies\ - (need subcategories?)
I think whatever the final decision is, its might be easiest to have a small FAQ at the start of the section (?) with answers to questions like:
Where should I save the model files I’ve downloaded? [explain file structure]
When I open the assembly file it keeps asking where to find xxxx file? [explain need to download necessary part files]
If I want to contribute parts that haven’t been modeled, how should I name my files? [explain naming convention]
Then, the other easiest option would be just upload everything and let each user figure out how they want to arrange their own files…
A couple of other ideas;
Just ideas that have been floating around my head. Please let me know what you think - getting too complicated? 
Cheers,
Chris
I think for the naming convention, you should use Jim’s naming convention, such as ASB-16B as an example. Unless you are talking about support files that go with the model, then slap me and ingnore what I said.
