Assembly & parts in one multisheet or seperate dwgs?

[Jarery2000]

Since i'm midstream in upgrading our modeling and drafting process's and procedures, including upgrading of all our template files, skeleton sketches, and template drawings, i have the opportunity to change how we organize our drawings.

We only manufacture one main product, but it is custom sized every order, as such we use one standard template and use design tables to regenerate it with sizes and configurations specific to each custom order. Up till now I have used the method of one multisheet drawing which has the main assembly, and all subassemblies and parts as sheets within the same drawing file.

The other method is to use a separate drawing file for each assembly, sub assembly, and individual part. Since all of our assemblies are similar with only 8 parts (8 sheets), the necissity some have for this method may not apply to us as much. For someone making a machine with 1000 parts I can see why you wouldnt use a multisheet drawing for all.

We also plan on utilizing pdmworks in a couple years if this has any bearing on the whether or not to use individual sheets or multisheet drawings.

File management wise a single file is easier, revision wise it gets ackward since only 1 sheet of the whole set may get revised. Creating title blocks and such is easier with one file unless a macro or other utility is used to batch change custom properties.

What are the other good/bad, pitfalls and dangers of one method over the other?

 

[MadMango]

Hard to say without knowing what your product or industry is, but I have always been a friend of 1 part/1 drawing. In the environments I have been in, we always need to consider one-piece flow and reuse of common parts, or part commonality.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[TheTick]

If you are going to PDM eventually-- one part: one drawing works better. This is also more conducive to being able to use one part in many places.

I would caution you against making new configurations for each custom order. Especially so if you are actually adding features and not just changing numbers. Even with DT, managing the configs can waste more time than multiple files.

I recently left an assignment with a company with a similar mode of operation. As the configs piled up, so did the glitches and errors. This alone would have been enough billable hours to put my kids through college.

One of the most common glitches when SW issues a new release or SP is how configs are processed. 2007 SP5 caused huge problems in this area for one company I know.

 

[smcadman]

Our drawing packet includes all parts, assemblies, and sub-assemblies.

Keep in mind we re-use parts as often as possible, and we use PDMWorks:

Pros:
(1) 1 drawing contains everything required to build the project.
(2) Hit the print button and you will print all 60 pages at once
(3) You do not waste time hunting for models

Cons:
(1) Marking revisions on drawings of parts used in multiple locations.
(2) Some drawings are slow because of file size.

Flores

 

[Jarery2000]

Thanks for the replies

TheTick : A misunderstanding, we don't keep adding one more configuration with each new design. We use pack & go, create a new set of files, and use design tables to pick which config we use of parts which are purchasable parts(referenced only). All the manufactured parts we do as individual files. I agree that just adding configs would be a nightmare scenario.

Reusable parts i can see wanting the seperate drawing files. Currently we dont reuse parts. A shaft for one customer is never the same as a shaft for another customer, unless it is the whole assembly that is the same, in which case we reuse the whole assembly.

I may go with the 1 part/1 drawing method, as we do plan on eventually reusing components.

 

[gurujeff33]

smcadman,

What do you use for data/config management? Sounds like it's nice to be able to print at once but it must be a nightmare to control revisions and upload a big file everytime 1 part changed.

 

[ctopher]

If you want real condifuration mngmt, each part/assy have own dwg.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 2.0
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)

 

[smcadman]

Here is the assembly statistics for a current project:

http://paul-flores.com/solidworks_screenshots/assembly_statistics.jpg

The drawing is 57 sheets and takes about 23 seconds to load, so that is one down-side of doing it this way.

That may sound like a lot of time at first, but I think it would take longer to open 57 single sheets for revising/printing.

We do not use SW revision tables, instead we have custom properties on our models for revision, revision description, date, etc. and we have a revision block on our BOM.







Flores

 

[ctopher]

Ugh!
"condifuration" I meant "configuration"
Forgot spell check

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 2.0
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)

 

[smcadman]

That's ok, it missed "mngmt" also (would you like to buy a vowel?)




Flores

 

[ctopher]

I would like to buy two, please.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 2.0
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)