Best Practice for Mirrored components in an assembly.

[niart17]

This may be a dumb question but I'll ask anyway. We work with assemblies that have a lot of mirrored components. Currently, we create such a component then mirror it. Then we create the next component and mirror that one and so on, resulting in several "mirror component" features in the design tree. My question is would it be a better practice to make all of the parts first and then mirror them all at one time? Is there an advantage one way over the other as far as file management, file space & efficiency etc...
Typically these parts aren't saved as seperate files but rather just as mirrored instances if that makes a difference in the answer. Also there is a mix of some parts needing the opposite hand mirror and others just straight mirroring.

Thanks in advance for ya'lls help.

Bill

 

[drawoh]

niart17,

How do your drawings work?

If I prepare separate drawings for each part, I want to do only one drawing for each right hand left hand set. I do this by creating an assembly model for the part, and mirroring within that assembly. The assembly has a left hand and a right hand configuration. The drawing is attached to one configuration. A note states that there is an opposite hand version.

I have not thought through mirroring at the top assembly level. It could be messy.

JHG

 

[ShaggyPE]

I create a mirror part without reference to the assembly. Simply from the part file. Then I insert both parts into an assembly. Doing drawings of them... I show an iso of both identifying them as p/n XXXXXXX-001 and XXXXXXX-002. I will then detail out the -001 and note that -002 is a mirror.

This method allows me to have a mirror part without reference to an assembly. The mirror part is created directly.

-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Pretty good with SolidWorks

 

[niart17]

We care currently in the process of developing a set of standard practices for Solidworks so we can transition all of our designers from Autocad to SW and insure we are all doing things consistently. One method we are trying out is the alternate way of modeling in-context. We create our blank parts files and then insert them in to the top assembly and mate the origins and align the axis. Then we'll edit the part to begin sketching while in the assembly. This allows us to layout taps to clearance holes and edges that need to be aligned with the main body etc...and the parts will change based on any changes to the main components. What I have been doing for mirrored parts was once I finished one, I'd mirror that component about the assembly's mid plane. I'd do this individually for each component but wasn't sure if it would be benificial to just mirror them in one batch group.

As far as drawings, typically we don't need two seperate drawings as most of our opposite hand requirements are handled in manufacturing so we just label drawing as quantity required as shown and quantity required opposite hand.

Thanks again,
Bill

 

[TheTick]

Ultimately, it's a question of design control. If your method and your overall documentation system ensures that changes are properly controlled, then you are in the clear.

The danger in having mirrored components where the mirror context is an assembly is that if the assembly becomes obsolete and the components do not, control over the components is in danger.

 

[MadMango]

We do the same as ShaggyPE for mirrored parts. I think in-context is great for the design process, but horrible for sustaining processes. When parts are ready for production release, each part it checked to ensure that in-context relationships are deleted. I've seen too many models get destroyed by folks downstream that didn't understand the on-context features, or even notice them.

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

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