Equations in Assemblies

[Drhinehart]

I have looked through everything already posted about equations and failed to locate anything similiar to my situation so here it is.

I am trying to create a standard frame base assembly using equations to drive the lengths of the frame members, so basicly the user only inputs length, height, and width and the table is built automatically including table top and all gaurding. Up until now it has worked fine, but I have reached a point where I neen to insert two of these frames into a main assembly. Well when I do this they start referenceing one another and it is total chaos. I know what the problem is just do not know the correct solution.

The problem: I have parts that are driven by an equation and when I try to insert these sub-assemblies into a main layout the equation is getting conflict information so it doesn't know what to do...

The quick solution would be to rename the support parts but the equation is looking for the original so that is out of the question without changing the equation when you rename the assembly.

Sorry this is getting lengthy but I want you to have all the info on what is happening and my train of thought...

My assembly equation is driven by a reference sketch in the assembly. Now if I change my assembly and equation to reference a "Layout Sketch" part that has been inserted into the assembly could this possible ease the process. I would still have part files of the same name so I am thinking no it would still not work.

Has anyone come across something like this and if so how did you resolve the problem?


Thanks,

Dale

 

[TheTick]

Your subassembly and each of its components require separate configurations if you want different shapes/sizes of the same component in a single top-level assembly.

When doing anything with configuration-specific equations, always use a design table to suppress/unsuppress equations. It can get real flaky, otherwise. You can also use a design table in an assembly to govern which configuration of a component is used.

I could be the world's greatest underachiever, if I could just learn to apply myself.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help

 

[Drhinehart]

Thanks Tick... I was trying to come up with a way to not use configurations but looks like I am going to have no choice. I am going to rethink the complete process of putting this together and see what happens.

This is the first macro I have created that is also utlizing equations to create the parts that I need, so it looks like more work is needed to get it to work smoothly.





Dale

 

[brengine]

Drhinehart,

Do it with a Design Table. It'll be a lot less painful and easier to program/debug/use (and re-use) in the end.

Just my $0.02,
Ken

 

[Solidmold]

Drhinehart,

Another tip. When working with equations in assemblies, that refer to multiple part, it's always more consitent to rename files using SolidWorksExplorer.

Daniel

 

[Drhinehart]

Thanks to everyone for your help... I used a little from each to come up with a solution to what I am trying to do.

Solution:

Created a sketch of the profile I am trying to us for the framework. Made a feature template of this sketch in the weldment profiles folder.

Created a 3d sketch that is controlled by the equations. Created a weldment and placed the profile around the 3DSketch and cleaned it up to look like my standard frame I wanted.

Now to utilize this frame the operator opens the read only master runs the macro (had to rewrite this)and inputs the dimensions of the frame. Once it is at correct dimension open find references and copy to job folder without directory structure.
Use Solidworks Explorer and rename both the frame assembly file and frame part file (weldment) to the new job number.

The only downfall to this setup I can see right off the bat is of the frame needs to be changed for any reason it will have to be done manually. As the macro as written will only work with the master files.

I guess I could created a reference sketch inside the assembly that drives the part.

The reason for the assembly is so I can have all the hardware (foot, wheels, brackets, fasteners,etc..) at the assembly level to better control position and quantity.


Thanks,

Dale