Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Flat v4 tree and Boolean V5 tree

Status
Not open for further replies.

itsmyjob

Mechanical
Apr 11, 2002
2,375
CA
Hi,

I do agree about updating time improvment when using a flat tree in V4, but as sccot357 said in thread560-71784, I'd rather have a tree I can work with (readable) and a solid I can easyly modify than a "pur flat tree".

As for V5, if you work with Boolean tree (nice name by the way), then when you update, CATIA will check if that Body needs a update, if not, catia will go to the next body. So it might save time if you don't have linked element between bodies ( need extra brain to remember all the link in a big solid hey !!). But again a boolean tree will be much more readable and I do think this is really important.

So if we split our BIG solid into bodies, then what should be the size of those ? I used to say for wireframe that when you don't see all features of a openbody in the tree because of the size of the tree (too long for the screen), then you should think about making more openbodies.

Speaking of the Boolean tree of a V5 solide I would say about the same thing: when the cannot see all features of a body/openbody in the screen, then you should consider sub-(open)bodies...

What you think about that ?




Eric N.

catiav5@softhome.net
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Top