SBaugh
Mechanical
- Mar 6, 2001
- 6,685
I was asked a Question offline from someone here an we thought it would be good to reference it here:
Question:
In another vein, in many of the threads on Eng-Tips you have commented about the problems with doing in-context relationships in assemblies. Having done a few of these I can see what you're saying; if I don't plan the assembly ahead in detail I get myself mixed up and end up making almost circular relations between a couple of parts. However, doing in-context design of one part based on another seems like such a great way to do top-down design, making sure that the features on mated parts will be in alignment as one of the parts is changed. How do you solve this quandry? Is there another neat way to acomplish the same objective, like maybe assembly level sketches?
Answer:
Yeah assembly level sketches are a good way to accomplish this. I have not tried it that away myself, but I do know it would have saved me a LOT of heartache last year. But the assembly was awful complicated. Although in-contexting is great way for doing top-down design work.
Other than that way, I like to do it like this.
1) Make your entire assembly with mates and all. Make sure it is complete in every way before you start trying to in-context anything if possible.
2) Once that is done save it and make a backup of every part in the assembly and the assembly itself. Because you may down the road get frustrated enough to start over ;-). But once you are happy with what you have do make periodic backups but always save your first one. You never know when you will need it.
3) When you start in-contexting part to part or assembly be very careful and try not to make to many if possible. You will get a performance hit when you make to many. Also use assembly planes if possible. Advantage of assembly planes is it makes it easier to control from an assembly DT. This away you can automate the assembly easier.
Reference my site for further detail:
under Portfolio and Download "SS Article.zip" there I have described my routine in better detail. Scott Baugh, CSWP![[spin]](/data/assets/smilies/spin.gif "[spin] [spin]")
credence69@REMOVEhotmail.com
Question:
In another vein, in many of the threads on Eng-Tips you have commented about the problems with doing in-context relationships in assemblies. Having done a few of these I can see what you're saying; if I don't plan the assembly ahead in detail I get myself mixed up and end up making almost circular relations between a couple of parts. However, doing in-context design of one part based on another seems like such a great way to do top-down design, making sure that the features on mated parts will be in alignment as one of the parts is changed. How do you solve this quandry? Is there another neat way to acomplish the same objective, like maybe assembly level sketches?
Answer:
Yeah assembly level sketches are a good way to accomplish this. I have not tried it that away myself, but I do know it would have saved me a LOT of heartache last year. But the assembly was awful complicated. Although in-contexting is great way for doing top-down design work.
Other than that way, I like to do it like this.
1) Make your entire assembly with mates and all. Make sure it is complete in every way before you start trying to in-context anything if possible.
2) Once that is done save it and make a backup of every part in the assembly and the assembly itself. Because you may down the road get frustrated enough to start over ;-). But once you are happy with what you have do make periodic backups but always save your first one. You never know when you will need it.
3) When you start in-contexting part to part or assembly be very careful and try not to make to many if possible. You will get a performance hit when you make to many. Also use assembly planes if possible. Advantage of assembly planes is it makes it easier to control from an assembly DT. This away you can automate the assembly easier.
Reference my site for further detail:
under Portfolio and Download "SS Article.zip" there I have described my routine in better detail. Scott Baugh, CSWP
credence69@REMOVEhotmail.com