On Jan 24, 7:25=A0pm, "Janes" <dja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> =A0 "graminator" <graha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:54dab32c-ef3b-4=
0f1-aee3-59325cdef513@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> =A0 When you have an assembly and you need to keep a relation****p
between
> =A0 parts (say for example you have a molded enclosure with screw
bosses)
> =A0 how do you keep your parts parametric? Do you:
>
> =A0 1. Use Copy Geometry from a master part in your assembly;
> =A0 2. Use External Copy Geom and publish from a part that is not in
your
> =A0 assembly;
> =A0 3. Use copy and paste from a master part in your assembly;
> =A0 4. Use >Edit >Component Operations >Merge =A0and merge an entire
maste=
r
> =A0 part into your child part.
>
> =A0 Why do you prefer your particular method?
> I did something similar in a way that's not on your list. I use a
skeleton=
model to communicate information between components in an assembly.
>
> I had a relatively small component rack with a lot of cables and cable
ter=
minations, often more than one per cable: over 50 cables, over 120
terminati=
ons and routing between them. After someone else started the cable routing
b=
usiness and created half a dozen circular references, I decided there had
to=
be a way to avoid this, to get component references into the cables
without=
creating circular references and robust enough to update when component
pos=
ition changed.
>
> That way was to create pub geoms on the component terminations, copy the
p=
ub geoms, with copy geometry, into the skeleton part, mate all the cables
to=
the default location (comp csys to assem csys) so no circular refs were
pos=
sible, and, ignoring how the components were assembled, built the cables
wit=
h geometry refs copied from the skeleton model, through which the cable
term=
inations stayed parametrically linked to the components. It was pretty
robus=
t, though somewhat labor intensive.
>
> In addition to the component terminations, copied from pub geoms on the
co=
mponents, I also copied a lot of reference geometry from the rack to use
for=
creating points for routing cables. So, in the end, this skeleton part
had =
hundreds of features (surfaces, datum points/planes/axes and patterns)
that =
could all be used for components references, especially thru point curve
ref=
erences. They could be directly created in the skeleton or be copied from
co=
mponent geometry or pub geoms (which are nice because you can include a
rang=
e of geometry in one pub geom feature, e.g. surfaces, points, axes,
planes.)=
And when you copy geom from a pub geom in a skeleton part, you get this
geo=
metry as a group.
>
> In addition to the methods you mentioned, another I've heard of for
molds,=
specifically, is Inheritance Features. Haven't used them, though they are
r=
eputed to avoid drawbacks of other methods.
>
> David Janes
I guess cable design is more schematic than plastic part design. I
haven't tried skeletons: I suspect they're used more in your type of
situation.
Anybody else out there?
|
