Skeletons are capturing the intent of other shared layout data
(assemblies, parts, routing paths/no-go areas/connectors/pass through/
grnd points../) within the group so,, sketetons would work great for
cable/routing if you are working collectively or within a group?
... (is it me or are we all going backwards in time,.. and why am I in
this hand basket?)
On Jan 28, 6:54 am, graminator <graha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 7:25 pm, "Janes" <dja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "graminator" <graha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:54dab32c-ef3b-40f1-aee3-59325cdef513@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > When you have an assembly and you need to keep a relation****p
between
> > parts (say for example you have a molded enclosure with screw
bosses)
> > how do you keep your parts parametric? Do you:
>
> > 1. Use Copy Geometry from a master part in your assembly;
> > 2. Use External Copy Geom and publish from a part that is not in
your
> > assembly;
> > 3. Use copy and paste from a master part in your assembly;
> > 4. Use >Edit >Component Operations >Merge and merge an entire
master
> > part into your child part.
>
> > 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
terminations, often more than one per cable: over 50 cables, over 120
terminations and routing between them. After someone else started the
cable routing business 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 position changed.
>
> > That way was to create pub geoms on the component terminations, copy
the pub 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 possible, and, ignoring how the components were assembled, built
the cables with geometry refs copied from the skeleton model, through which
the cable terminations stayed parametrically linked to the components. It
was pretty robust, though somewhat labor intensive.
>
> > In addition to the component terminations, copied from pub geoms on
the components, 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 references. They could be directly created in the
skeleton or be copied from component geometry or pub geoms (which are nice
because you can include a range 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 geometry 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 reputed 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?
|
