AnsweredAssumed Answered

New Advancement for SSP Modeling

Question asked by Grant Mattis on Nov 7, 2018
Latest reply on Feb 25, 2019 by John Stoltzfus

Like • Show 17 Likes17
Comment • 69

Hello Everyone!

I have had some discussions with Nick Birkett-Smith the Product Definition Manager for Assemblies. We came up with an enhancement that could significantly save time for users who use SSP or Master Modeling. If you ever have parts linked to a SSP or Master Sketch and wished you could move them to another assembly when changes come in this SPR is for you. Please read below for Nick's summary and vote if you believe it will help you.

SPR 1098704 "Top down modelling - ability to move (reorganize) a component from sub-assembly A to sub-assy B, and remap that component's external references from a master (skeleton) part in sub-assy A to a master part in sub-assy B."

John Stoltzfus, Matt Peneguy, Alin Vargatu this is the SPR that I mentioned.

Grant

No one else has this question

Outcomes

69 Replies

1 2 3FirstPrevious

John Stoltzfus Nov 7, 2018 2:04 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Grant Mattis - Nick Birkett-Smith

THANKS Guys
Like • Show 6 Likes6
Actions
Matt Peneguy Nov 7, 2018 2:16 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Thanks Grant Mattis. This definitely looks interesting. I like the idea of being able to remap those external references as easily as possible.
Like • Show 6 Likes6
Actions
David Matula Nov 7, 2018 3:14 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
this sounds awesome if they can get it to work.
Like • Show 4 Likes4
Actions
Deepak Gupta Nov 7, 2018 11:39 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Sounds awesome, voted

Also could you explain if master part would be same when moving a part from one assembly to another?
Like • Show 4 Likes4
Actions
Matt Peneguy @ Deepak Gupta on Nov 8, 2018 8:37 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
If I understand this, it appears that yes, the master part would be copied from one asm to another. I'm assuming at that point, you'd do a "Save As" on the master part in the new asm to keep from messing up the original asm. But, I agree there is a lot that isn't stated going on here. That's why it is good that Grant Mattis has been working directly with Nick Birkett-Smith. I voted for this SPR. But, if it gets implemented, I'm not sure what or how this will really work.
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Deepak Gupta @ Matt Peneguy on Nov 8, 2018 8:40 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Matt Peneguy wrote:

If I understand this, it appears that yes, the master part would be copied from one asm to another. I
I do not see any advantage for moving the master file but if you can replace the master file and another master file and keep the references linked then yes this make sense.
Like • Show 3 Likes3
Actions
Matt Peneguy @ Deepak Gupta on Nov 8, 2018 8:48 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
In the scenario you present, master file A gets replaced with master file B. What happens with the references in the master file A when the replacement is completed? Are all the references in A broken?
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Deepak Gupta @ Matt Peneguy on Nov 8, 2018 8:52 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Matt Peneguy wrote:

In the scenario you present, master file A gets replaced with master file B. What happens with the references in the master file A when the replacement is completed? Are all the references in A broken?
Nothing should happen to master file since it is at the top. But the model linked to master file A should now get linked to master file B. I'm not sure what would happen to the references/relations in the child model.
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Grant Mattis @ Deepak Gupta on Nov 8, 2018 9:31 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Maybe this will help. The SSP or Master needs to exist in each assembly so there are no exterior references outside of the assembly. (This causes huge slow downs. These slowdowns are to the point where they are not allowed by our internal design standards.) Hopefully my simplified explanation below shows this better.

Below I want to move "Part 1", that has references to the SSP part, from "ASSEM 2" into "ASSEM 3". Until SPR 1098704 is implemented if "Part 1" is moved it will still have all of it's references to "ASSEM 2" (First Picture Below) and significantly slow down performance due to the exterior references. Since the SSP is the same part in both cases I proposed to Nick that the references should be able to be remapped to "ASSEM 3" and have no exterior references (Second Picture). He created the SPR to hopefully address this need to recreate parts in the appropriate assembly just due to exterior references. Hopefully this makes it more clear. If not let me know.
Like • Show 3 Likes3
Actions
Deepak Gupta @ Grant Mattis on Nov 8, 2018 9:32 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Thanks for the explanation and yes this make sense provided SSP being used is same in all sub assemblies.

As a workaround, this issue can be tackled via API and a dummy model.
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Matt Peneguy @ Grant Mattis on Nov 8, 2018 9:34 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
If that SSP is one file I can see where you have problems. This is how I set up our system:
Is something like the above something you are considering for future assemblies?
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Dwight Livingston @ Grant Mattis on Nov 8, 2018 10:36 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Hi, Grant. Thanks for working on this improvement and bringing it to the forum. I always like to hear from the Solidworks team.
Grant Mattis wrote:

Maybe this will help. The SSP or Master needs to exist in each assembly so there are no exterior references outside of the assembly. (This causes huge slow downs. These slowdowns are to the point where they are not allowed by our internal design standards.)

Your statement here really set me back. I don't do a whole lot of master model work, but when I do, I typically create a master model part file that does not live in the assembly structure. The model is not used as a component, rather it contains only geometry that is shared by multiple parts. Should I instead make sure that the master model can also be used as a component and put it in the assembly?

Thanks

Dwight
Like • Show 3 Likes3
Actions
Frederick Law @ Dwight Livingston on Nov 8, 2018 10:41 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
It depends.
I use Master in assembly so I can assemble parts to it.
Parts create from Master will share same origin but sometime you want to use same part in different location.
Also mating to the Master remove the problem of missing/broken mates if a part changed or removed.
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Dwight Livingston @ Frederick Law on Nov 8, 2018 10:47 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Parts created from one master will likely share an origin whether the master is in the assembly or not. Pretty much the same for missing or broken mates. What I really want hear about is the performance hit that Grant mentions.
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Frederick Law Nov 8, 2018 10:49 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I think this should go one step further: allow reference to be changed in any file, from the list reference dialog.
Currently different files/reference behave differently when a link is broken.

I just changed Master in an assembly because I renamed the assembly.

Another workflow is 'copy design'. Copy a Mastered Project Set to make a change or different design. It's always fun to break connection to old ref and relink new ref.
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Frederick Law @ Dwight Livingston on Nov 8, 2018 10:52 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I don't see the different. Since Part 1 still ref an external SSP.
Like • Show 1 Like1
Actions
Alex Lachance Nov 8, 2018 10:58 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I understand your need but I believe the SSP method should have no link to assemblies/sub-assemblies and be moveable wherever you require it to.

If a problem occurs while you move it, ask yourself why? The reasons are probably because your master needs another level of SSP.

In our case, we work this way for a trailer:
Master model with over-all dimensioning. We will name him Master1
Master model that represents the trailer's frame and most component's positionning. We will name him Master2
Master model that defines our side-rails. We will name him Master3
Master model that defines our walls. We will name him Master4

It looks a little like this:
Master1 has Master2 inside it.
Master3 has Master1 inside it.
Master4 has Master1 inside it. It could have had Master3 inside it.

Parts from the frame will have Master2 inside them. Parts from side-rails will have Master3 in them. Parts from walls will have Master4 in them. I can switch the order whichever I want and it will never mess up.
Like • Show 4 Likes4
Actions
Matt Peneguy @ Alex Lachance on Nov 8, 2018 11:00 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
That's my understanding of how it should work, too.
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Grant Mattis @ Dwight Livingston on Nov 8, 2018 11:23 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Hi Dwight,

From how I read your post it sounds like you are doing Master Modeling. I am specifically talking about Skeleton Sketch modeling. There is a huge amount of overlap between the two but there are some differences that we would need to be clear on to have an accurate conversation and understand each other fully.

My definitions:
Master Modeling - Creating a single or multi body part that is then split up into its multiple parts for production. (All parts would have the same origin and could be dropped into an assembly and fixed in place. The parts in the assembly would have references to the master part.)

Skeleton Sketch Modeling - Using sketches, surfaces or solid geometry but they exist only as reference geometry. New parts are created that reference this part and its geometry. (Because the new parts must be created in an assembly their references exist listing this assembly. Going from memory but it looks something like @SSP@ASSEM1)

I have not done much modeling with the Master Modeling technique. From my experience keeping a copy of the Master Model in the assembly where its parts are used could be beneficial as hopefully that would eliminate any rebuild errors. I could be totally off base here though.

I am interested in having further discussions though as I could find ways to optimize my approach.

Thanks,

Grant
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Dwight Livingston @ Grant Mattis on Nov 8, 2018 11:31 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Grant

Okay, the performance hit may or may not occur for a master model.

At some point, when I have a little time, I'll experiment with an old model. I have one that is pretty complex and slow to load, so any performance issue should show clearly. I am going to add the master model to the assembly and see if it loads and rebuilds more quickly. I'll report here (may take a while to get to it).

Dwight

EDIT: I'll start a new thread, since this is a little off-topic.
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Grant Mattis @ Alex Lachance on Nov 8, 2018 11:45 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Hi Alex,

Thanks for the response. Now you have me thinking. I would like to know more about how it is exactly you model with SSP. It seems I am missing a key item for my brain to make the connection from your post.

I have attached an example model of how I model with SSP here. It is fairly simple with a single SSP and some of the difficulties that we run into don't show up in a model this small. We typically work with large models around 2000-5000 unique components before fasteners etc... are added. Any slowdowns in rebuilds are heavily accentuated in larger models.

Matt Peneguy hopefully you are also able to offer some insight into your process.

Thanks,

Grant
Attachments
- SSP Example.zip1.9 MB
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Alex Lachance @ Grant Mattis on Nov 8, 2018 11:45 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Hey Grant,

Why do you require the parts to be generated in the context of an assembly for your SSM? Is there a reason you can't bring the part inside your part to have the context coming from the part itself instead of an assembly?
Like • Show 4 Likes4
Actions
John Burrill Nov 8, 2018 11:47 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Yeah, I'll vote for that.
Like • Show 3 Likes3
Actions
Grant Mattis @ Matt Peneguy on Nov 8, 2018 12:04 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Hi Matt,

We can use multiple SSP's but we do try to limit how many we create. I do want to further investigate if we can use more SSP's so more people can work in a project with control over their area (SSP). We will need to be very careful about how we coordinate information and anything affecting multiple areas is in the proper level of SSP.

Here is an image below that more closely matches how we currently work with multiple SSP's. We keep all SSP's at the highest level of assembly so we can see how they interact. I wish Treehouse showed references (enhancement request needed) but like you mentioned elsewhere in this thread the SSP's need to be controlled in levels so SSP B and C would each only reference A and never to each other. I also show below that not all SSP's need to be in an assembly only the ones required for the scope of the assembly.

Now that I am at the end of the post I am not sure this adds anything to the conversation directly. Hopefully it adds information so we can better understand each other.

Grant
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
Grant Mattis @ Alex Lachance on Nov 8, 2018 12:16 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Would that not cause the SSP to be rebuilt in each part? That would cause a massive performance hit. How many unique components do you have in an assembly and do all of your parts have an SSP in them? Maybe I am wrong about the performance.

Currently our SSP rebuild time is around 2 seconds but with where they are placed that rebuild time only happens once. Rebuilds are very fast for us. I worry that with the SSP part in each part the rebuild time will have 2 seconds added for each part. With how many we have this is the massive performance hit I am worried about. Please let me know if you think I am wrong as I will need to do some testing, your way would get around the reason for my SPR.

Thanks,

Grant
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions

New Advancement for SSP Modeling

Outcomes

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content

Incoming Links