We are switching to a new part numbering system. Our raw
parts/weldments have a seven digit base number ending with "01", as
in 104627801. Every variant of that raw part is incremented as
"02", "03", etc., with each variant as a painted version of that
part. There is no intuitive numbering here; the subsequent variants
have no special meaning.
Our current practice is to treat painted parts as separate part numbers. This works fine for our database. To follow this methodology, we create assemblies of the painted parts and place the single part/weldment inside of it, with a color applied to the assembly. For example, 104627802.SLDASM has one reference, 104627801.SLDPRT (or ASM, if it is a welded subassembly). It is my belief that we could accomplish the same thing using configurations in the base part, with the configs using variant names. That way, it is easier to control, to color with Design Tables, or to switch between assemblies instead of using the replace components command, which doesn't always guarantee mating success or anything like that.
What does your company do? How can I justify moving to configurationas vs assemblies, and what are some solid reasons? It seems that people can find reasons for not moving in this direction, and it becomes a tit-for-tat game. Please give input for the pros and cons you have experienced with configurations vs assemblies for painted parts.
Thanks!!
Our current practice is to treat painted parts as separate part numbers. This works fine for our database. To follow this methodology, we create assemblies of the painted parts and place the single part/weldment inside of it, with a color applied to the assembly. For example, 104627802.SLDASM has one reference, 104627801.SLDPRT (or ASM, if it is a welded subassembly). It is my belief that we could accomplish the same thing using configurations in the base part, with the configs using variant names. That way, it is easier to control, to color with Design Tables, or to switch between assemblies instead of using the replace components command, which doesn't always guarantee mating success or anything like that.
What does your company do? How can I justify moving to configurationas vs assemblies, and what are some solid reasons? It seems that people can find reasons for not moving in this direction, and it becomes a tit-for-tat game. Please give input for the pros and cons you have experienced with configurations vs assemblies for painted parts.
Thanks!!
We do something similar, in that we will have a weldment as an assembly flie, then another assembly which has only the weldment in it. We don't do this for painting. We do this for an after welding machining step, or decal application.
I can see your point about configurations, and making things easier. A child configuration with the paint color adjusted seems simple. You could even have multiple main configurations, each with child configurations containing information about paint.
I would only consider this if your company is already using configurations, other than for flat patterns. A talented SolidWorks user who is not experienced at configurations can accidently change models in unexpected ways, causing lots of time correcting each configuration. (I speak from experience on this one!)
Richard