Yes we sucessfully use this method where I work.
In any case read about using of sldsetdocprop.exe utility it helps you a lot.
In this case all your custom tollbox parts (CTP) look and behave like Toolbox parts. And this very convenient because:
1. they can not be mirrored
2. they can be excluded from Pack&Go by one click on checkbox
3. they differ from nonstandard parts and assemblies in tree
4. you can`t make them virtual by mistake (it is very good in case you deside to make assembly with CTP virtual)
At any moment you can set this IsToolboxPart property back. I`ve used this strategy for a long time with success.
One important note about mirror of assembly with these CTP:
for example you have a big bolted frame assembly and want to mirror it
in this case (with CTP) you don`t need to uncheck mirror flag of all these CTP, SW makes this authomatically (CTP saves a huge amount of your time in this case)
these CTP looks different not only in tree but in BOM also, this helps you too
I haven't need to use the Toolbox in our assemblies by the moment, because we join most of the parts with glue.
Now, we want to detail more our models and we start to add the ribets, and screws we need at the end of our manufacturing process, and I am interested in what you tell me, but I don't know exactly what are you talking about.
Do you have some information which I can check to learn more?
Thanks for the reply,
Welcome to the Forum Ignacio Vital
Is one way better then the other? will always remain a question.
I use the SSP with every project and have stable, easy to modify assemblies and I would have a hard time changing. I feel that truly understanding your workflow and in house process dictates how you need to model. The SSP can also be a solid model or a combination of Sketches and Solids, it doesn't just have to be Sketches, and the only time you add sketches in an SSP is when more than one component share the same element, such as a hole or cutout etc... Otherwise what pertains to just a single part, that stays with the part and isn't needed in the SSP.
For an example - here I design furniture or rather take furniture designs that either a customer brings in or our sales/marketing team comes up with, these designs are given to me in one of the following medias... 1. A simple hand sketch 2. A detailed drawing 3. A Picture - then I need to compare the notes and the media given and make the assemblies. There is one given in any of the media given and that is there is a huge possibility of 4 to 6 changes, maybe the design element is what is shown but some details added or some details eliminated, so for me I need a workflow designed to make easy changes and that is the value of using the SSP process. Understanding how SW rebuilds and keeping a detailed Feature Tree helps tremendously with my workflow, for me it's not how fast you can get the initial model put together, it's about ease of change, being able to change one or more dimensions and every move is parametric without a forest fire in the Feature Tree. The ultimate test in any model/assembly is to delete a part and there are No Errors except missing mates. If you do a bottom up process, try deleting the first part, you know what'll happen, all the parts after that part fail.
Again - for me the SSP is the only possible trouble free modeling
Make today great,
Thanks for the reply.
I downloaded the presentation you did about SSP, and I am trying to understand better the method to use it.
Yes, we need something that allow us to change easily our product to the specifications our clients want. And our problem is that we had, and have, a lot of work and the work of the day didn't allow us to think in what will be the next step to work efficiently and better. These days are being relaxed and we can think more in improvements for our design processes.
Like you, we had our products, but we manufacture drawings, or ideas for some clients and we need to easily modify our models.
These days I have to do a generic model for one of our products and I want to prepare it in a better way.
Anytime you have question regarding the SSP - Ask and someone will give you a hand...
Ignacio Vital The SSP approach can be used in both assemblies and parts. When inserting the SSP into a part, it can be located so that the part origin is at a logical location within the part itself, but when inserting the part into an assembly, the SSP origins of the part and assy can be used to automatically place the part. Best of both worlds and with minimal mates.
Then, if I understand what you're trying to tell me, the way to do this will be generate part files copying my SSP and then, in this files, generate my parts in the position where they will be in the assy, so your mates always be origin SSP with origin part.
Then, I understand too, if I have subassemblies in my main assy, the SSP for my subassemblies, and the parts in these subassemblies, always will be the SSP for the main assy, the other idea I have is to have different SSP, one for each sub assy, and one SSP in general assy which join the anothers SSP.
Without trying any of this approaches previously, I think I will work with the first option, because my main assys do not usually have more than 100 parts and, this way, the part always is in the position after its generation.
Thank you for your time.
Just a word of caution with part in part modeling - do yourself a favor with any workflow, as you go along make some major changes to the assembly and see what happens, that will tell a lot.. I have tried an assembly using part in part modeling and had issues with the parts updating the way they should, however that would be my first choice if I could get it to rebuild properly. If there are guy using a part in part workflow, it would be nice if they would upload a simple assembly with a written process. I know it works well for an initial design, but like I said here I'm exposed to at least 4 changes with every assembly and if I make those changes I need to have everything rebuild parametric.
To clarify, generating part files from a SSP using the Copy and Save option is not the same as inserting a part into a part.
The Copy & Save method will create non-associated parts, whereas the Insert > Part method creates parts associated with the same SSP.
What you are telling me is if I insert the SSP in the other parts I only have to modify it once and it changes for all my other parts, but if I do a save and copy I have to change the SSP in each part if I want to mantain my assembly stable.
If this is correct, yes, I should work this way. I didn't know about this feature and I haven't imaginated I can do this. I have a lot to learn about SW...
What you are telling me is if I insert the SSP in the other parts I only have to modify it once and it changes for all my other parts
That is correct.
... if I do a save and copy I have to change the SSP in each part if I want to mantain my assembly stable.
Yes but as John Stoltzfus stated..
do yourself a favor with any workflow, as you go along make some major changes to the assembly and see what happens, that will tell a lot.. I have tried an assembly using part in part modeling and had issues with the parts updating the way they should, however that would be my first choice if I could get it to rebuild properly.
Kelvin Lamport - Copy & Save went over my head, I thought you meant inserting a part into a part....
I have a small assembly that I'll be trying it on sometime soon, still not sure how it will help keeping component parametric...
John Stoltzfus, I'm not sure I'm correctly interpreting what you are saying.
I'm not advocating the Copy & Save method. I was proposing the Insert > Part method.
The Copy & Save method would only be OK if the SSP was already inserted into the part being copied.