1 2 3 4 104 Replies Latest reply on Jun 9, 2018 4:48 PM by Matt Lombard Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
      • 15. Re: modeling methods
        John Stoltzfus

        Matt Lombard - Thanks for starting this topic

         

        For some reason there seems to be a disconnect as soon as people hear "Context Modeling" and mention that assemblies breakdown after a certain number of assembled pcs.  The modeling techniques are numerous and each product or company drives most of it.  Why would you want a static assembly is way beyond my comprehension, sure there are tons of people that delete all references and there is no way to make major changes except to modify each and every part that is connected to the part being changed.  If there are 20,000 components as mentioned and part number 10,001 would happen to screw up the rest of the Model, wow, what can I say but, you screwed up.  For some reason using a Master Model, SSP, Resilient Modeling, Design Master, seems to be foreign to a lot of users, seem to be like a paranoia, like it's something to fear.  I put the blame on SW or the VAR's for not training those techniques, maybe they do, but do they really have something where it really focus's on a "Driving Component. 

         

        Dan Golthing - mentions - "Eliminating potential cherry bombs in advance is typically a good idea"  - That is the specific reason that I use the SSP modeling technique,  and why I can easily correct models and easily modify models. 

         

        Any one struggling while using SW needs to find out why and never stop till you figure it out.

         

        A few simple steps in the beginning help to produce a good model every time..

         

        1.  Add the SSP as the first part in every assembly and every Sub-Assembly

        2.  Open a new part and save it, then do a save as copy for as many parts as you think you need, you can always add more

        3.  When starting a new Sub-Assembly - insert the SSP and a bunch of your saved parts into the SSP using the insert dialog box, selecting the point of origin will drop the part there (idea from Alin Vargatu).

        4.  Before you edit the part, (MOST IMPORTANT) isolate the SSP and the Part you are editing only, hide all other parts, that way you don't pick any vertex, edge or face of any of the other components. 

         

        There is a lot more but if you start with the above you're on the right road and will be able to produce one Solid Model after the other with "No" issues and is the only platform that I know when you "Design For Change"

         

        Thanks again Matt

         

        John

        • 16. Re: modeling methods
          Anna Wood

          John Stoltzfus wrote:

           

          Matt Lombard - Thanks for starting this topic

           

          For some reason there seems to be a disconnect as soon as people hear "Context Modeling" and mention that assemblies breakdown after a certain number of assembled pcs. The modeling techniques are numerous and each product or company drives most of it. Why would you want a static assembly is way beyond my comprehension, sure there are tons of people that delete all references and there is no way to make major changes except to modify each and every part that is connected to the part being changed. If there are 20,000 components as mentioned and part number 10,001 would happen to screw up the rest of the Model, wow, what can I say but, you screwed up. For some reason using a Master Model, SSP, Resilient Modeling, Design Master, seems to be foreign to a lot of users, seem to be like a paranoia, like it's something to fear. I put the blame on SW or the VAR's for not training those techniques, maybe they do, but do they really have something where it really focus's on a "Driving Component.

           

          Dan Golthing - mentions - "Eliminating potential cherry bombs in advance is typically a good idea" - That is the specific reason that I use the SSP modeling technique, and why I can easily correct models and easily modify models.

           

          Any one struggling while using SW needs to find out why and never stop till you figure it out.

           

          A few simple steps in the beginning help to produce a good model every time..

           

          1. Add the SSP as the first part in every assembly and every Sub-Assembly

          2. Open a new part and save it, then do a save as copy for as many parts as you think you need, you can always add more

          3. When starting a new Sub-Assembly - insert the SSP and a bunch of your saved parts into the SSP using the insert dialog box, selecting the point of origin will drop the part there (idea from Alin Vargatu).

          4. Before you edit the part, (MOST IMPORTANT) isolate the SSP and the Part you are editing only, hide all other parts, that way you don't pick any vertex, edge or face of any of the other components.

           

          There is a lot more but if you start with the above you're on the right road and will be able to produce one Solid Model after the other with "No" issues and is the only platform that I know when you "Design For Change"

           

          Thanks again Matt

           

          John

           

          Unfortunately, for some people, SolidWorks and embedded parametrics, can be very hard to wrap their head around.  Those advocating breaking all the links have many scars from dealing with clueless designers.  We here on the forum are the exception.  We work at our craft and know our software well.   Most do not and do not care.  Best to keep it simple and work to the lowest common denominator.   A sorry state of affairs, but is the reality for many who use the software every day.

          • 17. Re: modeling methods
            Matt Lombard

            I really wanted to open a discussion of various methods and reasons for adopting them rather than start a battle of dogmas.

            • 18. Re: modeling methods
              John Stoltzfus

              Matt Lombard - no battle from my end - if that is how it comes across I can delete it - no issues

              • 19. Re: modeling methods
                Dan Pihlaja

                Most of our projects are one off assemblies that we will only go back to if we need a modification.   I tried to utilize the SSP method, but when you add in the visibility of moving components, it can get real complicated, real fast.   If I were the only designer here, I would probably use it more often.  However, since I am not the only designer we tend to use a bottom up approach.   Adding in links tends to confuse some people and it has caused enough havoc here that I rarely do it any more.  In addition to this, we do not use PDM and use a folder system.   We have found that if we keep an entire project in the same folder, then it saves us a lot of hassle.

                • 20. Re: modeling methods
                  Matt Lombard

                  Good to hear from you again. Knowing you, that point of view is fully from experience.

                  • 21. Re: modeling methods
                    David Matula

                    why did I create the in context relations? 

                    did I have two parts and not want to draw out another part and then make it fit between the two.  Easy to make the part in context and then kill the relations so the part can stand alone now.

                    Now I have the huge assembly and need to make up all the tubing routs and put in all the fittings and other little clamps and parts that go with the tubing.

                    to do that we insert an assembly into he main assembly.  mate it to the planes to fix it in place.  then it is time to open up the old 3d sketch and put in all the reference lines where the tubing fitting will fit up to the main assembly.  I will add sketches that need to reference existing tubing braces that have been part of some other sub assemblies and then it is time to go to town.

                         Use the sketch lines to insert the tubing fittings and then from there one can either start adding the 3d sketches in that assembly or edit it in the main assembly to be sure that we make it around all the other parts that may be there.  It all depends on how well one does with creating the reference sketch we use.

                         I have had a few of these blow up on me as things have been moved.  some strange things can happen with 3d sketches at times when you leave them constrained and or under defined.  Finding that happy medium there is the fun part.

                    • 22. Re: modeling methods
                      Chris Saller

                      I will use in-context with parts in assemblies in our PDM vault. We run into trouble when users have in-context parts linked to other files on their own hard drives or elsewhere.

                      We use configurations as much as possible, and track revisions on all files. If an in-context file has a major update, and it's associated file is affected, both revs are updated. We track everything.

                      • 23. Re: modeling methods
                        Carrie Ives

                        Matt,

                        I would like to do more projects with something like a skeleton part, but usually, it just hasn't made sense for the products I have been designing.

                        I haven't seen much formal documentation on how to model at the places I work. I've usually been the one putting the recommendations out there.

                        Something SolidWorks has that I haven't used much - comments. You can add comments to features. It looks like something that could be really helpful. I just have to remember to use it.

                        One of the main things I have found to help is to name features and also use folders for grouping things. As I have explained to people, the name doesn't have to be the best, but if you have "Main extrusion" and "Fillet Main Extrusion Corners", that's going to be a lot easier to tell what is going on than Boss1 and Fillet3.

                        I usually do not keep external references when I am done with a project. For something like a hole pattern, I will put the sketch in and start out with the references external, but before releasing the part, I will go back into the sketch and make sure that it is constrained so that the external references are gone. This means changes down the road may take longer, but that released version isn't going to accidentally be changed if the other part was changed. Once the files have headed to somewhere to be turned into physical parts, keeping track of changes becomes really important. Understanding how your PDM (or lack of PDM) system deals with the external references is pretty important here.

                        I don't use "Break" on external references. I will "Lock" them. This keeps them from constantly trying to rebuild, but if I need to go back and update something we can.

                        That's about what I have to add to what the others have already said.

                         

                        Carrie

                        • 24. Re: modeling methods
                          Dave Bear

                          Hi Matt,

                          Just as a side note but relevant to this topic, that's a great interview with John Stoltzfus. Gents like that are few and far between.......

                           

                          Dave.

                          • 25. Re: modeling methods
                            Roland Schwarz

                            Master sketches. Everyone who's anyone is using them.

                            • 26. Re: modeling methods
                              Roland Schwarz

                              When I have external references, I structure them so there is a bit of a "firewall" should the references get verbuggert.

                               

                              Most of the time, I connect external references by sketch. For instance, if there's a master assembly sketch, any components using that start by copying relevant portions of the master sketch into a sketch at the component level. Then any downstream connections are to the part's internal master sketch(es). Only one or two external features to worry about then. Also, sketches are more easily repaired and don't flake out if external references aren't present.

                               

                              I try to avoid externally referenced surfaces or solids. Only when absolutely necessary.

                               

                              "Insert Part" is infinitely better than "Save Bodies".  Insert Part allows the addition of datums and sketches from the master. It also is much more stable and far better at managing changes, especially file name changes. Others may disagree, but that is only because they are wrong.

                              • 27. Re: modeling methods
                                Roland Schwarz

                                Sketches: learn to sketch in zero gravity. Sketch as if there is no horizon, no such thing as up or down. Set up datum lines to tie the sketch down, then key from those. Use parallel and perpendicular instead of horizontal and vertical.

                                 

                                Lately I've been using NX after a long hiatus. So nice to be able to define a sketch's orientation and origin. Then one can reliable use horizontal and vertical.

                                 

                                Learn to sketch without automatic relations. If you don't know what your constraints need to be, you need to pause and reflect.

                                 

                                Edges are better for external constraints than vertices. Likewise, dimension and constrain curves instead of points whenever possible. e.g. dimension a rectangle by selecting lines instead of endpoints.

                                • 28. Re: modeling methods
                                  Alex Lachance

                                  We started with the bottom up approach on all of our drawings, it worked rather well and was simple for anyone to understand, especially for a new draftsman starting here. Depending on the person's knowledge of the program, and willingness to correct a situation, some projects could become sometimes quite hard to work in. We started looking for a different approach and one of the draftsman brought in the skeleton method on one of our products, advocating there would be great benefits from it. We've tried different methods of applying the skeleton methods, ran into a few problems depending on how we were working, realized our mistakes and corrected them. Now we're on the verge of applying the skeleton method to more products and that is why we are now documenting it.

                                   

                                  Edit: Some of our products could do without the skeleton method but you might as well make everything work the same way as I doubt it is going to make it choppier

                                  • 29. Re: modeling methods
                                    Dan Pihlaja

                                    Roland Schwarz wrote:

                                     

                                    Lately I've been using NX after a long hiatus. So nice to be able to define a sketch's orientation and origin. Then one can reliable use horizontal and vertical.

                                     

                                    You CAN define a sketch's orientation and origin.

                                     

                                    Although be careful, as horizontal on one sketch might not be horizontal on another sketch

                                    2017 SOLIDWORKS Help - Align Grid/Origin PropertyManager

                                    Weird 0.02° on a face supposed to be //

                                    1 2 3 4