68 Replies Latest reply on Nov 16, 2018 9:02 AM by Alex Lachance

    New Advancement for SSP Modeling

    Grant Mattis

      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

        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
          Matt Peneguy

          Thanks Grant Mattis.  This definitely looks interesting.  I like the idea of being able to remap those external references as easily as possible.

          • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
            David Matula

            this sounds awesome if they can get it to work.

            • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
              Deepak Gupta

              Sounds awesome, voted

               

              Also could you explain if master part would be same when moving a part from one assembly to another?

                • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                  Matt Peneguy

                  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.

                    • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                      Deepak Gupta

                      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.

                        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                          Matt Peneguy

                          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?

                            • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                              Deepak Gupta

                              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.

                                • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                  Grant Mattis

                                  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.

                                   

                                  SSP Tree Before.JPG

                                  SSP Tree After.JPG

                                    • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                      Deepak Gupta

                                      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.

                                      • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                        Matt Peneguy

                                        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?

                                          • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                            Grant Mattis

                                            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.

                                             

                                            Multi SSP Tree.JPG

                                             

                                            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

                                              • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                Matt Peneguy

                                                Grant Mattis wrote:

                                                 

                                                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.

                                                 

                                                Multi SSP Tree.JPG

                                                 

                                                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

                                                Hey Grant,

                                                I know this may repeat information and be a little more work, but we drive an asm with only one ssp.  And we only push down one level.  A 1 level SSP receives info from a 0 level SSP and pushes information to a 2 level SSP.  And we only have one SSP drive an asm.  In your scenario in the master asm it may not be clear that SSP A is in both of the sub asms.  In my scenario, it should be clear that 2.C SSP is inside of C only.

                                                I'm always open to knew ideas, but I have a feeling that having SSPs in multiple subassemblies could cause some problems...Not sure of what those problems will be.  You've got me thinking.

                                                  • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                    Frederick Law

                                                    I have Master-Sketch.sldprt in main assembly and sub-assembly when needed.

                                                    Its for mate only.  Not to create parts in the assembly.  Never, ever.

                                                    All parts will have Master-Sketch.sldprt inserted first.

                                                    Master-Sketch.sldprt should have everything to create the part.  No dimension input.

                                                    Same thing for mates in assembly.  All coincident or 0 distance mates.

                                                    If you need to type in any number, something is wrong.

                                                    Of course, all the parts should drop in on origin without mates.

                                                     

                                                    If for any reason I need to reference another part/assembly (customer model), it will be in a Master-Sketch.sldasm.

                                                    Reference (Convert Entity) will be added to Master-Sketch.sldprt from that file ONLY.

                                                     

                                                    The goal is to drive whole project from Master-Sketch.sldprt only.  No cross reference, circular reference.

                                              • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                Dwight Livingston

                                                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

                                                  • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                    Frederick Law

                                                    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.

                                                    • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                      Grant Mattis

                                                      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

                                                        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                          Dwight Livingston

                                                          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.

                                                          • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                            Alex Lachance

                                                            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?

                                                              • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                Grant Mattis

                                                                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

                                                              • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                John Stoltzfus

                                                                Grant Mattis  wrote:

                                                                 

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

                                                                 

                                                                Thanks,

                                                                 

                                                                Grant

                                                                 

                                                                That for me is the best thought, everybody's goal should be to be constantly looking/searching for ways to optimize our SW models....

                                                                 

                                                                I think that there shouldn't be a difference between Master Modeling and the Skeleton Sketch Part process, why?, If we're not careful we will be limiting our minds, rather then continuing to push our minds to the next limit, it will be easier to broaden our horizon with an open mind and looking at good practices from all forms of development... 

                                                                 

                                                                The basic principle to have awesome parametric designs, is to be able to have our models controlled by a single/multiple element/s so that we have minimal dimensional changes when changes are requested, and when you hit the green check or hit enter, everything moves parametrically, without errors.  That is the key to having every model for every project come out 100% correct, so that your design efforts are in designing your project, not playing SW Tech.

                                                                 

                                                                I would feel confident with your Treehouse layout, and your approach, looks good.. 

                                                                  • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                    Grant Mattis

                                                                    Hi John,

                                                                     

                                                                    I am only trying to define them so we are able to discuss. It is all top down modeling just with slightly different approaches.

                                                                     

                                                                    Grant

                                                                      • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                        Frederick Law

                                                                        SSP can be Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside out etc.

                                                                        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                          Dwight Livingston

                                                                          Grant Mattis wrote:

                                                                           

                                                                          Hi John,

                                                                           

                                                                          I am only trying to define them so we are able to discuss. It is all top down modeling just with slightly different approaches.

                                                                           

                                                                          Grant

                                                                          Grant

                                                                           

                                                                          It's all top down. Does that mean all the components have in-context relations to other components?

                                                                           

                                                                          Thanks

                                                                           

                                                                          Dwight

                                                                            • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                              Dwight Livingston

                                                                              I could be completely wrong, but in my head I take these meanings:

                                                                               

                                                                              Top-down = in-context relations (apply between components in the context of an assembly).

                                                                              Master Model = relations between parts via solid model geometry in one part model

                                                                              SSP = relations between parts via sketches in one part model

                                                                               

                                                                              Feel free to bash these misconceptions.

                                                                               

                                                                              Dwight

                                                                                • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                  John Stoltzfus

                                                                                  Dwight Livingston  wrote:

                                                                                   

                                                                                  I could be completely wrong, but in my head I take these meanings:

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Top-down = in-context relations (apply between components in the context of an assembly).

                                                                                  Master Model = relations between parts via solid model geometry in one part model

                                                                                  SSP = relations between parts via sketches in one part model

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Feel free to bash these misconceptions.

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Dwight

                                                                                  SSP = All Three

                                                                                    • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                      Dwight Livingston

                                                                                      John

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Okay, do you have a term for using a sketch in one part to operate parametric relations? Should we say "skeleton part"?

                                                                                       

                                                                                      I ask because if it's all three, it's not useful for making the distinctions needed in this thread.

                                                                                       

                                                                                      I did find that Solidworks Help does define "top-down" as in-context, so I will keep that distinction (see below).

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Dwight

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Top-Down Design

                                                                                      In top-down assembly design, one or more features of a part are defined by something in an assembly, such as a layout sketch or the geometry of another part. The design intent (sizes of features, placement of components in the assembly, proximity to other parts, etc.) comes from the top (the assembly) and moves down (into the parts), hence the phrase "top-down."

                                                                                        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                          John Stoltzfus

                                                                                          Dwight Livingston -  Trying to pick or use a politically correct term defining SSP, we could call the SSP a Hybrid. In my mind there is no need to distinguish the difference between a model or a sketch or a combination of the two driving your designs..

                                                                                           

                                                                                          I personally see the SSP as doing it all with the versatility and flexibility that is needed in designing parametric models, therefore I see the SSP being a process rather than a technique and the termanology based on the description you have above, I would suggest that the SSP is being used as "Top Down" modeling, however the goal in using the SSP is to Design For Change and to Design Without Limits, we don't need to limit our Design approach because of a term.

                                                                                           

                                                                                          Top Down Modeling and Master Modeling and the Skeleton Sketch Part Modeling is the same in my book, because you take one part with multiple sketches, faces, solids, axis, points, surfaces or multiple parts driving the entire Design. 

                                                                                           

                                                                                          The only difference that I see with the way I use the SSP is that you need to do certain steps, (which is why I say the SSP is a process), in order for the overall Design to remain 100% parametric and any changes are done with ease.  There is an added advantage of following the process steps and that is the Main and Sub-Assemblies are much easier to diagnose any errors that may happen when you make a change.    

                                                                                           

                                                                                          In reality the SSP should have a new term, btw, to take it out all the confusion and also take away the distinct "It's different because of the word Sketch"

                                                                                           

                                                                                          I have said it before, there has been a Master Model uploaded on the forum, check it out, it started with a sketch right?, well edit the first sketch and change a dimension, hit enter and tell me what just happened to the entire model, forest fire in the feature tree.........

                                                                                           

                                                                                          I sure don't want to start an argument which term is the best term and which process is the best, all I know, since implementing and continually trying to perfect the SSP process, my design time has been drastically reduced and design changes are quick and easy, yes I still need to take care of errors that I create, because there still is that human element involved.

                                                                                      • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                        Frederick Law

                                                                                        A top-down approach (also known as stepwise design and in some cases used as a synonym of decomposition) is essentially the breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional sub-systems in a reverse engineering fashion. In a top-down approach an overview of the system is formulated, specifying, but not detailing, any first-level subsystems. Each subsystem is then refined in yet greater detail, sometimes in many additional subsystem levels, until the entire specification is reduced to base elements. A top-down model is often specified with the assistance of "black boxes", which makes it easier to manipulate. However, black boxes may fail to clarify elementary mechanisms or be detailed enough to realistically validate the model. Top down approach starts with the big picture. It breaks down from there into smaller segments.[1]

                                                                                        A bottom-up approach is the piecing together of systems to give rise to more complex systems, thus making the original systems sub-systems of the emergent system. Bottom-up processing is a type of information processing based on incoming data from the environment to form a perception. From a cognitive psychology perspective, information enters the eyes in one direction (sensory input, or the "bottom"), and is then turned into an image by the brain that can be interpreted and recognized as a perception (output that is "built up" from processing to final cognition). In a bottom-up approach the individual base elements of the system are first specified in great detail. These elements are then linked together to form larger subsystems, which then in turn are linked, sometimes in many levels, until a complete top-level system is formed. This strategy often resembles a "seed" model, by which the beginnings are small but eventually grow in complexity and completeness. However, "organic strategies" may result in a tangle of elements and subsystems, developed in isolation and subject to local optimization as opposed to meeting a global purpose.

                                                                                         

                                                                                        On a Top Down, we start with assembly and break it down to sub-assemblies and parts.

                                                                                        On Bottom Up, we start with parts, sub-assemblies then assembly.

                                                                                         

                                                                                        So usually we start SSP from Top Down with an overall picture/sketch of the final assembly.

                                                                                        After that, it all depends on what you want to do.

                                                                                        Assemble a few purchased parts to the SSP and design a frame to hold them.

                                                                                        Add customer part to make a fixture.

                                                                                        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                          Matt Peneguy

                                                                                          Dwight Livingston wrote:

                                                                                           

                                                                                          I could be completely wrong, but in my head I take these meanings:

                                                                                           

                                                                                          Top-down = in-context relations (apply between components in the context of an assembly).

                                                                                          Master Model = relations between parts via solid model geometry in one part model

                                                                                          SSP = relations between parts via sketches in one part model

                                                                                           

                                                                                          Feel free to bash these misconceptions.

                                                                                           

                                                                                          Dwight

                                                                                          SSP to me means that one sketch part in an asm drives all the parts and subasms in the asm.  This can include ssps that are also in the subasms. 

                                                                                          Master Model to me means a part that drives other parts in an asm.  To me this would be only a single asm.  But, I also don't use that method and so, I may have this part wrong.

                                                                                          Top-down describes both of the above and any other in-context modelling.  Top-down is a category both Master Model and SSP fall under.

                                                                                           

                                                                                          That's my take on it, anyway.

                                                                                            • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                              Dwight Livingston

                                                                                              Matt

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Solidworks is saying "Top-Down" = in-context of an assembly, so I wouldn't use that term for "Master Model" or "Skeleton Part". But I do agree that all are top-down in concept, so it's confusing.

                                                                                               

                                                                                              "Master Model" may also be confusing because in concept a "Skeleton Part" might be seen as a type of master model. However, I like to think that "Model" really means model.

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Parts made using Master Model or Skeleton Part do not have to be in the same assembly, though they usually are. If I were doing a series of parts intended for different assemblies but sharing some of their form, I might drive them all with a Master Model, a part model that includes only the shared geometry and none of the stuff unique to each part.

                                                                                               

                                                                                              I wouldn't go on like this, except this thread seems terribly confusing, because we're not using the same definitions.

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Dwight

                                                                                                • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                  Matt Peneguy

                                                                                                  Dwight Livingston wrote:

                                                                                                   

                                                                                                  Matt

                                                                                                   

                                                                                                  Solidworks is saying "Top-Down" = in-context of an assembly, so I wouldn't use that term for "Master Model" or "Skeleton Part". But I do agree that all are top-down in concept, so it's confusing.

                                                                                                   

                                                                                                  As far as I understand it there are two types of modeling Top-down and Bottom-up. All modelling falls under either or a combination of the two.  Here's how Matt Lombard describes Top-down on page 220 of his 2011 Solidworks Assembly Bible, " In it most common form, a sketch in one part in an assembly is related to an edge in another part of the assembly."

                                                                                                  I agree something gets lost in the semantics.  As far as I understand it, it is generally bad practice to relate to sketches, etc. of the assembly itself.  So when you see the words, "in-context of the assembly", I think they mean part to part relations, not part to assembly relations.

                                                                                  • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                    Christian Chu

                                                                                    Hi @Grant

                                                                                    I did this many times before

                                                                                    What's done is  while opening part 1 after moving from ASSM 2 to ASSM 3, I change the references from ASSm 2 to ASSM 3 and Part 1 is linked to to SSP in ASSM3

                                                                                    My question is: what's enhancement for this SPR or Am I missing something here?

                                                                                      • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                        Grant Mattis

                                                                                        Hi Christian Chu,

                                                                                         

                                                                                        Thanks for the suggestion. I have done this for duplicating major sections but not for a single part. I guess most of the time our parts are fairly simple so the time needed to remap the references is as long as creating it new.

                                                                                         

                                                                                        My issue is that the reference is really to the SSP part and the assembly it is in is just the path without any real references to it. I want to be able to move the parts fairly freely between assemblies and have SW do the remap of reference path on their end.

                                                                                         

                                                                                        Grant

                                                                          • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                            Frederick Law

                                                                            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.

                                                                            • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                              Alex Lachance

                                                                              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.

                                                                                • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                  Matt Peneguy

                                                                                  That's my understanding of how it should work, too.

                                                                                  • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                    Grant Mattis

                                                                                    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

                                                                                    • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                      John Stoltzfus

                                                                                      Alex Lachance - Are you doing a part in a part? 

                                                                                        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                          Alex Lachance

                                                                                          Yes John, that is how I work. Of course, not every single part is linked to the skeletons but those that require to be are. My projects vary from 500 to 5000 parts depending on the model of the trailer. I don't really see a difference in performance when I compare between With the SSP and without the SSP.


                                                                                          Edit: Tought I should add, I am rarely working in multi-bodies. My master assembly generally goes from 5 up to 13 sub-assembly levels, depending on what it is.

                                                                                            • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                              John Stoltzfus

                                                                                              Interesting, I was really hoping to do that at one time, but ran into rebuild issues.. 

                                                                                               

                                                                                              To use your SSP in a part, could you explain your process??

                                                                                               

                                                                                              Thanks

                                                                                                • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                  Alex Lachance

                                                                                                  I've had rebuild issues when using SSP with surfaces and also when using mates to position the skeleton, that is about it. We have tested a few methods throughout the years. I don't really have much time to go into details to explain my ways of working right now... I'll try and do it during some spare time either tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully it doesn't slip out of my mind

                                                                                                    • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                      Grant Mattis

                                                                                                      Alex Lachance i'm looking forward to what you are able to share. It sounds like I will have some testing of my own to do afterwards.

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      Thanks,

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      Grant

                                                                                                      • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                        Grant Mattis

                                                                                                        Hi Alex Lachance,

                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Did it slip out of your head? Looking forward to hearing about the details.

                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Thanks,

                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Grant

                                                                                                          • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                            Alex Lachance

                                                                                                            No, sorry Grant I just have a really busy schedule as of late and don't have much time to do anything else but work on my projects when I'm at work. I'll try and do it within 2 weeks. Deepak has seen a little bit how I am set up.

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                            Here's a quick Idea of how it works, really quickly.
                                                                                                            This is what I'm drawing:

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                            This is the overall master, that defines the shape of the trailer's overall dimensions and other stuff such as the frame and the trailer's crossmember's positionning. There's also a lot of other information for the frame, like air tank positionning, crossmember positionning and a few other things.

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                            When I get further into the trailer, I have this assembly that makes my side rails, as you can see it has 3 master parts on top. One is the first I showed above, the other is the one that defines the side-rail's length and shape from beginning to end. The third one is one that serves for the build of my wall, it is only there as a reference.

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                            Each part is in context built, mated to the origin. Here's a part in 2 steps.

                                                                                                            Step 1, create full length part with all features


                                                                                                            Trim part to corresponding positionning


                                                                                                            There are also masters to create the shape of my walls and posts

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                            Edit: Well, it sums it up pretty much but I skimmed over a lot of details but that is basically this.

                                                                                                        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                          Daen Hendrickson

                                                                                                          John Stoltzfus,

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          I use Part-in-Part SSP often. Before SSP became the defacto name, we called ours Datum parts.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          Our flight sims have two major components - the cockpit itself and the display system it sits inside of. For proper visuals, the cockpit must be located very specifically within the display system.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          The cockpit has its own datum/ssp part that contains a multitude of key reference information base off of the real aircraft - planes, axes, points, and reference sketches. You will find this datum/ssp part inserted as the first feature in a number of cockpit parts and sub-assemblies.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          The display system also has its own datum/ssp part. This has way more to do with determining light path projections so the pretty pictures show up where expected without shadows. Performance and rebuild issues are present here but this has more to do with configuration-specific complex formulas in the equation editor WAY DOWN at the bottom of the food chain. In a nut shell, you create reference geometry defining where those pretty pictures should end up, work backwards and create reference geometry mimicking the light paths, hang the projectors from this light paths, then build the physical to fix the projectors. If the top level assembly is opened, I usually have to also open the skeleton part and perform a ctrl-q rebuild on each of the configurations. SW just can't seem to reach that far down and build all the configs on its own.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          The power comes during the development - tweak the datum, watch all the weldment structures update. Start out with defaults, then start tweaking and adjusting to optimize... and watch the weldment structure update.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          And when a particular projector technology gets obsoleted the design must be adjusted to suit. However, with all the work put into the datums and formulas, the work effort is about 10% of the old clean-sheet-of-paper approach.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          A light projection path might look like:

                                                                                                          The equations to drive it might look like:

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          The overall skeleton might look like:

                                                                                                          Powerful Stuff... and the only way one guy can keep on top of it.

                                                                                                          Daen

                                                                                                  • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                    John Burrill

                                                                                                    Yeah, I'll vote for that.

                                                                                                    • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                      S. Leacox

                                                                                                      I use assembly driven parts all the time. Not sure if this is relative or not. I am doing top down design, and the performance does take a huge it, I have a very low part count. Weldments with 6 to 30 parts. What makes them heavy is that the parts are related to three different things: Planes in the master file, Each other, and the Bend radius & thickness of each part are in the middle. If one parts thickness changes, I get 100-200 dimensional updates in the drawings. Even low part count files can get rather heavy.

                                                                                                       

                                                                                                      Note: I design sheet metal seal welded tanks. Any size, any material. 10 gallon to 1000 gallon.

                                                                                                        • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                          Grant Mattis

                                                                                                          Hi S. Leacox,

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          Do you use another part, sketches or equations to control everything? If you don't you might want to look more into the SSP stuff posted here in the forums. There is lots of reading. I fully understand what you mean about one change affecting so many parts and drawings.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          Our models actually seem to operate fairly well even with thousands of parts. Where we really run into issues is drawings of high level assemblies. They are just too slow, a big part of that is the number of sections that we need to show to customers and SW takes a fairly significant performance hit with every added section.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          Grant

                                                                                                            • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                              S. Leacox

                                                                                                              bending math.pngEach parts sketch (Main tab and flanges) is related to assembly Each part sketch (tab & flanges) are related to assembly planes and edges of other parts. Often the tangent point of a bend radius is the point being related to other parts.

                                                                                                               

                                                                                                              3 assembly planes are the master. They control the size of the box.

                                                                                                               

                                                                                                              I often use a bunch of sheet metal math to calculate setbacks and flange length so that I end up with flat patterns or bending stick outs on the nominal inch. Attached is a screen shot of some math I use inside Solid Edge files so that all four flanges of an angle part (contour flange) results in 1" stick outs on all four sides for our folder at any angle, gauge, or size.

                                                                                                          • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                            Tom Helsley

                                                                                                            SSP? I had to read through this whole discussion just to figure out what it stands for - still not sure .

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                            Skeleton Sketch Part?

                                                                                                            Skeleton Sketch Protocol?

                                                                                                            • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                              S. Leacox

                                                                                                              I am doing the top down using both methods. I relate part sketches to both the assembly planes (A sketch could serve the same tanks) and to edges of other parts.

                                                                                                               

                                                                                                              To help this along, top down has 3 forms:

                                                                                                              All parts only relate to the assembly

                                                                                                              All part only relate to each other

                                                                                                              Part are related to both assembly and other parts.....what I do.

                                                                                                               

                                                                                                              Sound like the current issues is, are there three terms for this?

                                                                                                               

                                                                                                              In my case, the critical issues is the first four parts interrelate in a complete mish-mash of each other and the assembly. The critical result in my case is. say I want a 1' cube. I use two sheet metal parts to make the sides. If one part changes thickness, the other part has to change to maintain a 1' cube. Then the lid has to fit inside both of the side parts. Then I have a pan that just related to the assembly, Just four part parts, and every single case is represented..

                                                                                                                • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                                  Frederick Law

                                                                                                                  I did sheet metal tanks, hopper, transition.  All started and controlled by a Master Sketch.

                                                                                                                  • Re: New Advancement for SSP Modeling
                                                                                                                    Dwight Livingston

                                                                                                                    S. Leacox wrote:

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    To help this along, top down has 3 forms:

                                                                                                                    All parts only relate to the assembly

                                                                                                                    All part only relate to each other (in the context of their position in an assembly)

                                                                                                                    Part are related to both assembly and other parts.....what I do.

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    A suggestion. . .

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    Top down:

                                                                                                                    • Parts only relate to an assembly
                                                                                                                    • Parts only relate to each other, in the context of their position in an assembly
                                                                                                                    • Part relate to both an assembly and to other parts, in the context of their position in that assembly
                                                                                                                    • Parts relate to a part, without context to an assembly