7 Replies Latest reply on Nov 12, 2018 4:36 PM by Christian Chu

    Routing mating/moving question when routing part is used in assembly.

    Justin Williams

      Hello,

       

      I just started a new job and I am taking over a project where the designer used multi-body parts instead of an assembly for a plastic enclosure. In the assembly that includes the multibody enclosure part there is also a routing part. I need to mate the routing part to a different position. I was able to do this using Move components and smart mates however I made a change I couldn't revert so I had to close and lose that information. Now (the day after adding the mates) I can't use the smart mates to move this routing part at all in the assembly. From what I see in a Google search as well as looking through the official SolidWorks training books on weldments and routing, it seems the process that the previous designer chose is not a good method (per the book: limitations of a multibody part: cannot easily reposition components). Anyone have any advice for moving the routing part (not virtual) in the assembly with the multibody plastic enclosure part?

       

      At this point I'm thinking I'll just recreate it in the assembly (top down method) however routing is still new to me and I would like to understand it better. Any suggestions on how to move the routing part in the assembly or the method I should use to recreate this would be much appreciated.

       

      Thanks,

      Justin

        • Re: Routing mating/moving question when routing part is used in assembly.
          Solid Air

          From my limited exposure with routing, you cannot use assemblies.  Why do you need to use smart mates?  Just mate the part as you would normally.

            • Re: Routing mating/moving question when routing part is used in assembly.
              Justin Williams

              I don't know that I need to use Smart Mates as I am new to routing. The only reason I mentioned that is because yesterday I was able to use the move component command to add Smart Mates to position my piping. Now I need to change the location and I'm unable to use the same command to get it to mate as I was yesterday.

               

              Routing parts are not able to be mated in an assembly using normal mates. At least that is the error message I receive but again, I just started working with routings last week. Plus I'm taking over another designer's work so while I had a beginning understanding of routing, it is harder to modify someone else's routing instead of creating a new route.

               

              At the moment I will just have to create a new route for the piping and I will create it in the assembly so that I can mate the first part and build my route from that. But any feedback would be appreciated so that I can learn more about routing. It may be that the scenario I described is bad practice and I can't do what I want and need to recreate it but I'm not  experienced enough with routing to say that for sure.

               

              Thanks,

              Justin

            • Re: Routing mating/moving question when routing part is used in assembly.
              Christian Chu
              I just started a new job and I am taking over a project where the designer used multi-body parts instead of an assembly for a plastic enclosure.

              I believe the engineer before you did a right approach - From my experience, you'd better study his approach before making any major change

              Here is one of my industrial design  multibody (surfacing) for a machine covers

               

                • Re: Routing mating/moving question when routing part is used in assembly.
                  Justin Williams

                  Thanks Christian Chu for your input. The large, plastic enclosure (with 4 internal chambers) I'm working on is not very complicated. No drafts, no angles, no sweeps or anything but simple extrusions. It is basically just a few plastic sheets with some holes machined and assembled at a supplier. We receive the completed assembly however we do detail all the parts on drawings (even though they aren't inspected).

                   

                  Can you comment as to why you believe the designer took the right approach? In your case, I would create that in one part file. In my case, I do not see the benefit in using a multi body part. For a part that has no complex shapes or surfaces, would you still recommend a multi body part? I realize a multibody part is less files, etc. however this part goes into another assembly with piping routes and that is where I started to have some trouble. I figured out what I needed to do but I'm curious as to your reasons for recommending the multibody part (unless you specifically meant for a part with surface modeling) as the right approach?

                   

                  I can't put a screenshot of the assembly but if needed I could try to find something similar.

                   

                  Thanks,

                  Justin