I have a project here I'd like for the brilliant minds here to throw out some ideas on if you would be so kind.
We have a universal fixture we use for manufacturing one of our products. Rough ball park we currently have used this fixture in probably 100 different set ups.
I need to create an STL of each of these setups to use in our G-Code simulator for our machining cells. Furthermore it is quite possible we will end up with some different set in the future if we sell some variation of our product in the future that we have not sold in the past.
The fixture has multiple locations for multiple parts, change out parts depending on size of product and part located in different position based on product size.
My question to the collective mind is what approach to this do you think would be best?
My thoughts so far are between a design table and drive works for creating the models. Pro's and cons.
1) In my limited experience with drive works I believe I would have to go thru every model and enter the data individually to create the model. That versus a design table where I could enter the data on mass in a spread sheet.
2) Drive works can "Drive" a lot of the design based on inputs once it is developed. By doing that maybe I wouldn't have to do all of the past setups until such time that they are needed again in the future. Driveworks, set up properly, would allow the user to just enter some specs and get a model which could then be exported as an STL.
3) Driveworks is less "Dangerous" than having someone not used to design tables getting into the design table that controls all the past models.
I also don't have a great way to drive the creating of the models with either approach. Both would mean I would have to either enter the information or open that configuration and save/Export the model. Again I think the nod goes to driveworks here as as the information is needed and entered the model is created.
I'm just looing for some thoughts so that I don't go down one path and run into some issue or decide going the other route was a better idea or if I'm possibly missing a "Duh....just do it this way"