AnsweredAssumed Answered

Master Models

Question asked by Tony Gatta on May 18, 2010
Latest reply on May 21, 2010 by Jerry Steiger

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 9

Greets all.

Had a few questions re: master model top-down design and performance/efficiency.

In particular, I'm looking for any documentation that might exist that provides info on

the best way to handle (and edit!) large master models.

I (we) do alot of consumer product / plastic part design -- lots of complex surfaces

that the industrial designers like to change half way through a project.. in the office

we use both SW and ProE. For some reason the ProE guys have never had as much

trouble as we SW folks do in making late-game edits. I'm wondering if its our master

model approach.

So on our most recent project, we tried the "ProE Approach" lets call it.

This consists of a very light-weight master part that contains all the sketches planes

curves points etc to drive every other feature in what will be the child parts. The master

contains only the outside (complex) casework solid parts.

We find we're constantly going back into the master to add sketch data to locate some

snap feature we didn't think about when the master was made.. we do this 10 times a day

until all of the 'intelligence' is in the master.

Usually we'd build up the whole product in this master part.. and then spin on children,

make an assembly, and add the non-critical features (features that don't depend on

others) in the child parts... the assembly would be use for interference detection, animations,

BOMs, etc etc.

This time, we're inserting the master part into every child part.. and cutting away what we

don't need. Seems to be working a charm so far.. but i'm worried what adopting this approach

for larger project might mean. will the heirarchy become too heavy? will we need to have

50 parts open to make one change? etc.

We can't be the first ones to be going through this sort of evaluation.. so where I can i find

info on the most efficient way of doing this? for example, how much detail should I add

to the master? should I make the master as big as possible before spitting out child parts?

should I keep the master as light as possible and make all the changes in the child?

if more than one person is working on the project (we have no PDM), who gets control

of the master? How do you "share" and assign the parts? how do you get them all back

together with out major reference issues?

Sorry so long-winded.

Thanks!

-Tony

No one else has this question

Outcomes

1-4EQZK9 May 18, 2010 12:20 PM

Hi Tony,

As a primer, in SW, go to the help>Consumer Product Design>Molded Product Design - Advanced. I feel that we've made a lot of headway in this area over the last few releases and now the Master Model Techniques for SW are stronger. In 2009 and 2010, we strenghten the capabilities of "Save Bodies" and "Split Part" that actually make them pretty robust and usefull and replace the manual method of inserting bodies and deleting bodies for what does not pertain to that derived part. There are basically three (maybe four) different techniques that you can take to mimic the MM approach, depending on your needs and requirements. If you have access to the SWW presentations, there are a few slides I presented in my "Advanced modeling 301" presentation that speak to the Master Model Technique.

Regards

Mark

Actions

Tony Gatta @ 1-4EQZK9 on May 18, 2010 4:08 PM

Mark,

Thanks! great resource. I've only watched 5 minutes but sounds to be exactly

what I was looking for.

Curious: is it possible to download that video? (to my local machine).

-Tony

Actions

David Oustifine May 18, 2010 12:33 PM

I seem to remember back when I was an instructor at a VAR that there was a chapter in the Advanced Surfacing training manual that covered this concept.

You basically want to keep your master model high level with features that apply "to all" the children that you will use it for, and insert this into your child parts and build up any additional features there. You can choose to use only surfaces or convert them to solid features in the master model; it just depends on your deisgn needs. I would see if you can pick up a newer copy of the Advanced Surfacing book from your VAR or maybe even on eBay as a good reference.

Regards,

David O.

Actions

Jeff Mowry May 18, 2010 4:50 PM

Tony, I'm working on one of those right now. Like Mark said, when you get to the bottom of the features for your master part, do a Insert > Features > Save Bodies. I'd recommend naming each solid/surface body in your solid/surface folder (in feature tree) before saving out your bodies to new parts. This saves the hassle of having to figure out which body is which in your master part, and also automatically names your new parts (very handy if you've got lots of bodies to save out).

Generally I create surfaces to split the bodies into the chunks I need (such as clamshell housings and a battery door or whatever).

I'd also recommend grouping chunks of features into labeled folders so you can manage the work through the hundreds of features you may encounter. Name individual features where it would be helpful as well. I'm sure you've had to go back to a project long after you've forgotten what you've done before to make an edit or two and this practice drastically helps in jogging the memory when doing so.

The other trick is to figure out where to stop working in the master part and what to do in the children parts. The tedious detailing I generally save for the discrete parts (and not the master part) since the master part often quickly grows into several hundred features once all the surfaces/edges are established. With the children part, you get to start over with your feature count.

Because I use directories for revision controls (File > Find References > Copy Files to a new directory anytime I do major project edits), I also put the master part in my top-level assembly--often as my first part. This makes sure my master part is never separated from its children.

One last thing--if you use this method, make sure you save your assembly fairly often when editing the children parts, especially if you add numeric revision numbers to your file names (such as Widget Door 03) so the assembly keeps record of the latest children parts as you move along. Wouldn't want a crash to cause the children to be separated from your assembly (although you can manually fix this if necessary).

These methods keep you from having to drag around the master part data for each child part and works quite efficiently. Good luck.

Actions

Tony Gatta @ Jeff Mowry on May 19, 2010 6:57 AM

Jeff, thats a good point.. re: where to stop?

Where, for example, would you add a lap joint? In the child or the master?

Or say there's a PCB in there (think remote control) where the two halves or

some bosses sandwich it in place -- would that go in the Master too?

Seems like a fine line to me.

Mark-- to follow up to my last question (downloadable video?) is there an

Advanced Modelling 101 and 201 to go with that 301?

Great presentation by the way!

Actions

Jeff Mowry @ Tony Gatta on May 19, 2010 12:27 PM

Tony,

Each of those questions depend on whether these features would be simpler and more robust if created in one (master part) or the other (child) for me. For each project, this varies. If you need bosses to line up on each side of a clamshell housing, you may want to add the basic boss to the master part and do all the remaining detailing in the children part (draft, ribs, etc.). Just enough to communicate the overall positioning of things in the master part, as many details as are practical in the children. Anyway, that's how I end up deciding. Faster and more robust is always the guide.

Actions

Jerry Steiger @ Tony Gatta on May 21, 2010 7:58 PM

Tony,

I agree completely with everything Jeff said. We keep the master model fairly simple. First, because it still ends up with a lot of features, and second, because only one person can work on the master at a time, whereas we can have as many people working on children as there are children. So the bosses that tie the Front and Back Case will be in the master, but the bosses that tie the Front Case to the PCA might or might not be. We would probably put any lip and groove type of features in the children, not in the master, although the master might have a sketch showing the profiles.

We have, in the past, used just a surface model for the master, but that seemed to be a bit too minimal, so we moved to put more in the master. We may move back that direction. Surfaces and sketches can define the interfaces pretty well.

As Mark said the tools have gotten considerably better in the last few years. A lot of us are still doing certain things because it was the best way to do it 3 or 4 years ago. You should be able to just split the parts out without much risk.

Jerry Steiger

Actions

Mahir Abrahim @ Jeff Mowry on May 19, 2010 11:41 AM

Jeff,

Is there any reason you use Save Bodies after a Split, as opposed to just saving new parts during the Split command? In the past I've been skittish about the robustness of both commands and have opted for the "Insert Part, Delete Bodies" method, but going forward I'd like a more streamlined approach.

Actions

Jeff Mowry @ Mahir Abrahim on May 19, 2010 12:25 PM

Mahir,

That's a good question. Yes, my reason is for what you mentioned--this feature isn't always as robust as it ought to be. As Mark said previously, they've added some better tools to repair the lost links between parent and child parts recently, but it hasn't always been easy to repair these dangling children. So I've found separating the features allows me a much quicker diagnostic (which feature, exactly, failed) and makes repairing the danglers much simpler. For instance, lets suppose the name of one of the solid bodies changes as a result of upstream edits. That's a prime cause of lost children parts--and when you've got hundreds of features in each child, you really cannot afford to lose this link.

So if you're careful with your parts/assemblies (keeping all parent and children parts within the same directory and other good practices) using the Save Bodies command is a much more streamlined approach than inserting a bloated part at the beginning of each child part and deleting bodies (especially when you've got 10+ bodies each time). In fact, I was hitting the memory ceiling too often in 32-bit XP, so this became my only option after a while.

Actions

9 Replies

1-4EQZK9 May 18, 2010 12:20 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Hi Tony,

As a primer, in SW, go to the help>Consumer Product Design>Molded Product Design - Advanced. I feel that we've made a lot of headway in this area over the last few releases and now the Master Model Techniques for SW are stronger. In 2009 and 2010, we strenghten the capabilities of "Save Bodies" and "Split Part" that actually make them pretty robust and usefull and replace the manual method of inserting bodies and deleting bodies for what does not pertain to that derived part. There are basically three (maybe four) different techniques that you can take to mimic the MM approach, depending on your needs and requirements. If you have access to the SWW presentations, there are a few slides I presented in my "Advanced modeling 301" presentation that speak to the Master Model Technique.

Regards

Mark
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Tony Gatta @ 1-4EQZK9 on May 18, 2010 4:08 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Mark,
  Thanks! great resource. I've only watched 5 minutes but sounds to be exactly
  what I was looking for.
  
  Curious: is it possible to download that video? (to my local machine).
  
  -Tony
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
David Oustifine May 18, 2010 12:33 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
I seem to remember back when I was an instructor at a VAR that there was a chapter in the Advanced Surfacing training manual that covered this concept.
You basically want to keep your master model high level with features that apply "to all" the children that you will use it for, and insert this into your child parts and build up any additional features there. You can choose to use only surfaces or convert them to solid features in the master model; it just depends on your deisgn needs. I would see if you can pick up a newer copy of the Advanced Surfacing book from your VAR or maybe even on eBay as a good reference.

Regards,
David O.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Jeff Mowry May 18, 2010 4:50 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Tony, I'm working on one of those right now. Like Mark said, when you get to the bottom of the features for your master part, do a Insert > Features > Save Bodies. I'd recommend naming each solid/surface body in your solid/surface folder (in feature tree) before saving out your bodies to new parts. This saves the hassle of having to figure out which body is which in your master part, and also automatically names your new parts (very handy if you've got lots of bodies to save out).

Generally I create surfaces to split the bodies into the chunks I need (such as clamshell housings and a battery door or whatever).

I'd also recommend grouping chunks of features into labeled folders so you can manage the work through the hundreds of features you may encounter. Name individual features where it would be helpful as well. I'm sure you've had to go back to a project long after you've forgotten what you've done before to make an edit or two and this practice drastically helps in jogging the memory when doing so.

The other trick is to figure out where to stop working in the master part and what to do in the children parts. The tedious detailing I generally save for the discrete parts (and not the master part) since the master part often quickly grows into several hundred features once all the surfaces/edges are established. With the children part, you get to start over with your feature count.

Because I use directories for revision controls (File > Find References > Copy Files to a new directory anytime I do major project edits), I also put the master part in my top-level assembly--often as my first part. This makes sure my master part is never separated from its children.

One last thing--if you use this method, make sure you save your assembly fairly often when editing the children parts, especially if you add numeric revision numbers to your file names (such as Widget Door 03) so the assembly keeps record of the latest children parts as you move along. Wouldn't want a crash to cause the children to be separated from your assembly (although you can manually fix this if necessary).

These methods keep you from having to drag around the master part data for each child part and works quite efficiently. Good luck.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Tony Gatta @ Jeff Mowry on May 19, 2010 6:57 AM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Jeff, thats a good point.. re: where to stop?
  Where, for example, would you add a lap joint? In the child or the master?
  Or say there's a PCB in there (think remote control) where the two halves or
  some bosses sandwich it in place -- would that go in the Master too?
  Seems like a fine line to me.
  
  Mark-- to follow up to my last question (downloadable video?) is there an
  Advanced Modelling 101 and 201 to go with that 301?
  
  Great presentation by the way!
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Jeff Mowry @ Tony Gatta on May 19, 2010 12:27 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Tony,
    
    Each of those questions depend on whether these features would be simpler and more robust if created in one (master part) or the other (child) for me. For each project, this varies. If you need bosses to line up on each side of a clamshell housing, you may want to add the basic boss to the master part and do all the remaining detailing in the children part (draft, ribs, etc.). Just enough to communicate the overall positioning of things in the master part, as many details as are practical in the children. Anyway, that's how I end up deciding. Faster and more robust is always the guide.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
  - Jerry Steiger @ Tony Gatta on May 21, 2010 7:58 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Tony,
    
    I agree completely with everything Jeff said. We keep the master model fairly simple. First, because it still ends up with a lot of features, and second, because only one person can work on the master at a time, whereas we can have as many people working on children as there are children. So the bosses that tie the Front and Back Case will be in the master, but the bosses that tie the Front Case to the PCA might or might not be. We would probably put any lip and groove type of features in the children, not in the master, although the master might have a sketch showing the profiles.
    
    We have, in the past, used just a surface model for the master, but that seemed to be a bit too minimal, so we moved to put more in the master. We may move back that direction. Surfaces and sketches can define the interfaces pretty well.
    
    As Mark said the tools have gotten considerably better in the last few years. A lot of us are still doing certain things because it was the best way to do it 3 or 4 years ago. You should be able to just split the parts out without much risk.
    
    Jerry Steiger
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
- Mahir Abrahim @ Jeff Mowry on May 19, 2010 11:41 AM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Jeff,
  Is there any reason you use Save Bodies after a Split, as opposed to just saving new parts during the Split command? In the past I've been skittish about the robustness of both commands and have opted for the "Insert Part, Delete Bodies" method, but going forward I'd like a more streamlined approach.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Jeff Mowry @ Mahir Abrahim on May 19, 2010 12:25 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Mahir,
    
    That's a good question. Yes, my reason is for what you mentioned--this feature isn't always as robust as it ought to be. As Mark said previously, they've added some better tools to repair the lost links between parent and child parts recently, but it hasn't always been easy to repair these dangling children. So I've found separating the features allows me a much quicker diagnostic (which feature, exactly, failed) and makes repairing the danglers much simpler. For instance, lets suppose the name of one of the solid bodies changes as a result of upstream edits. That's a prime cause of lost children parts--and when you've got hundreds of features in each child, you really cannot afford to lose this link.
    
    So if you're careful with your parts/assemblies (keeping all parent and children parts within the same directory and other good practices) using the Save Bodies command is a much more streamlined approach than inserting a bloated part at the beginning of each child part and deleting bodies (especially when you've got 10+ bodies each time). In fact, I was hitting the memory ceiling too often in 32-bit XP, so this became my only option after a while.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions

Master Models

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content