AnsweredAssumed Answered

Abandoning Toolbox - Seeking suggestions for part files

Question asked by Daen Hendrickson on Aug 2, 2010
Latest reply on Nov 18, 2011 by Mark Sawchuk

We are using SW 2010 SP4.0.

 

We have been using SW Toolbox for several releases. We have decided to change our use of toolbox due to many of the same issues discussed in these forums.

 

Our general approach will be to develop our own library of fasteners. We will use toolbox as a part configurator / generator. This approach is outline either in one of the SW World videos or a tutorial discussion in the forum. I wish I could find it again to give proper credit. Later on we will add to it with downloads from vendor websites.

We have a SIGNIFICANT number of configurations in our toolbox parts from years of use. Thanks to Deepak for a link to a macro (by Jeff) called ConfigRipper https://forum.solidworks.com/message/133902#133902. This gem creates a separate part file for each configuration. This has reduced the task of conversion to "almost managable."

 

Now for what I am seeking input on:

 

I have split all the configurations into separate part files. Configurations are such a beautiful thing. It seems counterintuitive to have all these separate part files for nearly identical items. What are the pros / cons of having one part file for a specific fastener type with size configurations vs. splitting all the variations out into separate files?

 

We rarely use anything but "Simplified" for fastener thread display. For the occasional times cosmetic or schematic is desired, would you create yet another separate part file or would this be a good candidate for configurations?

 

Anyone know of a great trick to repoint fasteners in a BIG assembly from their toolbox version to my new library version? Yeah, that's what I thought... But had to ask.

 

Thanks for the input.

 

Daen

Outcomes