13 Replies Latest reply on Apr 14, 2011 12:27 PM by bill campbell

    detailing multibody parts

    bill campbell

      Whats the best way to detail a part with multi-bodys?

        • Re: detailing multibody parts
          Deepak Gupta

          Welcome to SW forums Bill.


          There can be three ways:


          Either use Relative view method (selecting individual body) method and you can detail each body in the drawing




          Convert the multi body part to an assembly, then detail them as single part. Here is quick way to convert them in an assembly.Assembly from Part – No mates required




          In a drawing:

          1 nsert  > Drawing View > Model.
          2 In  the PropertyManager, under Part/Assembly to Insert,  in Open documents, select a multibody part, or click  Browse and open a multibody part.
          3 Click  Next  if the Model  View PropertyManager is open.
          4 Under  Reference Configuration, click Select Bodies.
          5 The part file opens.Select  the bodies you want to include in the drawing view.
          6 The bodies appear in Bodies for creating  view .
          7 Click OK and the drawing file opens.
          8 Click  to place the model view.



          Also read this post for your future reference.Forum Posting

            • Re: detailing multibody parts
              bill campbell

              Deepak, thanks for answering my question.


              'Relative view method' is this your terminology? I did a search in the SW manual and found nothing that pertains to view creatation in a drawing.


              I've tried both your methods and was hoping for something a little faster/better. I find that creating part files from the bodies loses the hole callout information and have scrapped that idea. I also have a real aversion to solidworks assemblies because I don't think they work.


              I'm currently creating display states for each body (which is really buggy) and then using them in a drawing. I find that there is are no links in the annotations back to the display state so automatic naming is out of the question. At least with configurations, you can call the configuration name up in a drawing annotation.


              I've been using configurations in the past, but I thought display states were the 'light wieght' version of a configuration and thought they would be best to use. I'm finding that defining display states is a hit and miss situation and I'm wondering if this is a good idea. It's hard to really isolate a single body and all the bodies have a tendency to reappear when ever they want. I fear that one day all my drawings detailing bodies will be screwed up and show all the bodies by mistake. Am I a fool for trying to use display states?


              I think right now the best way to detail a multibody part is to use configurations. Although, it's a pain creating configurations for each body, I was hoping for a simplier method. It also doesn't allow automatic drawing opening from the multibody part which I really like. It would be nice to RMB on the body list and click on open drawing.


              I quess I was hoping for a better solution.



                • Re: detailing multibody parts
                  Jerry Steiger



                  SW Assemblies have their bugs, but I would not say that they don't work.  Reading the rest of your posts, it seems like you would be better off getting over your fear (or just loathing) of assemblies. It might also be possible to get your hole callouts to transfer to the part; be sure to check all of the options when you try making parts from your mult-body part.


                  Jerry Steiger

                    • Re: detailing multibody parts
                      bill campbell

                      Thanks for the response Jerry,


                      Sorry I haven't checked back after posting my original message. Today I'm trying to remember the steps for detailing a multi-body part. It's not easy to remember.


                      I'm using more multi-body parts these day and less assemblies. This arrangement works much better for me and hopefully I'll be able to remember the steps. A 'cut list' to breakup my assembly doesn't make sense to me but I'll figure it out. I really think this is a superior assembly method for designing vs. the 'top down' or 'bottom up' approaches you might be familiar with.


                      As a reply to your original post:

                      I think I have a good understanding of assemblies in SolidWorks. I don't loathe assemblies, I just don't think they work. I'm not picking on SolidWorks as much as the whole CAD industry. Pro/e started this assembly approach and created this mess. Pro/e assemblies were so rigid that a good understanding was required to build anything. SolidWork greatly simplified this process, but I feel they've given people enough rope to hang themselves. I've been to many companies that don't structure thier assemblies and what a mess they have! Add assembly relationships to all of this and watch out, a total melt down!


                      I understand the concept of a global coordinate system (root) and that components are just a transformation from the root. It's exciting that you can nest these transformations creating a recursive tree structure detailing the orientation and location of each part. I think solidworks did a pretty good job desolving a single sub-assemblies and allowing you to take a component to it's parent transformation but we both know it kinda works. I haven't seen any one else do a better job with this function. I haven't seen any company perform the total transformation destruction to the root and then rebuild the transformation stack to follow the next branch. This is how it works dude, kinda of screwing right? Can you image dragging a component from one assembly to another and the CAD system understands! This is real world and not what we have today.


                      My problem is these algorithms CAD companies are using to build assemblies, because they don't match the real world.


                      Take for example:


                      A printed circuit board, in a chassis, in a rack, in a room, in a building, in a city, on the planet.


                      Now try and move that printed circuit board to a different rack. Do you have any idea the transformation deconstruction and reconstruction necessary to accomplish this? Don't get me wrong, I understand how to accomplish this in SolidWorks. It is impossible if you don't grasp the recursive structure CAD systems use and most people end up screwing things up.


                      I'm not a CAD programmer, but it seems to me that a component should inherit it's location just like any object in the oops paradigm. Managing a transformation table containing common transformations would be the secret sauce because you couldn't afford to do this math for each component during a rebuild and a hash table could speed things up.


                      I'm keeping my eyes open for the next CAD system that cleans this mess up.

                        • Re: detailing multibody parts
                          Jerry Steiger



                          I agree that assemblies have lots of problems, but at least SW has been working with them since day 1. They didn't even allow multi-body parts until a few years ago and they are still having lots of difficulty with the concept.


                          Personally, I use multi-body parts as master models for the case parts, then split them out into the main assembly. Works pretty well for us. Different strokes for different folks.


                          Jerry Steiger

                  • Re: detailing multibody parts
                    bill campbell

                    Thanks for the link to 'Relative view method' I wasn't aware of this and it appears to have a lot of potential. I'm

                    surprised it's not in the manual. Maybe it is and I couldn't find it.


                    Currently I've managed to lock SW up, but hopefully I can figure out how to navigate the issues.


                    Seems like you should be able to have the part with all bodies on sheet 1, then use your method to derive views

                    for sheet 2, sheet 3... and end up with one drawing that contains all the details for the multi-body part. That's a cool

                    solution because it allows you to click on the multi-body part and open the drawing which contains all the details.


                    It would be nice if SW would produce a BOM from a multi-body part and you could add this to sheet 1. Would it be to much

                    to ask for auto-ballooning also? Do you know how this is done?


                    Access to the individual drawings could be an issue, but I'll worry about that tomorrow.



                    • Re: detailing multibody parts
                      bill campbell

                      Ok, I figured it out again.


                      Now my gripe is with SolidWorks:

                      My multi-body part isn't a weldment. Will you clean this up.


                      Remember, Solids as easy as turning on a light.

                      • Re: detailing multibody parts
                        bill campbell

                        I'm finishing up my design which included an initial engineering layout & detailed parts for manufacturing.


                        I ended up not using what's in this discussion rather I streamed lined the process. Turns out you don't have to create a weldment to detail multibody parts.


                        I'm still hooked on designing with mult-body parts versus using assemblies. It's just so much faster.


                        Don't get me wrong, I still use assemblies at a very top level, but designing a part file for each component and then assembling these is a daunting task especially if you want your assemblies to behave with incontext references.


                        Hopefully when the dust settles, I'll detail my steps for designing & detailing using multibody parts and post it here on this site.