AnsweredAssumed Answered

Envelope/Reference Components

Question asked by Don Van Zile

on Jun 30, 2011
Latest reply on Mar 29, 2012 by Ignatius Gerald

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 11

Hello forum,

My name is Don Van Zile and I am a new member of the product definition team but long time member of the forum.

I am currently researching assembly workflows and the use of envelope components or what some users refer to as reference, phantom components/geometry. I would like to open up a discussion as to how users currently deal with these design scenarios.

For example,

Do you use the envelope part function and if so then why? What are you reasons/goals for doing this? If no, is there specific reasons why this functionality isn’t used?

Are there any limitations or work-arounds in your assembly workflows regarding envelopes and/or reference components?

I have my obvious thoughts and standouts about this but I would like to hear what others have to say first. Please share, discuss, or just plain rant about this topic as you seem fit!

No one else has this question

Outcomes

11 Replies

Adrian Velazquez Jul 1, 2011 10:28 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Don,

Envelope Componets have great potential but the way they are setup could be better. We put a lot of Componets in our assembly just for reference that don't need to be calculated in the BOM nor Mass Properties, most are from a library and can be Parts or Sub-Assemblies. Ideally the Envelope would just be a feature similar to Speedpak or something, create a separate file just to make it a "Reference" is not the best scenario.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Alan Stoldt Jul 1, 2011 1:11 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Don,

Which Product Defnition Team? Are you then a DS employee?

I just introduced Envelope Parts to a group of Designers a few weeks ago, each one had the same question almost immeditaly that I had when I learned of them.

"How do you make an Assembly Envelope?"

Their next respomnse was also the same.

"Really? You can't? _____________ Solid Works"

The blank wasn't the same from person to person, it varied.

Thumbs up on a good idea, but why not take it through to the logical conclusion?

Right, I forgot, Solidworks.

(As per previous instruction found on the forum, I have used purple-ish text to signify sarcasism.)
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Don Van Zile @ Alan Stoldt on Jul 1, 2011 1:25 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Thanks for the replies, and yes, I am now a member of DS team.
  
  So my assumptions seem to be right in that the big glaring limitation is that you cannot define assemblies as envelopes. Also, once you define an envelope component, there is no switching it back to a regular component or vice-versa.
  
  Would you then assume that these envelopes always be excluded from the bom and mass property calculation? If not, what scenario would you want to show them in bom and/or mass calculation and why?
  
  Last but not least, for those that use envelopes, how exactly are you using them? In other words, when you create an envelope component what problem are you looking to solve? I ask this obvious question because I would like to hear specifics on how you use them. Additionally, does anyone actually use envelopes as the advanced selection tool that it was originally intended for?
  
  Thanks for your input.
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Gary Hubbard @ Don Van Zile on Jul 26, 2011 2:24 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    I use envelopes and think they are great. I use them to break up a large assembly into smaller sub-assemblies. For example, I have a large machine made up of many smaller machines mounted on a large assembly of frames. I also have chutes and conveyors transferring material from on machine to another and also catwalks/work platforms mounted to the frames. All of these parts and assemblies make for a very cumbersome assembly. Using envelopes I can break it up into subassemblies that have the mating interface parts (envelopes) referenced in them but not a part of them. So I have a "frames assembly" that contains all the frames that I can work with. I then have a "top section assembly" with all the machines in the top section along with envelopes of the frames in that section. This way I can mate the machines to the frames and the frames to each other. Then I also have catwalks that mount to the frames, but I don't want to put those into the same assembly with the machines because it becomes to big of an assembly. So I have a "catwalks assembly" with the frame members being envelopes. Now when I change the frames, the next time I go into the "top section assembly" or the "catwalks assembly" I can see the impact of the frame changes. I then have a "final assembly" with all the subassemblies and the BOM is correct.
    
    What is missing is being able to make envelopes from assemblies. For now I have to put the assembly into the model and tell it to "exclude for BOM" but then this can mess up the mass properties of the model and other upper level assemblies.
    
    Also being able to change whether a component is an envelope or not on the fly. If I insert a part and then later decide that it belongs in another assembly but I sill want to reference it, being able to change its state into an envelope would save time. Instead of having to insert it as an envelope and transfer the mates and delete the original part.
    
    As far as the advance selection tool, I'm not sure what that intent is.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Don Van Zile @ Gary Hubbard on Jul 26, 2011 2:43 PM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Thanks Gary for your response. It sounds like your using the envelope feature to create 'Reference' components for design workflow and retain proper bom structure. However, there is another reason for envelopes (the implemented one) which was for it to be used as a selection component. Essentially to see if any of your components were inside and/or crossing (see attached) the envelope (designing the innards of a phone or any electronic device for example where you would want to make sure there isn’t any interference with the housing).
      
      Using the workflow as you’ve described, is there any other limitations and or improvements you could see done using envelopes as reference components besides the assembly limitation?
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
Mike Rice Dec 9, 2011 3:49 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Hate that this topic didn't get a little more coverage, but hey I'm 6 months late! I use envelopes on occasion to represent product limitations. For instance, to show the maximum swing and height that my tool can operate in. In the machine tool world, this is call the (cough...cough) machine envelope!

The handy part of this is that it automatically doesn't show up on the BOM, and the mass properties of the design are not affected.

I have used it as a selection tool, but rarely. Typically I just use it as a visusal aide, but it helps identify components that are either inside or outside the envelope.

I often forget to insert a component as an envelope. This messes up my mass properties ... weight, center of gravity, etc. The BOM is not such a problem because of the "Exclude from BOM" option. But once I have mated other components to it, I generally hate to go back and replace it, so I wind up creating configurations. But this isr is a pain to do.

The other problem I have is the lack of assembly support. I often have to marry my design in with other subassemblies that I don't need/want. If I'm not careful (or don't know what changes the customer may have), I'll paint myself into a corner. Just this week, I wound up giving my customer a mass that was incorrect because I didn't suppress all the subassemblies. Then after I suppressed them, the mates were under defined and components started moving on me.

Also, envelopes can be used on drawings, which is very useful. All in all, I tend to forget about envelopes because of their limitations. Wish more functionality was available. It would really be great to insert a part, and then have an option to change it to a envelope (and the other way around). I also see a huge advantage to using assemblies as envelopes.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Don Van Zile @ Mike Rice on Dec 9, 2011 4:03 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  No problem Mike, better late then never! Your feedback is greatly appreciated and I assure you that we are listening.
  
  Don Van Zile
  Product Definition
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
Jerry Steiger Dec 10, 2011 2:10 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Don,

I never got around to replying when this first came up. Thanks to Mike for bringing it up again!

I don't use envelopes much, and one reason is the limitations, such as not being able to switch between being a "real" part and a weightless, uncounted "phantom" part.

I don't think I have ever used an envelope for its original purpose, as a selection tool. I usually use them as a sort of scaffold to build the real parts on, a layout or skeleton part.

Jerry Steiger
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Tony Wickingson Dec 11, 2011 8:06 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Don,
We use envelopes in a similar way to how Gary described in the July post. We use them when we have to maintain locations of sub assemblies to each other and to other main assemblies in a machine.

Here would be a typical work flow:
Create AssemblyX of parts.
Create AssemblyXX of sub assemblies (assemblyX level assemblies) and parts. At this level we would typically need some kind of frame to locate all of the items to. However this frame would also be in an assembly of its own. We bring parts from the frame assembly into AssemblyXX as Envelope parts. This way if any changes to the frame occur they will populate through to sub assemblies automatically. Our frames are large and complex parts having relatively long rebuild times and large file sizes so we try to limit this to only what is necessary - a few parts typically but in some cases users will insert entire frame sub assemblies and re-mate them.
This process repeats up to 5 or 6 levels deep (AssemblyXXXXXX). In a top level assembly we can have the same frame inserted into sub assemblies many times.

I have looked at rebuild times in top level assemblies and this process seems to add unnecessary overhead to them. I am not aware of an easy alternative to this process (easy being the main requirement).

Our perfect solution to this would be to have a part similar to a regular part in that it contains all of the geometry we need but requires nothing else. I've heard the term phantom part so lets call it that. This phantom part would also be like an envelope in that it would disappear when it is inserted into upper level assemblies. Having the ability to add mass or not would probably have to be selectable - we would not want to include mass but I think many people may want to include this. And for a real stretch, could the phantom part be automatically suppressed and the mates transfer over to the real part if an identical real part is detected in the assembly that the subassembly is be inserted into?

Tony Wickingson
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
John Swenson Mar 23, 2012 5:30 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
one way to get around the limitation of not being able to use assemblies as envelopes.
1. create a new part in the assembly.
2. exit out of the first sketch the system starts with.
3. using offset surfaces - set your offset to zero, then select the important surfaces you need to see. (one limitation... if there are multiple of the same part... you will have to make another set of offset surfaces to capture the other identical parts.)
4. pick the ok check mark to close the sketch
5. close the new part
6. this will bring you out of the new part and into the assemble with the new envelop part.
7. hide the envelope part.
what you have created is an exact copy of your assembly surfaces as a part file. but this is not just any part file.... it has a link back to the original assembly. As the assembly parts change, your new envelope part will also change. ( you could have saved the assembly as a part file and only included exterior faces... but there wouldn't be a link back to your assembly and it won't update if the assembly parts change)

how is the envelop part linked?..... open the envelop part in its own window, right mouse pick on any of the surface features you made, Pick "edit in context". you will be brought back to your original assembly.

It would be nice to have the system use it's ability to save an assembly as a part, using exterior faces or exterior components , and have it make an envelope part instead of a normal part.

I see envelope parts as "space claims" or "collaboration base parts". it's nice that they can be used as "selection tools" but I have configurations and display states for that type of control.

Since there is a link between the envelope part and a real part of assembly... it would be real handy to be able to toggle between them. I haven't tried doing a replace component, but I would expect that would work.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
Ignatius Gerald Mar 29, 2012 3:19 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
We are custom machinery manufacturers in Maryland. Our assemblies are large 3000 - 6000 components. To handle large assemblies we have broken our machine into many functional sub assemblies with one sub-assembly in common i.e frames & X-ties.

We populate our sub-assemblies based on their function with the frames and X-ties as the first part. Since we cannot use sub-assembly as envelopes, we use them as regular sub-assemblies. The main draw back of this approach is the main level assembly will have tons of frames on top of each other.

We would like to see the option to use assemblies as envelopes, and option to change it to regular parts at any stage of the design process.

Ignatius Gerald
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions

Envelope/Reference Components

Outcomes

Related Content

Recommended Content