Fully Define Everything or Not?
Fully Define Everything or Not?
(OP)
Hello all,
I am just curious but how many of you fully define every part in an assembly (washers, bolts, etc?) Or do you allow the circular items to spin freely? Does having everything fully defined have any benefits or does it hinder things? Your thoughts and practices would be appreciated.
BB
I am just curious but how many of you fully define every part in an assembly (washers, bolts, etc?) Or do you allow the circular items to spin freely? Does having everything fully defined have any benefits or does it hinder things? Your thoughts and practices would be appreciated.
BB






RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
Aaron
SolidWorks (x64)/PDMWorks 09 3.0
CADKey 99 R1.0 (Yes, still using it!)
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
Having all parts fully mated will decrease rebuild performance in large assys.
I usually allow symmetrical fasteners to rotate, but always fully mate non-symmetrical and product parts.
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of these Forums?
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
I fully make everyhthing. I can scan quickly down through the assembly browser and satisfy myself that all my critical components are completely mated.
The assembly on my screen at the moment has 1726 components, 387 top level components and 526 top level mates. If your stuff is simpler, you can be a little more flexible.
I have just experimented with some flexible assemblies, and it all has been fairly successful. This will affect some of my mating practise in the future.
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
Dan
www.eltronresearch.com
Dan's Blog
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
http://www.fcsuper.com/swblog/?p=140
-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified COSMOSWorks Designer Specialist
Certified SolidWorks Advanced Sheet Metal Specialist
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified COSMOSWorks Designer Specialist
Certified SolidWorks Advanced Sheet Metal Specialist
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of these Forums?
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
You were told that having more mates to solve would improve performance? Or am I misinterpreting again?
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
I used to hear things like that too. Along the lines of "undefined location" results in extra thinking for SW.
I was really pleased to see the article.
-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Certified SolidWorks Professional
Certified COSMOSWorks Designer Specialist
Certified SolidWorks Advanced Sheet Metal Specialist
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
One area that I believe (because I haven't performed timed comparisons) is that subassemblies are underutilized. Mating components into their appropriate subassy means all you have to do is maintain that subassy and mate it.
I have been on a tear lately with one of our latest products to drag fasteners applied in the top level assy into the subassy they are attaching. Such a sweet ability in SWX!
Sometimes I make a subassy of a fastener set, i.e., bolt, washer(s), nut and then insert that subassy using the derived pattern from a hole wizard set of holes. NICE!!
Some folks object to this technique due to the default affects on a BOM, but a little knowledge of BOMs reveals easy ways to make these subassemblies or their components show the way you want.
- - -Updraft
RE: Fully Define Everything or Not?
BB