Assembly layout sketches or planes for assembly mates?

[tmalinski]

I just read the "Assembly mates and best practices" faq559-871, including Scotts example download of an assembly using planes. I also recently gathered much info on using Layout Sketches to drive an assembly. Can these techniques be used in conjunction with each other, or do they both serve a similar purpose for me to choose what works best? If I create a layout sketch that contains several blocks that define a series of plates and then relate the blocks to each other, then my incontext assembly parts are created and positioned from the geometry in the sketch blocks. I know I can combine some planes with this to take advantage of both techniques, but is one technique preferred over the other?
Our companies main business is to design and build progressive dies. If at some point we purchase an add-on for progressive die modeling, I wonder how the add-on package handles assembly of the die components. Extensive use of planes, layout sketches, or a completely different way?
Help please, dazed and confused !!!
Tom..

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Layout (or Skeleton) Sketches & Planes can & should be used in combination with each other. Planes are more stable than geometry & faces because they do not get modified when other geometry or features are added or removed.

I have no experience with progressive die modelling add-on packages, so cannot offer my opinion on them.


Helpful SW websites faq559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions faq559-1091

 

[tmalinski]

Thanks for your help CBLimey. I am still experimenting and struggling with different methodologies for assemblies under different conditions. I guess, as with most everything there are trade-offs to consider. In other words, on a per job basis is the stability and robustness of an in context assembly utilizing planes instead of faces and edges worth severing the advantages of in context mating and association with other features? Or maybe I am still a little vague with how to utilize planes as in the FAQ example. If I want a part to size itself based on another part that may change within an in context assembly then I guess I need to mate it directly and shouldn’t use planes to locate the parts. Or is there a more advanced technique to apply using planes where I can have my cake and eat it too?

Thanks,
Tom..

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Not really more advanced, just more involved. If you take the principle of using planes to the extreme, then everything would be constrained to, extruded up to, or mated to, planes. Then the only way to change anything would be by changing the position of the related plane.

Unfortunately, there are no hard & fast rules to follow. It usually boils down to a compromise of design intent, time available & personal preference.


Helpful SW websites faq559-520
How to get answers to your SW questions faq559-1091