Associative models

[Sripri]

I need to make a casting and machining model of a part. I want to keep both the models separate but connected like this : The machining model will be made from casting model. Any change in the machining model should not affect the casting model (like holes, chamfers, etc), but any change in the casting model should reflect in the associated casting model. How do I achieve this ? Thanks.

 

[Scorch]

I would use configurations. One for the casting and one for the machined (finished model). You can control your features via the configurations.

Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
--Howard Aiken, IBM engineer

 

[sldwkmin]

Set your casting up as your top level configuration and your machined version as a derived configuration of the casting config to get your desired results.

Cole M
CSWP, CSWST, CSWI, CPDM
SW06
SW07
IBM T42p, 2g proc., 1g RAM,ATI Mobility Fire GL T2
HP XW4100, 3g proc., 3g RAM, Nvidia Quadro 980 XGL
HP XW4300, 3.4g proc, 2.5g RAM, ATI Fire GL 3100

 

[Theophilus]

An alternative to try (if you don't want this for configurations) that I do fairly often for differing reasons is to Save Bodies. So when you have your cast part completed, you Insert > Features > Save Bodies and save the body--which will appear as a feature in your feature tree. You will then have a part saved with the body's name (in your Solid Bodies folder in your FM), which you can open and name what you like. Complete the machined features.

If you change something in the Cast model (before the Save Bodies feature), it will propagate to your machined part.



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reason trumps all. And awe transcends reason.

 

[Heckler]

I will not reinvent the wheel but here is a great thread from the past thread559-126654

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 2.0 & Pro/E 2001
XP Pro SP2.0 P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

(In reference to David Beckham) "He can't kick with his left foot, he can't tackle, he can't head the ball and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that, he's all right." -- George Best

 

[mncad]

Why not create the casting as a part, then start a new part and insert the casting. Add all of the machining features in the second part file. Sometimes the configurations can get a little hairy when making changes if you don't keep everything straight in your head. This way may also be easier for people that have to follow you at a later date and make edits.

mncad

 

[ShaggyPE]

I agree 100% with mncad. I think this sort of situation is exactly why SolidWorks added the insert>part functionality. It is definently the cleanest way.

-Shaggy

 

[Theophilus]

Just in case I'm hanging on to outdated imperialistic dogma which perpetuates the ways I'm doing things already, is there any essential difference to what mncad and Shaggy suggested above and what I posted--or is the addition of the Insert > Part feature doing essentially the same thing (and perhaps through a differing method)?



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reason trumps all. And awe transcends reason.

 

[EEnd]

Theophilus,

Does your method result in two part files, or just one.

Eric

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Theo' ... The big difference between methods is that yours results in one file and the other results in two separate, but associated files ... unless you are using the Create Assembly option; but your description doesn't mention that.

If individual part numbers and revision tracking of the casting and machine files are needed, a separate file would be easier.

 

[ctopher]

Insert the casting into an assy, remove material to make machining. Just one more way.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 2.2/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-11-07)

 

[Sripri]

Hello all, thanks for all the good suggestions. As I am planning to keep the casting and machining two seperate parts, I think insert part and build up on it is a good option to choose. This way, I will keep the associvity and still use the casting on various machining models and update them all if I do a common change in the casting (I encounter such situations). Also, as Chris suggested, I am planning to make couple of tool parts for standard holes and other features which I will add or subract to get the machining shape I want. thanks again for all suggestions.

 

[Theophilus]

CorBlimeyLimey, my method still results in two files--the first, original file (casting), and the second file, based on the first (associative), which can have more detail added. I think the Insert > Part feature is a new way to do essentially the same thing--plus the interface in doing my method is kludgey and difficult to understand where the part I just saved went and what its name is.

I use this method commonly when creating symmetrical parts (such as a housing of some sort). I create it as a solid block, so I can model only half or the part as a whole. Later, I split the part into halves and do individual part detail from that point, if necessary. That way, if I make an update to the master part's geometry, those changes are automatically transmitted into the separate parts I use for creating the mold files--so I don't have to chase down modifications for two parts (fast and uncomplicated).

Anyway, it seems the Insert > Part feature does just about the same thing (but I like how I get the split-off bodies from my whole parts using my method--probably not as applicable in Sripri's case).



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reason trumps all. And awe transcends reason.

 

[J-C]

Jeff...actual the "Insert/Part" method is the original way to do this...it used to be called "Insert Base Part".

The "Save Bodies" method is similar except it creates a feature in the "Casting" part file which means you must have write access to it. The Insert Part method doesn't need write access, it inserts the part similar to the way an assembly works....you just get all Solid bodies in the part file.

The Save Bodies methods is a little harder to maintain in my opinion...anyone modifying the part must think to reorder the Save Body feature to the end of the tree. Unless of course you want it at a certain level in the tre which happens to be an advantage of Save Bodies in some cases.

Insert Part is more of an insert and forget method.


Jason

UG NX2.02.2 on Win2000 SP3
UG NX4.01.0 on Win2000 SP3
SolidWorks 2007 SP2.2 on WinXP SP2

 

[ctopher]

I found this thread.
thread559-107192
Don't know if it helps.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 2.2/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-13-07)