Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Layer category
- Thread starter geo12
- Start date
I think you'll need a GRIP or ufunc program to do that. GM uses something like that for their layering. It can be done, but I don't have the licensing to do it.
Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.
Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.
I always forget about start parts. Nice catch Eric.
Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.
Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.
I have seen part files that are broken up into such a system - all sketches on a certain layer, sheet bodies on their layer, solid bodies on a layer, etc etc. What is the advantage to such a system?
When I get to determine layer structure I usually group all related entities that make up a certain feature set on a layer. For instance, if I want to add a 'widget' feature, I'll put all the geometry, the extrusion (or revolve, whatever), and any necessary trim sheets on layer 'widget'. That way when I want to edit feature widget I just turn on that layer and all the necessary geometry is there.
Is it just a standards thing or does it make the file easier to edit later? If it will make life easier I'm all for it, please educate me.
When I get to determine layer structure I usually group all related entities that make up a certain feature set on a layer. For instance, if I want to add a 'widget' feature, I'll put all the geometry, the extrusion (or revolve, whatever), and any necessary trim sheets on layer 'widget'. That way when I want to edit feature widget I just turn on that layer and all the necessary geometry is there.
Is it just a standards thing or does it make the file easier to edit later? If it will make life easier I'm all for it, please educate me.
I feel that it is much more important that catagories are used than what particular layer certain entities are on. Having said that, using a seed part can simplify the organization of the design.
I have a nasty habit of assigning catagories after I have completed the part if they are not pre-assigned, so using a seed part goes a long way in helping me overcome this self-discipline problem.
I have a nasty habit of assigning catagories after I have completed the part if they are not pre-assigned, so using a seed part goes a long way in helping me overcome this self-discipline problem.
cowski,
It all depends on how well the categories are set up to begin with. I suppose there could actually be overkill when using categories (one sketch/layer or one set of curves/layer). I think it's just what makes sense for the product that is being designed in UG. I believe GM has a fairly decent category set up:
Solids on layer 1
Wireframe on layer 2
Centerlines on layer 3
Theoretical on layer 4
Sections on layer 5
Developmental on layer 6
Mate on layer 7
Any number of user-defined categories may exist as long as they follow a naming convention set by GM. Sometimes a user may just want to look at the geometry that was used to create the part. The user would make layer 6 visible & from there all curves, sketches & sheets or solids used to define the part are there.
I personally feel that whatever category method users are more comfortable with is the best method, rather than giving an example & claiming it to be best. I used to seperate everything on a layer of its own (like sketches) & make a category for it....but once I got used to GM's method, it really wasn't much different. However, things can become jumbled from time to time. It all depends on the complexity of the part.
Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.
It all depends on how well the categories are set up to begin with. I suppose there could actually be overkill when using categories (one sketch/layer or one set of curves/layer). I think it's just what makes sense for the product that is being designed in UG. I believe GM has a fairly decent category set up:
Solids on layer 1
Wireframe on layer 2
Centerlines on layer 3
Theoretical on layer 4
Sections on layer 5
Developmental on layer 6
Mate on layer 7
Any number of user-defined categories may exist as long as they follow a naming convention set by GM. Sometimes a user may just want to look at the geometry that was used to create the part. The user would make layer 6 visible & from there all curves, sketches & sheets or solids used to define the part are there.
I personally feel that whatever category method users are more comfortable with is the best method, rather than giving an example & claiming it to be best. I used to seperate everything on a layer of its own (like sketches) & make a category for it....but once I got used to GM's method, it really wasn't much different. However, things can become jumbled from time to time. It all depends on the complexity of the part.
Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question