Proper Method of Detailing Parts From an Assembly?

[TomGoodfellow]

I recently saw a method of detailing parts in an assembly drawing that I had not considered before. I'd like to get some opinions if this is problematic, or the way to do it.
In the past, If I had to detail a part in an assembly drawing file, I simply started a new drawing sheet, and inserted the part in the drawing: insert/drawing view/model... and selected the appropriate part from the folder.
I recently saw someone do the following:
In their assembly, they created a configuration for each part that required a detail sheet. The configuration suppressed every part/instance except one. When the drawing view was created, the view was of the main assy, but in the properties of the view, they selected the appropriate configuration and only the part in question became visible.
What do you think of that practice?

Tom
PS,
I have had instances where, using the first method above, the wrong part was selected from the directory of parts. So the assy view showed one part, and the detail sheet and view showed a slightly different part!

 

[Regg]

Personally, I do not like inserting the assembly method. With the PLM system we use that means that all the parts of the assembly must be downloaded from the vault just to view the drawing. In some cases this may be several hundred parts so where it may only take less than a minute to display the drawing with just downloading a single model it may take over 10 minutes to view the drawing when all parts of the assembly must be downloaded (on this I speak from experience because someone where I work did this [not anymore though]).

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Being polite, I would say the idea is flawed.

Creating configs for each component of an assy could create a huge assy file.

Each view within a drawing would, in effect, be an assy.

The views placed on each drawing would have to be manually changed to select the intended config.

The possibility of selecting the wrong config would be far greater than selecting the wrong component.

Placing the correct orientation of a part would be more awkward.

And I dread to think of the problems that could arise when Details, Cross Sections and the like were used.

 

[JMirisola]

I've done something similar for assemblies, but never for detail views. The only time I'd create configurations of an assembly for use in a drawing would be to show how an assembly is put together for use on the production line. To create configurations strictly for the purpose of deriving detail views is a waste of resources. The part already exists outside the assembly. Why, in essence, would you recreate it in a less than desirable way? There are any number of reasons why you shouldn't create detail views in the manner you described.

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
Certified DriveWorks AE

http://designsmarter.typepad.com/jeffs_blog

Dell M90, Core2 Duo
4GB RAM
Nvidia 3500M

 

[TheTick]

I wouldn't allow it. No point in managing the extra configurations. Also would cause trouble w/ where-used searches for the part.

 

[pdybeck]

Even if you decided to do this, it would be better to use display states instead of configurations. They have a much lower overhead than configurations... But as others have stated this method is a bad idea.

 

[ctopher]

I'm for configuration control of revs and parts.
I have always created separate dwgs for each part and assy. It is easier to control them throughout assy and mfg.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 1.1
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog