Skeleton Modeling 3

[akhtar07]

Hello Everyone,

Can someone post a link or a good guide for skeleton modeling in CATIA ?

Thanks.

Warm regards,
Akhtar Aziz

 

[jackk]

There are at least 53 threads in this CATIA forum that talk about "skeleton" modeling. Just do a SEARCH on "skeleton"

 

[romaleee]

Hello.

Since this is the newest thread on skeleton subject, I'll ask my question here..

Is it valid solution to make subskeleton part for subassembly that is component and not product?

Standard version:

1. Main Product:

1.1)Main skeleton​

1.2)Subassembly 1 (product)​

1.2.1) Subskeleton​

1.2.2)Part 2​

1.2.2)Part 3​

1.3)Part 4​

1.3)Part 5​

What I would like to do and I'm not sure if this is valid solution:

1. Main Product:

1.1)Main skeleton​

1.2)Subassembly 1 (component)​

1.2.1) Subskeleton​

1.2.2)Part 2​

1.2.2)Part 3​

1.3)Part 4​

1.3)Part 5​

I'm asking this because in second example I have 2 skeleton parts saved in "Main product" and I don't know if there are any cons for that.

 

[romaleee]

Next question, since no one wants to answer first one What's the best flow of links between skeleton files? I've made some diagrams in attachment and if you cold comment them it would be great.

or

And for parameter defined in subassembly skeleton

or

or

Thnx
Hope somebody reads this

 

[itsmyjob]

As skeleton main purpose is to share/drive information, the main aspect is link management and information ownership (who controls what).

Links between files are going one way A --> B or B --> A but never A <--> B

in fact the A <--> B need is why we bring C as : A <-- C --> B

In general I would avoid #2 and #3 as this create unused links which use CPU/memory for nothing.

so #1, #4 and #5 is left, that could find an answer with "Who owns the information" if you have a team working with your skeleton, maybe skeleton assembly owner owns the information, or maybe it is owned by sub-assembly 2 team.
You also have to bring into the equation the other link, like I said before it goes only A --> B not A <--> B. so if you already have some link going down from top level down to sub product 2, then #4 and #5 is not working.

So option #1 seems the best, but what if you have parameter A owned by team 2 and parameter Z owned by team 1?

then maybe you need to bring a new part team 1 and a new part team 2 in the top product, at same level as sub product 1 and sub product 2. So you can have top product parameters in main product, part team1, and part team2 sharing respective parameters and sub product 1 and sub product 2 getting info from top level product, or top level parts.

Would that do?

I have some skeleton as your #4 but this is because I do not have any link going down from top level to sub level 2. I prefer #4 and not #5 as it is easier for me to see/manage/control the flow, I did not really try #5.

Eric N.
indocti discant et ament meminisse periti ​

 

[itsmyjob]

for you question 1 about using component or product, you will find the answer with who owns / control the information?

for single user skeleton I have the feeling component could be used (to be tested) but for team usage skeleton, products is the way to go as ownership might be different for main product and sub product...

Eric N.
indocti discant et ament meminisse periti ​

 

[romaleee]

Thank you for your detailed explanation itsmyjob. This clears out things. So if I'm getting this right, the only valid solution is #6??

#6

What if the person who is working with "P_1 skeleton.part" (Main product skeleton) needs data from sp_4 skeleton? Is the yellow link in #7 allowed?

#7

 

[itsmyjob]

#6 or #7 wont work because of loop

parameter B and C should start from top level part, for each owner you should have a top level part (some could be manage within the main root product)

Eric N.
indocti discant et ament meminisse periti ​

 

[itsmyjob]

or may be that could work, but would require clean management and organization if RED or ORANGE create new parameter then master GREEN should get it first before sub level access them also Master would need to update / synchronize if RED ORANGE parameter change value:

it looks nice but because of the need to synch or create new parameter I would prefer the solution bellow

Eric N.
indocti discant et ament meminisse periti ​

 

[romaleee]

Thnx again for detailed explanation. One thing is still not clear to me though...

Let's say that master GREEN is the owner of parameter "A" and parameter "C". ORANGE is the owner off parameter "B". For the definition of value "B", ORANGE needs (in some aspect) value of parameter "A". He gets this with link GREEN --> ORANGE. Master GREEN on the other hand needs parameter "B" for creation of parameter "C". Does this mean that "A" and "C" can not be created in same file? This would also mean that master GREEN has to have two skeleton parts at same level as "sub product 1" and "sub product 2"(directly under root product)?

 

[itsmyjob]

That's my feeling too. CATIA will not let you create looping cycle, but GREEN can have several source files in order to avoid this.

Who said skeleton methodology was easy to put in place?

Eric N.
indocti discant et ament meminisse periti ​