Co-ordinate system assembly benefit

[ASHOK CHAUHAN]

Hi;
Actually I want to know what are the benefit of
coordinate system assembly technique.
I think the best way to assemble the component to
component is what they are actually assembled. If ant body
know the assembly benefit from coordinate system assembly
then plz help me.

Regds
Ashok Chauhan
Pro-e wild fire - 3.0 user

 

[kdem]

Some would be it's a single reference you have to specify, there may be instances where the assembly constraints you want may be difficult to specify, and one of the most common I've seen is to keep an assembly from failing when you delete features or remove components from an assembly that referencesdepend on.

 

[jayanta.diff]

well there has lot of drawbacks of this methods but one good thing is you wont find your missing reference dialog box if u delete any component because everything is assembled by one co ordinate system. Also u will find the actual interference due to moving one component since by other method if u move component all other relevant assembled parts will move.

 

[ASHOK CHAUHAN]

Some would be it's a single reference you
have to specify, there may be instances where the
assembly constraints you want may be difficult to
specify, and one of the most common I've seen is to keep
an assembly from failing when you delete features or
remove components from an assembly that references

 

[ASHOK CHAUHAN]

well there has lot of drawbacks of
this methods but one good thing is you wont find your
missing reference dialog box if u delete any component
because everything is assembled by one co ordinate
system. Also u will find the actual interference due to
moving one component since by other method if u move
component all other relevant assembled parts will move.

Hi jayanta;
I am absolutely agree with your point. We
are not doing assembly in 3D only for assembly whereas we
want benefit of changing of assembly relate with
component dimension and feature. So that we find any kind
of assembly solution whatever we want.

Regds
Ashok Chauhan

 

[kdem]

But we want that if some component dimensions/ feature
are change then accordingly assembled component will also
change.( it is our requirement).
second thing for assembly of component it is necessary
requirement of Assemble a component. i thing it is must.
And if we ignore it then we loose the 3D capability.
just for sake of assembly maintaining (any component not
suppress while reference feature deletion of component
and after that assembly regeneration).
What you thing about that point.

Regds
Ashok chauhan

Without knowing specifically what you're refering to and how your models are setupit's hard to give an answer. I'm also not saying placing using coordinate systems is better just that it can be useful and what I've seen it used for.


For the firstpoint just because you're placing a component by a coordinate system doesn't mean you can't setup models to update in the way they need to.


For the second point I'm not saying use only coordinate systems to assemble components. Why is it necessary to use multiple constraints as opposed to a single coordinate system? Without knowing the situation I can't say what constraints I would use. There is also no reason you can't redefineconstaints as you model. For instance one situation where I would use a coordinate system (at least initially) is when you know the location of a mating interface but don't know what the interface looks like. Constraints are useful for showing how you intend things to assemble in a 3D model but for the purposes of assembling the actual product it's not necessary for someone to know the model constraints you used in the 3D model. For instance you have two parts with a mating faces, as long as the parts are modelled and assembled correctly in both the 3D model and reality does it really matter whether the parts areassembled in the 3D model using coordinate system, datum plane, or part surface constraints? I don't think it's a matter of ignoring and loosing 3D capability it'smodelling in a different manner.

 

[Zestje]

I agree with kdem. Furtermore I would like to point out the fact that both methods have their advantages and disadvantages.

The main advantage of CS assembly to me is that when working on parts with design surfaces (imported with external copygeometry) this guarantees that the surfaces and other imported features always fit together. This usually also goes for other features like e.g. hooks between parts. If I assembled otherwise and would change a mating surface, the parts outer designs would simply no longer fit.
Disadvantageous is, of course, that you don't see from the outside if a change in interfaces between parts has 'broken' the interface, e.g. created an intersection between parts.

Assemly from component to component has the opposite advantages and disadvantages.

For each component and subassemby think about what is most important and/or robust and assembly it that way!

 

[nawaz]

Dear Ashok,


If u use top-down assembly method this particular feature is very much useful in which some subassemblies consistig many parts. I prefer to use skeletons and default assembly constraint. as many said in this forum itshould bethe need of ur assembly rather than choice.





I work here for Industrial HVAC system in which hundreds of parts are there. As u design method i divide this m/c in to reuired no. of subassemblies (sub assemblies are containing skeletons) and i assemble these things using default constraint in main assembly.





with this method also u can setup ur part / sub-assembly so that they are interrelated or independent.

 

[ASHOK CHAUHAN]

I agree with kdem. Furtermore I would
like to point out the fact that both methods have their
advantages and disadvantages.The main advantage of CS
assembly to me is that when working on parts with design
surfaces (imported with external copygeometry) this
guarantees that the surfaces and other imported features
always fit together. This usually also goes for other
features like e.g. hooks between parts. If I assembled
otherwise and would change a mating surface, the parts
outer designs

 

[ASHOK CHAUHAN]

Dear Ashok,


If u use top-down assembly method this particular
feature is very much useful in which some subassemblies
consistig many parts. I prefer to use skeletons and
default assembly constraint. as many said in this forum
it

 

[boleslawny]

Hi All,


As you all know a lot about co-ordinate system assembly method and this threat is quite fresh, I would like to ask anyone to help me to understand how to assembly couple of parts using this method. Maybe you have some kind of simple tutorial or you could make a simple 2/3 parts assembly using a lot of print screen button and a little description.

the thing is that I'm responsible for an assembly and others in our team are responsible for the components. I would like to start making the assembly despite I do not have all of the components. I think this is the best method to use in this case.


Anyway I would appriciate any help on this topic.


Many thanks
Regards
Boleslawny
WF 4.0 user