Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
There has been major changes to how solidworks handles top down design. Configurations is to me the old way to handle top down design. The new way is to insert a part not thru assembly. I can elaborate I guess with screen shots if anyone gives a hoot. Solidworks folks got a bit more mature now in 2007. Edited by: design-engine
It would be great to hear your thoughts on Solid Works Top-Down design techniques. I've just started looking into this with my Solid Works 2006 personal version.
Coming from a Pro/E background like you I'm used to all the powerful tools that it provides for efficient modeling practices. I was thinking of two methods for handling this on solid works.
Method 1
Create a Part with all the Controlling Geometry in the form of Sketches and Surface features that can be used in the creation of features in the individual parts of the assembly. My initial approach was to create each part as an assembly containing the driving part with the controlling geometry and then be able to open each part along with the references it requires to regenerate.
This would lead to bigger file sizes due to the assembly files being used. I guess I could assemble the parts individually as parts in a new assembly with the Master Model "Controlling Geom" part as the first in the tree.
This method I felt would work better for an assembly like a Cell Phone or some other assembly with moving parts.
Method 2
The other method would be to create the Parts directly in the Assembly referencing the Master Model. But that would limit my ability to edit parts without all the other parts in the assembly open which I think is what you are referring to with the Configurations Method you mentioned.
I also give a hoot
From what I've seen in the last few releases of Solid Works there is a major improvement in functionality and it is getting a lot more powerful.
It's definitely got the attention of this Pro/E junky.
Are you suggesting that creating the references in multiple parts in an assembly is better than using a skeleton part and breaking out the parts?Hmmm...that used to be SW's way of doing things and I found there were far more broken references.
My original question was based on this scenario:
I had an electronics housing in a multi-body part that I was breaking out into the individual parts. In the parent part, I had two configs: one with external chamfersfor machiningand one with fillets for molding. I wanted to be able to maintain these configs with the broken out parts, but when you "Save Bodies" it only saves the current config. Not a big deal because a lot of those features are the last ones I model, so I can just put them in the broken out partsin different configs,but it would be nice to change the radius or chamfer angle with one feature in the skeleton as opposed to twice for the top housing and the bottom housing.
Don't think I am the expert. But when I show my thoughts with examples in solidworks to seasoned solidworks users they are usually blown away. Probably because I am trying to push the tool like I use in proe. Another reason they are impressed is because they get to using it like they learned from someone who did not know solidworks either and they get stuck in a rut and don't even know it.
I have more fun learning a tool with a challenge. With one tutorial I build in Pro/E the stapler. (see wikipedia image when you look up solidworks) With that tutor I introduce surfacing and and top down design. Thats were I insert part as I say above. Look at the menu for 'Insert' 'Part'.
Much like copy geometry I insert a part and act on the surfaces as delineation from one part to another focusing my efforts on tolerance and styling groove data.
The new releases of solidworks has got my attention too. I think they are finally giving up on ease of use and going for functionality. I always hated MAC PC debates. All the pros have both. The same with Solidworks and Pro/E debates. Your only a bad ass of you know them both.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
