Well, I still can't post to c-f for some reason, but I'll keep trying.
Comments below....
"Laurence Yeandle" wrote
in message news:406550a3$1_2@newsprd01...
> I'd be very interested to see your model Walt.
> I am working on several models at the moment and trying to streamline my
> methods, it gets complicated especially when you derive derived parts.
> One of my models uses the master part which is a shell (like egg shell)
> which is taken through the derived derived part as a surface and the
surface
> is used to trim (via split and delete face) the final part to fit inside
the
> shell.
I've done the same thing, except with a solid instead of a shell. I created
a basic shape of the main assembly I wanted to create (an assymetrical
sub-woofer box). Then I placed sketches on the sides, and drew profiles of
the various panels. In the derived part, I accepted everything (solid and
all), and created the panels by using intersect extrude. There are lots of
ways to do a skeletal setup.
> I find the only way I can keep track of what relies on what when working
on
> the model is to draw a flow diagram!
>
> 1) What's the problems with deriving derived parts / any limitations?
>
> 2) Any pros / cons with deriving parts before you place into an assembly,
> performance
> wise?
>
I've never had a problem with performance issues. In this project some of
the derived relationships are three-deep by the time you get to the main
assembly. But if I change the master file and update the main assembly, it
only takes a moment for everything to adapt.
> 3) I realise that skeletal modelling and constructing your master part
> techniques are any thing you want to make it and there are no hard and
fast
> rules or are there, do's and don'ts?
>
It really helps if you're careful to name all your sketches and work
geometry in the master. If I can ever get these files uploaded, you'll see
that even in this relatively small project, everything is named. Another
thing; Inventor has improved greatly in finding a sketch profile that's
buried in a bunch of others, but taking care in creating your sketchs still
helps. In Autocad circles, it's the sign of a rank amatuer to have lines
laying over the top of each other. With master sketching, you sometimes
have to do it.
> Hearing from some experts and some different techniques would be helpful.
>
As David pointed out, modeling skeletal can quickly get over-complicated.
But that's true of any big assembly, expecially an adaptive one. Who of us
wants to try to work on an assembly of any kind that someone else set up? I
get around this by being a one-man show. In an office with lots of seats,
it must be a real bearcat. It's true that to really do this right would
require perfect precognition. But in a situation where the design is
changing a lot, my worst enemy is still long streams of interdependent
assembly constraints. And a skeletal setup ain't got none o' those.
> --
> Laurence,
>
> Power is nothing without Control
> ---
>
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")