Creating a flexible model

[Anonymous]

Nearly all question here are regarding tips and tricks for tricky features, and all answers basically include massaging CV hulls.

But if you're in a large project where many design detail changes may happen, all those tricks go out the window, because that would break the model and you'd have to start over on a bigger part of it than what the change dictates, right? Or am I thinking about this wrong?

Like, moving a complex corner with a washout that you had to massage the hull to get it right?

Does anyone have any resources for strategies on how to manage this? More like, meta tips, rather than the normal super detailed tips you get...

[San_Escobar]

dude,

FRENCH HUMOR ON:

I am afradi that the BUTTON AUTOMATICALLY MODEL IT FOR ME DOES NOT EXIST...

FRENCH HUMOR OFF:

Sorry but it need to be manually, there are some tools that automated a lot of things, like lattices. have a go.

Enjoy. Good Lucky!!!

[duaxiong]

I try not to massage the CVs until the final builds.  History is overated and unreliable; don't worry about breaking it.

[Anonymous]

Me it used to be very interested too. When the concept turns into a product project, then any change is difficult with such many details, especially if the changes are fundamental to the shaping surfaces. Once I redid all manually, and I was very exhausted herself. This situation made me realize that we can no longer continue to organize the work process that we need to do something differently. If you want to work normally, and not to have sex with the alterations in such an uncomfortable way, then you need to use a hybrid approach in the design. It is best to use a system that is able to work parametrically on the base of the tree and without parametric and tree at a time, i.e. manually as Rhino and Alias only without the history and how the CAD tree build parameters and dependencies. You basic shaping, which are responsible for the basic design, made by hand with no history, and all other nodes and other detailing, which depends on these main forms of make parametrically linked where possible. If you do, you will be able to change the basic design, and the rest will itself be rebuild. Of course there are exceptional cases. You need experience and understanding how it works. One thing is for sure, I am now much easier to do large projects with full detail than before.

[San_Escobar]

Dude I just can't understand what did you mean on your text. I am not trying to be picky but I tried to read and understand it several time and it become irksome.

Hope you understand my point, try to be clear next time.

[duaxiong]

Yes, there are advantages to parametric modeling...BUT then you are limited to those parameters.

[Anonymous]

Not only parametric. there are systems that operate in two modes simultaneously. The user selects what will be parametric, and what will be built without the history and parameters.

[Anonymous]

If you make the base surface (e.g. a car) without parameters, but the separation of body parts of the attachment do parametric, then when editing the shape, you will not lose a valuable part of the work on the details. Don't have to redo everything if you're a little mistaken with the contours of the body.

[Anonymous]

Well, perhaps I did not explain my "problem" very well.

I was mainly looking for "best practices" tips when it came to how to structure very large Alias models.

We have a certain way of building Solidworks models in my company, so when people work on a model/assembly they didn't create, they can find their way around it and modify it relatively easy (for example, using the concepts of "skeleton" and "master body" etc.)

And while I'm the only guy currently using Alias, I still worry (perhaps even moreso because of the fact) if I'm building models only I'm capable of modifying, without breaking history... but also, if I have to edit the same model in two years time, will I remember?