Feature Based Supermodelling

[Anonymous]

I have attached a scenario that utilizes features in a part to reconfigure a Vessel Bottom Head.  I have received some flack for this idea and some so called experts complain it is not a very good way of editing models.  To me it is the quickest way I have found yet and also allows for me to do a lot of things without replacing parts.  Which will help tremendously if you are using Specifications and other properties from the Parts, there is no need to repopulate these sometimes complex situations.  Any feedback on the Pros and Cons on this would be so helpful thank you.

[b_sharanraj]

Hi @Anonymous

Are you creating an Entire Assembly in a single part?

Practically how possible it was that much possible only you got to access the Detailed Manufacturing Drawings & BOM.

You have to work some more to make it happen the same way with individual parts.

[Anonymous]

Once fully configured (and assuming that each component is its own solid), you could use the "Make Components" tool at the part level to break this out into an assembly with parts. That would satisfy the BOM and detailing requirements. However, you could also handle this with a single part by creating design views of all of the components and creating a custom table to handle the BOM. Ballooning would be the only downfall there.

[Anonymous]

I would be interested in seeing the model tree; I don't quite understand what you mean by "feature-based".

[Anonymous]

This is individual parts.  I have put in the work, and you are seeing the individual parts be revised per the configuration spec's.

[Anonymous]

This is exactly how I created my Assembly form a "skeleton" of sketches.  These are individual parts that have an array of features.  So what you are seeing is the Btm head "changing" its features, not a part being replaced so it is much quicker obviously and I do not have to do any iProperty changes because the part never changed.  

[Anonymous]

The Features allow the configuration to change within  parts instead of replacing parts.  Save tons of time the more complex the situation.  I have shown how to do things that would normally take minutes, down to seconds without needing to update part properties.  The model tree is completely normal.

[b_sharanraj]

Are you using Level of Details for Suppressing & Un-suppressing the Components which you need and not as per the input.

[Martin-Winkler-Consulting]

Hi, ron.king6

when i am creating an Assembly which is a variabel constructiuon i am use one master.ipt containing all Sketches, Parameters and Work Objects.

Then i am creating derived Parts from my master sketch part and put tem into the Assembly only by making Flush Constraints to the original workplanes.

All Parts are automatically in the right position and its also possible to replace parts without losing Constraints.

The great advantage is that you have the full control in the master ipt and could use all Parameters, Workplanes and so on in all derived parts and assemblies.In htis case its also possible to save variants and copy with Vault the complete construction to create a new ones.

Also the BOM in the Assembly is fine!

How did you put the parameters in your parts. Another way is to do it wirh iLogic Rules. In large assemblies this can become very confusing.

Regards Martin

[Anonymous]

Actually no I sometimes use View Representations if I need only specific things called out on Drawings.  Otherwise it is completely rules based suppression, editing.  Like True False Parameters shut on off features and so on.

[Anonymous]

I utilize the "Master.ipt" concepts as well bro and it seems the more complex the Assemblies it is, the more you simply need to use care when editing the actual skeleton otherwise the forms and rules regulate everything else.

[b_sharanraj]

Even i use the Master.ipt Concept but I'm having more Logical & Various Shapes of Profiles.

I have updated my concept in the same way for different combination of shapes to achieve what output i need.

[Martin-Winkler-Consulting]

Hi B.Sharan Raj,

in the case of different Profiles (Part could change  from Profil A to B,C.D...) i am using supressing not used Extrusions in the derived part which ist driven by an iLogic Rule (in the part) depending on a parameter that identifies which profile should be used.

That works very fine.

[b_sharanraj]

Yes the same but in part itself i'll know where it has to be placed.

I use a lot of Workplanes for each part and position of them it makes me more easy in assembly

[Anonymous]

I use a Skeleton Model to make Assemblies, so, yes, I do already have an assembly.  Thank you.