coordinate systems

[enrico.losio]

Good morning to all,
I tried to do a search on the forum before asking the question, but I didn't find what interests me. I come from years of design in proe, now it is about 3 months that I use solidworks, I need to know, and of course how to do, to create, with sw, additional coordinate systems besides the default one.
I better explain, I would like to create, as I did with proes, a part that contains only coordinate systems, this part then I would insert it at the beginning of the tree of my set, and all the other parts that I will insert will be coupled each with their system of coordinates and not with plans, edges, interassis etc.

thanks to all

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

while in other cads coordinate systems can be created for translation and/or rotation of other coordinate systems, in solidworks can only be created by pointing to existing entities. as I see the use as you mean of coordinate systems could be redundant, as you should carry geometries.

 

[enrico.losio]

shirokko grace, so the parts in solidworks must always be coupled with the classic 3 constraints (planes, faces, etc.) or there is something faster

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

shirokko grace, so the parts in solidworks must always be coupled with the classic 3 constraints (planes, faces, etc.) or there is something faster

I didn't mean that. you can bind parts through coordinate systems using axis orientation, but creating a part containing only reference systems is practically impossible, since in any case a coordinate system should be created using references on other geometries (schizzi, solid bodies, planes...) and therefore the part of the coordinate systems will also contain geometries of "support". Now, since you also have other robes around, it's not worth using these directly, mostly having a visually more immediate set to read?

 

[enrico.losio]

Of course, a coordinate system should be created "by supporting it" on plans for example, but regardless of the complication of life, I tried to create plans compared to the default ones, but I can't create the coordinate system on these created.

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

Of course, a coordinate system should be created "by supporting it" on plans for example, but regardless of the complication of life, I tried to create plans compared to the default ones, but I can't create the coordinate system on these created.

a coordinate system also has a origin, and this must be a point, which is a point entity, the end of a sketch curve or a body summit. The only plans are not enough.

 

[enrico.losio]

ok, you were very clear, so to create 2 or more coordinate systems within a part first I have to create a point, give the position coordinates at this point and then on that, possibly create my coordinate system?

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

ok, you were very clear, so to create 2 or more coordinate systems within a part first I have to create a point, give the position coordinates at this point and then on that, possibly create my coordinate system?

as regards the orientation of the axes, you can use plans that will be interpreted for normal, or other points that will define the direction vector.

 

[enrico.losio]

What do you think is the best system to mate parts of a set?

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

What do you think is the best system to mate parts of a set?

Obviously the best way does not exist, since it depends on the context where you work and the type of project. in case you propose, thinking about it better, that type of coupling for coordinate systems is the fastest to manage, but probably your "support" part will be a little more chaotic to see than you are used to. I would now do of necessity virtue using the geometries of construction of the coordinate systems to "complete" the axieme. This is valid for you, however, is not said to be the best method in absolute, as the bond of coincidence with the block of the axes allows only the creation of rigid couplings, and in case they plan of the mechanisms that you have to move, you need more.

 

[enrico.losio]

the part that will contain all the coordinate systems will be "unbeaten" this I know, the first times I used proe was a delirium, but making us habit was easier than I thought.
in proe it was possible to create a system of coordinates offset by the origin of what it wanted and then to give it the possible inclination of one of the axes, thus obtaining a new system of coordinates that was renamed with the code of the component that was assembled there

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

but why not use the geometries of the existing parts? creating an origin to place the part in a set already means a priori knowing where it will be placed, having the objective to make it fixed and therefore not to move it inside the axieme if not changing the parameters of the origin.
Are you sure this is the right way? don't you want to deepen the couplings and do solid tutorials?

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

but why not use the geometries of the existing parts? creating an origin to place the part in a set already means a priori knowing where it will be placed, having the objective to make it fixed and therefore not to move it inside the axieme if not changing the parameters of the origin.
Are you sure this is the right way? don't you want to deepen the couplings and do solid tutorials?

In principle it is so, but if the purpose is to have rigid structures with certain orientation parts and on which you work with a high repetition, then everything can make sense. It is a method I have never used, but the more I think about it and the more interesting I find it.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

then perhaps it is the case of creating parts within the axieme

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

then perhaps it is the case of creating parts within the axieme

using the layout or functions together? This can also be a strategy!

 

[teseo]

In principle it is so, but if the purpose is to have rigid structures with certain orientation parts and on which you work with a high repetition, then everything can make sense. It is a method I have never used, but the more I think about it and the more interesting I find it.

you also think of me the method of enrico seems interesting but if you think about it well is fast because you do not have to manage more constraints but at the same time very rigid in all senses; removes flexibility, a classic bond system for solid works; so much so it is worth doing everything in one part then a multibody. . .

It's just a point of view....if I have the method of enrico, it's okay when you need to remake some assemblies where you know everything: how many parts, and where they go etc... Then, yes, but if you want to change... help... .
Hi.

 

[enrico.losio]

If I do, the method of embellishment is fine when you need to remake aces where you know everything: how many parts, and where they go etc... Then, yes, but if you want to change... help... .
Hi.

It is precisely this purpose, I am how many components will have my own set, and where they will be placed, by this method it is easier to change the position of each part, in addition these parts will be individual among themselves and modifying the references I would not risk to break the model tree

 

[enrico.losio]

then perhaps it is the case of creating parts within the axieme

creating parts within the axieme would make them too bound to each other

 

[teseo]

It is precisely this purpose, I am how many components will have my own set, and where they will be placed, by this method it is easier to change the position of each part, in addition these parts will be individual among themselves and modifying the references I would not risk to break the model tree

excuse me but I disagree with you it is easier to move a part with a point of editable edge than with constraints that can be more mobile.... having at disposal a thousand different references a thousand possibilities against the simple possibility of modifying the origin maybe editing offset or other than more will also be calculated..... think about inclinations or other

Hi.

 

[enrico.losio]

excuse me but I disagree with you it is easier to move a part with a point of editable edge than with constraints that can be more mobile.... having at disposal a thousand different references a thousand possibilities against the simple possibility of modifying the origin maybe editing offset or other than more will also be calculated..... think about inclinations or other

Hi.

Sorry I didn't explain myself well, when I used proes I created the parts, then I created the axieme, and the first component of each set was a part that contained only the coordinate systems for the positioning of every other part of the axieme. each part had its own coordinate system.