changes together or multibody

[Dade73]

Good morning.
asking about nx I came across my poor knowledge of solidworks.
to today to build and shape assemblies with moving parts and at the same time with aesthetic forms dictated by marketing, I move like this:
I create in mode part my object with pleasing forms to those of duty, verify in the phase of modeling the mechanical functionality and the possibility to insert it in further together with other components.
finished modeling, with the function (abbina/divid) I divide my multibody into single parts and I insert it with its couplings in the set.
error or it is not possible to manage in the environment together the contemporary modification of several parts, making remain the change in the history of the single part.
a cordial greeting to all readers

 

[meccanicamg]

hi dade, the way you use is that we say lower level for the type of software you use.

in a set environment it is possible to insert parts and to carry out the feautures of together (which are only of removal and not of material addition) and by popping the item "proga to the parts" it has that each part maintains the effects of the changes waxed together. It is evident that the history of the work together is contextual to the assieme and even if the parts report the feutures suffered, it is necessary to modify them from the assieme.

There are many smarter ways to use a software to do a part and make it multibody, save it as single parts and then reassemble it together. this operation was done on the first versions of solidworks when they had problems on the undeveloped modules regarding the plates... but it is strongly not recommended, especially for the redundancy of files.

 

[Dade73]

mechanicalmg thanks for the answer;
in realizing my example I have misrepresented my need; normally my problem is not in cutting or extruding material on multiple parts, but in shaping them, they tell me, higher round than...... and clearly these aesthetic changes vary of solids sometimes obtained with loft or sweep or free form.
These solids that vary in shape are my multibody files, which I go to change depending on the daily circulation that has the commercial.
modified the multibody, here are updated all parts of the set.
I also realize that we are talking about an extremely pleading approach, but I don't know how to do it if not.
I welcome advice.

 

[meccanicamg]

Please! everything depends that product you have to realize and that with technologies you realize it. If you make product modeling I would say that you could even start from a set, do the layout sketch (i.e. where you will have all the product shape guidelines) and inserting various parts into the axieme and projecting the layout lines in the sketches of the parts, you will always have a model that fits itself in its parts by changing the sketch together.

 

[Dade73]

Mechanicalmg your speech is very good, I realize I have dealt with the discussion with the unfair approach.
as from my request for info from nx colleagues, placed here also an image of a lid and its button seen in section, these details go to join other existing components with which I realize my work set, operating tests.....
My problem begins at the time when they tell me to change the design of the object in more bombed, higher...and clearly such shape changes affect both parts that you must find perfectly related even at the end of the changes.

 

[meccanicamg]

Okay, you're dealing with these beautiful objects that you can hardly shape together... It would take a advice from those who model parts and not those who model systems like me. I think that unfortunately the multibody approach could be one and perhaps the only solution. We must wait for the intervention of someone who handles things here more I do not know.

cmq you are not obliged to save the bodies in external files, just make the configurations and reassemble everything or in part together and stays very fast and you have no redundancy of files.. .as long as it is the only feasible road

 

[Dade73]

thanks again mechanicalmg, for what concerns the "reassembly" are already in automatic configuration.
hi and good evening

 

[re_solidworks]

top down, starting from the surfaces. I would say that would be the top for this element.

 

[Dade73]

thanks re_s., when talking about surfaces I get bubbles, it's my conceptual drain to manage the surfaces, so you would model a surface in the set, and then go to disassemble later?

 

[re_solidworks]

You could create a part where you do the superstores that define the overall shape of the object and the sketches needed to break it. then create the other parts, inserting this part as a derivative and then cutting the part of superphilia in submerged.
another method could be to create a set, insert your part of surfaces and then insert other blank parts, put the couplings (e.g. origin on origin) and then enter into the contextual modification of the part, make an offset 0 superphilia (make a copy of the surface you need) rewire, thicken, etc...
are two different roads with advantages and disadvantages one compared to the other.

to create a surface you can also create a solid and then convert it with the command "face drop".

 

[SolidUser]

Mechanicalmg your speech is very good, I realize I have dealt with the discussion with the unfair approach.
as from my request for info from nx colleagues, placed here also an image of a lid and its button seen in section, these details go to join other existing components with which I realize my work set, operating tests.....
My problem begins at the time when they tell me to change the design of the object in more bombed, higher...and clearly such shape changes affect both parts that you must find perfectly related even at the end of the changes.

I give you my advice that in my opinion is the best in terms of robustness and management.
you make style products.
example of a modern mouse.
1) models all your mouse in part environment, not in multibody mode.
2) use the 'divid' command in conjunction with the 'cart' command and generate a multibody
3) Export the parts together
4) every single part will then be completed with other details if you want it or do it in master model mode

p.s:this with the basic version, with nx you forget it.
It's also true that sw doesn't have an advanced tool like nx for surfaces, but it depends on what you have to do.
if you have to make consumer products, then it's okay also sw, if you have to do car, then the target is another, even if there are people who have done car (by dialect) with solidworks.

 

[Dade73]

hi soliduser thanks for the intervention (you had completely disassembled me with the post on nx), until today I behaved like you described, the only thing I do not use is the cart command (what would it serve???). nx users declaim tens, hundreds, thousands of possibilities to manage my models, I watched dozens of nx network videos, overwhelming for what concerns changes of solids or surfaces, but certainly less intuitive than solidw.