work in 3d + m.i.t.

[rinato]

Good morning, I need some advice from who is already practical to design in 3d.
in practice I am trying to draw a sheet mold in 3d (without module progress, meanwhile): I have to extract the various details for the creation of quota tables etc., but also to be able to plan the cam processing.
What is the best approach, according to vs. experience with visi?
it is best to leave in the 3d environment the only total, in mit extract all the individual pieces by selecting them from the tree (to make it the table), and then to make the cam on the piece included in the total; or the compl. copy the various pieces (in 3d), make the tables in mit, and then the cam on the piece "external"?
and then, p.e., some very long pieces that doesn't make sense to print in scale, but broken, in mit become a bit uncomfortable/maybe to handle or is it just my impression? and it generally applies to the details that the mit does not make to duty. . .
thanks for the help, reborn

p.s. My signature certainly does not help...:biggrin:

 

[ziotoy]

I do not know if it is the best approach but I do so: environment 3d overall mold, environment 2d only the ball of the overall.poi I make a file for every detail of the mold where in the environment 3d I carry out any processing and in the environment 2d the putting into the table.
will you tell me... what if I change a detail in the whole?? It is clear that you will have to replace the old detail with the new one in the specific file and update the possible processing and the relative table setting.
I hope I've been clear.
Say hi.

 

[rinato]

thanks Uncletoy, although it seems to me the most complicated approach could have its advantages. I try not to disperse too much data since I am not the only one to follow every single contract.

 

[CAIO983]

Hello, everyone. I design very complex molds with faces.
I hold only 1 file, the 3d axieme is divided on the various layers while the 2d I create it on a layer (table) then using the pages in the environment put on the table.

I hope I helped!

 

[rinato]

hello caio983, thanks for the answer.
I have actually tried to work a couple of 3d molds for both design readability and personal curiosity. were similar molds. I created the mould in total by distributing the components on the layers. then in mit I used the same layers to see the various pieces. the problem is that having a company graphic standard a little simplified compared to the iso, the views generated automatically seemed unreadable, paradoxically.
then I noticed that I have some component management problem when planning the cam. if I leave all the pieces only on the overall one overlaps a tide of stuff, if I extract the various pieces "at the margin" to improve the legibility I tend to create doubles maybe losing on the street some modification in progress.
and then I have to share files with a less inclined colleague, or less brought, to this way of working. so I will continue to manage files in 2d, while having seen the advantages of "upgrade".
certain that to easily exploit the 3d would also need automatic recognition of the features in the cam. but I have already tried it is not me seemed functional enough, but, as for the cad, the problem could be the human factor.
Greetings, reborn.