http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/working-with-large-assemblies/ SolidWorks Tips, Tricks and Partner Reviews Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:33:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/working-with-large-assemblies/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Jeff Mirisola Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:45:51 +0000 http://jeffsblog.solidworksheard.com/?p=171#comment-211 SWPriest, Your comments bring up quite a few good points. Rather than trying to address them here, watch for another post on large assemblies. Jeff SWPriest,
Your comments bring up quite a few good points. Rather than trying to address them here, watch for another post on large assemblies.
Jeff

]]> http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/working-with-large-assemblies/comment-page-1/#comment-1446 Jeff Mirisola Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:45:00 +0000 http://jeffsblog.solidworksheard.com/?p=171#comment-1446 SWPriest, Your comments bring up quite a few good points. Rather than trying to address them here, watch for another post on large assemblies. Jeff SWPriest,
Your comments bring up quite a few good points. Rather than trying to address them here, watch for another post on large assemblies.
Jeff

]]> http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/working-with-large-assemblies/comment-page-1/#comment-210 SWPriest Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:19:31 +0000 http://jeffsblog.solidworksheard.com/?p=171#comment-210 Jeff, I think this post should be developed furthermore. I'm working with some teams across the world on the same project, and from my experience the very first and important thing is the layout (or the skeleton for Pro/E users). We spent few days (for a six-eight months project) thinking of how is the best to split the main assembly in functional areas and sub-assemblies. Then we work on setting the work-flow and project management. Many of us are ex-Pro/E users, so we borrowed some ideas for skeletons : for example we use 2 or 3 sketches, linked each-other by relations and/or equations, as layouts , together with axes, planes and origins. I don't know if this is the best way, so I'm asking if you use all of these and in what circumstances. Another problem working with several teams is the CAD culture. Despite common best practice methodology, common start-parts, common templates, common checklists and checking tools, common specifications, there always will be some differences between models, assemblies and drawings made by different teams. I know that is normal, but adding all of these to the same level is time consuming. Have you some suggestions in this area? Jeff,
I think this post should be developed furthermore. I’m working with some teams across the world on the same project, and from my experience the very first and important thing is the layout (or the skeleton for Pro/E users). We spent few days (for a six-eight months project) thinking of how is the best to split the main assembly in functional areas and sub-assemblies. Then we work on setting the work-flow and project management.
Many of us are ex-Pro/E users, so we borrowed some ideas for skeletons : for example we use 2 or 3 sketches, linked each-other by relations and/or equations, as layouts , together with axes, planes and origins. I don’t know if this is the best way, so I’m asking if you use all of these and in what circumstances.
Another problem working with several teams is the CAD culture. Despite common best practice methodology, common start-parts, common templates, common checklists and checking tools, common specifications, there always will be some differences between models, assemblies and drawings made by different teams. I know that is normal, but adding all of these to the same level is time consuming. Have you some suggestions in this area?

]]> http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/working-with-large-assemblies/comment-page-1/#comment-1445 SWPriest Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:19:00 +0000 http://jeffsblog.solidworksheard.com/?p=171#comment-1445 Jeff, I think this post should be developed furthermore. I'm working with some teams across the world on the same project, and from my experience the very first and important thing is the layout (or the skeleton for Pro/E users). We spent few days (for a six-eight months project) thinking of how is the best to split the main assembly in functional areas and sub-assemblies. Then we work on setting the work-flow and project management. Many of us are ex-Pro/E users, so we borrowed some ideas for skeletons : for example we use 2 or 3 sketches, linked each-other by relations and/or equations, as layouts , together with axes, planes and origins. I don't know if this is the best way, so I'm asking if you use all of these and in what circumstances. Another problem working with several teams is the CAD culture. Despite common best practice methodology, common start-parts, common templates, common checklists and checking tools, common specifications, there always will be some differences between models, assemblies and drawings made by different teams. I know that is normal, but adding all of these to the same level is time consuming. Have you some suggestions in this area? Jeff,
I think this post should be developed furthermore. I’m working with some teams across the world on the same project, and from my experience the very first and important thing is the layout (or the skeleton for Pro/E users). We spent few days (for a six-eight months project) thinking of how is the best to split the main assembly in functional areas and sub-assemblies. Then we work on setting the work-flow and project management.
Many of us are ex-Pro/E users, so we borrowed some ideas for skeletons : for example we use 2 or 3 sketches, linked each-other by relations and/or equations, as layouts , together with axes, planes and origins. I don’t know if this is the best way, so I’m asking if you use all of these and in what circumstances.
Another problem working with several teams is the CAD culture. Despite common best practice methodology, common start-parts, common templates, common checklists and checking tools, common specifications, there always will be some differences between models, assemblies and drawings made by different teams. I know that is normal, but adding all of these to the same level is time consuming. Have you some suggestions in this area?

]]> http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/working-with-large-assemblies/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Mike Puclett Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:28:44 +0000 http://jeffsblog.solidworksheard.com/?p=171#comment-209 Jeff, You certainly are pushing the envelope by designing buildings in Solidworks. Not too many people are, so it must be quite a task to manage. Too bad your not able to share the design with the world. Jeff,
You certainly are pushing the envelope by designing buildings in Solidworks. Not too many people are, so it must be quite a task to manage. Too bad your not able to share the design with the world.

]]> http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/working-with-large-assemblies/comment-page-1/#comment-1444 Mike Puclett Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:28:00 +0000 http://jeffsblog.solidworksheard.com/?p=171#comment-1444 Jeff, You certainly are pushing the envelope by designing buildings in Solidworks. Not too many people are, so it must be quite a task to manage. Too bad your not able to share the design with the world. Jeff,
You certainly are pushing the envelope by designing buildings in Solidworks. Not too many people are, so it must be quite a task to manage. Too bad your not able to share the design with the world.

]]>