Bringing Parts Studios Together

sam_brown

I keep seeing variations of this question, but not quite what I'm after:

I made the basic mistake: I designed things that seemed unrelated in different Part Studios, and now I realize I want to bring them all together into a single Part Studio so that I can design an enclosure that they all snap or screw into. 

I've tried using the "Derive" feature, as many discussions here recommend, but once I derive from a different sketch, the derived part is locked at the origin. I can't move it to where it would sit in the case, to design the case.

I've tried using the "Transform Pattern" custom feature, but it added its own spin onto my parts. Literally. It rotated them for no apparent reason.

Is there a way to recover from the blunder of building my parts in different part studios and getting them all into one, or do I have to restart from scratch, and rebuild them all in a single part studio?

konstantin_shiriazdanov

First thing to try is bring all the parts in the assembly and create in-context part studio or edit in context one of the original part studios. Also you could position derived parts with Transform feature, but it requares to carefully define mate connectors for transform.

sam_brown

konstantin_shiriazdanov said:

Also you could position derived parts with Transform feature, but it requares to carefully define mate connectors for transform.

What's the procedure for this?

When I derive a part, I don't seem to be able to do anything to it. I can select the Transform option independently of the derived part, but then I don't seem to be able to select the derived part as the thing to transform. For everything I've tried, I can derive, or I can transform, but I have yet to find how to transform something I derived. Been trying an embarrassingly long time, and no way that I issue the command seems to be accepted.

konstantin_shiriazdanov

the whole video is about Transform feature: https://youtu.be/DEFL8cudEYM?t=1160

owen_sparks

Derive followed by transform into required position is a perfectly normal workflow, so the good news is it's perfectly possible.
Now  we just need to work out where you're stuck. If you post a link to your document and describe what your aim is I'm sure someone will help

billy2

At first do a derived partstudio into another partstudio.

Then after that, do work on bringing everything into an assembly. I think there are too many people stuck in partstudios and not moving to the world of desigining in an assembly (incontext). The "transform pattern" goes away when designing in the assembly.

A nice thing about OS is that assemblies inherit mates properly from children making the whole paradigm of top level assy, sub-assy & more sub-assy's work. Once you get there, you'll never go back to your old CAD system, this is a really impressive feature of OS.

To me the deliverable, or what you're working on should be an assembly not a partstudio.

Good luck and welcome OS.

sam_brown

owen_sparks said:

Derive followed by transform into required position is a perfectly normal workflow, so the good news is it's perfectly possible.
Now  we just need to work out where you're stuck. If you post a link to your document and describe what your aim is I'm sure someone will help

Thanks, Owen. I'm a few minutes into watching the video konstantin posted, and after tinkering with some of the ideas hinted there, I've had my first success translating the derived part. Specifically, I had to shift from using  using "Transform by Line" and start using "Transform by XYZ". For whatever reason, "Transform by Line" refused to allow the derived parts to be selected as the transform target, but Transform by XYZ is happy to accept them as the transform target. I think that gives me enough to work with I can muddle through for now and go back and study the "right" way to do this after the deadline is past.

romeograham

Now that you're having success with Transform - make sure you check out "Transform by Mate Connector". It's very nice to be able to move the part to an Absolute position / orientation, rather than a relative one.

Good luck!

bradley_sauln

@sam_brownI would suggest placing the parts you want to enclose into an assembly and then create an in-context part studio to design your enclosure in. This would be a smoother path then forward in my opinion so that there is no confusion with the derive as to where you should be modifying a part (typically in its originating part studio). If you are worried about the exact placement of the parts in the assembly you can create a master sketch to assist in their positioning. Along the lines of what @billy2 suggested.