Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

Options

Designing by layers improves efficiency?

javl0p_2javl0p_2 Member Posts: 72 PRO
Hi!

I have been lately implementing some Master Model workflows for a design I'm working on. I decided to design my assembly by "layers". What i mean by that is that I use different Part Studios for different levels of detail design. 

I first started with a Master Model PartStudio, with the reference sketches and MC. I derived that into a new Part Studio, where I created the basic geometry.

Afterwards I created a third Part Studio for detail external design, where I derived the basic geometry and so on. I will finally pass that to a coworker who will work in another Part Studio for the detailed internal design.

I wonder whether this way of working is the right one in terms of efficiency, since derived parts have less renegeration time than the whole operation tree?

On the other hand, a lot of Parts are being created since each Part Studio creates a "copy" of the previous Part Studio from which it derives the geometry.

What do you think?

Comments

  • Options
    S1monS1mon Member Posts: 2,577 PRO
    A top down tree of masters is not crazy, but be careful getting too deep. Two layers deep is about as far as I like to get. So a top master, maybe some intermediates and then the part studios which create the parts. Your masters can also create parts, or even beginnings of parts which get further detailed in the next layer of part studios.

    Derived sketches are pretty fast. Deriving using versions instead of live workspaces can also be faster. 

    With there being a lot of parts with the same name strewn about, one thing that I've been trying is to append "[parent]" to each part name which is not a finished part, but will be derived and detailed. I've found it's too easy to have too many parts with the same name in multiple part studios and that makes things confusing. If you have some sort of standard naming for stages of refinement, it will help.

    I also like using "[ref]" for anything which is derived in for reference only (e.g. industrial design model imports, or off the shelf parts I want to reference). One could argue that in-context would be a better way to handle these kinds of references, but I still prefer derived for things that aren't moving around and aren't dependent on complex assembly positioning.
  • Options
    javl0p_2javl0p_2 Member Posts: 72 PRO
    Thanks for the advices S1mon, definitely naming conventions are crucial to keep an order.

    I didn't know about deriving from version vs from workspace, good to know!
Sign In or Register to comment.