Top Down Design SolidWorks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2024
- This is an example of how to built a top down assembly so that parts can be related to each other so updating one part will also update the others. I didn't prep it before making the video, so I am puzzling through a few things, but it will give you a pretty good idea of how it differs from Bottom Up design using something similar to the caster we used for the first project.
![Top-Down Design [webinar] #DoMoreWithDASI](/img/n.gif)
Thanks for taking the time to make this video and share your knowledge. Wow! You do have a lot of videos. I look forward to watching some of your other ones. I like how you teach while doing something you haven't already done yet. It's fun to watch and listen to your thought process as you approach each step.
I'm glad you found them useful. I've been making videos for my students since long before opening a TH-cam channel. I used to post them on our internal network, but the remote classroom forced by Covid19 made that unavailable to students -- until we went to a virtual desktop environment for our labs -- so I started placing them on TH-cam to give access to students. Making them public meant they didn't have to find a link. It didn't occur to me that they would be of interest to others until someone pointed out that I had subscribers. I'm keeping it that way because of the positive feedback I get (although a tiny amount of it is fairly snarky) and because I often pick up some new information or idea from people who do comment on them. At any rate, after over 20 years of making instructional videos, I do have a lot of them, some of which are getting dated. As you pointed out, I don't worry about production values or mistakes and sometimes start making a video before I know the details of what I'm going to do, and I don't do much editing.
I didnt even know you could do this. Changes the game for me
So glad it was helpful.
If you prefer to work in metric and (as shown in the video) it starts an imperial part, this can be fixed in the Default Templates tab in the options. You can do one of two things here:
1. Click the radio button that says "Prompt user to select document template"
2. Set your default part template that is setup for metric in the appropriate field.
I think the best solution is to created a series of template files so you can always just pick the correct template at the time you start a part, assembly, or drawing file. I have a video on template creation in this playlist.
I am from Vietnam. Thank you for the knowledge I have learned, hope you will make more design videos so that everyone can learn. this is the best solidwork learning video i have ever seen.
Thank you for the kind words. I have made a lot of videos regarding SolidWorks. I make more as my students need them. If you subscribe you'll get notified when I upload them. I do videos on other subjects as well, so not every upload will be of interest to you.
Amazing video. Exceptional clarity. 100%.
Well, thank you for those kind words.
Great work sir. Hope to see more 😀
I put up a video when I want to share something with my students, so it isn't regular. I do have a lot of SolidWorks videos on this channel though.
Dan , one of the best SW videos I've seen! The only thing I didn't get was how the different parts are saved externally,
Thanks for the kind words. Individual parts can be saved externally by right clicking on the part in the part tree and selecting Save Part (In External File). It can be placed in a different location. The primary value of doing that is to be able to open it individually for inspection or to create an STL file for machining or 3D Printing.
greetings from Germany🇩🇪 thank you for your great tutorial
You are very welcome.
I would say, that this approach is more about creating dependent features between the parts. Top-down philosophy suggests often even more centralized control over all the important features and interfaces of the assembly.
That is a good point, but this is what most people are referring to when they say top-down. Using a layout to begin an assembly would be more centralized, but I find that mixing these types of relationships in with a standard bottom up approach can be very helpful.
Good job. Thanks
You are welcome.
Thanks for sharing
My pleasure
Thanks for your video on top-down modeling. This is something I am trying to get better at. is sketch mirror, are sketch and feature then mirror preferred method. I was told a sketch and feature then mirror saves space?
Sketch mirror or feature mirror depends on the geometry, but would normally mirror features where that makes sense. For example, a symmetrical part that will be revolved would mirror the sketch, but holes that are symmetrical but not in a linear pattern I would mirror as features.
Thank you for your video - good stuff. Curious if you have anything in Solidworks akin to the "Master Model" technique in Creo (ProE)?
I don't use proE and haven't even looked at it for a long time, so there are undoubtedly aspects of the master model concept that I am not aware of. I think it can be emulated using one of two approaches. Create all related parts in a single assembly using this Top Down technique and start with the part whose dimensions and shapes will drive all the other parts (the outer case of an electronics assembly, for example). Now build each part in the assembly with relations to the original.
For some types of assemblies, using the layout tool would work better and also restrict the subsequent parts, but that would mostly be used to control the location, not the shapes and sizes of those parts.
Another possibility is to create a single part with multi - bodies (don't merge the bodies), using relations to the base part. Bodies can be exported to individual files if necessary.
This is a long-winded way of saying that I don't really know, but here are my best guesses.
You answered the question from Danielagostinho21 that I was going to ask. When explaining you were using the plane in the assembly you were choosing Part 12. This might be from "I don't prep." It also appears you don't review. I liked the video, but was disappointed that you didn't carry forward to make parts from the "parts in assembly" that would be needed for STL or other things. You also didn't make detail print(s) for the shop to use. Do the parts need to be made into "real" parts, i.e. not in assembly to make the print(s)? I haven't looked, but maybe you did another video covering that. I'll check.
I make these videos for my classes, and make them available to the public as a curtesy. I do them in one take. If that doesn't suit your taste, feel free to look elsewhere.
Hey Proff! Great Video!! What's the purpose of the first part that appears in the feature manager above the base you created? Also, FYI when you chose Insert compont, New Part, Solidworks will use the default part template. You default part template appears to be set to inch which explain what you need to switch to MMGS on the new part.
The first part was created when I selected the green check without having selected a file. It created an empty part file, which I should have used as the base. I really do make these videos without doing any prep so my students can see the process that people actually go through in using software so they don't think they're doing something wrong when they have some false starts or need to stop and do some planning. I should have selected the red X instead of the green check. I also started over when making the wheel, which I could have edited out, but that takes time.
What if, for example, there was a feature on the wheel that needs to be reflected back onto the original baseplate part. The wheel is based off components which are based on the baseplate, but then you have a feature on the baseplate that depends on the wheel. Its like two parts referencing eachother. Is that OK?
Just saw this. It's a good question, which can probably be answered with yes and no, but I'll try to put together a short video sometime this week.
Thank you so much! Great content, can I suggest you start uploading the PDFs of the full drawings so we can give it a try by ourselves before seeing you do it?
TH-cam doesn't have a process for uploading PDF files to a video. You could do a screen capture of the image by pausing the video. If you use the Windows snipping tool, you can select the area of the screen and then save it as a JPG file so you can refer to it. Glad you found the content helpful.
@@DanAbbott-SMCC you could host it on drive and just add a link to the file in the description! Thank you yeah that's what I've been doing but some details are hard to get
such a great video! Thanks
my question is, is this applicable for 100+ parts?
Sure, as long as you have a computer with the processing power to work with 100 parts.
@@DanAbbott-SMCC Your origin (for each part) will end up far outside the component geometry and that is a pain. Automotive industry uses this and it requires many additional sketches and reference geometry to work with these parts in other assemblies. Exported (step/iges) parts are even less fun. I want to like top down modelling but I just don't see it as superior. Also, you are always working in an assembly rather than a part. Lastly, as a freelancer, other people have to work with your parts. I have never had anyone ask me to design top-down. I may actually decline a job because of it but I am curious to know first hand. No one has a video that compares these methods in the context of an entire automation line/machine. Maybe I've already answered my own questions on that one.
@@metricdeep8856 Why would the origin be far off? SW should place it into the center of the body of each part. And as someone mentioned before, it is a kind of derivate of top-down approach. Rather dependency-based approach towards a central part.
@@ernstjunger2835 The origin of the car assembly is some datum on the frame near the front of the car. So when you open the part model for the rear bumper....the origin for the part is ~7 feet away 3D in space. When you open the front bumper, the origin is ~3 feet way in the opposite direction. You have to add reference geometry manually - basically create your own origin to work with. Why do they do this? It probably makes sense for them due to the complexity of the cars and generally odd cast and formed metal shapes used. It's not like Lego where every part is symmetric. Having an origin for an asymmetric radiator hose does not do that much for you anyway. I am only guessing as to why...but I can tell you when you design machines to make car parts, it's much easier to have a local origin that is located on the C.O.M. or other logical place in each part. If your machine handles 7 different types of gears, the origin for each part is slightly different and therefore useless for the manufacturing design.....but it's very useful if you want to assemble the entire transmission is CAD....you just mate/align the origins. It would be extremely time consuming to mate each gear in space and hell to change things. Maybe someone else knows more about the why. It may also be the way the automotive industry exports their models also.
Why not make the axle for the wheel to ride on first? Then you could create the spacer and the wheel off the outside of the axle and then the parts would not be joined when you create them because they are not created on the same edge surface.
I haven't reviewed this video in a while, so I'm not sure what you're referring to, but anything that makes the most sense to you is fine. I probably didn't think of it, but there may have been another reason.
Why did you create Part12? It seems you just using its reference plane as opposed to the Assem15 reference planes
That is a good point. I overlooked the creation of "part 12," which happened when I canceled the insertion of the first part. I am not sure why it was created, but I think it was because I had just created parts in several different assemblies several times. If I made these videos for the public access people who often find them, I'd have redone the video, but since the intended audience is students in my classes, I simply pointed out the problem during the class itself.
I thought I was selecting the assembly planes as I was working through the process of making the video and didn't notice that part 12 was there.
Dynamic mirror in sketching is useful
It is, but not enough advantage to become automatic for me.
@@DanAbbott-SMCC yes it's personal preference I agree
Wait, there's a mirror function that does not update when you're sketching? That sounds like a very bad idea
@@alejandroperez5368 I tend to mirror features in the part rather than sketch if I can help it
@@alejandroperez5368 No. When you use mirror to create symmetrical geometry, changes to the original will affect the mirrored sketch. Dynamic mirror automatically mirrors items without your having to do it yourself.