Why are surfaces recommended when creating skeleton models to control assemblies?
I have been building large assemblies (1000 to 3000 parts) and have been using skeleton parts to control assembly positions and space claim. I have read a few articles that recommend only using surfaces, sketches and planes. Is there a specific reason not to use solid bodies in your skeleton parts?
1 answer
-
Robert H. 4 months agoI use solids in base/skeleton parts all the time, top down design is the only way to go IMO, and it's never caused me any issue that I was aware of, as long as any extra bodies get deleted at the end.
Maybe so they don't inadvertently skew mass property queries?
-
Roger-Marie Couture 4 months agoCertainly, do not use "in-context assy" for assemblies that are too large. I use multi-body parts, then record each of the parts I have to use for an assembly. So, each piece is made in the context of a multi-piece!
-
Robert H. 4 months ago
To be honest I didn't realize there were 'assembly skeletons' vs 'part skeletons'...I model all my parts starting with multibody base parts, and in doing so, 95% of the assembly work is letting the part fall into it's default 'fixed' location. The parts are modeled in their correct location in space relative to the other parts, so there is never any assembling going on unless I'm bringing in stuff from outside.
I avoid in-context assembly references like the plague.
-
Brian Mathews 4 months ago
I'm glad to know it has been working out for others. I haven't found a lot of great info on assembly skeletons so it's hard to know where all the pitfalls are.
-
