|
|
發表於 2013/4/16 15:21:24
|
顯示全部樓層
之前為公司員工做教育訓練而將本篇pdf最後總結的部分翻譯出來
如果大家有心得或意見希望可以一起來討論討論
其他部分如果我有翻完,有時間將會把他補上, 若是有理解錯誤希望
藉由討論來增進彼此實力!!!
Recommended Procedures: Top-Down Modeling --- Best Practice for a Collaborative Design Environment
由上而下組裝的建議程序
Use simplest Driving Sketches possible, with only significant controls included in each assembly. Shiftcontrol down to subassemblies when possible.
盡可能使用最簡單的驅動草圖，其包含各組件中明顯的控制項。屬於次組件的控制項目請下放至次組件中，權限需分明。
• Driving Sketches include: interfaces (faces, axes) between assemblies, major interfaces between parts in the assembly, stroke lengths, clearance limits, boundaries, etc.
驅動草圖內容包含：組合件間的接合處(面、軸) 、在組合件中，零件的主要接合、行程長度、明確的限制、邊界…等等。
• Don’t include: isolated items (items that influence only a single part) such as feature sizes, material thickness, etc. Don’t include fastener hole locations, etc. that are most logical as a part-to-part relationship within the assembly.
不包含：單一零件(該零件跟其他零件無相關)，例如特徵尺寸、材料厚度..等等。
不要包含螺孔位，那部分邏輯上該是＂在組合件中，零件對零件的關係＂。
Consistently and clearly label controls:
一致及清楚地標示控制項
• For sketch: “Front Driving Sketch” instead of “Sketch1”
草圖名稱：使用＂前驅動草圖＂而不是”草圖1”
• For reference geometry such as plane, axis, etc: “INPUT: Limit Plane” instead of “Plane1”
參考幾何(基準面、軸)名稱：使用“INPUT: Limit Plane”的名稱來取代“Plane1”。
• For equation variables: “INPUT: Flange Thickness” instead of “t”
變數：採用【INPUT: Flange Thickness Thickness】來取代【t】
•Do not let parts Xref outside the assembly they are instanced in. This often leads to confusion later and can cause collaboration inefficiencies. If needed, let the part reference a local DrivingSketch or other reference geometry containing the relevant data from the other assembly.
不要讓零件外部參考他到該零件所實體化的組合件之外(組件內零件只在組件內參考)，這常導致後續的混亂以及合作開發上的無效率。如果真的需要的話，讓零件參考本身組件的上驅動草圖或是其他組件上，有包含相關資訊的的參考幾何。
•Avoid using dimensions for positioning parts or features if some input geometry is really driving the design. If you are measuring your model and calculating a number to enter as a dimension, there is often a geometric control opportunity. If you find yourself repeatedly tweaking a number to help you achieve a specific result elsewhere in your model, the driving sketch logic may be faulty.
如果一份設計主要由某些幾何資訊驅動，在做零件或特徵時請避免每個都給實際尺寸。如果你測量你的model，計算出一個數據並打算將他當成尺寸輸入，這種情況就可能會產生”幾何控制”。如果你發現總是在你model的某處重複地扭轉一數字只為了達到某個特定的結果，那麼這份驅動草圖的邏輯設計很可能是錯誤的。
•Avoid duplicating related dimensions. When practical, enter the value once and create a relationship in the assembly to maintain a single input point.
避免重複地輸入有相關的尺寸。實作上，採用輸入數值一次，並在組合件中產生關係式來維持“”單一輸入原則”(清楚及簡單的結構)。
Always us the simplest Driving Sketch possible…
Always clearly label the Driving Geometry….
Therefore:
Avoid using the built-in “Layout” function (the rabbit hutch ).
Unnecessarily complex and confusing, often hidden, and impossible to label clearly. Layoutsketch constraints appear in the Feature Manager as assembly mates, causing confusion.
要盡可能使用簡單的驅動草圖；要盡可能清楚地標示驅動幾何；
因此，避免使用內建的配置功能，此舉常會將不必要的複雜度和混亂的情況隱藏起來，並且極難去把東西標示清楚。
配置草圖的限制以組件結合的方式出現在特徵管理員中，將會造成混亂。
From SW Help: ”The major advantage of designing an assembly using a layout sketch is that if you change the layout sketch, the assembly and its parts are automatically updated. You can make changes quickly, and in just one place.”
從online help來的資訊: 組件設計使用配置草圖的主要優點是: 如果你修改配置草圖，組件與零件將會自動更新，你可以很快地講整體設計改變，而此改變只需要修改該配置草圖。
The intent is great. The problem is the “just one place” part, since the single controlling 3D Sketch will be complex if the assembly is complex. It is better to create multiple simple “Driving Sketches” that control related items, and that can be labeled appropriately.
這個立意是好的，但問題在於”只需要改一個地方”這件事上，因為如果組合件的架構組成是複雜的，這個單一的控管草圖將會很複雜………所以更好的方式是產生多個簡單的驅動草圖，而他們只控管有相關的項目，並且這種做法可以將元件標示得很清楚。
|
|
發表於 2010/7/21 11:24:28
發表於 2010/7/21 21:09:20
樓主
發表於 2010/7/21 23:15:15
發表於 2012/4/20 09:58:05
發表於 2012/11/7 15:06:06
發表於 2013/4/16 15:38:30
發表於 2013/7/9 22:24:23
發表於 2018/7/27 10:27:00