Where I work, we design large layouts in assembly of several hundred parts.
Once the layout is completed, we make the layout plans for the metal structures, machines, conveyors, cabins, etc.
This requires a lot of resources at our stations.
To make the drawings, I would like to know if it is more interesting to make the drawings starting from a configuration of the assembly or a display state of the assembly?
We may have more than 50 configurations and/or display status. What is the best solution?
Attached, a photo of an extract of the blend which represents about 1/6 of the total implantation
p00366_vue_iso_intervention.jpg
Difficult to justify in an argumentative way, but I lean towards configurations.
The first argument is that with configurations, components are "deleted", so they don't use any resources.
With a display state, the component is calculated, shown and then hidden, so the display is recalculated.
The disadvantage of configurations is that you have to manage the constraints accordingly.
3 Likes
For constraints, normally this is not a problem, because they do not change from one configuration to another.
When we make the site plan, we want to show only the building and a frame or the building, a frame and a conveyor. In no way do we modify the constraints of the elements.
I agree with your 1st argument, but when we move from one configuration to another, aren't we going to have a considerable amount of reconstruction time?
With display states, is this reconstruction time decreased?
The constraints depend on how your elements are connected (the conveyors in relation to the framework, the framework in relation to the building, for example)
Indeed, the transition from one configuration to another will be heavier.
Nothing prevents you from having display states related to the main (complete) config for the design and configs for drawing.
It is by testing that you will see the most suitable method for your needs.
1 Like
We constrain all our elements with respect to the origin of the assembly and the 3 reference planes of the assembly to avoid reconstruction errors when we replace a model.
As a result, each element is constrained between the origin of the general assembly and the origin of the part. Elements that never change.
We will do tests and see the results.
If other people had experience on this subject, I'm interested in your experiences, THANK YOU