Best way to make a symmetry of an assembly

3D Design
1

Hi all

I'm looking for the best way to make a symmetry of an assembly.

My assemblies have about 100 to 250 components.

I tried to make a symmetry in the main assembly, but also to create a new assembly, to import my assembly into it and then to do the symmetry of this assembly.

But in both cases I get a result with a huge amount of constraint that is broken.

Do you have a method where the result is more conclusive?

2

Hello;
I would say it all depends on what you want to do with your " symmetry ":

  1. If only for visual purposes

In this case I propose to create a part from your original assembly, convert it to Parasolid, and then import it back into Solidworks. Then create a new assembly, insert that part, and then achieve your symmetry.
(This way you won't have to worry about constraints, but no update is possible.)

  1. If you want to keep your constraints

The method you use (Symmetry in a new assembly) seems to me to be the most relevant, but it remains to define the type of constraints that break and why?
I imagine that these are mainly " advanced " constraints or " free " elements...
…

Kind regards.

5 Likes
3

If any constraints are broken, I assume there are subassemblies in the assembly to be symmetrical?

2 Likes
4

Thank you @Maclane and @Le_Bidule,

It's not just for visuals, I have to be able to make exploded shots and make the shots of each piece. The symmetry must be editable from the base assembly.

And to answer @Le_Bidule, yes, assembly has sub-assemblies.

So it would be partly because of this that the constraints are broken?

1 Like
5

And because SW has always had great difficulty in achieving symmetries of assemblies.
For one piece, no worries. But blending is very often a disaster.
For my part, I prefer to symmetrize my assemblies myself in a configuration created by hand...
I create the symmetrical subassembly by choosing the symmetrical version of the part and adding the broken constraints during this change and then I go back to the main assembly.
Not practical of course but often the most efficient compared to a symmetrical assembly created by SW and completely unusable.

Edit: for small sub-assemblies I sometimes allow myself to let SW do it and then to correct the constraints and if the symmetry is rotten I redo it myself.
And even the principle I go back to the grios assembly made with the mano.

3 Likes
6

That's my opinion. And I agree with @sbadenis.

4 Likes
7

I @Le_Bidule and @sbadenis©

… So we find ourselves redoing them all the time. And in the end, we lose less time than trying to correct them.

3 Likes
8

Hello

I don't like it with everyone.
And I would like to add, depending on the use case, a design with a skeleton sketch and often more practical to handle.

Good luck

9

I would add that sometimes you have to create a symmetrical version of the component and sometimes you just have to turn it over (which SW offers by the way) not to mention the commercial components which are neither symmetrical nor symmetrical and therefore require suitable parts.

10

Yes Solidworks in the latest versions in general manages to symmetrize all the parts components (with true symmetry or repositioned component effectively @stefbeno ), on the other hand if it contains assemblies or even under assembly or +... This is where it gets very complicated and I come back to my other position!