Well seen the GT22 transparency.
1 Like
yes you have to read the whole communication thread of the link
We were able to compare the different possibilities of doing
and also see the diffs of possibility of the procs and ram among others: i7/ xeon
and there's no need to say a xeon works better, at least for repettes
@+ ;-)
1 Like
it's good this method, but it doesn't follow in the drawing and then you have to be in RealView.....
2 Likes
Otherwise the easiest way is to make a config with the holes for the MEP and the other for the assembly which will be less heavy.
2 Likes
A similar question has already been asked, but I can't find the corresponding topic anymore.
The partial representation solution is effective (I would add transparency in the 3D of the face concerned, to show what is behind, and not need to hide, or make a cut)
There is also the methodical with 2 configs.
- one with partial / simplified representation
- one with a full representation
And in ASMs we only use the simplified version of course.
And in the MEP of the room, we show the complete.
2 Likes
Careful
When you make a representation grubble of any kind, take into account that the mass of the piece will be wrong!
If there are several pieces of this type in the project, be careful not to forget it.
To counter this, we can add a 3D notch for the mass on the "chipped/simplified face".
That way no need to modify the density/matter of the PRT or the bodies (multibody).
Example: if you have a 50% perfo, you will apply a grunt on the "transparent side" (see previous message) by reducing its thickness to 50%.
This will make it possible not to create a false mass in the ASM.
The fact that the cheating is managed in a separate body is important, because it will allow in the MEP to "see what is behind" by having "hide body".
But if there is no use for it in MEPs, no worries.
Edit: Note on message 8 of this post, the fact that the part seems "easy" to do in 3D, does not remove the need to gain in resource/simplification.
Because in ASM, in some cases this part will count as 10% in the final ASM, so choice of the real 3D representation, but in another it will count as a simple micro detail "a nut" in the final ASM, so we will simplify it to gain 3D resources, save time in ASM, and in MEPs.
for perforated sheets
see this link https://www.gantois.com/catalogue/CATALOGUE.pdf
It is specified, among other things, at Ghent the percentage of void
and/or it's easy to calculate
So just create your own room library
and we will find the mass of this said piece
at least it seems to me ;-)
@+
1 Like