|
|
之前为公司员工做教育训练而将本篇pdf最后总结的部分翻译出来
如果大家有心得或意见希望可以一起来讨论讨论
其他部分如果我有翻完,有时间将会把他补上, 若是有理解错误希望
藉由讨论来增进彼此实力!!!
Recommended Procedures: Top-Down Modeling--- Best Practice for a Collaborative Design Environment
由上而下组装的建议程序
Use simplest Driving Sketches possible, with only significant controls included in each assembly. Shiftcontrol down to subassemblies when possible.
尽可能使用最简单的驱动草图，其包含各组件中明显的控制项。属于次组件的控制项目请下放至次组件中，权限需分明。
? Driving Sketches include: interfaces (faces, axes) between assemblies, major interfaces between parts in the assembly, stroke lengths, clearance limits, boundaries, etc.
驱动草图内容包含：组合件间的接合处(面、轴) 、在组合件中，零件的主要接合、行程长度、明确的限制、边界…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：单一零件(该零件跟其他零件无相关)，例如特徵尺寸、材料厚度..等等。
不要包含螺孔位，那部分逻辑上该是＂在组合件中，零件对零件的关系＂。
Consistently and clearly label controls:
一致及清楚地标示控制项
? For sketch: “Front Driving Sketch” instead of “Sketch1”
草图名称：使用＂前驱动草图＂而不是”草图1”
? For reference geometry such as plane, axis, etc: “INPUT: Limit Plane” instead of “Plane1”
参考几何(基准面、轴)名称：使用“INPUT: Limit Plane”的名称来取代“Plane1”。
? For equation variables: “INPUT: Flange Thickness” instead of “t”
变数：採用【INPUT: Flange Thickness Thickness】来取代【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.
不要让零件外部参考他到该零件所实体化的组合件之外(组件内零件只在组件内参考)，这常导致后续的混乱以及合作开发上的无效率。如果真的需要的话，让零件参考本身组件的上驱动草图或是其他组件上，有包含相关资讯的的参考几何。
?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.
如果一份设计主要由某些几何资讯驱动，在做零件或特徵时请避免每个都给实际尺寸。如果你测量你的model，计算出一个数据并打算将他当成尺寸输入，这种情况就可能会产生”几何控制”。如果你发现总是在你model的某处重复地扭转一数字只为了达到某个特定的结果，那么这份驱动草图的逻辑设计很可能是错误的。
?Avoid duplicating related dimensions. When practical, enter the value once and create a relationship in the assembly to maintain a single input point.
避免重复地输入有相关的尺寸。实作上，採用输入数值一次，并在组合件中产生关系式来维持“”单一输入原则”(清楚及简单的结构)。
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.
要尽可能使用简单的驱动草图；要尽可能清楚地标示驱动几何；
因此，避免使用内建的配置功能，此举常会将不必要的复杂度和混乱的情况隐藏起来，并且极难去把东西标示清楚。
配置草图的限制以组件结合的方式出现在特徵管理员中，将会造成混乱。
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.”
从online help来的资讯: 组件设计使用配置草图的主要优点是: 如果你修改配置草图，组件与零件将会自动更新，你可以很快地讲整体设计改变，而此改变只需要修改该配置草图。
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.
这个立意是好的，但问题在于”只需要改一个地方”这件事上，因为如果组合件的架构组成是复杂的，这个单一的控管草图将会很复杂………所以更好的方式是产生多个简单的驱动草图，而他们只控管有相关的项目，并且这种做法可以将元件标示得很清楚。 |
|
发表于 2010-9-21 00:14:09
鲁公网安备 37028502190335号