Splitting a part into two files of lefts and rights

[eharmony]

Hi People,

Need your help on this one and thank you for help in the past as well. Let's say we have a solid and cannot manufacture the part because of access. What is the best way of creating files for a left and right hand two-piece construction.

I know I can cheat by copying the part and cutting away half of the model but that seems like the wrong way to do something like this. A constant exampl of this is probably INjection Molded parts without having plastic Advisor.



I have got to say that given some time and un-learning things Wildfire does seem to be quite easy to use and faster in creation of geometry.

Thanks Again People ! :>)

 

[dougr]

Create a cut and use this to create left and right instances..

 

[leo]

Make the part cut it in half and save it as right or left side on the original model cut the other side off. At That point you can assemble them, create sonic weld groves, glue groves or what ever you want to do, these parts are two separate parts once you save as.

 

[swcalvert]

Create the left side and then start a new assembly and add the left side as a component. Insert component create - make it mirrored and dependent and then mirror it about the face/plane of the left side. Pow, you have created a new DEPENDENT (on the left side) body and you also have an assembly of the two if you wanted to do any assembly level cuts for glue/weld grooves.



Steve C

 

[Brian_Adkins]

Here's one more for the mix...



1) Leave your existing combined part intact. This is the master part you'll modify when you want to make changes



2) Create a new part. Add an External Merge feature that references the master part. Then cut away the side of the part you don't want. Be sure to use the 'Copy Datums' option in the E-M feature or you'll get just the solid geometry.



3) Repeat step #2 for the other part.



This is the classic Master Model Merge technique updated to use the new external merge feture (which I think was a great addition to 2001).





-Brian Adkins

 

[dr_gallup]

Of the above, I would have to vote for swcalvert's procedure. I think it would be the most robust and easy to modify. The merge is also robust but you cannot access any of the master part dimensions in the merged part. It's OK as long as you are aware how to make modifications.

 

[dougr]

dr_gallup



Yes you can access dims in a merged part..



Brian Adkins



Why copy datums ??







PS What's wrong with creating left and right instances ????



All the other suggestions smack of sledge hammer and nut syndrome...

 

[Brian_Adkins]

dougr,



The 'copy datums' pick is unselected by default and you are not prompted for it during creation... so many users don't realize it's there... that's all. When splitting a model into parts that are to be later reassembled, you usually want to put in screw bosses, lips, or something similar to aid in aligning and attaching the parts. In the Master Model Merge technique, it is common to put axes, points or curves in the master model to locate help create these features. These datum features are then used at the part level to create the actual geometry. That's why I usually copy the datums.



fam-tabs:

The main thing with making this thing a fam-tab is that you'll end up with lots of features in the table...I am assuming that once he splits the model, he'll be adding features to each side to facilitate re-attaching the 2 parts (bosses, lips, etc.).



Putting features or components on fam-tabs isn't neccessarily bad practice, it's just something I try to avoid. I generally try to use fam-tabs for varying dimensional values and not for suppressing lots of features or components... That's just a preference built up from past experiences. The exception in this case for me would be sheetmetal flat states which work great as instances.



-Brian Adkins

 

[dougr]

fam-tabs



To split in this manner only requires one extra feature (split cut) in generic and one dimension family-tabled...

 

[Brian_Adkins]

dougr,



That will definitely get you a split part, but if you read the other thread on this topic, I think that you'd want build all of the extra features (bosses, etc.) after the split... Otherwise that split cut is going to be a pretty complex surface. That means that these features would also be in the fam-table.



Then again, if these features all meet at the split plane and there are no planned interferences or gaps (i.e. for press-fits, snap-locks, etc.), the family table method would be pretty straightforward.



I just wouldn't want to have to model the innards of both halves without the model already being split (working inside the shell would be a little tricky)... but then again, I'm just a little bit lazy...



-Brian Adkins