Skip to main content
D
dbodar1-Visitor
1-Visitor
September 10, 2015
Solved

Can we design Multi Body Part../?

  • September 10, 2015
  • 8 replies
  • 11485 views

Hello,

I want to design Mouse in creo, i done outer body using surface..

Now I want to divide in multi part.. Its possible in Creo..?

If yesh then how can we do it..?

Same thing can do in SolidWorks,

its work on multi body part modeling base, so...


This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
Best answer by mbonka

Hello,

perhaps you are asking about skeleton technique and TOP-DOWN design. The target is share driven geometry from one "main part" to all anothers?

Try to search more information about copy geometry.

For example youtube offers some tutorials:

Top Down Design using Skeleton Assemblies - Part 4 - External Copy Geom - YouTube

Regards

Milan

8 replies

M
mbonka2-ExplorerAnswer
2-Explorer
September 10, 2015

Hello,

perhaps you are asking about skeleton technique and TOP-DOWN design. The target is share driven geometry from one "main part" to all anothers?

Try to search more information about copy geometry.

For example youtube offers some tutorials:

Top Down Design using Skeleton Assemblies - Part 4 - External Copy Geom - YouTube

Regards

Milan

    D
    dbodar1-VisitorAuthor
    1-Visitor
    September 10, 2015

    Thanks for this..

    but this not what i want to know..

    D
    DeanLong1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    September 10, 2015

    Deapk,

    Creo is not a "multi-body" type software like NX, Catia etc.... Although what you want to do is possible with a Top Down method and can be accomplished by a few methods. You can use a Master/Merge, Publish Geom/CopyGeom or you can use an Inheritance feature. You could do it as a Bottom Up method but it is not advisable since you have an exterior, countered surface that is shared by multiple parts.

    I prefer the PubGeom method. In any case, you can create all the part break outs in one file and then "share" the information to the individual parts as one or multiple features. If you need to see a simple example, let me know.

    Dean

      D
      dgschaefer21-Topaz II
      21-Topaz II
      September 10, 2015

      Creo does not allow for multiple solid bodies within a single part like SW does.  You can make multiple, non-overlapping solids in a single part file, but Creo treats them as one.  If they overlap, they are merged.  Each part of your mouse should be a separate part file.  It's slightly more cumbersome, but I find it to better represent the reality of the physical product.

      The top down design techniques mentioned above can be used to pull the surfaces out of the master model you've created into the individual parts.  I find the skeletons & publish geom / copy geom pairs to be the most robust and flexible, but it does require the Advanced Assembly Extenion (AAX) which you may not have.

        M
        mpeterson1-Visitor
        1-Visitor
        September 10, 2015

        Just wanted to confirm that what Doug and Dean are talking about is the way to go in Creo. Create a master model which is like a layout of the old days and then use those surfaces and any thing critical shared between parts using one of many techniques. I prefer using Publish Geometry out from the master and copy geometry from the master to import into the individual shapes. It can seem like extra work up front, but will totally be worth it down the road especially if you create the master thinking about association between features and geometry. Make changes in the master and regenerate the master and parts and get all the changes down steam. This can be a very robust modeling technique. Good luck.

          B
          bgruman1-Visitor
          1-Visitor
          September 11, 2015

          Building on Dean, Doug, and Mark...

          I will also throw in my vote for the Master Model - External Copy Geom technique.   I personally use this technique every day.  There is no way I could do what I do with the quality and proper matchup between complex piece parts without this powerful tool.

          Good Luck

          Bernie

          Bernie Gruman

          Owner / Designer / Builder

          www.GrumanCreations.com

            T
            tschmiegelt1-Visitor
            1-Visitor
            September 11, 2015

             

            Hello,

            I have worked several years with CATIA V5 . We had a "Basic Feature" method only works with multibody . Instead of multibody I use in CREO closed quilts . The quilts are then used by Solidifys. Analogous to the Boolean operations in CATIA V5 . In addition, I also use the top-down methodology with EXTERNAL COPY GEOMS and PUBLISH GEOMS.

             

              M
              mwodarz_INNEO14-Alexandrite
              14-Alexandrite
              September 11, 2015

              PTC Strategy is: one part, one material, one mass -> just like in real / physical world.

              BUT - you can simulate similar things just like in SWX with little restrictions

              First thing:

              - you need discipline in managing features in your model tree

              then you can use closed quilts instead of solids.

              - manage the features for each quilt in right order in the model tree

              - use annotations features (without annotations) as marks to sort your features

              - use an analyze feature with the right density for each quilt to calculate the complete mass of your multi body part

              - separating the visibility with layers would be very helpful - even when you use combined states

              So: If you can work with this restrictions, you can create multi body like parts - IMHO - I never used multi bodies in SWX, 'cause I can't see the benefit. The PTC strategy works fine and goes 1:1 like real world.

              But you can do with your system, whatever you want.

                D
                DeanLong1-Visitor
                1-Visitor
                September 11, 2015

                Marco,

                What you have described is essentially a Top Down approach, normally utilized in an Assembly with one of the procedures described above. Managing all the surfaces, merges, quilts can get a bit tedious, essentially if you are referencing offset surfaces (I.E. body gaps, reveal lines, etc... with merges) With a single change it can go pear shaped quickly.

                Am I reading correctly you do this in a .PRT file? IMHO, I believe you are making more work for yourself in the long run.


                  M
                  mwodarz_INNEO14-Alexandrite
                  14-Alexandrite
                  September 11, 2015

                  It's true - this technique makes more work with some restrictions. And I can't see the benefit inside Creo. So I prefer a clear top-down-solution with skeleton, publish and copy geom with clear downstream and replace options. But not everybody have an essentials team or advanced assembly license.

                  And what I'm doing with Creo is always playing. I'm not paid to build up CAD data. I use it for fun.

                    A
                    Anonymous
                    September 11, 2015

                    Not seen anything for multi-body. Would be useful. However I have devised a work around by using an assemby of a part and tracing the relevent geometry into the new part and then drop the references PDQ as the next time you load up the part as stand alone all the references would not be there and the whole lot will crash. Sorry PTC but Solid Edge wins here again with the syncronous technology, multi-body modelling, automomous re-referencing, again and again, time is saved in bucket loads.

                      D
                      DeanLong1-Visitor
                      1-Visitor
                      September 11, 2015

                      Francis,

                      Multi body is really a "what one is used to doing" type thing. I have worked on both types of software and, IMHO, one does not have an advantage "technically" over the other. Each method gives the same results, with the same amount of control as the other.


                        A
                        Anonymous
                        September 11, 2015

                        Dean

                        Thanks for your views. I too have used both types. I just get on better with the direct, nudge to surface, lock to feature that SE provides, I just find it so more fluid and much quicker to use than traditional ordered, parametric modelling where topology can mean that the thing that you want to reference from is often just not there without the extra operations of setting up a special reference plain higher up in the tree along with another sketch at the top with all the references detached, so you can lock onto things, but that can most of the time get out of date rather quickly too.

                          D
                          dbodar1-VisitorAuthor
                          1-Visitor
                          September 12, 2015

                          Thanks to all of you...

                          I got the answer from your discussion...

                          and also learn something new from these all discussion...

                          In short, if we want multi body modeling, then Skeleton and Published Geo are the best option... and from this we can solve all the problems.....

                          M
                          mbonka2-Explorer
                          2-Explorer
                          September 14, 2015

                          Hello,

                          please mark correct answer in order to help other users in future...

                          Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement