Hi everyone, I wanted an opinion about the best practice for annotating models that were generated using top-down techniques. So I see there is a potential to publish annotations in the master skeleton model and then copy-geom these annotations for use with design and documentation of the target parts.
Typical scenario would be if I wanted to share the hole pattern and its dimensions across various models.
The copy geom mechanism does this quite well and I have a sketched point pattern that can be propagated as a reference pattern in the target parts. However, dimensioning the locations of the holes in the multiple target parts would be a waste of time if I could simply "show" the dimensions from the master model on the part's drawing (or part's MBD combination state).
But it doesn't seem to work very well, in my opinion (Creo 4). It seems the annotations have to be specifically tied to the copied geometry otherwise they will not be added to the pub-geom feature. Moreover, it seems any dimension that you want to publish has to be manually created. So even though you can show in a combination state a dimension from a sketch, I find that I can't publish such dimensions (whether they are driving or "reference") - and so I end up having to "redraw" them. This duplication is tedious and might be a waste of time if there is a better way.
Can dimensions from sketches defined in the master/skeleton model be easily "published" and shown in target models?
Maybe better to just make a drawing of the assembly that includes the target part and the skeleton and in which you show the skeleton's dimensions "overlaid" on the target part?
Or should I "re-do" the annotations in the target part?
Replying to myself to refresh this thread...
so ... no opinions? Is it the best practice to share published geometry from the skeleton, but don't bother annotating the skeleton because those annotations will have to be re-created manually in the target parts anyway?
It just seems to me that this whole MBD thing means dimensioning things twice. Kind of what I see happen when the person doing the detailing of my model does not "Show annotations" but just (re)creates the dimensioning in the drawings.
I found this product enhancement idea which I think answers my query:
[MBD] Allow the use of driving dimension with semantics in an annotation feature
To conclude, current MBD tools need some enhancement. I guess most folks don't "show" dimensions from the skeleton, but in some way or another this information is "recreated" in downstream models or drawings by manual annotations.