Community Tip - You can subscribe to a forum, label or individual post and receive email notifications when someone posts a new topic or reply. Learn more! X
The main value in assembly level cuts is when the part will be cut differently depending on where it is installed - and it does a fine job of simulating match machining. The price that's paid for it, as others have mentioned, is that it is building a hidden family table of each part being cut (so you don't have to) and managing all the variant models (which makes it seem slow).
The problems I've seen people have explicitly is making poor reference choices. One that I recall offhand is someone who used the part surface that was being removed as a reference. The first time the assembly regens, it was all good, but the next regen sees the surface has been removed and the reference with it - causing a failure.
Also, as mentioned already, is the need to prevent auto-select from selecting items you didn't intend to get cut. I don't know how smart PTC is about this but it's possible they would generate a hidden family table for items that don't actually intersect. This also means errors about failing to intersect with the assembly cuts.
For this particular case, I find building a casting model and then creating a separate part using the casting as an inheritance feature works fine. It gives a chance to create alternative machined versions from the same casting without tying the resulting machined versions together. If they needed to be tied together, they could have a family table in the machined part model.
Giving the finished part drawing to the casting people is a good way to get draft where it isn't wanted resulting in interferences where it is unexpected. The alternative is to provide complete coverage in terms of tolerances, which is also workable, but often as much work as laying out a precise shape, and is more likely to cause problems moving the part to a different supplier who will also start from scratch figuring out what they need to do to cast the part correctly.
Aside from that, I can't fault other options for the conditions people operate under. Each place has it's own environment and each has its own best solution.
I also like the MERGE functionality. Mainly because I don't want the casting/forging/molding part to be modifiable in my machined part, secondly because we frequently machine several different parts from one casting/forging/molding part.
One thing I have found useful is to create several datum curves from cross sections immediately after the merge. These can help you see how much stock removal you are doing and eliminate the need to start with the finished part and work backwards towards the casting. These datum curves can be surpressed or hidden when you don't need them.
I definately stay away from assembly cuts, they add too much overhead and can be unstable. Maybe they are better today but we once tried to assemble two parts that were brazed together and then machine them into a family of finshed parts in assembly. Everything would work, we saved the files and the next day everything failed.
In Reply to Michael Locascio:
Steve,
What you have said "may" have some specific relevance to where you work, and
how you work.
Personally I have seen both sides of this argument and I am in favor of
using the MERGE options in an assembly.
What this gives you is a CLEAN model for your casting. Then that casting is
used to make the machined part. After all isn't this the way that they do it
in real life? That is what we should be designing, in this case.
Michael P. Locascio
PTC quality philosophy: We've upped our quality standards. Up yours.