Good discussion. I tend to be in Doug's camp, though even more so, meaning don't ever break the link. I mostly use master models (old school term) for surfacing where the complex surfaces cross part boundaries. In this instance a method like Robert's doesn't work well.
I've had projects where we went back a year or two later to add "new features" to the product, and needed to add to the master model to accommodate those features without affecting the previous parts. So I would add 50-100 features to the master model and group them (these features had to interface to existing surfaces in the design). Then my new parts that used the new features would refer to the same master model and have a perfect interface because the master had both the old and new geometry in it.
I don't see that as being so easy when you've broken the link. Of course, not all projects do this so as usual it "depends on your application".
-- Jeff Sampson Engineering - >Subject: EXTERNAL: TDD: Flip sides of the same coin? > >Doug, > >I respectfully disagree. I have done several copier projects where we used the pre-skeleton, map part concept very successfully. We used the map for placing the interface components only. Mismatches between the parts would be found in interference checks for the most part. > > Rob Reifsnyder >Mechanical Design Engineer/ Pro/E Librarian >L >Mission Systems & Sensors (MS2) >497 Electronics Parkway >Liverpool, NY 13088 >EP5-Quad2, Cube 281