|
Welcome to the COE Discussion Forum!
|
|
|
|
To participate in the discussion forum, you must be logged in to the website. If you forget your login information, please contact COE Headquarters at coe@coe.org or (800) 263-2255.
If you are new to the COE Discussion Forum and would like to participate, please register.
|
|
| Forum Highlight: CATIA V6 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
NEVJOHNSON
 |
| 25 Jan 2006 09:58 AM |
|
I have been working on a project which makes extensive use of UDFs.
I have been following what I know to be "Best Practice"(DS defined) modeling only one UDF in each part.
Most of my UDFs are related and I am now starting to think that so called "Best Practice" is not so.
I feel that it would be better to have had several UDFs in the same part and have several parts defined as
separate bodies in a single part.
I am interested to know your thoughts and comments on this subject matter. |
|
|
|
|
BPRASAD
|
| 26 Jan 2006 01:37 PM |
|
I do not see any major advantages in creating separate UDFs in each part except for clarity. If each UDF are independent of each other, you can put them into one or on more Parts.
If the part is complex and each portion of the part is assembled in the same way all the time in your application, it is more advantageous to deal with multiple "PartBodies" in a single part than to deal with "assembly of parts".
1. For one thing, you can use KWA rules to easily operate on a "Single Part with multiple PartBodies" without "External Parameter Links". External Links in "assembly" require manual interventions, if any part moves.
2. If the features of a Part are separated onto multiple parts, you would have to use KWE Rules (not KWA) to operate on the two PartBodies of an Assembly, if they are related somehow.
Not only you have to apply "assembly" constraints on the two Parts, you also have to manage "External Links."
In summary: If the parts move with respect tom each other in an assembly, then it is worth it. Otherwise a “Single Part with Multiple Partbodies" should be sufficient. That's my opinion?
|
|
Brian Prasad
COE-DPC/KBE Chairperson |
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 26 Jan 2006 02:06 PM |
|
In the past you have made some posts relating to memory usage and model optimisation. I think this is a good reason to keep the models separate.
If you have too much redundant information in a model then I imagine that you will hinder performance during model instantiation and update. Maybe this is why DS advised you to have a single template per file.
Jack
|
|
|
|
|
IPHILLIPS
|
| 27 Jan 2006 03:21 AM |
|
If you use the Catalog to load the UDF it is easy to locate the correct one from a part containing many UDFs.
But if you want to "instantiate from document", then you will have to pick the right one from the instantiate drop-down list. A slight disadvntage from having many UDFs in one Part.
I think performance must be the main reason to separate UDFs. Try it with a part containing a lot of junk.
|
|
Ian Phillips. FORCEFIVE AG, Munich, Germany |
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
|