Hybrid Design... Enable: yes/no > Active Discussions

Username:		Password:
Remember Login

About COE

Membership

Events & Education

Collaboration

Links & Resources

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

Get Answers to Your V6 Questions
Dassault Systèmes answers user questions about CATIA V6. Discuss these answers and propose new questions with end users from around the world in the CATIA V6 Forum.

COE DISCUSSION FORUM

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > COE Forums > CATIA V5

Subject: Hybrid Design... Enable: yes/no

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2

Author

Messages

TPRICKETT

01 Oct 2008 07:43 AM
Yes, I realize that some things should disappear. But, as I recall, things went away that I did not think should have been dependent on the state of the body that was defined as in work. But, as I said, it was a long time ago. Perhaps later releases got better, and perhaps I just had the wrong mindset at the time. I might still experiment with it. On the other hand, I seem to remember it not getting to be a problem until the model had become quite complex. So, it might take me awhile to get a new Hybrid model to the complexity where I started noticing the problems. I also think, overall, it's better to be all or nothing, and it might be hard to switch an entire organization after several years of legacy data have been generated (not to mention several years of habits, be they good or bad). Thanks, Tomm

PBARNA

01 Oct 2008 07:54 AM
Posted By JSTRAWN on 01 Oct 2008 07:38 AM A few other factors: 5) In a larger company, Hybrid and non-Hybrid do not mix very well. You need to choose one or the other and enforce it. 6) If you use a lot of PowerCopies and UserFeatures, Hybrid Design doesn't work very well (or at least it didn't a couple releases back). #5.... Yes we will enforce it. This is why I am doing this. Make the decision and go with it. I am basing it on all of your knowledgeable opinions. #6....Information like this is very important to me. There are a lot of features I have probably not used as of yet. And to discover later I should have chose a different route because it doesn't work well with it would be just terrible. ___________ Also I must not loose sight of my designing that what ever we choose It also MUST be transparent to MFG end of our operation. After all we drive cutters. I design FOR MFG ultimately. It would be sad if I chose one way. Design something heavy in detail and only to find I made it difficult for me to machine/program. That is not the time to find out about Hybrid Designing. Thanks Again everyone.....Phil

Philip Barna Arden Engineering Inc. Tooling Design\Programming 3-5 Axis

SAMARINDER

01 Oct 2008 10:33 AM
Philiip, Reason: Our customers files. I also deal with customer supplied data and I always use hybrid design as Steven mentioned its benefits and I never had any problems with it as one time I worked with 173- parts assembly. I would recommend hybrid design as it gives you more flexibility.

Samarinder Singh NC-Programmer/Tool Designer

JSTRAWN

02 Oct 2008 08:52 AM
When looking at the manufacturing end - make sure that they can deactivate holes, fillets, and other features so that they can produce a WIP version of the solid. I'm not familiar enough with Hybrid Bodies to know if it works or if it blows up.

Jim Strawn Cessna Aircraft Co.

JOBY

07 Oct 2008 06:13 PM
I agree with Steven and Jim... My observations: As Steven pointed out, "psuedo-parent-child relationships based purely on when they (features) were created in TIME" are extremely frustrating for new users. So unless it's a complex model with a lot of surfacing, leave Hybrid design off. Also, just allowing each user to make their own decision starts to cause problems when a user opens a model with both normal and hybrid bodies in it...they will be confused, almost guaranteed... So as Jim said, it's probably wise to choose one and stick to it. In general, we have not policed it very much, and allowed it to be a choice. (Against the recommendation I just made!) We have gotten away with it, mostly, but if I had it to do over again, I would not do this. I really like this type of methodology question being discussed here, thanks for replying everyone! ~Joe

ROARKJE

07 Oct 2008 07:56 PM
I have issues with UDFs if Hybrid is on. Until I find a way for UDFs to work, it is off. Anyone else having this issue?

IPHILLIPS

08 Oct 2008 01:53 PM
For complex surface parts, hybrid design does not make much sense. Multiple children and multiple parents are essential. and this is not allowed. The structure of the associativity is correctly displayed in the Historical graph. Not in the tree. Attempting to use the linear order of the tree merely hides the real links which are not linear. It does not make it any easier and it discourages structured use of objects and UDFs. Finishing a part with trimming and filleting may have advantages with hybrid design. But thats not the tricky part.

Ian Phillips. FORCEFIVE AG, Munich, Germany

DAVE_FRANK

16 Oct 2008 05:52 PM
Attention COE HQD. I nominate this for Best Question 2009

Chief Instigator MFG ‘PAC-MEN’ Group dfrank nospam @ forrestmachining.nospam.com Programmers Advising Catia - Making Enhancements Needed Dell 690 XEON dual QUADZILLA core, 8 gig ram, dual FX4500,SLI

ROARKJE

17 Oct 2008 09:45 AM
It would be great to see a couple of us collaboration on this topic, document opposing views and present it at COE this Spring. Abstracts are due by Oct 31st.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 2 of 2

Forums > COE Forums > CATIA V5 > Hybrid Design... Enable: yes/no

ActiveForums 3.6