Are the bodies linked to the original assembly? If I were to delete the body in the original assembly, would the new, independent parts be affected? If so, is there a way to unlink it to the original assembly?
Product Interface does not require an assembly. You would have to create an assembly for the WAVE Geometry linker. This is sometimes desired. In addition, you can enforce certain interface options in Product Interface. This prevents people from just grabbing what ever they want through WAVE Geometry Linker. In my experience, replacing things with a Product Interface when the link breaks is much easier than just something that was WAVED in without Product Interface. Hope this helps.
SolidWorks does all that in one go, can NX? For example Work flow would be like, 1. You Name all bodies 2. SolidWorks Creates separate part files from all bodies selected and places them in an Assy and locks them on zero. 3. open assy file,
When you do as you describe in SolidWorks, does it still maintain full associativity between the newly created individual parts? Or does SW just create separate parts that are positioned correctly in the new assembly and dissolve the original single part made up of multiple solid bodies? The difference with the technique demonstrated in the video above is that NX creates new separate part files, plus the new assembly, while maintaining the original multi-body part as the "master part", with full associativity between the original master part and the new individual parts. So if one goes back to the original multi-body part, now the master part, and changes a dimension in the original multibody master part, ALL of the associated individual parts AND the assembly update at once. See this other Design Visionaries video for a demonstration of how NX gives you not just separate part files for the new assembly, NX also maintains the original multi-body master part so that a single edit in the master part associatively updates the individual part files as well. This link cues the other video at the point where Steven Samuel splits the original monolithic part into three bodies, then further creates three new parts with full associativity to the original master part, and demonstrates how a single edit to the master part simultaneously updates the three separate parts: ruclips.net/video/MKCvx2XNYxE/видео.html After watching that video, please reply with an answer as to whether SolidWorks does or does not dissolve the original multibody part, i.e. does SW allow one to edit the original multibody part and simultaneously update all of the individual parts.
This is nuts, so 'un-intuitive'. Wave and Wave interface linker, ummm. Not knocking the poster, he did a great job communicating the steps. But in Inventor I'd probably just save the file as 'top part' and 'bottom part' and delete the unwanted body. I am NOT an Inventor power user by any stretch, but at least the process makes sense.
Same question for you@@coachblakef293: Does Inventor give you the choice to keep the original single body as the master part that simultaneously edits both of the new separate parts? Or does it only allow you to create two separate parts that are unlinked and therefor must be edited separately? The point of the demo above is that NX gives the user the choice: (1) Three bodies in total, wherein the original body is the "master part" remains a single point of editing that simultaneously updates both individual parts, via WAVE linker, or (2) Turn the original single-body part into two separate parts that are not linked in any way and therefor require editing each part individually, i.e. performing two file edits to do what NX's option (1) does in one step. Inventor and SolidWorks are both excellent CAD programs, not saying anything against either one. But NX is a much more sophisticated CAD program that can do much more complex geometries, with more choices as to how to approach any given task. Don't trash NX just because you only know Inventor or SolidWorks and therefor think the way those programs do things are the be-all and end-all. t's worth noting that no company in the world builds big, complex, difficult, important stuff (automobiles, airplanes, rockets, ships, etc.) using only Inventor or SolidWorks. If Inventor or SolidWorks was as much better than you and @gazzzayou9731 think they are, don't you think all of these huge companies would trade in their very expensive seats of NX/Catia/Creo for the far cheaper seats of Inventor/SolidWorks? Of course they would. No manager in their right mind would pay $12,000-20,000 US dollars for a basic seat of NX if they could do the exact same work easier & faster , as you seem to think they could, for a $6,000 seat of Inventor/SolidWorks. That simple bit of arithmetic tells you there are solid reasons that the biggies don't try to create production cars/ships/airplanes/rockets using Inventor or SolidWorks. Here's an example of the high-end things that the Siemens suite can do easily that the mid-level CAD programs can't even think of doing: ruclips.net/video/EnVs4IakjzA/видео.html So, yeah, Inventor and SolidWorks are sometimes easier to use for certain things, but they are not comparable in terms of their total abilities. With sophistication comes complexity.
Great Learnings.. Thank you so much
thank you very much for the video.
No problem!
Are the bodies linked to the original assembly? If I were to delete the body in the original assembly, would the new, independent parts be affected? If so, is there a way to unlink it to the original assembly?
Why create an interface and use the interface linker instead of directly just using the geometry linker? What's the benefit?
Product Interface does not require an assembly. You would have to create an assembly for the WAVE Geometry linker. This is sometimes desired. In addition, you can enforce certain interface options in Product Interface. This prevents people from just grabbing what ever they want through WAVE Geometry Linker. In my experience, replacing things with a Product Interface when the link breaks is much easier than just something that was WAVED in without Product Interface. Hope this helps.
@@DesignVisionaries Thank you for the clarification!
@@DesignVisionaries how does this work with Teamcenter / revisions ?
SolidWorks does all that in one go, can NX?
For example Work flow would be like,
1. You Name all bodies
2. SolidWorks Creates separate part files from all bodies selected and places them in an Assy and locks them on zero.
3. open assy file,
When you do as you describe in SolidWorks, does it still maintain full associativity between the newly created individual parts? Or does SW just create separate parts that are positioned correctly in the new assembly and dissolve the original single part made up of multiple solid bodies?
The difference with the technique demonstrated in the video above is that NX creates new separate part files, plus the new assembly, while maintaining the original multi-body part as the "master part", with full associativity between the original master part and the new individual parts. So if one goes back to the original multi-body part, now the master part, and changes a dimension in the original multibody master part, ALL of the associated individual parts AND the assembly update at once.
See this other Design Visionaries video for a demonstration of how NX gives you not just separate part files for the new assembly, NX also maintains the original multi-body master part so that a single edit in the master part associatively updates the individual part files as well. This link cues the other video at the point where Steven Samuel splits the original monolithic part into three bodies, then further creates three new parts with full associativity to the original master part, and demonstrates how a single edit to the master part simultaneously updates the three separate parts: ruclips.net/video/MKCvx2XNYxE/видео.html
After watching that video, please reply with an answer as to whether SolidWorks does or does not dissolve the original multibody part, i.e. does SW allow one to edit the original multibody part and simultaneously update all of the individual parts.
This is nuts, so 'un-intuitive'. Wave and Wave interface linker, ummm. Not knocking the poster, he did a great job communicating the steps. But in Inventor I'd probably just save the file as 'top part' and 'bottom part' and delete the unwanted body. I am NOT an Inventor power user by any stretch, but at least the process makes sense.
Same question for you@@coachblakef293: Does Inventor give you the choice to keep the original single body as the master part that simultaneously edits both of the new separate parts? Or does it only allow you to create two separate parts that are unlinked and therefor must be edited separately?
The point of the demo above is that NX gives the user the choice: (1) Three bodies in total, wherein the original body is the "master part" remains a single point of editing that simultaneously updates both individual parts, via WAVE linker, or (2) Turn the original single-body part into two separate parts that are not linked in any way and therefor require editing each part individually, i.e. performing two file edits to do what NX's option (1) does in one step.
Inventor and SolidWorks are both excellent CAD programs, not saying anything against either one. But NX is a much more sophisticated CAD program that can do much more complex geometries, with more choices as to how to approach any given task. Don't trash NX just because you only know Inventor or SolidWorks and therefor think the way those programs do things are the be-all and end-all.
t's worth noting that no company in the world builds big, complex, difficult, important stuff (automobiles, airplanes, rockets, ships, etc.) using only Inventor or SolidWorks. If Inventor or SolidWorks was as much better than you and @gazzzayou9731 think they are, don't you think all of these huge companies would trade in their very expensive seats of NX/Catia/Creo for the far cheaper seats of Inventor/SolidWorks? Of course they would. No manager in their right mind would pay $12,000-20,000 US dollars for a basic seat of NX if they could do the exact same work easier & faster , as you seem to think they could, for a $6,000 seat of Inventor/SolidWorks. That simple bit of arithmetic tells you there are solid reasons that the biggies don't try to create production cars/ships/airplanes/rockets using Inventor or SolidWorks. Here's an example of the high-end things that the Siemens suite can do easily that the mid-level CAD programs can't even think of doing: ruclips.net/video/EnVs4IakjzA/видео.html So, yeah, Inventor and SolidWorks are sometimes easier to use for certain things, but they are not comparable in terms of their total abilities. With sophistication comes complexity.