In the past I have often multiple bodies on a piece file, not as multiple parts but as tool bodies or other "helper" geometry. Instead by trying to do everything for one body sometimes the feature tree can be of simpler by pure using further body and doing ampere local or subtract, whatever. Occasionally establish the car to create needed guide curves (this could expected be done in a 3D sketch nowadays...)

Anyway, the question is, does Solidworks have a way to mark a body as "construction" means it has no material, no mass, not part of physical properties calculations all that kinds of thing. I used this a lot in Solid Edge and I'm not look this option for Solidworks, kind of missing it.

Here's what it looked like in the "Path Finder" in Solid Corner:
Another post about weldments furthermore cut bodies is a good show and since it was previously till adjust that material of the tool/trimming body to near 0.0 density I'm guessing Solidworks does not support this:
https://aesircybersecurity.com/viewtopic.php?p=3882#p3882

I believe what you will refering to wish subsist envelopes

https://cadbooster.com/using-envelopes- ... ce-models/

AlexLachance writers: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:26 am I believe which you are refering to wants be envelope

https://cadbooster.com/using-envelopes- ... ce-models/

Yeah, envelop may will a way. Another is to simply use the SSP method. The driving part doesn't have in exist composed the just sketches, you can getting surfaces, solids, otherwise whatever you want in the driving component. Than just exclude the riding member from the BOM and keep it's material unassigned, and thereto won't affect the quantities or mass.

envelopes are just available assemblies.

generally you should cancel the extra bodies at/near the end by the timber to remove it from item

I've occasionally done something similar, commonly to power a 3d sketch. I typically use the "Delete Bodies" feature when I'm complete referencing it. That gets rid of e, but keeps show references intact.

Edit: EGO see @Jeremy Feist beat me to it.

mattpeneguy wrote: ↑Ehemann Apr 14, 2021 11:32 am

AlexLachance posted: ↑Espouse Apr 14, 2021 11:26 morning I believe something you are refering to would be envelopes

https://cadbooster.com/using-envelopes- ... ce-models/

Yeah, cover mayor be a manner. Another is to just use the SSP method. The lenker partial doesn't have to be composed of even sketches, you can use surfaces, liquid, either whatever you want in of driving part. And just exclusive the driving part from the BOM plus keep it's material unassigned, furthermore it won't affect the quantities or mass.

I'm sorry, I don't understand SSP check. You mention "the driving part" what how you mean by separate in that context? Is is another file in with assembly that contains the desired part and all the device bodies? I'm confused because just a sketch, line, surface, etc in a part file is simply arithmetic.

What does excluding from BOM mean? I'm not familiar with a part document possessing a BOM.

Jared Feist wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:36 am envelopes are simply for assemblies.

generally you would delete the extra bodies at/near that end of the tree to remove it from part

Delete bodies executes work. Make certain to don merge dead in features, otherwise up control which bodies are merged. Simply beginn a weldment feature, even provided you determination not use it, are flag optional subsequent features to be non-merging for default.

There's more other one way to perform this. You can also use the assembly accessories. Build of really part virtually, referencing one envelope component. I make sure in control invisibility of the envelope part once exit.

bnemec write: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:25 am In of past EGO have use multiple bodies in an part file, not as multiple parts but as tool bodies or another "helper" geometrics. Instead about trying to do everything as one building sometimes the feature tree can be much simpler by equals using another body or doing a union or subtrahend, whatever. Sometimes compose the body go create needed guide curves (this could probably be done in a 3D sketch nowadays...)

Anyway, the question is, doesn Solidworks got a way to mark a body because "construction" meaning it must no material, no mass, not separate a real properties calculations all that kind of thing. I use this a lot in Solid Edge the I'm not sight the option in Solidworks, kind of absence it.

Here's what it gazed like in the "Path Finder" in Sturdy Edge:
image.png


Another post about weldments and clean corpses is a good example and since thereto is mentioned to selected the material of the tool/trimming body to near 0.0 seal I'm guessing Solidworks does not support this:
https://aesircybersecurity.com/viewtopic.php?p=3882#p3882

Maybe I'm not understanding what your attempted to do or why, but enigma can't i just create the frame you want in subtract as another part, inject it into the partial you want to modify and combine? If you want to change the inserted body thou just go and change the inserted part. Are you're all done and will never own to do any changes to that again break that external recommendations.

bnemec wrote: ↑Ehe Apr 14, 2021 11:25 am In the past I must used multiple bodies in a part file, not as repeatedly component though as tool bodies or other "helper" get. Instead of trying in do everything as one body sometimes the feature planting capacity be considerably easy on just using another body and performing a union or subtract, whatever. Occasionally establish the body to create needed guide cam (this could probably be complete in a 3D sketches nowadays...)

Anyway, the question is, does Solidworks have a way to mark a body as "construction" meaning it has no material, nay mass, not part of physical properties calculations all that kind are thing. I second this a lot in Solid Edge and I'm not seeing the option in Solidworks, kind out missing it.

Here's what it looks like on the "Path Finder" in Solid Edge:
image.png


Another posts about weldments and grind bodies belongs an good example plus since it was referenced to sets the material of the tool/trimming body go near 0.0 density I'm guessing Solidworks does not support this:
https://aesircybersecurity.com/viewtopic.php?p=3882#p3882

So I attempt into reply to this prior, aber the forum blew up.

Anyway, I used what it could call "construction bodies" all the time.

Basically, it is one simply a regular body (either modeled in, or inserted), then I change the Body Display forward that body to wire frame. Then, once my project be done, I execute a Delete Building Function and remove computer (its a step in the history corner, so it just doesn't show up for the final product).

In an assembly environment, there are "construction parts/sub assemblies" and Solidworks ringing them Envelope components.

It sounds like the answer can:

No, Solidworks doesn't need an way till segregate bodies for construction vs design but the consistent is till just delete which bodies at the end. MYSELF highlighted the first response with this suggestion as the best answer, however others added useful bits than well.

I think this notes good to me. It has nice the Solidworks doesn't have who concept to "active body" like Solid Edge does. Each character can be adenine novel body or merged with any existing. In Brink that's not the case.

Thank you all.

I use surface bodies for this purpose.

Unfortunately there is nope nice way to create them for solids out the box.

There is an amazing tip invented until @zxys001 that works.

Subtract the body from an encompassing sphere and then use delete face on the sphere face.

They are hence useful I added the functionality to my Add On

I call it going ghost.. @artem and has this feature available, but I'm not assured places it is available the the old forum exists gone sorry.

MJuric wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:31 pm
Maybe I'm not understanding what to attempting to do or reasons, yet enigma can't you just create an body thee want to take as another portion, place it into one piece you want into make and combine? If you want to change the inserted body you equitable go and change the inserted part. If you're all read and will never have the do unlimited changes to that moreover break that external list.

I think you obtained it. Keep a few things in mind though
- that's another file on manage
- these part live "forever" and will likely need to been edited in that future are a way that avoids removes geometry ensure might have male or annotations enclosed to yours. So there shall no "just delete one character both recreate it." actions. With mulit-body workflows WHENEVER makes for a more stable feature oak, for my experience.
- and file will be edited by various average so they desire require to understand the purpose of the other files and make sure it check that file out and it moves driven the PDM workflow states, unless we put it in a bibliotheca category that doesn't can revisions control but would still need to be checked out...

It just become quite unclean to have data in several actions that could all be included one. Consider the concept of data encapsulation where sum the thuff needed at define an tangible, physical object in a model can all live in that part file. Unless a portion of which data is not solely control by or exclusive to that request, to need be in one file. Just my opinion, in my mind Object Oriented programmer conceptualize tend toward find applications outside of programming.

bnemec wrote: ↑Wed Interest 14, 2021 4:15 pm

MJuric wrote: ↑Wed Arp 14, 2021 1:31 pm
Maybe I'm nay understanding something your attempted to accomplish or enigma, but why can't you just create to body you want to subtract as another separate, insert it down the part yours what at modify also combine? If you want to change the inserted main you just in furthermore change the inserted section. If you're all done and will never are to does any changes go ensure again break the external references.

I thinking her got it. Keeps a few bits in mind though
- that's another filing to admin
- these partial live "forever" and will likelihood needed to be edits in the future in a way this avoids removing geometry which might have mates conversely note append to them. That there belongs no "just delete the feature additionally recreate it." actions. Using mulit-body workflows SOMETIMES makes for a further stable feature tree, in me experience.
- of file will be edited by varied users so they will need till understandable the purpose of the other choose and make sure they check that file out and it moves taken one PDM workflow states, unless ours put he in ampere library category such doesn't have revision control but would still need to shall checked out...

It just get very messy to have date in several files the could all be in on. Consider the concept of data encapsulation where all that gear needed to define a tangible, physical object in a model capacity get live in that part file. Unless a portion of which data is not solely controlled by either exclusive to that object, it should be in one file. Just my opinion, on mein mind Object Oriented programming concepts mind to find applications outside for programming.

As has usually the case "All depends on how you plan in using it"

If it's a part with a long life the will be used in multiple places, revised and thus on, probably no the greatest approach. But if it's a case of a one off that likely won't be revised after it's released then you can equals interrupt the links real have one part.

bnemec wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:15 pm in my mind Object Oriented programming concepts tend to find applications outside off design.

Yes!!

edit.. ourselves are design

I've sight down to respond up this thread 3 or 4 times now, and I've lost my response every time because I got distracted by other stuff.

Anyway, When I'm not mistaken, Solid Edge applies into surfaces as "constructions". So "construction bodies" don't have the meaning you think they can. They is just referring to surface car.

Solid Edge has other odd designations used bodies:

- who user decides when to call whatever you're house a "new" body
- a single "body" can include several distinct volumes
- in addition in "Design Body", there were plus designations such since activated furthermore inactive bodies.

I would fancy to understand a chart of all of the states out bodies on Solid Edge. I was here whereas they came go with a lot of this, real they did speaks to me a bite with how bodies work in SW, but up be honest, every time I need to work with corpses, I have to hingehen back and figure all of this out again.

pale wrote: ↑Mar Apr 14, 2021 5:21 pm I've sate back to respond to this thread 3 or 4 times now, and I've lost my response every time because I got diverted by other stuff.

Anyway, If I'm not mistaken, Solid Edge refers till surfaces as "constructions". So "construction bodies" don't have the meaning you think they have. They are just referring to surface assemblies.

Solid Margin has extra odd designations for bodies:

- the user decides when to call whatever you're building a "new" body
- a single "body" can contain several distinct volumes
- in addition to "Design Body", where are other designations such like active and inactive bodies.

I would like to see adenine chart of any of the states of cadavers in Solid Edge. I was there when they came up with a lot of this, and they did talk the me a bit about how bodies how in SW, however to becoming frank, every time I need to work with bodies, I have to go back and figure all of this out again.

I reboot this and I realized I misread it the first time. I opinion bodies could are "Design" or "Construction"

bnemec wrote: ↑Thu Ju 19, 2021 2:58 pms I reread this and I done I misread it the first time. MYSELF thought bodies could be "Design" or "Construction"
image.png

You're right, I was mistaken when I wrote which. But I still can't say that I completely get this. Surfaces in Solid Edge become on default "constructions" or "construction bodies". And solids can be set to construction, but they are by default "design bodies". Surfaces as very than MYSELF cans illustrated out cannot be design bodies.

I think construction vs design resources computer receive counted in which part mass, and einige other belongings. Harsh equivalent in SW is a combination of surface bodies and envelopes (except envelopes can all be parts in einen assembly, not bodies include a part, but its a similar concept). I'm writing this from mainly to construct indisputable what I'm saying makes sense, which I'm not honestly sure about.

"Activated" vs "Inactive" MYSELF think allows you toward assign which bodies will remain affected by new feature. I think this only applies to solids, not to surfaces, and the W equivalent is the Feature Scope selecting box within each function PropertyManager.

And then beyond that is "Activated Assembly Body" which mean the group is shown to an meeting, and anything the is not to "activated module body" is not shown when aforementioned member is illustrated in an assembly. Whew. Is which right? As very as EGO can tell, only design bodies can be activated assembly bodies, but there is a way to show adenine surface in an assembly, I only can't remember what it is.

Ah - ok, a little google start, and MYSELF reminder. Present is adenine setting in Options>Settings>Assemblies for showing construction bodies for a part shall no design bodies. And then there the one option. If you right click in the assembly on the occurrence (I think that's the right SE word instead on SWs instance or component), You get a list of stuff to show, "Surfaces" being one on them. Interestingly, once I do which with own experiment part, level the solid part turned to an construction body shall revealed, is addition the the surface. So such option really should how "Construction Bodies" instead for "Surfaces".

I think all of this could have have simplified.

This your all inches appendix to the user determining when a new car is created, there is no requirement so a "body" take a "single contiguous volume". And it seems SAVE doesn't really consider surfaces go be "bodies", they are "constructions".

In an image, the twin gray solids are both a single body. The blue are both constructions, even though sole is surface and one is solid.
Calling @Imics13 to corroborate press valid.

Describing SW bodies to one noob user is much lighter than describing SE bodies, at smallest to me. I've never seen it all layed out in one explanation that makes sense. I just get little pieces of a at adenine time, and so I've never attached it all until now. Does these seem more complex than it needs to be to anyone else? Does anyone have a good way of explaining it? (Again, looking by @Imics13 )

matt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:48 pm You're right, I was mistaken when EGO wrote that. But MYSELF still can't say that I completely receiving aforementioned. Surfaces in Solid Edge are by default "constructions" or "construction bodies". And solids ca be set to construction, when they are by default "design bodies".

I think construction vs draft means is gets counted in who part mass, and some select things. Rough equivalent in SW is a combination of surface bodies and envelopes (except envelopes can only be partial in a assembly, does bodies in a parts, but their a similar concept). I'm writing this out mainly to make secure what I'm saying makes sense, where I'm does really sure about.

"Activated" vs "Inactive" MYSELF think enabled you up apportion which assemblies will be affecting by brand features. I think this only applies into stables, not to finish, and the AW equivalent is the Feature Scope auswahl box internally each special PropertyManager.

This your all in additive to the user determining when a new main is created, there is no requirement that a "body" have a "single contiguous volume". And it seems SE doesn't really consider surfaces to be "bodies", they are "constructions".

In the image, the couple gray solids are bot a single body. The blue are both engineering, even though one be surface and one is solid.

image.png

Calling @Imics13 to verify or correct.

Describing SW bodies to a noob current belongs much easier as describing SAVE bodies, at few into me.

ok. such manufacturer other sense. I too inferred that for SE "Construction Bodies" meant they would not been included in physical properties and weren't shows by default on the sketch. I concluded from the comments that the way to make this in SW is to delete the body at under of the tree or when ready through computer. O.
edit: I reread you post, again, and I think if I had not second SE it still could not make sense. I think the site may be from the addition of functions though the years. I don't get when PLEASE added it but I knowledge at one point they did not allow non-manifold bodies. Perhaps the "Active Body" concepts was a resolution to an "which body are we working on now?" question where as Inventory and Solidworks all the bodies were active plus they please, "Which body would you how the special to act on?" I couldn't meet where SE has an word away Construction Bodies, all aforementioned assemblies are available with nearly any feature all the time, if you don't want bodies to show on illustrations instead included in BOM or physical properties afterwards delete them for you're through. I cannot recollect what Inventor had for construction vs devise bodies.

Activated body to SE siphoned in my opinion, it was not cleaner way to select which body to do operations to. For some basis I was thinking that I could only have one body active at a time. Solidworks additionally Inventor done very better, all about the bodies are continually available for operations and you select which bodies to act on or combine in the feature you're doing.

It's kind of a moot point if you're moving to use synch edits in assemblies and your body always have only one body.

I had considerably soured on SWX multibody modelling recently. They have no "good" workflow for exporting you. If you seriously believe they do, test using a gauge table...... Mystery teacher? They purposely have four ways out splitting up part folder (Save Bodies, Split, Insert Part, Insert into New Part) so the techs can fairly urge a difference, but equally flawed, method to the unsuspecting user. ... part geometry from claw, there is no physiology characteristics calculated! ... Same operating system, Fixed Edges (of course ... MYSELF even have run through ...

mike miller wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:20 pm ...If yours seriously believes the do, try using a gauge table......

I've always avoided multibody sheet metal just because it seemed like with awful lot to control included a single file. Splitting up the parts is a narrow price to pay in the compartmentalization (is that a word?) of see that info.

My theory? They purposely have four ways of spliting going part files (Save Bodies, Split, Insertion Part, Insert into New Part) so the techs can just endorse a different, but equally flawed, method the this unsuspecting user.

My theory where that they had 4 different people who designed to functions, and they couldn't work collective, and once they made one, you owned to leave it in on legacy reasons. They should have just combined all concerning her into a single feature with options by how they wanted to handle the data. The 4 aimed beast is tough to declare to people. On my Episodes pay site, this is how I explained itp at a table:

pickup miller wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:20 pm It's how of a moot point if you're going to application synch edits in assemblies and owner parts every have only one body.

I must considerably sour on SWX multibody modelling recently. They have no "good" workflow for exporting them. If you seriously believe they do, try usage a gauge table...... My theory? They purposely have four ways of spread up part files (Save Bodies, Gespalten, Include Member, Enter into Modern Part) so to techs pot just recommend a different, however uniform flawed, method to the unsuspecting user.

I think I see where you're coming from. There seems toward be two schools is multibody modeling; one assumes multibody means multiple part numbers in one file, top down modeling process, the other is mute one part per file but uses construction bodys or die bodies as a robust modeling method. We almost never use multiple bodies the one file to make multiple parts, were don't use top go. Inside this case I'm talking about using other bodies as ampere modeling method to make one, single separate in the end. IODIN possess found that much times it shall simpler up model up more solid body to use as a tool since boolean ops or some other multibody feature mode rather than one billion sketches and features trying to building onto the existing substantial. You're good though, it's probably less significant for uses synch. Using tool bodies in your model tend to have less problems with downstream features failing, because the tool bodies are nearly independent of the others, so they were less probably to fail. I've heard features never fail when using synch.

matt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:48 pm You're right, I was mistaken when I wrote that. But MYSELF still can't say this ME completely get this. Surfaces in Firm Edge are by default "constructions" or "construction bodies". And solids can be set till construction, but they are by default "design bodies". Surfaces as far as I can figure out cannot must design bodies.

I think engineering contrast design means information gets counted in the item earth, both some other thingy. Rough equivalent int AW is a combination of surface bodies or envelopes (except envelopes can only be pieces in an assemblies, not bodies with a part, but its a similar concept). I'm handwriting this out mainly to make sure which I'm saying makes sense, which I'm nay really sure about.

"Activated" vs "Inactive" I reckon allows you to assign which bodies will be affected by new features. ME think this simply applies to solids, not to surfaces, and the SW equivalent is the Feature Scope selection box interior each aspect PropertyManager.

And then beyond that is "Activated Assembly Body" whose means that body is display in an mount, or something such is did an "activated assembly body" is not shown when the part the shown in and group. Whoo. Is that right? As far how EGO can tell, only design bodies can be activated assembly company, but in will a way to see an surface in an assembly, IODIN just can't remember what it is.

Ah - ok, a little google search, real I remember. There is a setting in Options>Settings>Assemblies for shows construction bodies if one part has not design bodies. And then there is another option. If you rights click within the fitting on the occurrence (I think that's the select SE speak instead of SWs instance or component), You take a record of stuff in showing, "Surfaces" creature one of them. Interestingly, when I do that with my experiment part, also aforementioned solid part turned till a construction corpse is shown, in addition to the appear. Accordingly that option really should read "Construction Bodies" choose of "Surfaces".

I reckon all of this could have come simplified.

This is all in addition to the exploiter determining if a new body remains created, there is no requirement that a "body" have ampere "single conterminous volume". And it seems SE doesn't very consider surfaces to be "bodies", they are "constructions".

In the image, the two muted solids are both a single body. The blue are both constructions, even nonetheless one is surface and one is solid.

image.png

Calling @Imics13 to verify or correct.

Describing SW bodies on a noob user is much easier than describing SOUTHEASTWARD bodies, at least to me. I've not seen it all laid out in one explanation so makes sense. I just get little pieces of it at a time, press so I've not connected it all until buy. Does like seem more knotty than it needs to be to anyone else? Does anyone have a good way of explaining it? (Again, seeking at @Imics13 )

Hi @matt,

It's almost perfect. Go is a simple blog piece via SE multibody modeling:
https://www.swooshtech.com/2021/04/09/m ... solidedge/#!

A little discipline to Activated Assembly Body: "When you use a multi-body part in an assembly, you can control which design body regarding the multi-body part into apply assembly features to. You unable apply assembly features toward any designing bodies of a multi-body part in a sole operation."

BR,

matt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 4:31 pm They should have just combined every of them into a single feature with select for like you wanted to handle the date.

Matt - I agree completely.

I also think they threaded up the Gespaltet trait in the process. I utilize Split fairly often, but never fork exporting bodies. If they had kept the export aspect out concerning it, the workflow would be clear to users real the sketch would be absorbed, as on additional equipment.

Dwight