incontext relations and fillets

Is this a known issue?

Kman

I have found that it is better NOT to make incontext relationships to part features (eg. faces, edges, etc) as they are prone to 'going walkabout' when you edit then or add fillets & chamfers, etc, instead I show the sketch that created the feature and make the relationship to it - much more robust - very rarely have an assembly with cherries in it now.

Merry :-)

I have read many of your helpful and practical posts in the past and recall the "creating relationships to sketches, planes etc.. as opposed to picking part features and surfaces." I have used feature sketches for dimensioning though obviously not consistently. Will give this a go and see if it reduces my frustration level.

Thanks, Kman

We've been having similar problems with cherries showing up in other parts after changes, probably due to in-context relations, and the SP (0, 1 or

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems

With each passing project I am shying away more and more from in-context design. I generally work on plastic or cast parts, and for this, I way prefer doing multibodies with the split part function. I model the assembly as a single part, making all the important geometrical relations in the part file, then split it up into individual parts and put it back together as an assembly.

In plastic parts, draft and fillets would get you in a lot of trouble with the non-history based incontext features. You would only be able to make relations to sketches, planes or finished parts.

There was a thread a while back disparaging the split function, and I do admit it is not for the faint of heart, but this avoids most of the downfalls with in-context, including the configurations caveat.

I know this way of doing things might not work well for sheetmetal design or machine design, but for what I do, I think its great.

matt

"Kman" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com: