Half-assed SSP

[Tom G]

I'm still learning SSP method, and have had occasional success perpetuating a similar assembly into varying multiples and contexts. Thanks to others for sharing with and encouraging me in the forum. This is a tale of SSP used dirty, and it still shines through when it's really needed.

The project I'm working on now is a bad SSP, a lazy SSP. It gets the job done in an unusual context. The SSP holds some critical mates, but new parts were added independently of it, and the applied structural part was dimensioned entirely within itself. Today I am mirroring the assembly by exchanging positions and orientation of two vertical SSP planes. All of the things that were defined well to the SSP moved and reoriented automatically, while all of the stuff thrown in with simple assembly mates now had to be repaired or flipped tediously. For the fiercely independent structural weldment part, I created a single reference plane in it to the symmetry plane in the SSP, and used it to mirror bodies and then delete old bodies.

I learned a few things.

• Anyone familiar with weldments knows that the features do not mirror well, but bodies do. I knew that already, but..
• A Mirror Feature (in a part, not assembly) requires a mirror plane/face within the part. It would not allow to use the mirror plane in the SSP. (2018 SP5), but it did allow a Part plane referencing the SSP Plane.
• Even a poorly implemented or bungled SSP is still an SSP. Adapting one thing into a new thing, and then readapting that thing per request - is still way easier.
• Learning from mistakes requires mistakes. I didn't expect to flip it! Now I am more informed how to implement SSP better, next time.
• (EDIT) I always wanted to be able to select multiple mates and flip them simultaneously. Now I know how to. Mating several things parallel to a SSP plane allows me to flip SSP plane and they all follow once SSP is done editing and the assembly is rebuilt.

[DanPihlaja]

Awesome. I have dabbled in SSP. I have found the master model method to be easier and less hassle free.

It is similar to SSP, but different in that I create one master multi body model, then split that model into 1 part per body. So each body gets its own separate part file. Changes are super easy.

A little bit of SSP is mixed in because I create a skeleton and then insert that into the master model for the bodies to follow.

I split the master models up into zones. So a massive assembly might have 5 or 6 different master models each controlling different areas of the assembly. They in turn are all controlled by a Skeleton Sketch Part.

Then, once the design is complete, I create a new part and use "insert-->part" to insert my master model into it (this is the only way you can do it to keep the Hole Wizard data). Then run the delete bodies command inside my new part, select "keep bodies" and select the body I want to keep. Done. Now I can add individual stuff to that part (like part marking) and whatnot.

Works really well.

The only hiccup that i have run into for this is when I am editing the master model and roll the history tree back. Then switch to the assembly without rolling it forward. My trees blow up. But rolling it forward again and updating works every time for that.

[Roasted By John]

@Tom G - Awesome Stuff - you'll get there...

@dpihlaja - The SSP can be a Solid or Surface or All Sketch Part, the SSP is also about Feature Tree management, or simply put "Design For Change"

[Tom G]

I'm not even using the sketches which are in this SSP. It's primarily a framework of planes, more for assembly mating than for body/part generation. Properly, I use a SPP but why muddy the naming further? Different industries, different workflows. I like how yours handles subsets well. This project has a handful of those zones.

[mattpeneguy]

I'm not even using the sketches which are in this SSP. It's primarily a framework of planes, more for assembly mating than for body/part generation. Properly, I use a SPP but why muddy the naming further? Different industries, different workflows. I like how yours handles subsets well. This project has a handful of those zones.

Tom,
Stick with that. Planes are A LOT more stable than sketch entities for in-context relations. If you get an assembly where it starts losing those sketch relations it's annoying. You get in reattach them, save, close, reopen and have to fix them again. Depending on the level of complexity it can be VERY annoying.
@Alin (and previously John) mentioned you can use surfaces. I imagine they'd be as robust as planes, but haven't played with that.