What is the best way to make a machined part from a casting so that any 
changes applied to the casting will show on the machined part?

I have tried an assembly consisting of only the casting and then applying 
features.  The only problem is some of the features are  grayed out like 
fillets.

Your best bet would probably be make a configuration for cast and one
for machined... For example, if you have a hole that is cast at 0.50"
and finished machined is 0.55", when you select the dimension for the
size of the hole, you can define which configuration it applies to by
going into the properties of the dimension, and selecting the "specify
configs" box... another option would be to create a design table and
build from there... Hope that helps...

Jeff

Howard wrote:
> What is the best way to make a machined part from a casting so that any
> changes applied to the casting will show on the machined part?
>
> I have tried an assembly consisting of only the casting and then applying
> features.  The only problem is some of the features are  grayed out like
> fillets.

If each stage has a different part number you could create a derived
part.

Create a new part file
Insert>Part select your casting
Cut it up and save

I would suggest creating a standard part as the casting and using the 
casting to create a derived part that will be the machined part.  There are 
several advantages to this approach.

First, this approach guarantees that all features in the casting are applied 
to the machined part.  Second, the casting and machined part are separate 
(but linked) files allowing you to easily assign independent part numbers. 
Third, this approach resembles the actual process used to produce the 
finished part.  The casting model (and associated drawing) can be used to 
inspect the finished casting.  Then, the casting is machined as shown by the 
machined model (and associated drawing).  Finally, by keeping the casting 
and machined features in separate files, cast versus machined features are 
easily identified.

By the way, I use this method every time I need to model the machining of a 
cast part.  It works extremely well and is easily understood by anyone else 
that needs to work with the files.

-- 
 - John

John Eric Voltin
Senior Mechanical Engineer
Agile Technology
512-633-0394
"Howard" <pistonpump@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:9JKdnea0EeirTE3enZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> What is the best way to make a machined part from a casting so that any 
> changes applied to the casting will show on the machined part?
>
> I have tried an assembly consisting of only the casting and then applying 
> features.  The only problem is some of the features are  grayed out like 
> fillets.
>
>
>
> 

"John Eric Voltin" <jevoltin@agile-technology.com> wrote in
news:H96Af.22794$SD1.18948@tornado.texas.rr.com: 

> I would suggest creating a standard part as the casting and using the 
> casting to create a derived part that will be the machined part. 
> There are several advantages to this approach.
> 
> First, this approach guarantees that all features in the casting are
> applied to the machined part.  Second, the casting and machined part
> are separate (but linked) files allowing you to easily assign
> independent part numbers. Third, this approach resembles the actual
> process used to produce the finished part.  The casting model (and
> associated drawing) can be used to inspect the finished casting. 
> Then, the casting is machined as shown by the machined model (and
> associated drawing).  Finally, by keeping the casting and machined
> features in separate files, cast versus machined features are easily
> identified. 
> 
> By the way, I use this method every time I need to model the machining
> of a cast part.  It works extremely well and is easily understood by
> anyone else that needs to work with the files.
> 


I agree.  That's how I've been doing it recently, after experimenting 
with configurations.  We don't use configurations very often, and I find 
it awkward to manage the feature and be constantly aware of "this 
configuration" or "all configurations".  Its npt too bad when you can 
design a casting complete and then add simple machining features, but if 
you have to go back and make any siginificant changes it takes more 
thought (and potential for mistakes) than using the derived part method.

John pretty much mentioned the advantages I've found.  The separate part 
number advantage is big for me.  

This has been discussed here before with similar results.  For more 
opinions, and some of the same, search groups.google.com.


MHill

John,
Thanks for that tip, to do that, are you talking about opening an empty part 
then insert part (the casting).  From here do all the machining on the new 
part?
I am using Solidworks 2005

Howard

"John Eric Voltin" <jevoltin@agile-technology.com> wrote in message 
news:H96Af.22794$SD1.18948@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>I would suggest creating a standard part as the casting and using the 
>casting to create a derived part that will be the machined part.  There are 
>several advantages to this approach.
>
> First, this approach guarantees that all features in the casting are 
> applied to the machined part.  Second, the casting and machined part are 
> separate (but linked) files allowing you to easily assign independent part 
> numbers. Third, this approach resembles the actual process used to produce 
> the finished part.  The casting model (and associated drawing) can be used 
> to inspect the finished casting.  Then, the casting is machined as shown 
> by the machined model (and associated drawing).  Finally, by keeping the 
> casting and machined features in separate files, cast versus machined 
> features are easily identified.
>
> By the way, I use this method every time I need to model the machining of 
> a cast part.  It works extremely well and is easily understood by anyone 
> else that needs to work with the files.
>
> -- 
> - John
>
> John Eric Voltin
> Senior Mechanical Engineer
> Agile Technology
> 512-633-0394
> "Howard" <pistonpump@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:9JKdnea0EeirTE3enZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> What is the best way to make a machined part from a casting so that any 
>> changes applied to the casting will show on the machined part?
>>
>> I have tried an assembly consisting of only the casting and then applying 
>> features.  The only problem is some of the features are  grayed out like 
>> fillets.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 

Hello Howard,

Yes, that is correct.  I did this often in SolidWorks 2005 and just recently 
switched to 2006.

Prior to 2005, I believe the wording of the feature used to insert the part 
(casting) was slightly different - maybe "derived part" or "base part". 
Unfortunately, I don't have access to any older copies of SolidWorks and I 
don't remember the details.  Regardless, it worked the same way.

-- 
 - John

John Eric Voltin
Senior Mechanical Engineer
Agile Technology
512-633-0394
"Howard" <pistonpump@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:ZJOdnUbCKfNZFUzenZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> John,
> Thanks for that tip, to do that, are you talking about opening an empty 
> part then insert part (the casting).  From here do all the machining on 
> the new part?
> I am using Solidworks 2005
>
> Howard
>
> "John Eric Voltin" <jevoltin@agile-technology.com> wrote in message 
> news:H96Af.22794$SD1.18948@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>I would suggest creating a standard part as the casting and using the 
>>casting to create a derived part that will be the machined part.  There 
>>are several advantages to this approach.
>>
>> First, this approach guarantees that all features in the casting are 
>> applied to the machined part.  Second, the casting and machined part are 
>> separate (but linked) files allowing you to easily assign independent 
>> part numbers. Third, this approach resembles the actual process used to 
>> produce the finished part.  The casting model (and associated drawing) 
>> can be used to inspect the finished casting.  Then, the casting is 
>> machined as shown by the machined model (and associated drawing). 
>> Finally, by keeping the casting and machined features in separate files, 
>> cast versus machined features are easily identified.
>>
>> By the way, I use this method every time I need to model the machining of 
>> a cast part.  It works extremely well and is easily understood by anyone 
>> else that needs to work with the files.
>>
>> -- 
>> - John
>>
>> John Eric Voltin
>> Senior Mechanical Engineer
>> Agile Technology
>> 512-633-0394
>> "Howard" <pistonpump@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>> news:9JKdnea0EeirTE3enZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> What is the best way to make a machined part from a casting so that any 
>>> changes applied to the casting will show on the machined part?
>>>
>>> I have tried an assembly consisting of only the casting and then 
>>> applying features.  The only problem is some of the features are  grayed 
>>> out like fillets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 

That depends.

If the model for the casting has a feature tree that is small to
midling then you can create the casting as one configuration and then
create the machined part as another configuration.  I have done cast
parts in the past as one sldprt file with the casting, machining, both
patterns and core all in one part. However, if you have PDM constraints
or if the casting has a large feature tree then you might consider
making a part for the casting and another part for the machined
version. The reason for this is that when SW rebuilds each
configuration the file size will balloon up. A PDM constraint
frequently encountered is that versions of configurations cannot be
tracked.